Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 46, Issue 1, pp 1–9 | Cite as

Applicability of CAAT Box-derived Polymorphism (CBDP) Markers for Analysis of Genetic Diversity in Durum Wheat

  • A. EtminanEmail author
  • A. Pour-Aboughadareh
  • R. Mohammadi
  • A. Noori
  • A. Ahmadi-Rad
Open Access


Progress in plant molecular tools has been resulted in the development of gene-targeted and functional marker systems. CAAT box region is a different pattern of nucleotides with a consensus sequence, GGCCAATCT, which situated upstream of the start codon of eukaryote genes and plays an important role during transcription. In the present study, several CAAT box-derived polymorphism (CBDP) primers were used for fingerprinting in mini-core collection of durum wheat (including internationally developed breeding lines and Iranian landraces). Twelve selected primers amplified 98 loci, of which all were polymorphic. The average values of the polymorphism information content (PIC) and resolving power (Rp) were 0.31 and 9.16, respectively, indicating a high level of variability among studied genotypes. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) indicated that 92% of the total variation resided among populations. The values of the percentage polymorphic bands (PPL), the observed (Na) and effective (Ne) number of alleles, Nei’s gene diversity (He) and Shannon’s information index (I) for Iranian landraces were higher than the breeding lines. The Fandendrogram obtained by cluster analysis grouped all individuals into three main clusters. Our results showed a remarkable level of genetic diversity among studied durum wheat, especially among Iranian landraces, which can be interest for future breeding programs. More importantly, the present study also revealed that CBDP technique was efficient and powerful tool to assess genetic diversity in wheat germplasm. Hence, this technique could be employed individually or in combination with other molecular markers to evaluate genetic diversity and relations among different species.


durum wheat genetic variability CBDP Iranian landraces 



The authors are grateful to Kermanshah Branch, Islamic Azad University for hosting the lab facilities.

Supplementary material

42976_2018_4601001_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (148 kb)
Applicability of CAAT Box-derived Polymorphism (CBDP) Markers for Analysis of Genetic Diversity in Durum Wheat


  1. Alikhani, L., Rahmani, M.S., Shabanian, N., Badakhshan, H., Khadivi-Khub, A. 2014. Genetic variability and structure of Quercus brantii assessed by ISSR, IRAP and SCoT markers. Gene 552:176–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alsaleh, A., Shehzad Baloch, F., Nachit, M., Ozkan, H. 2016. Phenotypic and genotypic intra-diversity among Anatolian durum wheat “Kunduru” landraces. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 65:9–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, J.R., Lubberstedt, T. 2003. Functional markers in plants. Trends Plant. Sci. 8:554–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benoist, C., Ohare, K., Breathnach, R., Chambon, P. 1980. The ovalbumin gene-sequence of putative control regions. Nucleic Acids Res. 8:127–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collard, B.C.Y., Mackill, D.J. 2009. Conserved DNA-derived polymorphism (CDDP): a simple and novel method for generating DNA markers in plants. Plant. Mol. Biol. Report. 27:558–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doyle, J.J., Doyle, J.L. 1987. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochemical. Bulletin 19:11–15.Google Scholar
  7. Dumolin-Lapegue, S., Demesure, B., Fineschi, S., Le Corre, V., Petit, R.J. 1997. Phylogeographic structure of white oaks throughout the European continent. Genetics 146:1475–1487.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Etminan, A., Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Mohammadi, R., Ahmadi-Rad, A., Noori, A., Mahdavian, Z., Moradi, Z. 2016. Applicability of start codon targeted (SCoT) and inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers for genetic diversity analysis in durum wheat genotypes. Biotechnol. Biotec. Eq. 30:1075–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Guo, D.L., Zhang, J.Y., Liu, C.H. 2012. Genetic diversity in some grape varieties revealed by SCoT analyses. Mol. Biol. Rep. 39:5307–5313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamidi, H., Talebi, R., Keshavarz, F. 2014. Comparative efficiency of functional gene-based markers, start codon targeted polymorphism (SCoT) and conserved DNA-derived polymorphism (CDDP) with ISSR markers for diagnostic fingerprinting in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Cereal. Res. Commun. 42:558–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamrick, J.L., Godt, M.J.W., Murawski, D.A., Loveless, M.D. 1991. Correlation between species traits and allozyme diversity: implications for conservation biology. In: Falk, D.A., Holsinger, K.E. (eds), Genetic and Conservation of Rare Plants. Oxford University Press. New York, USA. pp. 75–86.Google Scholar
  12. Jaccard, P. 1908. New research on the floral distribution. Sci. Naturelles 44:223–270.Google Scholar
  13. Jing, R., Vershinin, A., Grzebyta, J., Shaw, P., Smykal, P., Marshall, D., Ambrose, M.H., Ellis, T.H.N., Flavell, A.J. 2010. The genetic diversity and evolution of field pea (Pisum) studied by high throughput retrotransposon based insertion polymorphism (RBIP) marker analysis. BMC Evol. Biol. 10:44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mardi, M., Naghavi, M.R., Pirseyedi, S.M., Kazemi Alamooti, M., Rashidi Monfared, S., Ahkami, A.H., Omidbakhsh, M.A., Alavi, N.S., Salehi Shanjani, P., Katsiotis, A. 2011. Comparative assessment of SSAP, AFLP and SSR markers for evaluation of genetic diversity of durum wheat (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum). J. Agr. Sci. Tech. 13:905–920.Google Scholar
  15. Nei, M. 1978. Estimation of average heterozygosity and genetic distance from a small number of individuals. Genetic 89:583–590.Google Scholar
  16. Peakall, R., Smouse, P.E. 2006. GENALEX 6: genetic analysis in excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research. Mol. Ecol. Notes 6:288–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Poczai, P., Varga, I., Laos, M., Cseh, A., Bell, N., Valkonen, J.P. Hyvonen, J. 2013. Advances in plant gene-targeted and functional markers: a review. Plant. Methods. 9:1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Mohmoudi, M., Ahmadi, J., Moghaddam, M., Mehrabi, A.A., Alavikia, S.S. 2017. Agro-morphological and molecular variability in Triticum boeoticum accessions from Zagros Mountains, Iran. Genet. Resour. Crop. Evol. 64:545–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poursiahbidi, M., Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Tahmasebi, G., Seyedi, A, Jasemi, M. 2012. Factor analysis of agro-morphological characters in wheat (Triticum durum Def.) lines. Int. J. Agric. Crop. Sci. 23:1758–1762.Google Scholar
  20. Poursiahbidi, M., Pour-Aboughadareh, A., Tahmasebi, G., Teymoori, M., Jasemi, M. 2013. Evaluation of genetic diversity and interrelationships of agro-morphological characters in durum wheat (Triticum durum desf.) lines using multivariate analysis. Intl. J. Agric. Res. Rev. 3:184–194.Google Scholar
  21. Powell, W., Morgante, M., Andre, C., Hanafey, M.M., Vogel, J., Tingey, S., Rafalski, A. 1996. The comparison of RFLP, RAPD, AFLP and SSR (microsatellite) markers for germplasm analysis. Mol. Breed. 2:225–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Que, Y., Pan, Y., Lu, Y., Cui, Y., Yuting, Y., Ning, H., Xu, L. 2014. Genetic analysis of diversity within a Chinese local sugarcane germplasm based on Start Codon Targeted Polymorphism. Bio. Med. Res. Int. ID 468375:1–10.Google Scholar
  23. Singh, A.K., Rana, M.K., Singh, S., Kumar, S., Kumar, R., Singh, R. 2014. CAAT box-derived polymorphism (CBDP): a novel promoter-targeted molecular marker for plants. J. Plant. Biochem. Biotechnol. 23:175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tamura, K., Peterson, D., Peterson, N., Stecher, G., Nei, M., Kumar, S. 2011. MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Mol. Biol. Evol. 28:2731–2739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright, S. 1951. The genetical structure of populations. Ann. Eugen. 15:323–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Yeh, F., Yang, R., Boyle, T. 1997. POPGENE, the user friendly shareware for population genetic analysis. Molecular Biology and Biotechnology Center. University of Alberta, Edmonton.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2018

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Etminan
    • 1
    Email author
  • A. Pour-Aboughadareh
    • 2
  • R. Mohammadi
    • 3
  • A. Noori
    • 1
  • A. Ahmadi-Rad
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Biotechnology and Plant Breeding, College of Agriculture, Kermanshah BranchIslamic Azad UniversityKermanshahIran
  2. 2.Department of Crop production and BreedingImam Khomeini International UniversityQazvinIran
  3. 3.Dryland Agricultural Research Institute, Sararood branch, Agriculture ResearchEducation and Extension Organization (AREEO)KermanshahIran
  4. 4.Young Researchers and Elite Club, Kermanshah BranchIslamic Azad UniversityKermanshahIran

Personalised recommendations