Advertisement

Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 253–271 | Cite as

Characterization of a flint maize (Zea mays var. indurata) Italian landrace, II. Genetic diversity and relatedness assessed by SSR and Inter-SSR molecular markers

  • G. Barcaccia
  • M. Lucchin
  • P. Parrini
Article

Abstract

A comparative characterization of 10 field populations of the maize (Zea mays var. indurata) landrace “Nostrano di Storo” was carried out using different types of PCR-based markers. The inbred line B73 and three synthetics (VA143, VA154 and VA157) selected from as many landraces were also used. Genetic diversity and relatedness were evaluated over 84 SSR and 53 I-SSR marker alleles using a total of 253 individual DNAs. Up to 23 alleles per SSR locus were scored while the average effective number of alleles per population was 6.99. Nei's total genetic diversity as assessed with SSR markers was HT = 0.851 while the average diversity within populations was HS = 0.795. The overall Wright's fixation index FST was as low as 0.066. Thus, more than 93% of the total variation was within population. Unique alleles over all SSR loci were found for six populations. An average of 17.7 marker alleles per I-SSR primer were scored with an effective number of marker alleles per locus of 1.34. The Shannon's diversity information index over all populations and I-SSR loci was 0.332, varying from 0.286 to 0.391. The extent of differentiation between populations was as low as GST = 0.091. Dice's genetic similarity matrices were estimated for both SSR and I-SSR markers. The mean genetic similarity coefficients within and between populations were respectively 0.269 and 0.217, for SSR markers, and 0.591 and 0.564, for I-SSR markers. UPGMA dendrograms displayed all field populations but one clustered into a distinct group, in which the synthetic VA154, selected from the “Marano Vicentino” landrace, was also included. One field population and the other two synthetics were clustered separately as well B73. The matrix correlation assayed by the Mantel's correspondence test was as high as 0.908. Findings suggest that, although a high variability can be found among plants, most plant genotypes belong to the same landrace called “Nostrano di Storo”. Although gene flow from commercial hybrids might have occurred, the large number of polymorphisms and the presence of both unique alleles and alleles unshared with B73 and synthetics are the main factors underlying the value of this flint maize landrace as a source of genetic variation and peculiar germplasm traits. Because of its exclusive utilization for human consumption, such a molecular marker characterization will be a key step for obtaining the IGP mark and so promote the in situ conservation and protection of the landrace “Nostrano di Storo”.

Genetic resources Inter-SSRs Molecular characterization SSRs Zea mays var. indurata 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Azar C., Mather D.E. and Hamilton R.I. 1997. Maize landraces of the St. Lawrence Great Lakes region of North America. Euphytica 98: 41–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barcaccia G., Lucchin M. and Parrini P. 1999. Genetic diversity and relatedness in an Italian landrace of flint maize as assessed by PCR-based molecular markers Atti XLIII Convegno Annuale Societa Italiana Genetica Agraria, Molveno, TN, Italy, September 22-25, 1999., pp. 94–95.Google Scholar
  3. Barcaccia G., Albertini E. and Veronesi F. 2000. Inter-microsatellite DNA markers in the Medicago sativa complex. In: Provorov N.A., Tikhnovich I. and Veronesi F. (eds), New approaches and techniques in breeding sustainable fodder crops and amenity grasses. Proc. of the 22 EUCARPIA Fodder Crops and Amenity Grasses Section Meeting, October 17-21, 1999, St. Petersburg, Russia., pp. 185–190.Google Scholar
  4. Bertolini M., Bianchi A., Lupotto E., Salamini F., Verderio A. and Motto M. 1998. Maize. In: Scarascia Mugnozza G.T. and Pagnotta M.A. (eds), Italian Contribution to Plant Genetics and Breeding. Tipolit. Quatrini A. & F. Publisher, Viterbo, Italy, pp. 209–229.Google Scholar
  5. Bonciarelli F. 1961. Studio agronomico comparato delle popolazioni Umbre di mais (A comparative study of the maize population of Umbria, Italy, with English summary). Maydica 6: 35–61.Google Scholar
  6. Bosch L., Casanas F., Sanchez E. and Nuez F. 1997.Variability of characterizamaize landraces from Northwest Spain. Plant Genetic Resources Newslet. 112: 90–92.Google Scholar
  7. Brandolini A., Lorenzoni C. and Vandoni G.C. 1967. I mais Italiani (The Italian maize). Enciclopedia Agraria, REDA M: 8–12.Google Scholar
  8. Brandolini A. 1970. Maize. In: Frankel O.H. and Bennett E. (eds), Genetic Resources in Plants. Their Exploration and Conserva-tion. Blackwell Scientific Publications, pp. 273–309.Google Scholar
  9. Bretting P.K., Goodman M.M. and Stuber C.W. 1987. Isozyme variation in Guatemalan races of maize (Zea mays L. ssp. mays). Am. J. Botany 74: 666–667.Google Scholar
  10. Brush S.B. 1995. In situ conservation of landraces in centers of crop diversity. Crop Sci. 35: 346–354.Google Scholar
  11. Brush S.B. 1999. The issues of in situ conservation of crop genetic resources. In: Brush S.B. (ed.), Genes in the Field. On-farm Conservation of Crop Diversity. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL, USA Copublished by Intl. Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy; Intl. Development Research Centre, Ottawa, Canada., pp. 3–26.Google Scholar
  12. Camussi A. 1979. Numerical taxonomy of Italian populations of maize based on quantitative traits. Maydica 24: 161–174.Google Scholar
  13. Camussi A., Jellum M.D. and Ottaviano E. 1980. Numerical taxonomy of Italian maize populations:. fatty acid composition and morphological traits. Maydica 25: 149–165.Google Scholar
  14. Dellaporta S.L., Wood J. and Hisks J.B. 1983. A plant DNA minipreparation. Version II. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 4: 19–21.Google Scholar
  15. Dice L.R. 1945. Measures of the amount of ecological association between species. Ecology 26: 297–302.Google Scholar
  16. Frankel O.H., Brown H.D. and Burdon J. 1995. The Conservation of Plant Biodiversity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Goodman M.M. and Stuber C.W. 1983. Races of maize. VI. Isohelpful zyme variation among races of maize in Bolivia. Maydica 28: 169–187.Google Scholar
  18. Goodman M.M. 1994. Maize. In: Simmonds N.W. (ed.), Evolution of Crop Plants. Longman Group, Ltd., Essex, UK.Google Scholar
  19. Gregorius H.R. 1987. The relationship between the concepts of genetic diversity and differentiation. Theor. Appl. Genet. 74: 397–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hallauer A.R., Russell W.A. and Lamkey K.R. 1998. Corn breeding. In: Sprague G.F. and Dudley J.W. (eds), Corn and Corn Improvement. Am. Soc. Agron., Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, USA, pp. 463–564.Google Scholar
  21. Kantety R.V., Xiaping Zeng, Bennetzen J.L. and Zehr B.E. 1995. Assessment of genetic diversity in dent and popocorn (Zea mays L.) inbred lines using inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) amplification. Mol. Breed. 1: 365–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kimura M. and Crow J.F. 1964. The number of alleles that can be maintained in a finite population. Genetics 49: 725–738.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lanza F. 1961. Un secolo di maiscoltura Italiana: 1861-1960 (One hundred years of corn growing in Italy: 1861-1960, with English summary). Maydica 6: 136–145.Google Scholar
  24. Levene H. 1949. On a matching problem in genetics. Ann. Math. Stat. 20: 91–92.Google Scholar
  25. Lewis P.O. and Zaykin D. 1999. GDA Version d12. University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM.Google Scholar
  26. Lewontin R.C. 1972. The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change. Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
  27. Louette D. and Smale M. 2000. Farmer's seed selection practices and traditional maize varieties in Cuzalapa, Mexico. Euphytica 113: 25–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Manly B.F.J. 1985. The Statistics of Natural Selection on Animal Populations. Chapman and Hall, London, UK.Google Scholar
  29. Mantel N.A. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res. 27: 209–220.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. McDermott J.M. and McDonald B.A. 1993. Gene flow in plant pathosystems. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 31: 353–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Melchinger A.E., Messmer M.M., Lee M., Woodman W.L. and Lamkey K.R. 1991. Diversity and relationships among U.S. maize inbreds revealed by restriction fragment length polymor-phisms. Crop Sci. 31: 669–678.Google Scholar
  32. Morgante M. and Olivieri A.M. 1993. PCR-amplified microsatellites as markers in plant gnetics. The Plant J. 3: 175–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nei M. 1973. Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 70: 3321–3323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Nei M. 1978. Estimation of average heterozigosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetics 89: 583–590.Google Scholar
  35. Nei M. and Li W.H. 1979. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 76: 5269–5273.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Pejic I., Ajmone-Marsan P., Morgante M., Kozumplick V., Castig-lioni P., Taramino G. et al. 1998. Comparative analysis of genetic similarity among maize inbred lines detected by RFLPs, RAPDs, SSRs, and AFLPs. Theor. Appl. Genet. 97: 1248–1255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pfluger L.A. and Schlatter A.R. 1996. Isozyme variation in some races of maize from Argentina. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 43: 357–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Powell W., Morgante M., Andre C., Hanafey M., Vogel J., Tingey G. et al. 1996. The comparison of RFLP, RAPD, AFLP and SSR (microsatellite) markers for germplasm analysis. Mol. Breed. 2: 225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Revilla P., Soengas P., Malvar R.A., Cartea M.E. and Ordas A. 1998. Isozyme variation and historical relationships among the maize races of Spain. Maydica 43: 175–182.Google Scholar
  40. Rohlf F.J. 1993. NTSYS-pc Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System. State University of New York, Stony Brook, NY, Version 1.8.Google Scholar
  41. Sambrook J., Fritsch E.F. and Maniatis T. 1989. Molecular Cloning, a Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, NY, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
  42. Sanau J., Gouesnard B. and Charrier A. 1997. Isozyme variability in West African maize cultivars (Zea mays L.). Maydica 42: 1–11.Google Scholar
  43. Senior M.L., Murphy J.P., Goodman M.M. and Stuber C.W. 1998. Utility of SSRs for determining genetic similarities and relation-ships in maize using an agarose gel system. Crop Sci. 38: 1088–1098.Google Scholar
  44. Smith J.S.C., Chin E.C.L., Shu H., Smith O.S., Wall S.J., Senior M.L. et al. 1997. An evaluation of the utility of SSR loci as molecular markers in maize (Zea mays L.):. comparisons with data from RFLPs and pedigree. Theor. Appl. Genet. 95: 163- 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smouse P.E., Neel J.V. and Liu W. 1983. Multiple-locus departures from panmictic equilibrium within and between village gene pools of Amerindian tribes at different stages of agglomeration. Genetics 104: 133–153.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Tautz D. 1988. Hypervariability of simple sequences as a general source for polymorphic DNA markers. Nucleic Acids Res. 17: 6463–6471.Google Scholar
  47. Taramino G. and Tingey S. 1996. Simple sequence repeats for germplasm analysis and mapping in maize. Genome 39: 277- 287.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Trifunovic V. 1978. Maize production and maize breeding in Europe. In: Walden D.B. (ed.), Maize Breeding and Genetics. John Wiley, New York, USA, pp. 49–50.Google Scholar
  49. Wright S. 1965. The interpretation of population structure by F-statistics with special regard to systems of mating. Evolution 19: 395–420.Google Scholar
  50. Wright S. 1978. Evolution and the Genetics of Populations. Variability Within and Among Natural Populations. University of Chicago Press, USA. 4.Google Scholar
  51. Zeven A.C. 1996. Results of activities to maintain landraces and other material in some European countries in situ before 1945 and what we learn from them. Genet. Res. and Crop Evol. 43: 337–341. 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zietkiewicz E., Rafalski A. and Labuda D. 1994. Genome fingerprinting by simple sequence repeat (SSR)-anchored polymerase chain reaction amplification. Genomics 20: 176–183.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Yeh F.C., Yang R.C. and Boyle T. 1997. POPGENE. CIFOR and University of Alberta, Canada, Version 1.21.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. Barcaccia
    • 1
  • M. Lucchin
    • 1
  • P. Parrini
    • 1
  1. 1.Dipartimento di Agronomia Ambientale e Produzioni Vegetali, Faculty of AgricultureUniversity of Padova, AgripolisLegnaroItaly

Personalised recommendations