Plant Molecular Biology Reporter

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 280–288 | Cite as

Analysis of the Genetic Structure of a Barley Collection Using DNA Diversity Array Technology (DArT)

  • J. Ovesná
  • L. Kučera
  • K. Vaculová
  • J. Milotová
  • J. Snape
  • P. Wenzl
  • E. Huttner
  • A. Kilian
  • G. Martelli
  • L. Milella
Original Paper


Analysis of the extent of genetic variation within genetic resources is important for diversity preservation and also for breeders who exploit it. We investigated the recently introduced molecular marker technique of DNA diversity array technology (DArT), with the objective of characterising diversity in the likely relatively narrow genetic background of Czech malting barley cultivars. A total of 94 obsolete or registered barley cultivars and some hulless barley lines primarily of Czech origin were characterised by DArT analysis. A total of 271 polymorphic marker alleles were revealed across the analysed set of accessions, 37 of which were identified as being overrepresented; the other 234 markers were used for further analysis. The average dissimilarity value within the analysed set of accessions was 0.692. To assess how well DArT is suited for individual barley characteristic evaluation, available agronomical data from three yield field trials were used. Out of 94 barley genotypes used in the field trials that were assessed by DArTs, 41 have been grown over time as malting cultivars in the region. Similarity matrices based on Gower’s coefficient for mixed data and simple matching coefficient were used to compare DaRT and agronomical results. We demonstrate that a DArT-based similarity matrix and an agronomical data-based similarity matrix correlated well. To assess the genetic structure of the entire collection, K-means and simple matching coefficient clustering were used. Statistical analysis confirmed the power of the DArT system, in fact they efficiently grouped old genetic resources and modern cultivars in the expected way. Our results show that the level of genetic diversity has not changed substantially over time, but significant shifts in allelic frequency have occurred. In addition, a DArT-based dendrogram and principal component analysis (PCA) plots clearly demonstrated the impact of breeding practices on the diversity of Czech spring malting barley cultivars over time.


Field data Genetic resource Malting barley Array Similarity 



This work was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, project 002700604, and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic projects OC10017, Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS): 2532885901.

Supplementary material

11105_2012_491_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (135 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 Barley cultivars released in the Czech Republic and former Czechoslovakia in 1884–1998 and their end-use qualities (PDF 135 kb)
11105_2012_491_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (329 kb)
Supplementary Table 2 The means (and standard deviations) of the agronomical and the chemical parameters measured (PDF 328 kb)
11105_2012_491_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (11 kb)
Supplementary Table 3 Variability within the collection of 94 barley cultivars (71 spring malting cultivars) used in different time periods based on DArT marker incidence and SM metrics. (PDF 10 kb)


  1. Akbari M, Wenzl P, Caig V, Carling J, Xia L, Yang SY, Uszynski G, Mohler V, Lehmensiek A, Kuchel H, Hayden MJ, Howes N, Sharp P, Vaughan P, Rathmell B, Huttner E, Kilian A (2006) Diversity arrays technology (DArT) for high-throughput profiling of the hexaploid wheat genome. Theor Appl Gen 113:1409–1420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allaby RG, Brown TA (2003) AFLP data and the origins of domesticated crops. Genome 46:448–453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashkani S, Yusop Rafii M, Rusli I, Sariah M, Akmar Abdullah SR, Rahim HA, Latif M (2012) SSRs for marker-assisted selection for blast resistance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Mol Biol Rep 30:79–86. doi: 10.1007/s11105-011-0315-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker J, Heun M (1995) Barley microsatelites: allele variation and mapping. Plant Mol Biol 27:835–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonman JM, Gu Y, Coleman-Derr D, Jackson EW, Bockelman H (2011) Inferring geographic origin of barley (Hordeum vulgare L. subsp vulgare) accessions using molecular markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol 58:291–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Casas AM, Igartua E, Valles MP, Molina-Cano JL (1998) Genetic diversity in barley cultivars grown in Spain, estimated by RFLP, similarity and coancestry coefficients. Plant Breed 117:429–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark AG, Hubisz MJ, Bustamante CD, Williamson HG, Nielsen R (2005) Ascertainment bias in studies of human genome-wide polymorphism. Genome Res 15:1496–1502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Close TJ, Bhat PR, Lonardi S (2009) Development and implementation of high-throughput SNP genotyping in barley. BMC Genomics 10:582. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-10-582 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Davila JA, Loarce Y, Ramsay L, Waugh R, Ferrer E (1999) Comparison of RAMP and SSR markers for the study of wild barley genetics diversity. Hereditas 131:5–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edwards D, Batley J (2010) Plant genome sequencing: applications for crop improvement. Plant Biotechnol J 8(1):2–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2009.00459.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Elia M, Swanston JS, Moralejo M (2010) A model of the genetic differences in malting quality between European and North American barley cultivars based on a QTL study of the cross Triumph × Morex. Plant Breed 129(3):280–290. doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2009.01694.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellis RP, McNicol JW, Baird E, Booth A, Lawrence P, Thomas B, Powell W (1997) The use of AFLPs to examine genetic relatedness in barley. Mol Breed 3:359–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: an approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39:783–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fischbeck G (2003) Diversification through breeding. In: von Bothmer R, van Hintum T, Knüpffer H, Sato K (eds) Diversity in barley. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 29–52Google Scholar
  15. Gascuel O (1997) Concerning the NJ algorithm and its unweighted version UNJ. In: Mirkin B, McMorris FR, Roberts F, Rzhetsky A (eds) Mathematical hierarchies and biology, vol 37. American Mathematical Society, Providence, pp 149–171Google Scholar
  16. Graner A, Bjornstad A, Konishi T, Ordon F (2003) Molecular diversity of the barley genome. In: von Bothmer R, van Hintum T, Knüpffer H, Sato K (eds) Diversity in barley. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 121–141Google Scholar
  17. Henry RJ (2011) Next-generation sequencing for understanding and accelerating crop domestication. Brief Funct Genom 11:51–56 . doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elr032
  18. Hoffman D, Dahleen L (2002) Markers polymorphic among malting barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) cultivars of a narrow gene pool associated with key QTLs. Theor Appl Gen 105:544–554CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurtado P, Olsen KM, Buitrago C, Ospina C, Marin J, Duque M, de Vicente C, Wongtiem P, Wenzel P, Killian A, Adeleke M, Fregene M (2008) Comparison of simple sequence repeat (SSR) and diversity array technology (DArT) markers for assessing genetic diversity in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Plant Gen Res Charact Util 6:208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Iwata H, Jannink JL (2011) Accuracy of genomic selection prediction in barley breeding programs: a simulation study based on the real single nucleotide polymorphism data of barley breeding lines. Crop Sci 51(5):1915–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kraic J, Benkova M (2004) Trends in biological and molecular variation of barley driven by long term breeding. In: Book of Proceedings of the “9th International Barley Genetics Symposium”, 20–26 June 2004, Brno, Czech Republic, pp 286–293Google Scholar
  22. Langer I (2004): Barley breeding progress in the Czech Republic. In: Book of Proceedings of the “9th international barley genetics symposium”, 20–26 June 2004, Brno, Czech Republic, pp 156–170Google Scholar
  23. Langridge P, Barr AR (2003) Preface. Aust J Agric Res 54:1–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lekes J (1997) Šlechtění obilovin na území Československa. (in Czech), Plant select, Nakladatelství Brázda, Praha, pp 280Google Scholar
  25. Macaulay M, Ramsay L, Powell W, Waugh R (2004) A representative, highly informative genotyping set of barley SSRs. Theor Appl Genet 102:801–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Manninen A, Nissila E (1997) Genetic diversity among Finnisch six row barley culivars based on pedigree and DNA markers. Hereditas 126:87–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mantel NA (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized expression approach. Cancer Res 27:209–220PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Matus I, Hayes PM (2002) Genetic diversity in three groups of barley germplasm assessed by simple sequence repeats. Genome 45:1095–1106PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Milella L, Saluzzi D, Lapelosa M, Martelli G, Greco I (2006) Relationships between an Italian strawberry ecotype and its ancestor using RAPD markers. Genet Res Crop Evol 53:1715–1720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Milella L, Martelli G, Salava J, Fernandez E, Ovesná J, Greco I (2011) Total phenolic content, RAPDs, AFLPs and morphological traits for the analysis of variability in Smallanthus sonchifolius. Genet Res Crop Evol 58:545–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mlcochova L, Chloupek O, Uptmoor R, Ordon F, Friedt W (2004) Molecular analysis of the barley cv. ‘Valticky’ and its X-ray-derived semidwarf-mutant ‘Diamant’. Plant Breed 123:421–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ovesná J, Machová Poláková K, Kučera L, Vaculová K, Milotová J (2006) Evaluation of Czech spring malting barleys with respect to the beta-amylase allele incidence. Plant Breed 125(3):23–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perrier X, Jacquemoud-Collet JP (2006) DARwin software.
  34. Pillen K, Binder A, Kreuzkam B, Ramsay L, Waugh R, Forster J, Leon J (2000) Mapping new EMBL derived barley microsatellites and their use in differentiating Germany barley cultivars. Theor Appl Gen 101:625–660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Poczai P, Mátyás KK, Szabó I, Varga I, Hyvönen J, Cernák I, Gorji AM, Decsi K, Taller J (2011) Genetic variability of Thermal Nymphaea (Nymphaeaceae) populations based on ISSR markers: implications on relationships, hybridization, and conservation. Plant Mol Biol Rep 29:906–918. doi: 10.1007/s11105-011-0302-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Podani J (2001) SYN-TAX 2000 for Windows Dept. Plant taxonomy and ecology. ELTE, BudapestGoogle Scholar
  37. Potts S, Han Y, Awais KM, Kushad M, Rayburn L, Korban S (2012) Genetic diversity and characterization of a core collection of Malus germplasm using simple sequence repeats (SSRs). Plant Mol Biol Rep 30(4):827–837. doi: 10.1007/s11105-011-0399-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rajeev K, Spurthi N, Gregory D, Scott A (2009) Next-generation sequencing technologies and their implications for crop genetics and breeding. Trends Biotechnol 27(9):522–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ramsay L, Macaulay M, Ivanissevich S, MacLean K, Cardle L, Fuller J, Edwards KJ, Tuvesson S, Morgante M, Massari A, Maestri E, Marmioli N, Sjakste T, Ganal M, Powell W, Waugh R (2000) A simple sequence repeat-based linkage map of barley. Genetics 156:1997–2005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Rasmusson DC, Phillips RL (1997) Plant breeding progress and gene diversity from de novo variation and elevated epistasis. Crop Sci 37:303–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rostoks N, Mudie S, Cardle L, Russell J, Ramsay L, Booth A, Svensson JT, Wanamaker SI, Walia H, Rodriguez EM, Hedley PE, Liu H, Morris J, Close TJ, Marshall DF, Waugh R (2005) Genome-wide SNP discovery and linkage analysis in barley based on genes responsive to abiotic stress. Mol Genet Gen 274:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Russell JR, Fuller JD, Macaulay M, Hatz BG, Jahoor A, Powell W, Waugh R (1997) Direct comparison of levels of genetic variation among barley accessions detected by RFLPs, AFLPs, SSRs and RAPDs. Theor Appl Genet 95:714–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Russell JR, Ellis RP, Thomas WTB, Waugh R, Provan J, Booth A, Fuller J, Lawrence P, Young G, Powell W (2000) A retrospective analysis of spring barley germplasm development from ‘foundation genotypes’ to currently successful cultivars. Mol Breed 6:553–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saghai Maroof MA, Soliman KM, Jorgensen RA, Allard RW (1984) Ribosomal spacer length polymorphisms in barley: Mendelian inheritance, chromosomal location and population dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:8014–8019PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sardou MA, Baghizadeh A, Tavasoli A, Babaei S (2011) The use of microsatellite markers for genetic diversity assessment of genus Hordeum L. in Kerman province (Iran). Afr J Biotechnol 10:1516–1521Google Scholar
  46. Schatz MC, Witkowski J, McCombie WR (2012) Current challenges in de novo plant genome sequencing and assembly. Genome Biol 13:243–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Schut JW, Qi X, Stam P (1997) Association between relationship measures based on AFLP markers, pedigree data and morphological traits in barley. Theor Appl Genet 95:1161–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sokal RR, Michener CD (1958) A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Univ Kansas Sci Bull 38:1409–1438Google Scholar
  49. Tanksley SD, McCough D (1997) Seed banks and molecular maps: unlocking genetic potential from the wild. Science 277:1063–1066PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Terzi V (1997) RAPD markers for fingerprinting barley, oat and triticale varieties. J Genet Breed 51:115–120Google Scholar
  51. Terzi V, Pecchioni N, Faccioli P, Kucera L, Stanca AM (2001) Phyletic relationships within the genus Hordeum using PCR-based markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol 48:447–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Treuren R, Van Hintum TJL (2001) Identification of intra-accession genetic diversity in selfing crop using AFLP markers: implications for collection management. Genet Resour Crop Evol 48:287–295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Varshney RK, Hoisington DA, Tyagi AK (2006) Advances in cereal genomics and applications in crop breeding. Trends Biotechnol 24:490–499PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Varshney RK, Baum M, Guo P, Grando S, Ceccarelli S, Graner A (2010) Features of SNP and SSR diversity in a set of ICARDA barley germplasm collection. Mol Breed 26:229–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walia H, Wilson C, Condamine P, Ismail AM, Xu J, Cui XP, Close TJ (2007) Array-based genotyping and expression analysis of barley cv. Maythorpe and Golden Promise. BMC Genomics 8:87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wenzl P, Carling J, Kudrna D, Jaccoud D, Huttner E, Kleinhofs A, Kilian A (2004) Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT) for whole-genome profiling of barley. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:9915–9920PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wenzl P, Li HB, Carling J, Zhou MX, Raman H, Paul E, Hearnden P, Maier C, Xia L, Caig V, Ovesna J, Cakir M, Poulsen D, Wang JP, Raman R, Smith KP, Muehlbauer GJ, Chalmers KJ, Kleinhofs A, Huttner E, Kilian A (2006) A high-density consensus map of barley linking DArT markers to SSR, RFLP and STS loci and agricultural traits. BMC Genomics 7:206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Ovesná
    • 1
  • L. Kučera
    • 1
  • K. Vaculová
    • 2
  • J. Milotová
    • 2
  • J. Snape
    • 3
  • P. Wenzl
    • 4
  • E. Huttner
    • 4
  • A. Kilian
    • 4
  • G. Martelli
    • 5
  • L. Milella
    • 5
  1. 1.Crop Research InstitutePrague 6Czech Republic
  2. 2.Agricultural Research Institute Kromeriz, and Agrotest fytoKroměřížCzech Republic
  3. 3.John Innes CentreNorwich Research ParkColneyUK
  4. 4.Diversity Arrays Technologies and TriticarteCanberraAustralia
  5. 5.Deparment of ScienceUniversity of BasilicataPotenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations