4.7 Article

Genetic relationships in Opuntia Mill. genus (Cactaceae) detected by molecular marker

期刊

PLANT SCIENCE
卷 165, 期 5, 页码 1129-1136

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/S0168-9452(03)00321-2

关键词

Opuntia ficus-indica (L.) mill.; Opuntia megacantha Salm-Dyck; Cactaceae; molecular marker; chloroplast SSR; AFLP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Opuntia genus includes over 181 species comprising, on the basis of morphological traits, a total of 29 series [The Cactaceae (1919)]. Starting from this classification, several authors have investigated the Opuntia genus taxonomy but the large morphological variation within different species, suggests that phenotypical characteristics will not serve to produce a stable classification. In this work chloroplastic simple sequence repeat (cpSSR) and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) were used to evaluate the usefulness Of Molecular markers in Opuntia species characterization and to study the relationships among different species. Results show that the combination of cpSSR and AFLP markers provide a quantitative estimation of genetic relationships among several Opuntia species. Both molecular analyses reveal a genetic similarity among species of series 20 and 21 [The Cactaceae (1919)] as Suggested also by morphological traits. Particular attention was focused on the genetic relationship between Opuntia ficus-indica and Opuntia megacantha: individuals from different populations of the two species were analyzed with both molecular markers. A common genetic constitution of O. ficus-indica and O. megacantha was detected. On the basis of molecular data, morphological traits and biogeographical distribution, we suggest that O. ficus-indica should be considered as a domesticated form of O. megacantha. Our results suggest the importance of a revision of Opuntia genus classification using several tools: molecular, morphological and biogeographical analysis. (C) 2003 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. 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

4.7
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