4.5 Article

Characterization of carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L.) genotypes and gamma irradiated mutants using RAPD, ISSR and SSR markers

期刊

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 148, 期 -, 页码 67-77

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.sajb.2022.04.012

关键词

Carnation; Molecular markers; Mutants; Genetic diversity

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Carnation genotypes and mutants were characterized using PCR-based DNA markers, with RAPD, ISSR, and SSR showing different levels of polymorphism among the genotypes. Cluster analysis separated the genotypes and mutants into distinct groups, and ISSR and SSR markers displayed higher effectiveness in detecting genetic variability. This study highlights the potential of SSR markers in breeding programs and varietal identification in carnations.
Carnation genotypes and mutants developed using gamma irradiations were characterized using PCR based DNA markers (RAPD, ISSR and SSR) for designing future breeding strategies. RAPD markers showed 70.00 to 94.74 percent polymorphism among the genotypes and mutants whereas, for ISSR and SSR markers 83.33 to 94.44 and 66.67 to 87.50 percent polymorphism was recorded, signifying variability among different genotypes tested. UPGMA based analysis of cluster separated carnation genotypes and mutants into two discrete groups. RAPD, ISSR and SSR markers were subjected for comparative analysis like effective multiplex ratio, marker index, polymorphic information content, resolving power and gene flow wherein, highest EMR (13.00), MI (5.33) and Rp (70) values were found for ISSRs and maximum PIC value (0.63), gene flow (3.33) were found for SSR. The results clearly indicated the reproducibility of SSRs and their ability to detect variability among the genotypes and mutants. Significant level of genetic variation was depicted by AMOVA which suggested the usefulness of studies in carnation breeding and unique bands obtained could be utilized for varietal identification. (C) 2022 SAAB. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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