4.4 Article

Assessment of genetic diversity in Clitoria ternatea populations from different parts of India by RAPD and ISSR markers

期刊

GENETIC RESOURCES AND CROP EVOLUTION
卷 61, 期 8, 页码 1597-1609

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10722-014-0145-y

关键词

Clitoria ternatea; Genetic diversity; ISSR; PCR; Polymorphism; RAPD

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and inter simple sequence repeats (ISSR) markers were used to compare genetic diversity of 17 accessions of Clitoria ternatea (Fabaceae) populations, collected from nine different states of India. The populations included three different flower colours viz., blue, white and white with blue tinge. Twenty-three RAPD primers and eighteen ISSR primers amplified a total of 137 and 105 reproducible DNA fragments, respectively with fragment sizes ranged from 150 to 3,000 bp. ISSR showed higher polymorphism (29.52 %) in comparison to RAPD (27.73 %). In RAPD analysis, maximum polymorphic information content value (0.66) was observed in primer OPC 10 but in ISSR study, it was (0.55) in primer UBC 889. Jaccard's coefficient of similarity showed that pair-wise genetic similarity coefficients ranged between 81 and 97 % in RAPD analysis, whereas 80 and 98 % in ISSR analysis, which were in close range to each other. Similarly, clustering pattern showed same trend in both the markers analysis which also revealed that all the accessions were grouped according to their geographical locations rather than on the basis of different flower colours. Mental Z test indicated highly significant co-relation between geographical distance and genetic distance among the populations (r = 0.8321, P < 0.01). Genetic similarity between populations showed very high values (< 80 %) indicating low genetic variation within and among the populations. The narrow genetic base within the populations was either due to the exotic origin or due to self pollinated behaviour of the species which restrict gene flow within and between populations.

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