Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 298, Issue 9, pp 1689–1700 | Cite as

Genetic structure of East Asian cultivated pears (Pyrus spp.) and their reclassification in accordance with the nomenclature of cultivated plants

  • Hiroyuki IketaniEmail author
  • Hironori Katayama
  • Chiyomi Uematsu
  • Nobuko Mase
  • Yoshihiko Sato
  • Toshiya Yamamoto
Original Article


By use of Bayesian statistical inference and allelic data for 18 microsatellite loci, we analyzed the genetic structure of Chinese, Korean, and Japanese pear cultivars and of native populations of Pyrus ussuriensis. Although Japanese pear cultivars had a simple genetic structure, Chinese and Korean pear cultivars were admixures of Japanese pear and native P. ussuriensis from the Asian continent. Genetic differentiation between groups of native populations and those of cultivars was high, but cultivars were not well differentiated from each other. Chinese and Korean cultivars, which have traditionally been classified as either P. ussuriensis, P. bretschneideri, or P. pyrifolia, were much closer to Japanese cultivars, which have traditionally been classified as P. pyrifolia, than to native P. ussuriensis. We propose a new classification of cultivars by using the Group concept in accordance with the International Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, namely, the Pyrus Ussurian pear group, the Pyrus Chinese white pear group, the Pyrus Chinese sand pear group, and the Pyrus Japanese pear group.


Classification of cultivated plants Population genetics Genetic structure Pyrus Pear Nomenclature 



We are grateful to Dr K. Hummer and Dr J. Postman of the National Clonal Germplasm Repository (Corvallis, Oregon, USA), Dr A. Gontcharov of the Institute of Biology and Soil Science (Far-East Branch) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Vladivostok, Russia, and Dr H. Ikeda of the University of Tokyo for collecting and sending us plant materials. We also thank the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. This study was supported partly by a Grant-in Aid (no. 21510251) from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Supplementary material

606_2012_670_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (122 kb)
Table S 1 Detailed information about vernacular names, accession numbers, and voucher specimens of plant materials.Table S 2 Detailed information about the microsatellite markers used in this study. (PDF 123 kb)


  1. Bao L, Chen K, Zhang D, Cao Y, Yamamoto T, Teng Y (2007) Genetic diversity and similarity of pear (Pyrus L.) cultivars native to East Asia revealed by SSR (simple sequence repeat) markers. Genet Res Crop Evol 54:959–971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bao L, Chen K, Zhang D, Cao Y, Li X, Teng Y (2008) An assessment of genetic variability and relationships within Asian pear on AFLP (amplified fragment length polymorphism) markers. Scientia Hort 116:374–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Belkhir K, Borsa P, Chikhi L, Raufaste N, Bonhomme F (2004) GENETIX 4.05, logiciel sous Windows pour la Génêtique des Populations. Laboratoire Génome, Populations, Interactions, CNRS UMR 5554, Université de Montpellier II, Accessed 6 April 2011
  4. Bell RL, Quamme AH, Layne ECR, Skirvin MR (1996) Pears. In: Janick J, Moore JN (eds) Fruit breeding: tree and tropical fruits, vol 1., Tree and Tropical Fruits, Wiley, New York, pp 441–514Google Scholar
  5. Brandenburg WA (1986) Objectives in classification of cultivated plants. In: Styles BT (ed) Infraspecific classification of wild and cultivated plants. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 87–98Google Scholar
  6. Breton C, Pinatel C, Médail F, Bonhomme F, Berville A (2008) Comparison between classical and Bayesian methods to investigate the history of olive cultivars using SSR-polymorphisms. Plant Sci 175:524–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brickell CD, Alexander C, David JC, Hetterscheid WLA, Leslie AC, Malecot V, Jin X, Cubey JJ (2009) International code of nomenclature for cultivated plants, 8th edn. International Society for Horticultural Science, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell CS, Greene CW, Dickinson TA (1991) Reproductive biology in subfam. Maloideae (Rosaceae). Syst Bot 16:333–349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Queiroz K, Good DA (1997) Phenetic clustering in biology: a critique. Quart Rev Biol 72:3–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ergül A, Kazan K, Aras S, Çevik V, Çelik H, Söylemezoğlu G (2006) AFLP analysis of genetic variation within the two economically important Anatolian grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) varietal groups. Genome 49:467–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Evanno G, Gegnaut S, Goudet J (2005) Detecting the number of clusters of individuals using the software STRUCTURE: a simulation study. Mol Ecol 14:2611–2620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goudet J (2001) FSTAT, a program to estimate and test gene diversities and fixation indices (version 2.9.3). Accessed 6 April 2011
  13. Gu C, Sponberg SA (2003) Pyrus. In: Wu Zy, Raven PH, Hong DY (eds) Flora of China, Vol 9. Science Press, Beijing, pp 173–179Google Scholar
  14. Hetterscheid WLA, Brandenburg WA (1995) Culton versus taxon: conceptual issues in cultivated plant systematics. Taxon 44:161–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hetterscheid WLA, Van Den Berg RG, Brandenburg WA (1996) An annotated history of the principles of cultivated plant classification. Acta Bot Neerl 45:123–134Google Scholar
  16. Iketani H, Ohashi H (2003) Taxonomy and distribution of Japanese populations of Pyrus ussuriensis Maxim. (Rosaceae). J Jpn Bot 78:119–134Google Scholar
  17. Iketani H, Manabe T, Matsuta N, Akihama T, Hayashi T (1998) Incongruence between RFLPs of chloroplast DNA and morphological classification in east Asian pear (Pyrus spp.). Genet Res Crop Evol 45:533–539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iketani H, Yamamoto T, Katayama H, Uematsu C, Mase N, Sato Y (2010) Introgression between native and prehistorically naturalized (archaeophytic) wild pear (Pyrus spp.) populations in Northern Tohoku. Northeast Japan. Conservation Genetics 11:115–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kajiura T, Sato Y (1990) Recent progress in Japanese pear (Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai) breeding and descriptions of cultivars based on literature review in Japan. Bull Fruit Tree Res Sta Extra 1:1–329 (in Japanese with English summary)Google Scholar
  20. Kalinowski ST, Taper ML, Marshall TC (2007) Revising how the computer program CERVUS accommodates genotyping error increases success in paternity assignment. Mol Ecol 16:1099–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Katayama H, Adachi S, Yamamoto T, Uematsu C (2007) A wide range of genetic diversity in pear genetic resources from Iwate, Japan revealed by SSR and chloroplast DNA markers. Genet Res Crop Evol 54:1573–1585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kikuchi A (1948) Horticulture of fruit trees, vol 1. Yokendo, Tokyo (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  23. Langella M (1999) Populations 1.2.30: Population genetic software (individuals or population distances, phylogenetic trees). Accessed 6 April 2011
  24. Lopes MS, Mendonça D, dos Santos MR, Eiras-Dias JE, da Câmara Machado A (2009) New insights on the genetic basis of Portuguese grapevine and on grapevine domestication. Genome 52:790–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mabberley DJ (2008) Mabberley’s plant-book: a portable dictionary of plants, their classification and uses, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  26. Nei M, Kumar S (2000) Molecular evolution and phylogenetics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Nei M, Tajima F, Tateno Y (1983) Accuracy of estimated phylogenetic trees from molecular data II. Gene frequency data. J Mol Evol 19:153–172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Page RDM (1996) TREEVIEW: an application to display phylogenetic trees on personal computers. Comp Appl Biosci 12:357–358PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Pritchard JK, Stephens M, Donnelly P (2000) Inference of population structure using multilocus genotype data. Genetics 155:945–959PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pritchard JK, Wen S, Falush D (2010) Structure 2.3.3. Accessed 6 April 2011
  31. Pu FS, Wang YL (eds) (1963) Pomology of China, vol 3., Pears. Shanghai Scientific and Technical Publishers, Shanghai (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  32. Rehder A (1915) Synopsis of the Chinese species of Pyrus. Proc Amer Acad Art Sci 50:225–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rehder A (1924) Enumeration of the ligneous plants of Northern China, II. J Arn Arb 3:165–224Google Scholar
  34. Reimer FC (1925) Blight resistance in pears and characteristics of pear species and stocks. Oregon Agric Coll Exp Stn Bull 214:1–99Google Scholar
  35. Rosenberg NA, Burke T, Elo K, Feldman MW, Freidlin PJ, Groenen MAM, Hille J, Mäki-Tanila A, Tixier-Boichard M, Vignal A, Wimmers K, Weigend S (2001) Empirical evaluation of genetic clustering methods using multilocus genotypes from 20 chicken breeds. Genetics 159:699–713PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rosenberg NA, Pritchard JK, Weber JL, Cann HM, Kidd KK, Zhivotovsky LA, Feldman MW (2002) Genetic structure of human populations. Science 298:2381–2385PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR (1973) Numerical taxonomy; the principles and practice of numerical classification. W. H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  38. Stover RH, Simmonds NW (1987) Bananas, 3rd edn. Longman Scientific and Technical, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Swingle WT (1943) The botany of Citrus and its wild relatives of the orange subfamily. In: Webber HJ, Batchelor LD (eds) The Citrus Industry, vol 1., History, botany and breeding. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp 129–474Google Scholar
  40. Tanaka T (1969) Misunderstanding with regards citrus classification and nomenclature. Bull Univ Osaka Pref Ser B 21:139–145Google Scholar
  41. Teng Y, Tanabe K, Tamura F, Itai A (2002) Genetic relationships of Pyrus species and cultivars native to East Asia revealed by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA markers. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 127:262–270Google Scholar
  42. Velasco R, Zharkikh A, Affourtit J, Dhingra A, Cestaro A, Kalyanaraman A, Fontana P, Bhatnagar SK, Troggio M, Pruss D, Salvi S, Pindo M, Baldi P, Castelletti S, Cavaiuolo M, Coppola G, Costa F, Cova V, Dal Ri A, Goremykin V, Komjanc M, Longhi S, Magnago P, Malacarne G, Malnoy M, Micheletti D, Moretto M, Perazzolli M, Si-Ammour A, Vezzulli S, Zini E, Eldredge G, Fitzgerald LM, Gutin N, Lanchbury J, Macalma T, Mitchell JT, Reid J, Wardell B, Kodira C, Chen Z, Desany B, Niazi F, Palmer M, Koepke T, Jiwan D, Schaeffer S, Krishnan V, Wu C, Chu VT, King ST, Vick J, Tao Q, Mraz A, Stormo A, Stormo K, Bogden R, Ederle D, Stella A, Vecchietti A, Kater MM, Masiero S, Lasserre P, Lespinasse Y, Allan AC, Bus V, Chagné D, Crowhurst RN, Gleave AP, Lavezzo E, Fawcett JA, Proost S, Rouzé P, Sterck L, Toppo S, Lazzari B, Hellens RP, Durel CE, Gutin A, Bumgarner RE, Gardiner SE, Skolnick M, Egholm M, Van de Peer Y, Salamini F, Viola R (2010) The genome of the domesticated apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.). Nat Genet 42:833–839PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Westwood MN (1966) Arboretums—a note of caution on their use in agriculture. HortScience 1:85–86Google Scholar
  44. Yü TT (1979) Pyrus. In: Classification of the fruit trees in China. Agriculture Press, Beijing, pp 122–147 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  45. Yü TT, Ku TC (1974) Pyrus. In: Yü TT (ed) Flora Reipublicae Popularis Sinicae, vol 36. Science Press, Beijing, pp 354–372 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
  46. Zecca G, de Mattia F, Lovicu G, Labra M, Sala F, Grassi F (2010) Wild grapevine: silvestris, hybrids or cultivars that escaped from vineyards? Molecular evidence in Sardinia. Plant Biol 12:558–562PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroyuki Iketani
    • 1
    Email author
  • Hironori Katayama
    • 2
  • Chiyomi Uematsu
    • 3
  • Nobuko Mase
    • 1
  • Yoshihiko Sato
    • 1
  • Toshiya Yamamoto
    • 1
  1. 1.NARO Institute of Fruit Tree ScienceNational Agriculture and Food Research OrganizationTsukubaJapan
  2. 2.Food Resources Education and Research Center, Graduate School of Agricultural ScienceKobe UniversityKasaiJapan
  3. 3.Botanical Gardens, Faculty of ScienceOsaka City UniversityKatanoJapan

Personalised recommendations