Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 50, Issue 1, pp 65–74 | Cite as

Genetic relationships among cultivated types of Perilla frutescens and their weedy types in East Asia revealed by AFLP markers

  • Ju Kyong Lee
  • Ohmi Ohnishi


AFLP markers were employed to detect genetic diversity in two cultivated Perilla frutescens (i.e. var. frutescens and var. crispa) and their weedy types and to assess their genetic relationships. Analysis of 60 Perilla accessions from China, Korea and Japan by seven AFLP primer combinations identified a total of 125 fragments, of which 80 (64%) were polymorphic at the species level. The phenotypic diversity meassured by Shannon's index of information for the cultivated type of var. frutescens, the weedy type of var. frutescens, the cultivated type of var. crispa and the weedy type of var. crispa were on average 1.07, 2.23, 1.24 and 1.75, respectively. The weedy types exhibited high within-type variation in spite of a small number of samples. In the neighbor joining tree, two major clusters were recognized: (1) cultivated type of var. frutescens, (2) weedy type of var. frutescens, and cultivated and weedy types of var. crispa. The cultivated types of var. frutescens and of var. crispa were sharply separated by AFLPs. However, there remained ambiguities in regard to the intraspecific relaltionships, due to the clustering of the weedy types which occured in each of the clusters of the cultivated types. Two cultivated types of P. frutescens and their weedy types should be taxonomically considered as a P. frutescens complex. The present AFLP data are consistent with the hypothesis that China is the original place of cultivation of var. frutescens and Korea is a secondary center of diffusion of var. frutescens.

AFLP Cultivated and weedy types Genetic relationship Perilla frutescens Phenotypic diversity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Becker J., Vos P., Kuiper M., Salamini F. and Heun M. 1995. Combined mapping of AFLP and RFLP markers in barley. Mol. Gen. Genet. 249: 65–73.Google Scholar
  2. Browman K.D., Hutcheson K., Odum E.P. and Shenton L.R. 1971. Comments on the distribution of indices of diversity. Stat. Ecol. 3: 315–359.Google Scholar
  3. Felsenstein J. 1985. Confidence limits on phylogenies. An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783–791.Google Scholar
  4. Hancock J.F. 1992. Plant Evolution and the Origin of Crop Species. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.Google Scholar
  5. Honda G., Koezuka Y. and Tabata M. 1990. Genetic studies of fruit color and hardness in Perilla frutescens. Jpn. J. Breed. 40: 469–474.Google Scholar
  6. Honda G., Yuba A., Kojima T. and Tabata M. 1994. Chemotaxonomic and cytogenetic studies on Perilla frutescens var. citiodora (“Lemon Egoma”). Natural Medicine 48: 185–190.Google Scholar
  7. Koezuka Y., Honda G., Sakamoto S. and Tabata M. 1985. Genetic control of anthocyanin production on Perilla frutescens. Shoyakugaku Zasshi 39: 228–231.Google Scholar
  8. Koezuka Y., Honda G. and Tabata M. 1986. Genetic control of the chemical composition of volatile oils in Perilla frutescens. Phytochemistry 26: 859–863.Google Scholar
  9. Le Thierry d'Ennequin M., Panaud O., Toupance B. and Sarr A. 2000. Assessment of genetic relationships between Setaria italica and its wild relative S. viridis using AFLP markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 100: 1061–1066.Google Scholar
  10. Lee J.K. and Ohnishi O. 2001. Geographical differentiation of morphological characters among Perilla crops and their weedy types in East Asia. Breeding Sci. 51: 247–255.Google Scholar
  11. Li H.L. 1969. The vegetables of ancient China. Econ. Bot. 23: 235–260.Google Scholar
  12. Mace E.S., Lester R.N. and Gebhardt C.G. 1999. AFLP analysis of genetic relationships among the cultivated eggplant, Solanum melongena L., and wild relatives (Solanaceae). Theor. Appl. Genet. 99: 626–633.Google Scholar
  13. Makino T. 1961. Makino's New Illustrated Flora of Japan. Hokuryukan, Tokyo, (in Japanese).Google Scholar
  14. Maughan P.J., SaghaiMaroof M.A., Buss G.R. and Huestis G.M. 1996. Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) in soybean. Species diversity, inheritance, and nearisogenic line analysis. Theor. Appl. Genet. 93: 392–401.Google Scholar
  15. Meksem K., Leister D., Peleman J., Zabeau M., Salamini F. and Gebhardt C. 1995. A high resolution map of the vicinity of the RI locus on chromosome V of potato based on RFLP and AFLP markers. Mol. Gen. Genet. 249: 74–81.Google Scholar
  16. Nagai I. 1935. On “Shiso” and “Egoma”. Agriculture and HorDeticulture 10 (in Japanese): 2265–2273.Google Scholar
  17. Nei M. and Li W.H. 1979. Mathematical model for studying genetical variation in terms of restiction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 74: 5267–5273.Google Scholar
  18. Nitta M. and Ohnishi O. 1999. Genetic relationships among two Perilla crops, shiso and egoma, and the weedy type revealed by RAPD markers. Jpn. J. Genet. 74: 43–48.Google Scholar
  19. Nitta M. 2001. Origin of Perilla crops and their weedy type, PhD, Kyoto University, Kyoto.Google Scholar
  20. Paul S., Wachira F.N., Powell W. and Waugh R. 1997. Diversity and genetic differentiation among populations of Indian and Kenyan tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntzu) revealed by AFLP markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 94: 255–263.Google Scholar
  21. Saitou N. and Nei M. 1987. The neighbor joining method. A new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol. Biol. Evol. 4: 406–425.Google Scholar
  22. Sharma S.K., Knox M.R. and Ellis T.H.N. 1996. AFLP analysis of the diversity and phylogeny of Lens and its comparison with RAPD analysis. Theor. Appl. Genet. 93: 751–758.Google Scholar
  23. Swofford D.L. 1999. PAUP, phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 4.0b4a. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, M.A.Google Scholar
  24. Vos P., Hogers R., Bleeker M., Reijans M., van de Lee T., Hornes M. et al. 1995. AFLP. A new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res. 23: 4407–4414.Google Scholar
  25. Wachira F.N., Waug R., Hackett C.A. and Powell W. 1995. Detection of genetic diversity in tea (Camellia sinensis) using RAPD markers. Genome 38: 201–210.Google Scholar
  26. Yamane Y. 1950. Cytogenetic studies in Perilla and coleus. I. Chromosome Numbers. Jpn. J. Genet. 25 (in Japanese): 220.Google Scholar
  27. Zabeau M. and Vos P. 1993. Selective restriction fragment amplification. A general method for DNA fingerprinting. European Patent Application. No. 0534858 A1.Google Scholar
  28. Zeven A.C. and deWet J.M.J. 1982. Dictionary of Cultivated Plants and Their Regions of Diversity. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ju Kyong Lee
    • 1
  • Ohmi Ohnishi
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant Germ-Plasm Institute, Faculty of AgricultureKyoto UniversityMuko cityJapan

Personalised recommendations