Euphytica

, Volume 76, Issue 3, pp 177–183 | Cite as

Identification of DNA probes that reveal polymorphisms among closely related Phaseolus vulgaris lines

  • T. Stockton
  • P. Gepts
Article

Summary

Analyses of genetic diversity within populations could be of great benefit to plant genetic resources conservation. In order to identify genetic markers that are variable within populations, the genome of Phaseolus vulgaris was screened with several DNA sequences in order to identify hypervariable sequences. Polymorphisms were observed between Middle American and Andean cultivars using the protein III tandem repeat of the M13 phase and the 33.15 human minisatellite. Extensive differences were observed when the DNA of two divergent lines—BAT93 and Jalo EEP558, of Middle American and Andean origin, respectively—were digested with HinfI, TaqI, HaeIII and hybridized with the 33.15 human minisatellite. Similarly, numerous polymorphisms were observed when the M13 protein III tandem repeat region was hybridized with TaqI digests of these cultivars. Polymorphism was also detected among sister lines of two F6 backcross materials involving Middle American and Andean lines when genomic DNA was digested with TaqI and hybridized with M13 tandem repeat region. In addition, polymorphism was observed among Porrillo cultivars that resulted from selection within a single landrace population. Whereas only one isozyme difference had been observed previously among the Porrillo cultivars, eleven restriction fragments detected by the M13 protein III tandem repeat sequence differentiated these cultivars. Ribosomal DNA also hybridized to several polymorphic bands on TaqI and EcoRI genomic Southern blots of the F6 backcross material. Only one polymorphism was observed with EcoRI-digested genomic DNA of BAT93 and Jalo EEP558 was hybridized with microsatellite (GACA)4. This probe might be useful in ascertaining relationships at the species and subspecies level, and as a marker in mapping studies. Our results show that both the human 33.15 minisatellite and M13 should be useful probes to detect within-population variability in common bean.

Key words

M13 minisatellite common bean Phaseolus vulgaris genetic diversity RFLP DNA fingerprinting 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AdamsM.W. & G.B.Martin, 1988. Genetic structure of bean landraces in Malawi. p. 355–374. In: P.Gepts (Ed) Genetic Resources of Phaseolus Beans. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  2. AkkayaM.S., A.A.Bhagwat & P.B.Cregan, 1992. Length polymorphisms of simple sequence repeat DNA in soybean. Genetics 126: 1131–1139.Google Scholar
  3. DallasJ.F., 1988. Detection of DNA ‘fingerprints’ of cultivated rice by hybridization with a human minisatellite DNA probe. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85: 6831–6835.Google Scholar
  4. DebouckD.G., O.Toro, O.M.Paredes, W.C.Johnson & P.Gepts, 1993. Genetic diversity and ecological distribution of Phaseolus vulgaris in northwestern South America. Econ. Bot. 47: 408–423.Google Scholar
  5. DocbleyJ.F., M.M.Goodman & C.W.Stuber, 1984. Isoenzymatic variation in Zea (Gramineae). Syst. Bot. 9: 203–218.Google Scholar
  6. FeinbergA.P. & B.Vogelstein, 1983. A technique for radiolabeling DNA restriction endonuclease fragments to high specific activity. Anal. Biochem. 132: 9–13.Google Scholar
  7. FeinbergA.P. & B.Vogelstein, 1984. Addendum: A technique for radiolabeling DNA restriction endonuclease fragments to high specific activity. Anal. Biochem. 137: 266–267.Google Scholar
  8. GeptsP., 1993. The use of molecular and biochemical markers in crop evolution studies. Evol. Biol. 27: 51–94.Google Scholar
  9. GeptsP., T.C.Osborn, K.Rashka & F.A.Bliss, 1986. Phaseolin-protein variability in wild forms and landraces of the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris): Evidence for multiple centers of domestication. Econ. Bot. 40: 451–468.Google Scholar
  10. HillelJ., T.Schaap, A.Haberfeld, A.J.Jeffreys, Y.Plotzky, A.Chanaer & U.Lavi, 1990. DNA fingerprints applied to gene introgression in breeding programs. Genetics 124: 783–789.Google Scholar
  11. JeffreysA.J., 1987. Highly variable minisatellites and DNA fingerprints. Biochem. Soc. Trans. 15: 309–317.Google Scholar
  12. JeffreysA.J., V.Wilson & S.L.Thein, 1985. Hypervariable ‘minisatellite’ regions in human DNA. Nature 314: 67–73.Google Scholar
  13. JorgensenR.A., R.E.Cuellar, W.P.Thompson & T.A.Kavanagh, 1987. Structure and variation in ribosomal RNA genes of pea. Plant Molec. Biol. 8: 3–12.Google Scholar
  14. KoenigR. & P.Gepts, 1989. Allozyme diversity in wild Phaseolus vulgaris: Further evidence for two major centers of diversity. Theor. Appl. Genet. 78: 809–817.Google Scholar
  15. KoenigR., S.P.Singh & P.Gepts, 1990. Novel phaseolin types in wild and cultivated common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, Fabaceae). Econ. Bot. 44: 50–60.Google Scholar
  16. LeakeyC.L.A., 1988. Genotypic and phenotypic variation in common bean. p. 245–327. In: P.Gepts (Ed) Genetic Resources of Phaseolus Beans. Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  17. NodariR.O., E.M.K.Koinange, J.D.Kelly & P.Gepts, 1992. Towards an integrated linkage map of common bean. I. Development of genomic DNA probes and levels of restriction fragment length polymorphism. Theor. Appl. Genet. 84: 186–192.Google Scholar
  18. NybomH. & B.Schaal, 1990. DNA ‘fingerprints’ reveal genotypic distributions in natural populations of blackberries and raspberries (Rubus, Rosaceae). Amer. J. Bot. 77: 883–888.Google Scholar
  19. NybomH., S.H.Rogstad & B.A.Schaal, 1990. Genetic variation detected by use of the M13 ‘DNA fingerprint’ probe in Malus, Prunus, and Rubus (Rosaceae). Theor. Appl. Genet. 79: 153–156.Google Scholar
  20. RatliffR.L., 1981. Terminal deoxynucleotidyltransferase. Enzymes 15: 105–118.Google Scholar
  21. ReeveH.K., D.F.Westneat, W.A.Noon, P.W.Sherman & C.F.Aquadro, 1990. DNA ‘fingerprinting’ reveals high levels of inbreeding in colonies of the eusocial naked mole-rat. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87: 2496–2500.Google Scholar
  22. RigbyP.W.J., M.Dieckman, C.Rhodes & O.Berg, 1977. Labeling deoxyribonucleic acid to high specific activity in vitro by nicktranslation with DNA polymerase. J. Mol. Biol. 113: 237–251.Google Scholar
  23. RogersS.O. & A.J.Bendich, 1987. Heritability and variability in ribosomal RNA genes of Vicia faba. Genetics 117: 285–295.Google Scholar
  24. RogstadS.H., J.C.PattonII & B.A.Schaal, 1988. M13 repeat probe detects DNA minisatellite-like sequences in gemnosperms and angiosperms. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85: 9176–9178.Google Scholar
  25. SchaferR., H.Zischler & J.T.Epplen, 1988. DNA fingerprinting using non-radioactive oligonucleotide probes specific for simple repeats. Nucl. Ac. Res. 16: 9344.Google Scholar
  26. SchmitzG.G., T.Walter, R.Seibl & C.Kessler, 1991. Nonradioactive labeling of oligonucleotides in vitro with the hapten digoxigenin by tailing with terminal transferase. Anal. Biochem. 192: 222–231.Google Scholar
  27. SchubertI., G.Schriever-Schwemmer, T.Werner & I.-D.Adler, 1992. Telomeric signals in Robertsonian fusion and fission chromosomes: Implications for the origin of pseudoaneuploidy. Cytogenet. Cell Genet. 59: 6–9.Google Scholar
  28. SinghS.P., P.Gepts & D.G.Debouck, 1991a. Races of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L., Fabaceae). Econ. Bot. 45: 379–396.Google Scholar
  29. SinghS.P., R.Nodari & P.Gepts, 1991b. Genetic diversity in cultivated common bean. I. Allozymes. Crop Sci. 31: 19–23.Google Scholar
  30. StocktonT., G.Sonnante & P.Gepts, 1992. Detection of minisatellite sequences in Phaseolus vulgaris. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 10: 47–59.Google Scholar
  31. VassartG., M.Georges, R.Monsieur, H.Brocas, A.S.Lequarre & D.Christophe, 1987. A sequence of M13 phage detects hypervariable minisatellites in human and animal DNA. Science 235: 683–684.Google Scholar
  32. VovsestO., 1983. Variedades de frijol en América latina y su origen. Centro Internacional de Agricultural Tropical, Cali, Colombia.Google Scholar
  33. WallJ.R. & S.W.Wall, 1975. Isozyme polymorphisms in the study of evolution in the Phaseolus vulgaris-P. coccineus complex of Mexico. In: C.L.Markert (Ed) IsozymesIV. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. WeisingK., D.Kaemmer, F.Weigand, J.T.Epplen & G.Kahl, 1992. Oligonucleotide fingerprinting reveals various probe-dependent levels of informativeness in chickpea (Cicer arietinum). Genome 35: 436–442.Google Scholar
  35. WestN.B. & E.D.Garber, 1967. Genetic studies of variant enzymes. I. An electrophoretic survey of esterase and leucine aminopeptidase in the genus Phaseolus. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 9: 640–645.Google Scholar
  36. WestneatD.F., W.A.Noon, H.K.Reeve & C.F.Aquadro, 1988. Improved hybridization conditions for DNA ‘fingerprinting’ probed with M13. Nucl. Ac. Res. 16: 4161.Google Scholar
  37. WettonJ.H., R.E.Carter, D.T.Parkin & D.Walters, 1987. Demographic study of a wild sparrow population by DNA fingerprinting. Nature 327: 147–149.Google Scholar
  38. WolffR.K., R.Plaetke, A.J.Jeffreys & R.White, 1989. Unequal crossing-over between homologous chromosomes is not the major mechanism involved in the generation of new alleles at VNTR loci. Genomics 5: 382–384.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Stockton
    • 1
  • P. Gepts
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agronomy and Range ScienceUniversity of CaliforniaDavisUSA

Personalised recommendations