Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Phylogenetic relationships between cultivated and wild species of the genusBeta revealed by DNA “fingerprinting”

  • Published:
Theoretical and Applied Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Forty-one accessions of the genusBeta representing wild and cultivated species of all sections were analyzed by DNA “fingerprinting”. Four sugar beet minisatellite DNA probes revealed characteristic banding patterns with Southern-hybridizedBeta DNA restricted withHindIII. A total of 111 polymorphic RFLP bands were scored across all accessions. Cluster analysis based on genetic similarity estimates for all 820 combinations of accessions revealed the following results. (1) All accessions could unambiguously be identified by a characteristic RFLP banding pattern. (2) The sugar beet cultivars examined displayed a low level of genetic diversity; they showed high similarity toB. Vulgaris ssp.maritima but low genetic similarity to the other wild species of section I. (3) In most cases, the present taxonomic classification of the genusBeta was confirmed. Species of sections II, III, and IV were clearly distinguishable from those of section I except forB. Macrocarpa, which showed high similarity to wild species of section II. In a second experiment, 108 single-copy RFLP probes from sugar beet were Southern hybridized withB. procumbens DNA. A surprisingly low degree of homology (34%) was found. The results are discussed with regard to the taxonomic classification of the genusBeta.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abe J, Shimamoto Y (1989) Evolutionary aspects and species relationships. In: Int Crop Network Ser 3. Rep IntBeta Genet Resources Workshop. Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN), Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp 71–79

  • Abe J, Tsuda C (1987) Genetic analysis for isozyme variation in the sectionVulgares, genusBeta Jpn J Breed 37:253–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonierbale MW, Plaisted RL, Tanksley SD (1988) RFLP maps based on a common set of clones reveal modes of chromosomal evolution in potato and tomato. Genetics 120:1095–1103

    Google Scholar 

  • Bosemark ND (1989) Prospects for breeding and use of genetic resources. In: Int Crop Network Ser 3. Rep IntBeta Genet Resources Workshop. Centre for Genetic Resources, the Netherlands (CGN), Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp 89–97

  • Buttler KP (1977 a) Revision vonBeta SektionCorollinae (Chenopodiaceae). I. Selbststerile Basisarten. Mitt Bot München 13:255–336

    Google Scholar 

  • Buttler KP (1977b) Variation in wild populations of annual beet (Beta, Chenopodiaceae). Plant Syst Evol 128:123–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Coons GH (1954) The wild species ofBeta. Proc Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 8:142–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Coons GH (1975) Interspecific hybrids betweenBeta vulgaris L. and the wild species ofBeta. Proc Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 8:281–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Debener T, Salamini F, Gebhardt C (1990) Phylogeny of wild and cultivatedSolanum species based on nuclear restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Theor Appl Genet 79:360–368

    Google Scholar 

  • Ecke W, Michaelis G (1990) Comparison of chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA from five morphologically distinctBeta vulgaris cultivars: sugar beet, fodder beet, beet root, foliage beet, and Swiss chard. Theor Appl Genet 79:440–442

    Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg AP, Vogelstein B (1983) A technique for radiolabelling DNA restriction endonuclease fragments to high specific activity. Anal Biochem 137:266–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer HE (1989) Origin of the “Weisse Schlesische Ruebe” (white Silesian beet) and resynthesis of sugar beet. Euphytica 41:75–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Frese L (1989) Les études écogéographiques comme base de la conservation des ressources génétiques. Colloque sur la conservation des espèes sauvages progénitrices des plantes cultivées. Conseil de l'Europe, DECOLL/GEN (89)5

  • Frese L, de Meijer E, Letschert J (1990) New wild beet genetic resources from Portugal and Spain. Zuckerind 115:950–955

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche K, Metzlaff M, Melzer R, Hagemann R (1987) Comparative restriction endonuclease analysis and molecular cloning of plastid DNAs from wild species and cultivated varieties of the genusBeta (L.). Theor Appl Genet 74:589–594

    Google Scholar 

  • Gebhardt C, Blomendahl C, Schachtschabel U, Debener T, Salamini F, Ritter E (1989) Identification of 2n breeding lines and 4n varieties of potato (Solanum tuberosum ssp.tuberosum) with RFLP-fingerprints. Theor Appl Genet 78:16–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gower JC (1972) Measures of taxonomic distance and their analysis. In: Weiner JS, Huizinga J (eds) The assessment of population affinities in man. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall R (1989) De produktie vonbeta hybriden. In: Jaarverslag 1989. Stichting voor Plantenveredeling SVP, Wageningen, the Netherlands, pp 45

    Google Scholar 

  • Havey MJ, Muehlbauer FJ (1989) Variability for restriction fragment lengths and phylogenies in lentil. Theor Appl Genet 77:839–843

    Google Scholar 

  • Heijbroek W, Roelands AJ, de Jong JH, van Hulst C, Schoone AHL, Munning RG (1988) Sugar beets homozygous for resistance to beet cyst nematode (Heterodera schachtii Schm) developed from monosomic additions ofBeta procumbens toB. vulgaris. Euphytica 38:121–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung C, Wricke G (1987) Selection of diploid nematode-resistant sugar beet from monosomic addition lines. Plant Breed 98:205–214

    Google Scholar 

  • Jung C, Kleine M, Fischer F, Herrmann RG (1990) Analysis of DNA from aBeta procumbens chromosome fragment in sugar beet carrying a gene for nematode resistance. Theor Appl Genet 79:663–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jung C, Koch R, Fischer F, Brandes A, Wricke G, Herrmann RG (1992) DNA markers closely linked to nematode resistance genes in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) using chromosome additions and translocations originating from wild beets of theProcumbentes species. Mol Gen Genet 232:271–278

    Google Scholar 

  • Kesseli R, Ochoa O, Michelmore R (1991) Variation at RFLP loci inLactuca spp. and origin of cultivated lettuce (L. sativa). Genome 34:430–436

    Google Scholar 

  • Lange W, de Bock TSM (1989) The diploidised meiosis of tetraploidBeta macrocarpa and its possible application in breeding sugar beet. Plant Breed 103:196–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller JC, Tanksley SD (1990) RFLP analysis of phylogenetic relationships and genetic variation in the genusLycopersicon. Theor Appl Genet 80:437–448

    Google Scholar 

  • Mita G, Dani M, Casciari P, Pasquali A, Selva E, Minganti C, Piccardi P (1991) Assessment of the degree of genetic variation in beet based on RFLP analysis and the taxonomy ofBeta. Euphytica 55:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagamine T, Catty JP, Ford-Lloyd BV (1989 a) Phenotypic polymorphism and allele differentiation of isozymes in fodder beet, multigerm sugar beet, and monogerm sugar beet. Theor Appl Genet 77:711–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagamine T, Todd GA, McCann KP, Newbury HJ, Ford-Lloyd BV (1989 b) Use of restriction fragment length polymorphism to fingerprint beets at the genotype and species level. Theor Appl Genet 78:847–851

    Google Scholar 

  • Nei M, Li WH (1979) Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76:5269–5273

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nybom H, Rogstad SH, Schaal BA (1990) Genetic variation detected by use of the M13 “DNA Fingerprint” probe inMalus, Prunus andRubus (Rosaceae). Theor Appl Genet 79:153–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldemeyer RK, Brewbaker HE (1956) Interspecific hybrids in the genusBeta. J Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 9:15–18

    Google Scholar 

  • Pillen K, Steinrücken G, Wricke G, Herrmann RG, Jung C (1992) A linkage map of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Theor Appl Genet 84:129–135

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogstad SH, Nybom H, Schaal BA (1991) The tetrapod “DNA fingerprinting” M13 repeat probe reveals genetic diversity and clonal growth in quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides, Saliceae). Plant Syst Evol 175:115–123

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogstad SH, Patton JC II., Schaal B (1988) M13 repeat probe detects DNA minisatellite-like sequences in gymnosperms and angiosperms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85:9176–9178

    Google Scholar 

  • Rohlf FJ (1989) NTSYS-pc numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system. Exeter, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Santoni S, Bervillé A (1992) Characterization of the nuclear ribosomal DNA units and phylogeny ofBeta L. wild forms and cultivated beets. Theor Appl Genet 83:533–542

    Google Scholar 

  • Savitsky H (1975) Hybridization betweenBeta vulgaris andB. Procumbens and transmission of nematode (Heterodera Schachtii) resistance to sugarbeet. Can J Genet Cytol 17:197–209

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt T, Jung C, Metzlaff M (1991) Distribution and evolution of two satellite DNAs in the genusBeta. Theor Appl Genet 82:793–799

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott HJ, Ford-Lloyd BV, Williams JT (1977)Patellifolia, nomen novum (Chenopodiaceae). Taxon 26:284

    Google Scholar 

  • Song K, Osborn TC, Williams PH (1990)Brassica taxonomy based on nuclear restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs). Theor Appl Genet 79:497–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner H, Gimbel E-M, Wricke G (1989) AreBeta procumbens Chr. Sm. andBeta webbiana Moq. different species? Plant Breed 102:17–21

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Botany, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Menzinger Strasse 67, 19, Munich, Germany

    C. Jung & K. Pillen

  2. Federal Agricultural Research Center, Institute of Crop Science, Bundesallee 50, W-3300, Braunschweig, Germany

    L. Frese

  3. Institute of Plant Breeding, Seed Science, and Population Genetics, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstrasse 21, Postfach 700562, 70, Stuttgart, Germany

    S. Fähr & A. E. Melchinger

Authors
  1. C. Jung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Pillen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. L. Frese
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Fähr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. A. E. Melchinger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Communicated by G. Wenzel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jung, C., Pillen, K., Frese, L. et al. Phylogenetic relationships between cultivated and wild species of the genusBeta revealed by DNA “fingerprinting”. Theoret. Appl. Genetics 86, 449–457 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00838560

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00838560

Key words

Search

Navigation