4.6 Review

Applications of Microsatellite Markers for the Characterization of Olive Genetic Resources of Tunisia

期刊

GENES
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/genes12020286

关键词

fingerprinting; genetic diversity; olive; plant genetic resources; SSR

资金

  1. Republic of Italy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Tunisia, located at the crossroad of the Mediterranean Basin, has been a strategic place for gene flow of olive species. Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs) have been used to study the genetic diversity of olive crops, identify interesting genotypes, and prepare for challenges brought by climate changes.
Among the countries of the Mediterranean Basin, Tunisia is located at the crossroad for the immigration of several civilizations over the last two millennia, becoming a strategic place for gene flow, and a secondary center of diversity for olive species. Olive is one of the principal crop species in Tunisia and now it strongly characterizes the rural landscape of the country. In recent years, collecting missions on farm and in situ were carried out by various institutes, with special emphasis given to ex situ collections serving as a reference for the identification of olive germplasm. Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs) represent the easiest and cheapest markers for olive genetic fingerprinting and have been the tool of choice for studying the genetic diversity of this crop in Tunisia, to resolve cases of homonymy and synonymy among the commercialized varieties, to identify rare cultivars, to improve knowledge about the genetic variability of this crop, to identify a hot spot of olive biodiversity in the Tunisian oasis of Degache, and to enrich the national reference collection of olive varieties. The present review describes the state of the art of the genetic characterization of the Tunisian olive germplasm and illustrate the progress obtained through the SSR markers, in individuating interesting genotypes that could be used for facing incoming problems determined by climate changes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据