Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 24, Issue 12, pp 743–749 | Cite as

AFLP analysis of nephthytis (Syngonium podophyllum Schott) selected from somaclonal variants

  • J. Chen
  • R. J. Henny
  • P. S. Devanand
  • C. T. Chao
Genetics and Genomics


This study analyzed genetic differences of 19 cultivars selected from somaclonal variants of Syngonium podophyllum Schott along with their parents as well as seven additional Syngonium species and six other aroids using amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers generated by 12 primer sets. Among the 19 somaclonal cultivars, ‘Pink Allusion’ was selected from ‘White Butterfly’. Tissue culture of ‘Pink Allusion’ through organogenesis resulted in the development of 13 additional cultivars. Self-pollination of ‘Pink Allusion’ obtained a cultivar, ‘Regina Red Allusion’, and tissue culture propagation of ‘Regina Red Allusion’ led to the release of five other cultivars. The 12 primer sets generated a total of 1,583 scorable fragments from all accessions, of which 1,284 were polymorphic (81.9%). The percentages of polymorphic fragments within ‘White Butterfly’ and ‘Regina Red Allusion’ groups, however, were only 1.2% and 0.4%, respectively. Jaccard's similarity coefficients among somaclonal cultivars derived from ‘White Butterfly’ and ‘Regina Red Allusion’, on average, were 0.98 and 0.99, respectively. Seven out of the 15 cultivars from the ‘White Butterfly’ group and three out of six from the ‘Regina Red Allusion’ group were clearly distinguished by AFLP analysis as unique fragments were associated with respective cultivars. The unsuccessful attempt to distinguish the remaining eight cultivars from the ‘White Butterfly’ group and three from the ‘Regina Red Allusion’ group was not attributed to experimental errors or the number of primer sets used; rather it is hypothesized to be caused by DNA methylation and/or some rare mutations. This study also calls for increased genetic diversity of cultivated Syngonium as they are largely derived from somaclonal variants.


AFLP analysis Aroids Ornamental foliage plants Somaclonal variants Syngonium 


AFLP: Amplified fragment length polymorphism PCOA: Principal coordinate analysis PCR: Polymerase chain reaction UPGMA: Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic averages 


  1. Brown PTH, Lorz H (1986) Molecular changes and possible origins of somaclonal variation. In: Semal J (ed) Somaclonal variations and crop improvement. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, pp 146–159Google Scholar
  2. Chase AR (1997) Foliage plant diseases: diagnosis and control. APS, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen J, Henny RJ, McConnell DB (2002) Development of new foliage plant cultivars. In: Janick J, Whipkey A (eds) Trends in new crops and new uses. ASHS, Alexandria, VA, pp 466–472Google Scholar
  4. Chen J, Henny RJ, Chao TC (2003) Somaclonal variation as a source for cultivar development of ornamental aroids. Recent Res Dev Plant Sci 1:31–43Google Scholar
  5. Chen J, McConnell DB, Henny RJ, Norman DJ (2005) The foliage plant industry. Hortic Rev 31:47–112Google Scholar
  6. Croat TB (1982) A revision of Syngonium (Araceae). Ann MO Bot Gard 68:565–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Debener T, Janakiram T, Mattiesch L (2000) Sports and seedlings of rose varieties analyzed with molecular markers. Plant Breed 119:71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Devenand PS, Chen J, Chao CT, Henny RJ (2004) Assessment of genetic relationships among Philodendron cultivars using AFLP markers. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 129:690–697Google Scholar
  9. Escaravage N, Questiau S, Pornon A, Doche B, Taberlet P (1998) Clonal diversity in a Rhododendron ferrugineum L. (Ericaceae) population inferred from AFLP makers. Mol Ecol 7: 975–982CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonzalez G, Aleman S, Infante D (2003) Asexual genetic variability in Agave fourcroydes II: selection among individuals in clonally propagated population. Plant Sci 165:595–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Henley RW, Robinson CA (1993) Nephthytis cultivars to know and grow. Proc Fla State Hortic Soc 106:343–347Google Scholar
  12. Henny RJ, Chen J (2003) Foliage plant cultivar development. Plant Breed Rev 23:245–290Google Scholar
  13. Jaligot E, Rival A, Beule T, Dussert S, Verdeil J (2001) Somaclonal variation in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.): the DNA methylation hypothesis. Plant Cell Rep 19:684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kane MK (2000) Micropropagation of Syngonium by shoot culture. In: Trigiano RN, Gray DJ (eds) Plant tissue culture concepts and laboratory exercise. CRC, Boca Raton, FL, pp 87–95Google Scholar
  15. Larkin PJ, Scowroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation—a novel source of variation from cell culture for plant improvement. Theor Appl Genet 60:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Linacero R, Vazquez AM (1992) Genetic analysis of chlorophyll-deficient somaclonal variants in rye. Genome 35:981–984Google Scholar
  17. Martienssen RA, Colot V (2001) DNA methylation and epigenetic inheritance in plants and filamentous fungi. Science 293:1070–1074CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Mohan SJ (2001) Tissue culture-derived variation in crop improvement. Euphytica 118:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Myburg AA, O'Malley D, Sederoff RR, Whetten R (2000) High-throughput multiplexed AFLP analysis of interspecific hybrids of Eucalyptus trees species. Plant & Animal Genome VIII conference, San Diego, CA, p 544Google Scholar
  20. Polanco C, Ruiz ML (2002) AFLP analysis of somaclonal variation in Arabidopsis thaliana regenerated plants. Plant Sci 162:817–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Prabhu RR, Gresshoff PM (1994) Inheritance of polymorphic markers generated by DNA amplification fingerprinting and their use as genetic markers in soybean. Plant Mol Biol 26:105–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Rohlf FJ (2000) NTSYSpc, numerical taxonomy, and multivariate analysis system, version 2.1 user guide. Exeter Software, Setauket, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Skirvin RM, McPheeters KD, Norton M (1994) Sources and frequency of somaclonal variation. Hortscience 29:1232–1237Google Scholar
  24. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR (1973) Numerical taxonomy: the principles and practice of numerical classification. W.H. Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  25. USDA (1999) 1998 census of horticultural specialties. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Vendrame WA, Kochert G, Wetzstein HY (1999) AFLP analysis of variation in pecan somatic embryos. Plant Cell Rep 18:853–857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vos PR, Hogers M, Bleeker M, van de Lee Reijans T, Hornes M, Fritjers A, Pot J, Peleman J, Kuiper M, Zabeau M (1995) AFLP: a new concept for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res 23:4407–4414PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Vosman B, Visser D, van der Voort JR, Smulders MJM, van Eeuwijk F (2004) The establishment of ‘essential derivative’ among rose varieties using AFLP. Theor Appl Genet 109: 1718–1725CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Wolffe AP, Matzke MA (1999) Epigenetics: regulation through repression. Science 286:481–486CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Xie QJ, Oard JH, Rush MC (1995) Genetic analysis of a purple-red hull rice mutation derived from tissue culture. J Hered 86:154–156Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Chen
    • 1
  • R. J. Henny
    • 1
  • P. S. Devanand
    • 2
  • C. T. Chao
    • 2
  1. 1.Environmental Horticulture Department and Mid-Florida Research and Education CenterUniversity of Florida, IFASApopkaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Botany and Plant SciencesUniversity of California – RiversideRiversideUSA

Personalised recommendations