Advertisement

Using Genome In Situ Hybridization (GISH) to Distinguish the Constituent Genomes of Brassica nigra and B. rapa in the Hybrid B. juncea

  • Zeeshan Shamim
  • Susan J. ArmstrongEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 2061)

Abstract

The genome in situ hybridization (GISH) technique has become important for deciphering the organization of the constituent genomes in the allopolyploid plants that comprise many of the crop species. This technique comprises using the nuclear DNA from the constituent genomes as probes that have been labeled separately with different nucleotides that can be identified by using secondary antibodies. The Brassica family includes a range of mustard species with diverse phytochemical and morphological profile, hence making it an important plant family in agriculture. Meiosis is a specialized cellular division which brings the homologous chromosomes together and creates recombinants via pairing and synapsis during its early phase. Transfer of the genetic material within homoelog pairs creates novelty in subsequent generations which hold promise for improving the agriculture sector. This chapter is concerned with developing a GISH technique that discriminates between the constituent genomes in the allopolyploid B. juncea, in order to study meiosis.

Key words

DNA probe In situ hybridization Chromosomes Allopolyploid Brassica Meiosis 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Eugenio Sanchez Moran and Elaine Howell for the help and discussion in the laboratory. For technical assistance we would thank Steve Price and Karen Staples.

References

  1. 1.
    Schwarzacher T, Leitch AR, Bennett MD, Heslop-Harrison JS (1989) In situ localization of parental genomes in a wide hybrid. Ann Bot 64(3):315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Stevenson M, Armstrong SJ, Ford-Lloyd BV, Jones GH (1998) Comparative analysis of crossover exchanges and chiasmata in Allium cepa x fistulosum after genomic in situ hybridization (GISH). Chromosome Research 6: 567–574.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Howell EC, Kearsey MJ, Jones GH, King GJ, Armstrong SJ (2008) A and C genome and chromosome identification in Brassica napus by sequential FISH and GISH. Genetics 180:1849–1857CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Howell EC and Armstrong SJ (2013) Using sequential fluorescence and genomic in situ hybridization (FISH and GISH) to distinguish the A and C genomes in Brassica napus Wojciech. In: Pawlowski P et al. (eds) Plant meiosis: methods and protocols, methods in molecular biology, vol. 990. Springer Science+Business Media, New York, pp 38–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-62703-333-6_3
  5. 5.
    Song KM, Osborn TC, Williams PH (1990) Brassica taxonomy based on nuclear restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLPs) 3. Genome relationship in Brassica and related genera and the origin of B. oleracea and Brassica rapa (syn. Campestris). Theor Appl Genet 79:497–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pradhan AK, Prakash S, Mukhopadhyay A, Pental D (1992) Phytogeny of Brassica and allied genera based on variation in chloroplast and mitochondrial DNA patterns: molecular and taxonomic classifications are incongruous. Theor Appl Genet 85(2–3):331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Warwick SI, Black LD (1991) Molecular systematics of Brassica and allied genera (subtribe Brassicinae Brassicae) chloroplast genome and cytodeme congruence. Theor Appl Genet 82:81–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BiosciencesUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Department of BiotechnologyMirpur University of Science and Technology (MUST)Mirpur Azad KashmirPakistan

Personalised recommendations