Assessment of Genetic Diversity and Identification of Informative Molecular Markers for Germplasm Characterization in Caribbean Stylo (Stylosanthes hamata)

  • D. Nagaich
  • A. ChandraEmail author
Short Communication


Caribbean stylo (Stylosanthes hamata) is a tropical fodder and cover crop. Along with four other Stylosanthes species (S. scabra, S. humilis, S. viscosa, S. guianensis), it was introduced in India. It became well adapted in certain parts of the country and has been recommended for the improvement of range and degraded lands. A collection of 63 S. hamata accessions was fingerprinted with RAPID, ISSR and STS markers. Though the mean discriminating power of these marker systems ranges from 0.65 to 0.71, high values of marker index (2.91), resolving power (14.92) and effective number of patterns per assay unit (50.65) makes ISSR as a better marker system in comparison to other two markers used in this study. Thirteen RAPD and eleven STS primers could differentiate a maximum of 42 and 17 accessions, respectively, whereas two ISSR primers produced distinct fingerprints of all the S. hamata accessions. Mean genetic similarities of accession ranged from 0.83 (ISSR) to 0.91 (RAPD). Two RAPD, two STS and four ISSR primers generated a set of 12 diagnostic markers which could be useful for germplasm characterization and management.

Key words

DNA fingerprints ISSR RAPID STS Stylosanthes hamata 



random amplified polymorphic DNA


inter simple sequence repeats


sequence tagged sites


marker index


polymorphic information contents


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Ramesh CR, Bhag Mal, Hazara CR, Sukanya DH, Ramamurthy V & Chakraborty S, Trop Grasslands, 31 (1997) 467.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chandra A, Pathak PS & Bhatt RK, Curr Sci, 90 (2006) 915.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kirkbride JH & De Kirkbride CG, Taxonomy, 36 (1985) 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mannetje L t’, In The biology and agronomy of Stylosanthes (HM Stace, LA Edye, Editors), Academic Press, Sydney, Australia (1984) pp 1–21.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Curtis MD, Cameron DF & Manners JIM, Genome, 38 (1995) 344.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kazan K, Manners JIM & Cameron DF, Theor Appl Genet, 85 (1993) 882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu CJ & Musial JIM, Theor Appl Genet, 91 (1995) 1210.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Liu CJ, Musial JIM & Smith FW, Theor Appl Genet, 93 (1996) 864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yap IV & Nelson RJ, Winboot: a program for performing bootstrap analysis of binary data to determine the confidence limits of UPGMA-based dendrograms. IRRI, Philippines (1996).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tessier C, David J, This P, Boursiquot JIM & Charrier A, Theor Appl Genet, 98 (1999) 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Belaj A, Satovic Z, Cipriani G, Baldoni L, Testolin R, Rallo L & Trujillo I, Theor Appl Genet, 107 (2003) 736.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Roldn-Ruiz I, Calsyn E, Gilliand TJ, Coll R, van Eijk MJT & De Loose M, Mol Breed, 6 (2000) 593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Prevost A & Wilkinson MJ, Theor Appl Genet, 98 (1999) 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miles JW, Trop Grasslands, 17 (1983) 114.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sehgal D & Raina SN, Euphytica, 146 (2005) 67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stace HM & Cameron DF, Trop Grasslands, 21 (1987) 182.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Crop Improvement DivisionIndian Grassland and Fodder Research InstituteJhansiIndia

Personalised recommendations