4.6 Article

Population structure and long-range linkage disequilibrium in a durum wheat elite collection

期刊

MOLECULAR BREEDING
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 271-289

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11032-004-7012-z

关键词

durum wheat; genetic distance; germplasm; linkage disequilibrium; SSR; Triticum durum Desf

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A collection of 134 durum wheat accessions, mainly including cultivars (cvs.) representative of the major gene pools, was assembled and characterized with 70 SSRs for genetic diversity and level of long-range linkage disequilibrium (LD). Results of both a distance-based and a model-based (Bayesian) cluster analysis evidenced the presence of a structured diversity. In the model-based analysis, six to eight main distinct subpopulations were identified based on the molecular data. Only a relatively small portion (20%) of the molecular variation was accounted for by the geographical origin of the accessions. Major differences were detected between the North American and the Mediterranean cvs., while a considerable overlap characterized the cvs. from CIMMYT-ICARDA and Italy. The North American cvs. showed the highest within group mean genetic similarity (GS(m) = 0.68). French cvs. revealed sizeable similarities with both the North American as well as the Italian and CIMMYT-ICARDA pools. Considering the germplasm as a whole, high levels of LD were found both at locus pairs with an intrachromosomal distance < 50 cM as well as at those with distances more than 50 cM and independent (86, 52 and 54% of SSR pairs at p < 0.01, respectively). After re-evaluating LD within each of the three main subgroups identified through the analysis of the germplasm structure, the LD level remained high for tightly to moderately linked locus pairs (< 20 cM apart), but was greatly reduced in the loosely linked (more than 50 cM apart) and independent locus pairs. The implications of these findings as to the possibility of using association mapping for gene/QTL discovery in durum wheat are discussed.

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