4.4 Article

Comparative analysis of core collection sampling methods for mandarin germplasm based on molecular and phenotypic data

期刊

ANNALS OF APPLIED BIOLOGY
卷 171, 期 3, 页码 327-339

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aab.12376

关键词

Citrus reticulata; diversity; genetic resources; genotype; molecular markers; phenotype

资金

  1. Ministry of Economy and Innovation-Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER), Spain [AGL2011-26490]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Gene banks have been established to conserve the genetic diversity of crop species. Large germplasm collections lead to management problems (space, maintenance costs, etc.), especially in collections involving species with recalcitrant seeds that must be maintained as growing plants. Core collections (CCs) are thus developed to reduce the size of large germplasm collections while keeping the maximum variability. This also facilitates fine phenotypic evaluation. In this study, several software packages (DARwin, PowerMarker and MSTRAT) and methods (Max length subtree, M strategy, simulated annealing and MinSD) were compared to define a mandarin (Citrus reticulata) CC. One hundred and sixty-seven accessions were sampled from two germplasm collections, which were genotyped with 50 SSR, 24 InDel and 68 single nucleotide polymorphism markers. All the CC obtained were tested for the maintenance of the genetic variability parameters (Ho and He) of the initial collection, the level of linkage disequilibrium (LD) and the phenotypic diversity retention. The Max length subtree function from DARWin seemed to be the most appropriate method for establishing a CC in C. reticulata. It maintained 96.82% of the allelic richness and 17.96% of the size of the initial collection with only 30 accessions. Besides it did not increase the LD (r(2) value) of the initial collection and retained the vast majority of the phenotypic variability. However, a CC with 70 accessions would be more helpful for genetic association studies.

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

4.4
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