, Volume 92, Issue 2, pp 91–99 | Cite as

RFLP markers in the genus Beta: characterization of DNA sequences from a Beta vulgaris library

  • A. Hjerdin
  • T. Säll
  • S. Tuvesson
  • C. Halldén


DNA sequences from a sugar beet genomic library were tested for their ability to crosshybridize and detect RFLPs in 40 accessions representing 13 different species and subspecies. A set of 32 sugar beet DNA sequences was categorized as either single copy non-polymorphic (SCN), single copy polymorphic (SCP), low copy repeated (LCR), or high copy repeated (HCR). The crosshybridization of these DNA sequences was analyzed at two different stringencies. At medium stringency, 12 of the DNA sequences hybridized exclusively to accessions from the section Beta, whereas 16 also crosshybridized to accessions from the section Procumbentes. Accessions from the related genus Atriplex showed crosshybridization for 13 of the DNA sequences. At low stringency, 94% of the sugar beet SCP sequences crosshybridized to the Procumbentes accessions, indicating that most of these sequences will crosshybridize with the majority of the species in the genus Beta. High levels of polymorphisms among the wild beets from the section Beta indicate that marker-guided backcross programmes are feasible using sugar beet genomic clones. The sugar beet DNA sequences also detected a considerable amount of RFLP variation among the Procumbentes and Atriplex accessions. This reflects the general usefulness of these markers in comparative genome mapping projects within the genus Beta. In another experiment, 87 clones were used in Northern hybridizations to estimate the proportion of transcribed sequences present in the genomic library. In total, 17 clones detected transcripts.

Key words

Beta sugar beet restriction fragment length polymorphism hybridization stringency 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, S., C. Rugh & J. Kamalay, 1990. RNA and DNA isolation from recalcitrant plant tissues. Biotechniques 9: 268–272.Google Scholar
  2. Barzen, E., W. Mechelke, E. Ritter, J.F. Seitzer & F. Salamini, 1992. RFLP markers for sugar beet breeding: chromosomal linkage maps and location of major genes for rhizomania resistance, monogermy and hypocotyl colour. The Plant Journal 2: 601–611.Google Scholar
  3. Binelli, G., L. Gianfranceschi, M.E. Pé, G. Taramino, C. Busso, J. Stenhouse & E. Ottaviano, 1992. Similarity of maize and sorghum genomes as revealed by maize RFLP probes. Theor. Appl. Genet. 84: 10–16.Google Scholar
  4. Bonierbale, M.W., R.L. Plaisted & S.D. Tanksley, 1988. RFLP maps based on a common set of clones reveal modes of chromosomal evolution in potato and tomato. Genetics 120: 1095–1103.Google Scholar
  5. Bosemark, N.O., 1989. Prospects for beet breeding and use of genetic resources, pp. 89–97, in Int. Crop Network Ser. 3. Rep. Int. Beta Genet. Resources Workshop. Centre for Genetic Resources, Wageningen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Devos, K.M., M.D. Atkinson, C.N. Chinoy, H.A. Francis, R.L. Harcourt, R.M.D. Koebner, C.J. Liu, P. Masojc, D.X. Xie & M.D. Gale, 1993. Chromosomal rearrangements in the rye genome relative to that of wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 85: 673–680.Google Scholar
  7. Devos, K.M., T. Millan & M.D. Gale, 1993. Comparative RFLP maps of the homologous group-2 chromosomes of wheat, rye and barley. Theor. Appl. Genet. 85: 784–792.Google Scholar
  8. Gebhardt, C., E. Ritter, A. Barone, T. Debener, B. Walkemeier, U. Schachtschabel, H. Kaufmann, R.D. Thompson, M.W. Bonierbale, M.W. Ganal, S.D. Tanksley & F. Salamini, 1991. RFLP maps of potato and their alignment with the homologous tomato genome. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83: 49–57.Google Scholar
  9. Graner, A. & G. Wenzel, 1992. Towards an understanding of the genome-New molecular markers increase the efficiency of plant bleeding. Agro-Food-Industry Hi-Tech pp. 18–23.Google Scholar
  10. Hulbert, S.H., T.E. Richter, J.D. Axtell & J.L. Bennetzen, 1990. Genetic mapping and characterization of sorghum and related crops by means of maize DNA probes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 87: 4251–4255.Google Scholar
  11. Jung, C., K. Pillen, L. Frese, S. Fähr & A.E. Melchinger, 1993. Phylogenetic relationships between cultivated and wild species of the genus Beta revealed by DNA ‘fingerprinting’. Theor. Appl. Genet. 86: 449–457.Google Scholar
  12. Mita, G., M. Dani, P. Casciari, A. Pasquali, E. Selva, C. Minganti & P. Piccardi, 1991. Assessment of the degree of genetic variation in beet based on RFLP analysis and the taxonomy of Beta: Euphytica 55: 1–6.Google Scholar
  13. Nagamine, T., G.A. Todd, K.P. McCann, H.J. Newbury & B.V. Ford-Lloyd, 1989. Use of restriction fragment length polymorphism to fingerprint beets at the genotype and species level. Theor. Appl. Genet. 78: 847–851.Google Scholar
  14. Pillen, K., G. Steinrucken, G. Wricke, R.G. Herrmann & C. Jung, 1992. A linkage map of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 84: 129–135.Google Scholar
  15. Saghai-Maroof, M.A., K.M. Soliman, R.A. Jorgensen & R.W. Allard, 1984. Ribosomal DNA spacer length polymorphism in barley: mendelian inheritance, chromosomal location and population dynamics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81: 8014–8018.Google Scholar
  16. Sambrook, J., E.F. Fritsch & T. Maniatis, 1989. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2nd ed, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y.Google Scholar
  17. Santoni, S. & A. Bervillé, 1992. Characterization of the nuclear ribosomal DNA units and phylogeny of Beta L. wild forms and cultivated beets. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83: 533–542.Google Scholar
  18. Tanksley, S.D., R. Bernatzky, N.L. Lapitan & J.P. Prince, 1988. Conservation of gene repertoire but not gene order in pepper and tomato. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 85: 6419–6423.Google Scholar
  19. Tanksley, S.D., M.W. Ganal, J.P. Prince, M.C. de Vicente, M.W. Bonierbale, P. Broun, T.M. Fulton, J.J. Giovannoni, S. Grandillo, G.B. Martin, R. Messeguer, J.C. Miller, L. Miller, A.H. Paterson, O. Pineda, M.S. Röder, R.A. Wing, W. Wu & N.D. Young, 1992. High density molecular linkage maps of the tomato and potato genomes. Genetics 132: 1141–1160.Google Scholar
  20. Van Geyt, J.P.C., W. Lange, M. Oleo & Th.S.M. De Bock, 1990. Natural variation within the genus Beta and its possible use for breeding sugar beet: A review. Euphytica 49: 57–76.Google Scholar
  21. Whitkus, R., J. Doebley & M. Lee, 1992. Comparative genome mapping of sorghum and maize. Genetics 132: 1119–1130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Hjerdin
    • 1
  • T. Säll
    • 2
  • S. Tuvesson
    • 1
  • C. Halldén
    • 1
  1. 1.Hilleshög ABLandskronaSweden
  2. 2.Department of GeneticsLund UniversityLundSweden

Personalised recommendations