4.0 Article

Genome comparisons with chromosomal and molecular markers for three closely related flax species and their hybrids

期刊

RUSSIAN JOURNAL OF GENETICS
卷 39, 期 4, 页码 414-421

出版社

MAIK NAUKA/INTERPERIODICA/SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1023309831454

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Chromosome C-banding patterns were analyzed in three closely related flax species (Linum usitatissimum L., 2n = 30; L. angustifolium Huds., 2n = 30; and L. bienne Mill., 2n = 30) and their hybrids. In each case, the karyotype included metacentrics, submetacentrics, and one or two satellite chromosomes. Chromosomes of the three flax species were similar in morphology, size (1-3 mum), and C-banding pattern and slightly differed in size of heterochromatic regions. In all accessions, a large major site of ribosomal genes was revealed by hybridization in the pericentric region of a large metacentric. A minor 45S rDNA site was observed on a small chromosome in L. usitatissimum and L. bienne and on a medium-sized chromosome in L. angustifolium. Upon silver staining, a nucleolus-organizing region (NOR) was detected on a large chromosome in all species. In L. angustifolium, an Ag-NOR band was sometimes seen on a medium-sized chromosome. In the karyotypes of interspecific hybrids, silver-stained rDNA loci were observed on satellite chromosomes of both parental species. RAPD analysis with 22 primers revealed a high similarity of the three species. The greatest difference was observed between L. angustifolium and the other two species. The RAPD patterns of L. bienne and L. usitatissimum differed in fewer fragments. A dendrogram of genetic similarity was constructed for the three flax species on the basis of their RAPD patterns. Genome analysis with chromosome and molecular markers showed that L. bienne must be considered as a subspecies of L. usitatissimum rather than a separate species. The three species were assumed to originate from a common ancestor, L. angustifolium being closest to it.

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

4.0
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