Advertisement

Protoplasma

, Volume 242, Issue 1–4, pp 55–67 | Cite as

Variability in Indian bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties differing in nitrogen efficiency as assessed by microsatellite markers

  • Ruby Chandna
  • Sarika Gupta
  • Altaf Ahmad
  • Muhammad Iqbal
  • Manoj PrasadEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is a staple food for half of the world. Its productivity and agronomical practices, especially for nitrogen supplementation, is governed by the nitrogen efficiency (NE) of the genotypes. We analyzed 16 popular cultivated Indian varieties of wheat for their NE and variability estimates using a set of 21 simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers, derived from each wheat chromosome. These genotypes were categorized into three groups, viz., low, moderate, and high nitrogen efficient. Of these 16 genotypes, we have reported six, eight, and two genotypes in high, moderate, and low NE categories, respectively. The differential NE in these genotypes was supported by nitrogen uptake and assimilation parameters. The values of average polymorphic information content and marker index for these SSR markers were estimated to be 0.32 and 0.59, respectively. The genetic similarity coefficient for all possible pairs of varieties ranged from 0.41 to 0.76, indicating the presence of considerable range of genetic diversity at molecular level. The dendrogram prepared on the basis of unweighted pair-group method of arithmetic average algorithm grouped the 16 wheat varieties into three major clusters. The clustering was strongly supported by high bootstrap values. The distribution of the varieties in different clusters and subclusters appeared to be related to their variability in NE parameter that was scored. Genetically diverse parents were identified that could potentially be used for their desirable characteristics in breeding programs for improvement of NE in wheat.

Keywords

Bread wheat Triticum aestivum Nitrogen efficiency Genetic similarity Microsatellite/SSR markers 

Abbreviations

N

nitrogen

NUE

nitrogen use efficiency

NE

nitrogen efficiency

SSR

simple sequence repeat

PIC

polymorphic information content

NR

nitrate reductase

Km

Michaelis-Menten constant

MI

marker index

ANOVA

one-way analysis of variance

LSD

Fisher’s least significant difference

HNE

high N efficient

LNE

low N efficient

MNE

moderate N efficient

UPGMA

unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean

CTAB

cetyl trimethylammonium bromide

GWM

gatersleben wheat microsatellite

AICWIP

all India coordinated wheat improvement project

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to the Director of the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi for providing the seed material; to Drs. M. Röder and M. Ganal, IPK, Gatersleben, Germany for providing DNA aliquots of some of the unpublished SSR primers and Dr. Pankaj Kaushal for helpful discussions. Grateful thanks are also due to the Director of the National Institute of Plant Genome Research, and Head, Department of Botany, Jamia Hamdard, New Delhi, India for providing facilities. We also gratefully acknowledge the financial support from the Department of Biotechnology, Department of Science and Technology, and University Grants Commission, Government of India for carrying out the present study. We would like to thank the reviewers for their critical comments.

Conflicts of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

709_2010_122_MOESM1_ESM.doc (67 kb)
Supplementary Table ESM 1 Identification of 16 wheat cultivars using seven microsatellite markers. (DOC 187 kb)

References

  1. Abdin MZ, Kumar PA, Abrol YP (1992) Biochemical basis of variability in nitrate reductase activity in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Plant Cell Physiol 33:951–956Google Scholar
  2. Abdin MZ, Dwivedi RK, Abrol YP (2004) Nitrogen and agriculture. In: Singh RP, Shankar N, Jaiwal PK (eds) Nitrogen nutrition and plant productivity. Studium Press, Houston, pp 23–46Google Scholar
  3. Abrol YP, Chatterjee SR, Kumar PA, Jain V (1999) Improvement in nitrogenous fertilizer utilization—physiological and molecular approaches. Curr Sci 76:1357–1364Google Scholar
  4. Agarwal M, Shrivastava N, Padh H (2008) Advances in molecular marker techniques and their applications in plant sciences. Plant Cell Rep 27:617–631CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Ahmad A, Abdin MZ (1999) NADH: nitrate reductase and NAD (P) H: nitrate reductase activity in mustard seedlings. Plant Sci 143:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ahmad A, Khan I, Anjum NA, Abrol YP, Iqbal M (2005) Role of sulphate transporter systems in sulphur efficiency of mustard genotypes. Plant Sci 169:842–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ahmad A, Khan I, Abrol YP, Iqbal M (2008) Genotypic variation of nitrogen use efficiency in Indian mustard. Environ Pollut 154:462–466CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Aslam M, Travis RL, Huffaker RC (1992) Comparative kinetics and reciprocal inhibition of nitrate and nitrite uptake in roots of uninduced and induced barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) seedlings. Plant Physiol 99:1124–1133CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bertin P, Gallais A (2000) Physiological and genetic basis of nitrogen use efficiency in maize: II. QTL detection and coincidences. Maydica 45:67–80Google Scholar
  10. Bohn M, Utz HF, Melchinger AE (1999) Genetic similarities among winter wheat cultivars determined on the basis of RFLPs, AFLPs, and SSRs and their use for predicting progeny variance. Crop Sci 39:228–237Google Scholar
  11. Bredemeijer GMM, Arens P, Wouters D, Visser D, Vosman B (1998) The use of semi-automated fluorescent microsatellite analysis for tomato cultivar identification. Theor Appl Genet 97:584–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Evans HJ, Nason A (1953) Pyridine nucleotide-nitrate reductase from extracts of higher plants. Plant Physiol 28:233–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fageria NK, Baligar VC (1999) Phosphorus use efficiency in wheat genotypes. J Plant Nutr 22:331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fahima T, Roder MS, Grama A, Nevo E (1998) Microsatellite DNA polymorphism divergence in Triticum dicoccoides accessions highly resistant to yellow rust. Theor Appl Genet 96:187–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. FAI (2008) Fertiliser statistics 2007-08. Fertilizer Association of India, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  16. Gourley CJP, Allan DL, Ruselle MP (1994) Plant nutrient efficiency. A comparison of definitions and suggested improvement. Plant Soil 15:29–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gupta S, Prasad M (2009) Development and characterization of geneic SSR-markers in Medicago truncatula and their transferability in leguminous and non-leguminous species. Genome 52:761–771CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gupta PK, Varshney RK (2000) The development and use of microsatellites markers for genetic analysis and plant breeding with emphasis on bread wheat. Euphytica 113:163–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hirel B, Bertin P, Isabella Q, Bourdoncle W, Attagnant C, Dellay C, Gouy A, Cadiou S, Retailliau C, Falque M, Gallis A (2001) Towards better understanding of the genetic and physiological basis for nitrogen use efficiency in maize. Plant Physiol 125:1258–1270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hokanson SC, Szewc-Mcfadden AK, Lamboy WF, Mcferson JR (1998) Microsatellite (SSR) markers reveal genetic identities, genetic diversity and relationships in a Malus domestica borkh. core subset collection. Theor Appl Genet 67:671–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huang XQ, Börner A, Röder MS, Ganal MW (2002) Assessing genetic diversity of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) germplasm using microsatellite markers. Theor Appl Genet 105:699–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Jaccard P (1908) Nouvelles recherché sur to distribution florale. Bulletin Society Vaud Sc Nat 44:223–270Google Scholar
  23. Kronzucker HJ, Siddiqi MY, Class ADM (1995) Kinetics of NO, influx in Spruce. Plant Physiol 109:319–326PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kumar PA, Krusse E, Andriesse X, Weisbeek P, Kloppstech K (1993) Integration of a cyanobacterial protein involved in nitrate reduction (narB) into isolated Synechococcus but not into pea thylakoid membranes. Eur J Biochem 214:533–537CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lian X, Xing Y, Yan H, Xu C, Li X, Zhang Q (2005) QTLs for low nitrogen tolerance at seedling stage identified using a recombinant inbred line population derived from an elite rice hybrid. Theor Appl Genet 112:85–96CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Merdinoglu D, Butterlin G, Bevilacqua L, Chiquet V, Adam-Blondon’ AF, Decroocq S (2005) Develpoment and characterization of a large set of microsatellite markers in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) suitable for multiplex PCR. Mol Breed 15:349–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mir RR, Rustgi S, Sharma S, Singh R, Goyal A, Kumar J, Gaur A, Tyagi AK, Khan H, Sinha M, Balyan HS, Gupta PK (2008) A preliminary genetic analysis of fibre traits and the use of new genomic SSRs for genetic diversity in jute. Euphytica 161:413–427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mohammadi SA, Khodarahmi M, Jamalirad S, Jalal Kamali MR (2009) Genetic diversity in a collection of old and new bread wheat cultivars from Iran as revealed by simple sequence repeat based analysis. Ann Appl Biol 154:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Moll RH, Kamprath EJ, Jackson WA (1982) Analysis and interpretation of factors which contribute to efficiency of nitrogen utilization. Agron J 74:562–564CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moll RH, Kamprath EJ, Jackson WA (1987) Development of N efficient prolific hybrids of maize. Crop Sci Madison 27:181–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Oscarson P, Ingemarsson B, Larsson CM (1989) Growth and nitrate uptake properties of plants grown with different relative rates of nitrogen supply. II. Activity and affinity of the nitrate uptake system in Pisum and Lemna in relation to nitrogen availability and N demand. Plant Cell Environ 12:787–794CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pathak RR, Ahmad A, Lochab S, Raghuram N (2008) Molecular physiology of plant nitrogen use efficiency and biotechnological options for its enhancement. Curr Sci 94:1394–1403Google Scholar
  33. Plaschke J, Ganal MW, Roder MS (1995) Detection of genetic diversity in closely related bread wheat using microsatellite markers. Theor Appl Genet 102:689–694Google Scholar
  34. Powell W, Marchray GC, Provan J (1996) Polymorphism revealed by simple sequence repeats. Trends Plant Sci 1:215–222Google Scholar
  35. Prasad M, Varshney RK, Roy JK, Balyan HS, Gupta PK (2000) The use of microsatellites for detecting DNA polymorphism, genotype identification and genetic diversity in wheat. Theor Appl Genet 100:584–592Google Scholar
  36. Raghuram N, Pathak RR, Sharma P (2006) Signalling and the molecular aspects of N-use efficiency in higher plants. In: Singh RP, Jaiwal PK (eds) Biotechnological approaches to improve nitrogen use efficiency in plants. Studium Press, Houston, pp 19–40Google Scholar
  37. Rengel Z, Graham RD (1995) Wheat genotypes differ in zinc efficiency when grown in the chelate-buffered nutrient solution. Plant Soil 176:307–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Röder MS, Korzun V, Wendehake K, Plaschke J, Tixier MH, Leroy P, Ganal MW (1998) A microsatellite map of wheat. Genetics 149:2007–2023PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Röder MS, Plaschke J, König SU, Börner A, Sorells ME, Tanksley SD, Ganal MW (1995) Abundance, variability and chromosomal location of microsatellites in wheat. Mol Gen Genet 246:327–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Rohlf FJ (1992) NTSYSpc: numerical taxonomy and multivariate system, version 2.02e. Exeter Software, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  41. Roldán-Ruiz I, Van Eeuwijk FA, Gilliland TJ, Dubreuil P, Dillmann J, Lalemand M, De Loose M, Baril CP (2001) A comparative study of molecular and morphological methods of describing relationships between perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) varieties. Theor Appl Genet 103:1138–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Russel J, Fuller J, Young G, Thomas B, Taramino G, Macaulay M, Waugh R, Powell W (1997) Discriminating between barley genotypes using microsatellite markers. Genome 40:442–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Saghai-Maroof MA, Biyaschev RM, Yang GP, Zhang Q, Allard RW (1984) Extaordinary polymorphism microsatellite DNA in barley: species diversity, chromosomal location and population dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:5466–5470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Salem KFM, El-Zanaty AM, Esmail RM (2008) Assessing wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genetic diversity using morphological characters and microsatellite markers. World J Agril Sci 4:538–544Google Scholar
  45. Song MT, Lee JH, Cho YS, Jeon YH, Lee SB, Ku JH, Choi SH, Hwang HG (2002) Narrow genetic background of Korean rice germplasm as revealed by DNA fingerprinting with SSR markers and their pedigree information. Korean Journal of Genetics 24:397–403Google Scholar
  46. Tsegave S, Tesemma T, Belay G (1996) Relationships among tetraploid wheat (Triticum turgidum L.) landraces population revealed by isozyme markers and agronomic traits. Theor Appl Genet 93:600–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. UNEP (1999) Global environment outlook 2000. United Nations Environment Programme, NairobiGoogle Scholar
  48. Yap IP, Nelson R (1995) Win Boot: A programm for performing boot strap analysis of binary data to determine the confidence limits of UPGMA-based dendrograms. IPRI Discussion Paper seriesGoogle Scholar
  49. Zhu ZL, Chen DL (2002) Nitrogen fertilizer use in China contributions to food production, impacts on the environment and best management strategies. Nutr Cycl Agroecosyst 63:117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ruby Chandna
    • 1
  • Sarika Gupta
    • 2
  • Altaf Ahmad
    • 1
  • Muhammad Iqbal
    • 1
  • Manoj Prasad
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Botany, Faculty of ScienceMolecular Ecology Laboratory, Jamia HamdardNew DelhiIndia
  2. 2.National Institute of Plant Genome Research (NIPGR), Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, JNU CampusNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations