4.4 Article

Genetic diversity and relationships between wild and cultivated olives (Olea europaea L.) in Sardinia as assessed by SSR markers

期刊

GENETIC RESOURCES AND CROP EVOLUTION
卷 57, 期 1, 页码 41-54

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10722-009-9449-8

关键词

BAPS; Domestication; Gene flow; Genetic structure; Mediterranean basin; Microsatellite; Olea europaea L.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genetic relationships within and between wild and cultivated olives were examined and clarified in an isolated and restricted area, such as the Mediterranean island of Sardinia. Wild (21 individuals) and cultivated olive trees (22 local cultivars from a germplasm collection and 35 ancient trees) were genotyped by means of 13 SSR loci. Five cases of synonymy were observed and nine distinct genotypes were identified in the collection. Five novel genotypes were also detected among the ancient trees. Differences on the allelic composition and heterozygosity levels were found between wild and cultivated trees. Model-based clustering method classified the olive trees into two major gene pools: (a) wild genotypes and (b) local cultivars from the collection and from heritage olives. Regarding the cultivated plant material, we observed that: (a) most of the Sardinian cultivars shared the same allelic profiles with the ancient cultivated trees and (b) the majority of these cultivars and all the novel genotypes were not related to any other cultivars included in this study. These findings as well as the detection of unique alleles and a certain wild genetic background at some cultivars revealed by the Bayesian analysis may indicate their autochthonous origin. The synonymy cases found between local cultivars and Italian mainland cultivars indicate interchange of genetic material among these growing areas, suggesting thus a possible allochthonous origin. The information obtained can assist in the management of an olive collection and sheds some light on the survival of true oleasters and the origin of Sardinian cultivars.

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