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.)
Three molecular markering techniques: inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR); start codon targeted (SCoT), conserved DNA-derived polymorphism (CDDP) markers were compared for fingerprinting of 40 varieties of bread wheat. The number of scoreable and polymorphic bands produced using the ISSR, SCoT and CDDP primers for varieties was more than that of genotypes. Average polymorphism information content (PIC) for ISSR, SCoT and CDDP markers was 0.39, 0.41 and 0.34, respectively, and this revealed that three different marker types were equal for the assessment of diversity amongst genotypes. Cluster analysis for three different molecular types revealed that genotypes taken for the analysis can be divided in three and four distinct clusters. There were no significant differences among these markers in terms of the evaluation of genotypes. These results suggest that efficiency of SCoT, CDDP and ISSR markers was relatively the same in fingerprinting of genotypes but SCoT and CDDP analysis are more effective in fingerprinting of wheat genotypes. To our knowledge, this was the first detailed report of a comparison of performance among two targeted DNA region molecular markers (SCoT and CDDP) in comparision with ISSR technique on a set of samples of wheat cultivars. Overall, our results indicate that SCoT, ISSR and CDDP fingerprinting could be used to detect polymorphism for genotypes of wheat.
Keywordswheat genetic diversity ISSR SCoT CDDP
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Eivazi A.R., Naghavi M.R., Hajhaydari M., Piseyedi S.M., Ghaffari M.R., Mohammadi S.A., Majidi I., Salekdeh G.H., Mardi M. 2008. Assessing wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genetic diversity using quality traits, amplified fragment length polymorphisms, simple sequence repeats and proteome analysis. Ann. Appl. Biol. 152:81–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Perrier X., Flori A., Bonnot F. 2003. Data analysis methods. In: Hamon P., Seguin M., Perrier X., Glaszmann J.C. (eds), Genetic Diversity of Cultivated Tropical Plants. Science Publishers Enfield, Montpellier, pp. 43–76.Google Scholar
- Perrier X., Jacquemoud-Collet J.P. 2006. DARwin software, https://doi.org/darwin.cirad.fr/darwin
- Rohlf F.J. 1998. NTSYS-pc Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System. Version 2.02. Exeter Publications Setauket, New York, USA.Google Scholar
- Roldan-Ruiz I., van Eeuwijk F.A., Gilliland T.J., Dubreuil P., Dillmann C., Lallemand J., De Loose M., Baril C.P. 2001. A comparative study of molecular and morphological methods of describing relationships between perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) varieties. Theor. Appl. Genet. 103:1138–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Talebi R., Fayyaz F., Karami M. 2012. Morphometric and amplified fragment length polymorphism marker analysis in some landrace wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes collected from north-west of Iran. Environ. Exp. Biol. 10:49–56.Google Scholar
- Ullah I. 2009. Molecular genetic studies for drought tolerance in cotton. PhD thesis, Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad, Pakistan.Google Scholar
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), 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.