4.5 Article

Development of 5 1 2 3 Intron-Length Polymorphic Markers for Large-Scale Genotyping Applications in Foxtail Millet

期刊

DNA RESEARCH
卷 21, 期 1, 页码 41-52

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/dnares/dst039

关键词

comparativemapping; foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.); intron-length polymorphism (ILP); physical mapping; transferability

资金

  1. NIPGR
  2. University Grants Commission, New Delhi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Generating genomic resources in terms of molecular markers is imperative in molecular breeding for crop improvement. Though development and application of microsatellite markers in large-scale was reported in the model crop foxtail millet, no such large-scale study was conducted for intron-length polymorphic (ILP) markers. Considering this, we developed 5 1 2 3 ILP markers, of which 4049 were physically mapped onto 9 chromosomes of foxtail millet. BLAST analysis of 5 1 2 3 expressed sequence tags (ESTs) suggested the function for similar to 71.5% ESTs and grouped them into 5 different functional categories. About 440 selected primer pairs representing the foxtail millet genome and the different functional groups showed high-level of cross-genera amplification at an average of similar to 85% in eight millets and five non-millet species. The efficacy of the ILP markers for distinguishing the foxtail millet is demonstrated by observed heterozygosity (0.20) and Nei's average gene diversity (0.22). In silico comparative mapping of physically mapped ILP markers demonstrated substantial percentage of sequence-based orthology and syntenic relationship between foxtail millet chromosomes and sorghum (similar to 50%), maize (similar to 46%), rice (similar to 21%) and Brachypodium (similar to 21%) chromosomes. Hence, for the first time, we developed large-scale ILP markers in foxtail millet and demonstrated their utility in germplasm characterization, transferability, phylogenetics and comparative mapping studies in millets and bioenergy grass species.

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

4.5
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