4.4 Article

RAPD and AFLP assessment of genetic variation in a landrace of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.), grown in North-West Italy

期刊

GENETIC RESOURCES AND CROP EVOLUTION
卷 50, 期 7, 页码 723-735

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1023/A:1025075118200

关键词

AFLP; Capsicum annuum; genetic variability; in situ germplasm conservation; landrace; RAPD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In several regions of Italy as well as other parts of southern Europe, the heterogeneity of the land, the climate and the soil favour the survival in cultivation of a large number of landraces specifically adapted to local conditions. Knowledge on the level and distribution of their genetic variation can help to develop appropriate strategies, in order to suistainably manage in situ these germplasm resources at risk of genetic erosion. C. annuum is an herbaceous diploid species and is considered to be self-pollinating, although different rates of out-crossing have been recorded. We used random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers to assess genetic diversity within and between five populations of a landrace of Capsicum annuum L., grown in a limited area in north-west Italy and locally known as 'Cuneo' pepper. Partitioning the genetic variation with Shannon's diversity index revealed that 41.6% occurred between and 58.4% within populations. Analogous results were obtained when the analysis was based only on RAPD or AFLP markers. However, AFLP was more reliable, since a lower range of variation was observed among primer combinations in detecting the two components of genetic variation. Notwithstanding the rather high level of within genetic variation detected, the five populations were clearly differentiated and differed in the frequency of alleles exclusive and/or present at very low frequencies. Our results show the need for accurate estimation of allele frequencies, in order to identify populations to which priority should be given for dynamic conservation of landraces.

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