Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 373–381 | Cite as

Applicability of biochemical and genetic markers in the polymorphism analysis of maize lines

  • E. NagyEmail author
  • T. Spitkó
  • L. C. Marton


The guidelines elaborated by the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) of the European Union for the registration and patenting of varieties and hybrids of cultivated crops are based on the triple criteria of distinctiveness, uniformity and stability (DUS). For many species, however, morphological descriptions are not sufficient for the detection of differences between varieties. Techniques that allow varieties to be identified and distinguished precisely and reliably are essential not only for variety identification, but also to protect variety ownership rights. Biochemical and molecular genetic methods have now reached a level of development that makes them suitable for this purpose, and when these are combined with conventional field observations the breeding stock can be unequivocally identified and any existing genetic diversity can be detected. The regular application of such analyses is a fundamental criterion in the case of maize, as more and more closely related hybrids are being entered for testing.

The aim of the present work was to examine how isoenzyme patterns and PCR-based genetic markers could be used in polymorphism analysis, in order to obtain information on the genetic diversity of Hungarian breeding materials. The emphasis was on finding genetic markers characteristic of individual maize varieties, rather than of maize as a species.


maize isoenzyme pattern RAPD SSR 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Botstein, D., Hite, R.L., Skonic, M., David, R. W. 1980. Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 32:314–331.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bretting, P.K., Goodman, M.M. 1986. Numerical taxonomic analysis of karyomorphological variation in Mexican and Central American races of maize (Zea mays ssp. mays). Am. J. Bot. 73:682–683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brown, S.M., Hopkins, M.S., Mitchell, S.E., Senior, M.L., Wang, T.Y., Duncan, R.R., Gonzalez-Candelas, F., Kresovich, S. 1996. Multiple methods for the identification of polymorphic simple sequence repeats (SSRs) in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). Theor. Appl. Genet. 93:190–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camussi, A., Jellium, M.D., Ottaviano, E. 1980. Numerical taxonomy of Italian Maize populations: Fatty acid composition and morphological traits. Maydica 25:149–165.Google Scholar
  5. Cardy, B.J., Kannenberg, L.W. 1982. Allozymic variability among maize inbred lines and hybrids: applications for cultivar identification. Crop Sci. 22:1016–1020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dice, L.R. 1945. Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dweikat, I., Ohm, H., Mackenzie, S., Patterson, F., Cambron, S., Ratcliffe, R. 1994. Association of a DNA marker with Hessian fly resistance gene H9 in wheat. Theor. Appl. Genet. 89:964–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Union Community Plant Variety Office. 2001. Protocol for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability Tests. Zea mays L. (Maize). Angers, France.Google Scholar
  9. Gebhardt, C., Ritter, E., Barone, A., Debener, T., Walkemeier, B., Schachtschabel, U., Kaufmann, H., Thompson, R.D., Bonierbale, M.W., Ganal, M.W., Tanksley, S.D., Salamini, F. 1991. RFLP maps of potato and their alignment with the homoeologous tomato genome. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83:49–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gerdes, J.T., Behr, C.F., Coors, J.G., Tracy, W.F. 1994. Compilation of North American Maize Breeding Germ Plasm. Crop Science Society of America, Madison, WI, USA.Google Scholar
  11. Goodman, M.M., Stuber, C.W. 1983. Races of maize. VI. Isozyme variation among races of maize in Bolivia. Maydica 28:169–187.Google Scholar
  12. Gyulai, G., Gémesné, J.A., Sági, Zs., Venczel, G., Pintér, P., Kristóf, Z., Törjék, O., Heszky, L., Bottka, S., Kiss, J., Zatykó, L. 2000. Doubled haploid development and PCR-analysis of F 1 hybrid derived DH-R 2 paprika (Capsicum annuum L.) lines. J. Plant Physiol. 156:168–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Law, J.R., Cooke, R.J., Reeves, J.C., Donini, P., Smith, J.S.C. 1999. Most similar variety comparisons as a grouping tool. Special issue: Cultivar group classification. Plant Varieties and Seeds 12:181–190.Google Scholar
  14. Liu, X.Z., Peng, Z.B., Fu, J.H., Huang, C.L. 1998. Maize inbred line grouping by using cluster analysis of RAPD molecular marker, phenotype and heterosis. Acta Agriculturae Boreali Sinica 13:36–41.Google Scholar
  15. Messelson, M., Yuan, R. 1968. DNA restriction enzyme from E. coli. Nature 217:1110–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nagy, E. 2004. Studies on polymorphism and related genetic groups in maize. Ph.D. dissertation, 115 pp.Google Scholar
  17. Shieh, G.J., Thseng, F.S. 2002. Genetic diversity of Tainan, white maize inbred lines and prediction of single cross hybrid performance using RAPD markers. Euphytica 124:307–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Smith, J.S.C., Chin, E.C.L., Shu, H., Smith, O.S., Wall, S.J., Senior, M.L., Mitchell, S.E., Kresowitch, S., Ziegl, E.J. 1997. An evaluation of the utility of SSR éoci as molecular markers in maize (Zea mays L.): Comparison with data from RFLPs and pedigree. Theor. Appl. Genet. 95:163–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, J.S.C., Smith, O.S. 1989a. The use of morphological, biochemical, and genetic characteristics to measure distance and to test for minimum distance between inbred lines of maize (Zea mays L.). Upov Workshop, 20 pp.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, J.S.C., Smith, O.S. 1989b. The description and assessment of distance between inbred lines of maize: I. The use of morphological traits as descriptors. Maydica 34:141–150.Google Scholar
  21. Smith, J.S.C., Smith, O.S. 1989c. The description and assessment of distances between inbred lines of maize: II. The utility of morphological, biochemical, and genetic descriptors and a scheme for the testing of distinctiveness between inbred lines. Maydica 34:151–161.Google Scholar
  22. Smith, J.S.C., Smith, O.S. 1992. Measurement of genetic diversity among maize hybrids: A comparison of isozymic, RFLP, pedigree and heterosis data. Maydica 37:53–60.Google Scholar
  23. Smith, O.S., Smith, J.S.C., Bowen, S.L., Tenborg, R.A., Wall, S.J. 1990. Similarities among a group of elite maize inbreds as measured by pedigree, F1 grain yield, grain yield, heterosis, and RFLPs. Theor. Appl. Genet. 80:833–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stuber, C.W., Moll, R.H. 1972. Frequency changes of isozyme alleles in a selection experiment for grain yield in maize (Zea mays L.) Crop Sci. 12:337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Stuber, C.W., Wendel, J.F., Goodman, M.M., Smith, J.S.C. 1988. Techniques and scoring procedure for starch gel electrophoresis of enzymes from maize. Technical Bulletin 286:1–87.Google Scholar
  26. Sturtevant, E.L. 1899. Varieties of corn. USDA Off. EXP. STN. Bull. 57:1–108.Google Scholar
  27. Weining, S., Langridge, P. 1991. Identification and mapping of polymorphisms in cereals based on the polymerase chain reaction. Theor. Appl. Genet. 82:209–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Agricultural Research Institute of the Hungarian Academy of SciencesMartonvásárHungary

Personalised recommendations