Plant Systematics and Evolution

, Volume 199, Issue 1–2, pp 93–108 | Cite as

DNA fingerprint variation in some blackberry species (Rubus subg.Rubus, Rosaceae)

  • Thomas Kraft
  • Hilde Nybom
  • Gun Werlemark


We have analysed samples from Sweden, Denmark, and Germany of six facultatively apomictic blackberry species to investigate the accordance between a taxonomy based on morphological characters on the one hand, and distribution of genetic variation estimated by DNA fingerprinting on the other hand. DNA fingerprint variation was found to be quite restricted in all species investigated. The first taxonomic group included three species related toRubus nessensis, two being characterized by one very widespread DNA fingerprint in all three countries and a few rare ones, whereas the third species differed between Sweden and Germany. The second taxonomic group included species related toR. gracilis. Two of these species exhibited very similar DNA fingerprints, whereas the third species deviated clearly. The utilization of DNA fingerprinting as a tool in taxonomy is discussed; most likely this method could become a useful complement to morphology, especially in plant groups with reduced levels of genetic recombination.

Key words

Rosaceae Rubus Taxonomy microspecies apomixis DNA analysis M13 probe 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Antonius, K., Nybom, H., 1994: DNA fingerprinting reveals significant amounts of genetic variation in a wild raspberryRubus idaeus population. — Molec. Ecol.3: 177–180.Google Scholar
  2. Areschoug, F. W. C., 1881: Litteraturöversikt: Skånes Flora, 2. ed. — Bot. Not.34: 157–158.Google Scholar
  3. —, 1886: Litteraturgenomgång. — Bot. Not.39: 33–39.Google Scholar
  4. Asker, S., 1980: Gametophytic apomixis: elements and genetic regulation. — Hereditas93: 277–293.Google Scholar
  5. —, 1992: Apomixis in plants. — Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bailey, L. H., 1941–1945: Species Batorum I–IX. Gentes Herbarum 5. — Ithaca, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Battjes, J., Menken, S. B. J., Den Nijs, H. C. M., 1992: Clonal diversity in some microspecies ofTaraxacum sect.Palustria (Lindb. fil.)Dahlst. from Czechoslovakia. — Bot. Jahrb. Syst.114: 315–328.Google Scholar
  8. Bayer, R. J., 1989: Patterns of isozyme variation in theAntennaria rosea (Asteraceae: Inuleae) polyploid agamic complex. — Syst. Bot.14: 389–397.Google Scholar
  9. —, 1987: Chromosome numbers, patterns of distribution, and apomixis inAntennaria (Asteraceae: Inuleae). — Syst. Bot.12: 305–319.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, C. S., Dickinson, T. A., 1990: Apomixis, patterns of morphological variation, and species concepts in subfam.Maloideae (Rosaceae). — Syst. Bot.15: 124–135.Google Scholar
  11. Darlington, C. D., 1939: The evolution of genetic systems. — Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Fernald, M. L., 1950: Gray's manual of botany. 8th edn. — New York: American Book Company.Google Scholar
  13. Focke, W. O., 1911–1913: Species Ruborum. — Stuttgart: Schweizerbart.Google Scholar
  14. Gibson, D., Bazely, D. R., Shore, J. S., 1993: Responses of brambles,Rubus vestitus, to herbivory. — Oecologia95: 454–457.Google Scholar
  15. Gleason, H. A., Cronquist, A., 1991: Manual of vascular plants of northeastern United States and adjacent Canada. 2nd edn. — New York: New York Botanic Garden.Google Scholar
  16. Gustafsson, Å., 1943: The genesis of the European blackberry flora. — Acta Univ. Lund.39 (6): 1–200.Google Scholar
  17. Hoepfner, A.-S., Nybom, H., Carlson, U., Franzén, R., 1993: DNA fingerprinting useful for monitoring cell line identity in micropropagated raspberries. — Acta Agricult. Scand., Sect. B43: 53–57.Google Scholar
  18. Hutchings, M. J., 1978: Standing crop and pattern in pure stands ofMercurialis perennis andRubus fruticosus in mixed deciduous woodland. — Oikos31: 351–357.Google Scholar
  19. Jeffreys, A. J., Wilson, V., Thein, S. L., 1985: Individual-specific ‘fingerprints’ of human DNA. — Nature316: 76–79.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Khokhlov, S. S., 1976: Evolutionary-genetic problems of apomixis in angiosperms. — InKhokhlov, S. S., (Ed.): Apomixis and breeding, pp. 3–17. — New Delhi: Amerind.Google Scholar
  21. Kojima, A., Nagato, Y., Hinata, K., 1991: Degree of apomixis in Chinese chive (Allium tuberosum) estimated by esterase isozyme analysis. — Jap. J. Breed.41: 73–83.Google Scholar
  22. Kraft, T., Nybom, H., 1995: DNA fingerprinting and biometry can solve some taxonomic problems in apomictic blackberries (Rubus subgen.Rubus). — Watsonia20: 329–343.Google Scholar
  23. — -Werlemark, G., 1995:Rubus vestervicensis (Rosaceae) — its hybrid origin revealed by DNA fingerprinting. — Nordic J. Bot. (In press).Google Scholar
  24. Lidforss, B., 1914: Resumé seiner Arbeiten überRubus. — Z. Indukt. Abstammungs-Vererbungsl.12: 1–13.Google Scholar
  25. Lynch, M., 1988: Estimation of relatedness by DNA fingerprinting. — Molec. Biol. Evol.5: 584–599.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. —, 1991: Analysis of population genetic structure by DNA fingerprinting. — InBurke, T., Dolf, G., Jeffreys, A. J., Wolfff, R., (Eds): DNA fingerprinting: approaches and applications, pp. 113–126. — Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  27. Menken, S. B. J., Morita, T., 1989: Uniclonal population structure in the pentaploid obligate agamospermTaraxacum albidum Dahlst. — Pl. Spec. Biol.4: 29–36.Google Scholar
  28. Mösges, G., Friedt, W., 1994: Genetic ‘fingerprinting’ of sunflower lines and F1 hybrids using isozymes, simple and repetitive sequences as hybridization and random primers for PCR. — Pl. Breed.113: 114–124.Google Scholar
  29. Neuhaus, D., Kühl, H., Kohl, J. G., Dörfel, P., Börner, T., 1993: Investigation on the genetic diversity ofPhragmites stands using genomic fingerprinting. — Aquatic Bot.45: 357–364.Google Scholar
  30. Newton, A., 1975:Rubus L. — InStace, C. A., (Ed.): Hybridization and the flora of the British Isles. — New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Nybom, H., 1987a: A demographic study of the apomictic blackberry,Rubus nessensis (Rosaceae). — Nordic J. Bot.7: 365–372.Google Scholar
  32. —, 1987b: Flowering and fruiting phenology in the apomictic blackberry,Rubus nessensis (Rosaceae). — Nordic J. Bot.7: 373–381.Google Scholar
  33. —, 1988: Apomixis versus sexuality in blackberries (Rubus subgen.Rubus, Rosaceae). — Pl. Syst. Evol.160: 207–218.Google Scholar
  34. —, 1990: Genetic variation in ornamental apple trees and their seedlings (Malus, Rosaceae) revealed by DNA ‘fingerprinting’. — Hereditas113: 17–28.Google Scholar
  35. —, 1991: Applications of DNA fingerprinting in plant breeding. — InBurke, T., Dolf, G., Jeffreys, A. J., Wolff, R., (Eds): DNA fingerprinting: approaches and applications, pp. 294–311. — Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  36. —, 1993: Applications of DNA fingerprinting in plant population studies. — InPena, S. D. J., Chakraborty, R., Epplen, J. T., Jeffreys, A. J., (Eds): DNA fingerprinting: state of the science, pp. 293–309. — Basel: Birkhäuser.Google Scholar
  37. —, 1995: Evaluation of interspecific crossing experiments in facultatively apomictic blackberries (Rubus subgen.Rubus) using DNA fingerprinting. — Hereditas122: 57–65.Google Scholar
  38. —, 1990: DNA “fingerprints” detect genetic variation inAcer negundo (Aceraceae). — Pl. Syst. Evol.173: 49–56.Google Scholar
  39. —, 1990a: DNA “fingerprints” applied to paternity analysis in apples (Malus ×domestica). — Theor. Appl. Genet.79: 763–768.Google Scholar
  40. —, 1990b: DNA “fingerprints” reveal genotypic distributions in natural populations of blackberries and raspberries (Rubus, Rosaceae). — Amer. J. Bot.77: 883–888.Google Scholar
  41. —, 1990: Genetic variation detected by use of the M13 “DNA fingerprint” probe inMalus, Prunus, andRubus (Rosaceae). — Theor. Appl. Genet.79: 153–156.Google Scholar
  42. Oredsson, A., 1969: Drawings of Scandinavian plants 17–20.Rubus L. subgen.Rubus. — Bot. Not.122: 1–8.Google Scholar
  43. Pedersen, A., Schou, J. C., 1989: Nordiske brombaer (Rubus sect.Rubus, sect.Corylifolii og sect.Caesii). — Aarhus University Reports21.Google Scholar
  44. Phelouzat, R., 1982: Croissance et auto-entretien d'une population de ronce (Rubus fruticosus L.) dans les conditions d'une hêtraie. — Bull. Soc. Bot. France, Lett. Bot.129: 293–304.Google Scholar
  45. —, 1981: Stratégie adaptive de la ronce (Rubus fruticosus L.) dans les différentes du milieu naturel. — Bull. Soc. Bot. France, Lett. Bot.128: 201–212.Google Scholar
  46. Proctor, M. C. F., Proctor, M. E., Groenhof, A. C., 1989: Evidence from peroxidase polymorphism on the taxonomy and reproduction of someSorbus populations in southwest England. — New Phytol.112: 569–575.Google Scholar
  47. Rogstad, S. H., Nybom, H., Schaal, B. A., 1991: The tetrapod DNA fingerprinting M13 repeat probe reveals genetic diversity and clonal growth in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides, Salicaceae). — Pl. Syst. Evol.175: 115–123.Google Scholar
  48. Sudre, H., 1908–1913: Rubi Europae vel monographia iconibus illustrata Ruborum Europae. — Paris: Libraire des Sciences Naturelles.Google Scholar
  49. Van Heusden, A. W., Rouppe, V. D., Voort, J., Bachmann, K., 1991: Oligo-(GATA) fingerprints identify clones in asexual dandelions (Taraxacum, Asteraceae). — Fingerprint News3 (2): 13–15.Google Scholar
  50. Van Oostrum, H., Sterk, A. A., Wijsman, H. J. W., 1985: Genetic variation in agamospermous microspecies ofTaraxacum sect.Erythrosperma and sect.Obliqua. — Heredity55: 223–228.Google Scholar
  51. Vassart, G., Georges, M., Monsieur, R., Brocas, H., Lequarré, A.-S., Cristophe, D., 1987: A sequence in M13 phage detects hypervariable minisatellites in human and animal DNA. — Science235: 683–684.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Weber, H. E., 1972: Die GattungRubus (Rosaceae) im nordwestlichen Europa. — Lehre: Cramer.Google Scholar
  53. —, 1984: Zur Kenntnis desRubus gracilis J. & C. Presl und nahestehender Sippen. — Feddes Repert.95: 601–620.Google Scholar
  54. — 1985: Rubi Westfalici. — Abh. Westfälischen Mus. Naturk.47.Google Scholar
  55. Weising, K., Nybom, H., Wolff, K., Meyer, W., 1994: DNA fingerprinting in plants and fungi. — Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wolff, K., Rogstad, S. H., Schaal, B. A., 1994: Population and species variation of minisatellite DNA inPlantago. — Theor. Appl. Genet.87: 733–740.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Kraft
    • 1
  • Hilde Nybom
    • 1
  • Gun Werlemark
    • 1
  1. 1.Balsgård-Department of Horticultural Plant BreedingSwedish University of Agricultural SciencesKristianstadSweden

Personalised recommendations