Differences of EST-SSR and genomic-SSR markers in assessing genetic diversity in poplar
We analyzed the genetic differences of 16 poplar clones between genomic-SSR and EST-SSR markers. The statistical results show that the average number of alleles detected by genomic-SSR was 4.1, Shannon’s index 1.0646, observed heterozygosity 0.4427 and expected heterozygosity 0.5523, while for the EST-SSR, the average number of alleles was 2.8, Shannon’s index 0.6985, observed heterozygosity 0.2330 and expected heterozygosity 0.4684. Cluster analysis indicated that the EST-SSR capacity of genotypic identification was more precise than that of genomic-SSR. These results reveal that EST-SSR and genomic-SSR have statistically significant genetic differences in polymorphism detection and genotypic identification. These differences could provide a theoretical basis for the rational use of SSR markers in species diversity and other related research.
Key wordspoplar genomic-SSR EST-SSR genetic differences
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Chang W, Zhao X, Li X, Qiu B, Han Y P, Teng W L, Li W B. 2009. Development of soybean EST-SSR marker and comparison with genomic-SSR marker. Chin J Oil Crop Sci, 31(2): 149–156 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
- Jia J Z, Zhang Z B, Devos K, Gale M D. 2001. Analysis of genetic diversity of 21 chromosomes of wheat by RFLP mapping lotus. Sci Chin (Ser C), 31(1): 13–21 (in Chinese)Google Scholar
- Su X H, Huang Q J, Zhang B Y, Zhang X H. 2004. The achievement and developing strategy on variety selection and breeding of poplar in China. World Forest Res, 17(1): 46–49 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
- Sun Q X, Huang T C, Ni Z F, Procunier J D. 1996. Study on wheat heterotic group I. Genetic diversity revealed by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) in elite wheat cultivars. J Agric Biotechnol, 4(2): 103–110 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
- Yang Y L, Zhang Y D, Zhang X Y. 2008. Transferability analysis of Populus SSR markers in Salix. Mol Plant Breeding, 6(6): 1134–1138 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar
- Zhao Y, Kong F M, Ding C Q, Li S S. 2008. Transferability of EST-SSR markers in zoysiagrasses. Chin J Grassland, 30(3): 69–73 (in Chinese with English abstract)Google Scholar