Skip to main content

Duplication within and between germplasm collections

II. Duplication in four European barley collections


The extent of duplication within and between barley genebank collections has been determined from a comparative analysis of four European barley collections. These collections were those of the Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands, the Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research and the Braunschweig Genetic Resources Centre, both in Germany, and finally that of the John Innes Institute in the United Kingdom. These collections comprise over thirty thousand accessions.

A random set of 100 accessions from the CGN barley collections was matched with all four collections to identify probable duplication, resulting in 61% of the accessions being matched. Passport data were used to identify probable duplicates. This was hindered by the low quality of these data; simple perfect matches were rare.

The probable duplication, excluding parental duplication, involved 144 other accessions.

Using seed traits, field observations and electrophoretic markers, it could be shown that more than three quarters of the matched accessions in the random set, excluding parental duplication, were completely duplicated in the others and one fifth were more or less duplicated in other matched accessions.

If individual comparisons between accessions from the random set and the matched accessions were made, about one fifth of the probable duplicates were shown not to be duplicates at all. One half were identical duplicates, and the rest were common or partial duplicates.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.


  1. Andersen, W.R. & D.J. Fairbanks, 1990. Molecular markers: important tools for plant genetic resources characterization. Diversity 6: 51–53.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boukema, I.W. & L. de Groot, 1991. Reduction of redundancy in the CGNAllium collection.Allium Improvement Newsletter 1: 25–26.

    Google Scholar 

  3. FAO, 1993. Data from the FAO world Information and Early Warning System on Plant Genetic Resources.

  4. Frese, L. & Th.J.L. van Hintum, 1989. The International Data Base for Beta. In: International Crop Networks Series 3. Report of an International Workshop on Beta Genetic Resources, IBPGR, Rome. pp 17–45.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hazekamp, Th. & Th.J.L. van Hintum, 1991. Central crop databases in collaborative genetic resources management. In: Th.J.L. van Hintum, L. Frese & P. Perret (Eds.) Crop Networks, new concepts for collaborative genetic resources management. International Crop Network Series No. 4. IBPGR, Rome. pp 37–42.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hintum, Th.J.L. van, 1989. GENIS: A fourth generation information system for the database management of genebanks. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 75/76: 13–15.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Hintum, Th.J.L. van & H. Knüpffer, 1994. Duplication within and between germplasm collections. I Identification of duplication on the basis of passport data. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 42: 127–133.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Hvid, S. & G. Nielsen, 1977. Esterase isoenzyme variants in barley. Hereditas 87: 155–162.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Kahler, A.L., S. Heath Pagliuso & R.W. Allard, 1981. Genetics of isozyme variants in barley. II 6-phosphogluconate dehydrogenase, glutamate oxalate transaminase, and acid phosphatase. Crop Sci. 21: 536–540.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Keefe, P.D., 1992. A dedicated wheat grain image analyzer. Plant Varieties and Seeds 5: 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Knüpffer, H., 1988. The European Barley Database of the ECP/GR: an introduction. Kulturpflanze 36: 135–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kresovich, S., W.F. Lamboy, A.K. Szewc-McFadden, J.M. McFerson & P.L. Forsline, 1993. Molecular diagnostics and plant genetic resources conservation. AgBiotech. News and Information 5(7): 255N-258N.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lyman, J.M., 1984. Progress and planning for germplasm conservation of major food crops. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 60: 3–21.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nielsen, G. & H.B. Johansen, 1986. Proposal for the identification of barley varieties based on the genotypes for 2 hordein and 39 isozyme loci of 47 reference varieties. Euphytica 35: 717–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Plucknett, D.L., N.J.H. Smith, J.T. Williams & N. Murthi Anishetty, 1987. Genebanks and the world's food. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Shields, C.R., T.J. Orton & C.W. Stuber, 1983. An outline of general resource needs and procedures for the electrophoretic separation of active enzymes from plant tissue. In: S.D. Tanksley & T.J. Orton (Eds.), Isozymes in Plant Genetics and Breeding, Part A. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, the Netherlands. pp. 443–468.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stuber, C.W, J.F Wendel, M.M. Goodman & J.S.C. Smith, 1988. Techniques and procedures for starch gel electrophoresis of enzymes from maize. Techn. Bulletin 286, N.C. State University. 87p.

  18. Zadoks, J.C., T.T. Chang & C.F. Konzak, 1974. A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Eucarpia Bulletin 7: 42–52.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information



Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

van Hintum, T.J.L., Visser, D.L. Duplication within and between germplasm collections. Genet Resour Crop Evol 42, 135–145 (1995).

Download citation

Key words

  • duplication
  • barley
  • Hordeum
  • genetic resources
  • isozymes