Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:37:12.221Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Genetic diversity within Lablab purpureus and the application of gene-specific markers from a range of legume species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 November 2007

S. C. Venkatesha
Affiliation:
University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK Campus, Bangalore 560065 Karnataka, India
M. Byre Gowda
Affiliation:
University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK Campus, Bangalore 560065 Karnataka, India
P. Mahadevu
Affiliation:
University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK Campus, Bangalore 560065 Karnataka, India
A. Mohan Rao
Affiliation:
University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK Campus, Bangalore 560065 Karnataka, India
D.-J. Kim
Affiliation:
International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), C/O Biosciences Eastern and Central Africa (BECA). PO Box 30709, Nairobi, Kenya
T. H. N. Ellis
Affiliation:
John Innes Centre, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK
M. R. Knox*
Affiliation:
John Innes Centre, Colney Lane, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK
*
*Corresponding author. [email protected]

Abstract

Molecular markers have been used to study genetic diversity within a set of Lablab purpureus accessions collected from the southern states of India. Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) molecular marker studies using a total of 78 L. purpureus accessions with nine primer combinations showed there was very little genetic diversity within the L. purpureus accessions from the southern Indian germplasm collection as compared to a set of 15 accessions from other international germplasm collections that included African accessions. The set of 15 were selected from a random amplified length polymorphism (RAPD) marker study and chosen on the basis of widest genetic distance. Further molecular analysis with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) markers from 97 expressed sequence tag (EST) and gene-specific primer pairs, designed from a range of legume sequences, concurred with the AFLP analyses. Both of these approaches provide a wealth of markers for diversity and mapping studies. The 97 sequence-specific primer pairs tested in L. purpureus resulted in 70% amplification success, with 44% of primer pairs amplifying single bands and 10% double bands. Markers generated from these EST and genomic sequences provide useful cross-reference to comparative legume genomics that will potentially have long-term benefit to legume plant breeding.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Basavarajappa, PS and Byre Gowda, M (2000) Genetic divergence among field bean (Lablab purpureus L. Sweet) cultivars of Southern Karnataka. Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources 13: 134137.Google Scholar
Bassam, BJ and Caetano-Anollés, G (1993) Silver staining of DNA in polyacrylamide gels. Applied Biochemistry and Biotechnology 42: 181188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boutin, SR, Young, ND, Olson, TC, Yu, ZH, Shoemaker, RC and Vallejos, CE (1995) Genome conservation among 3 legume genera detected with DNA markers. Genome 38: 928937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champ, MM-J, Anderson, JW and Bach-Knudsen, K-E (eds) (2002) Pulses and human health. British Journal of Nutrition 88 (Suppl 3): S237S319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, H-K, Kim, D, Uhm, T, Limpens, E, Lim, H, Mun, J-H, Kalo, P, Penmetsa, RV, Seres, A, Kulikova, O, Roe, BA, Bisseling, T, Kiss, GB and Cook, DR (2004a) A sequence-based genetic map of Medicago truncatula and comparison of marker colinearity with M. sativa. Genetics 166: 14631502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Choi, H-K, Mun, J-H, Kim, D-J, Zhu, H, Baek, J-M, Mudge, J, Roe, B, Ellis, N, Doyle, J, Kiss, GB, Young, ND and Cook, DR (2004b) Estimating genome conservation between crop and model legume species. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 101: 1528915294.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronk, Q, Ojeda, I and Pennington, RT (2006) Legume comparative genomics: progress in phylogenetics and phylogenomics. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 9: 99103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doyle, JJ (1995) DNA data and legume phylogeny: a progress report. In: Crisp, M and Doyle, JJ (eds) Advances in Legume Systematics 7: Phylogeny. London: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp. 1130.Google Scholar
Ellis, THN, Davies, DR, Castleton, JA and Bedford, ID (1984) The organization and genetics of rDNA length variants in peas. Chromosoma 91: 7481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, THN, Poyser, SJ, Knox, MR, Vershinin, AV and Ambrose, MJ (1998) Polymorphism of insertion sites of Ty1-copia class retrotransposons and its use for linkage and diversity analysis in pea. Molecular and General Genetics 260: 919.Google ScholarPubMed
Eujayl, I, Sledge, MK, Wang, L, May, GD, Chekhovskiy, K, Zwonitzer, JC and Mian, MAR (2004) Medicago truncatula EST-SSRs reveal cross-species genetic markers for Medicago spp. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 108: 414422.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fatokun, CA, Menanciohautea, DI, Danesh, D and Young, ND (1992) Evidence for orthologous seed weight genes in cowpea and mung bean based on RFLP mapping. Genetics 132: 841846.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, PH and Vance, CP (2003) Legumes: importance and constraints to greater use. Plant Physiology 131: 872877.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gur, A and Zamir, D (2004) Unused natural variation can lift yield barriers in plant breeding. PLoS Biology 2: 16101615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gutierrez, MV, Patto, MCV, Huguet, T, Cubero, JI, Moreno, MT and Torres, AM (2005) Cross-species amplification of Medicago truncatula microsatellites across three major pulse crops. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 110: 12101217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Humphry, ME, Konduri, V, Lambrides, CJ, Magner, T, McIntyre, CL, Aitken, EAB and Liu, CJ (2002) Development of a mungbean (Vigna radiata) RFLP linkage map and its comparison with lablab (Lablab purpureus) reveals a high level of colinearity between the two genomes. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 105: 160166.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kalo, P, Seres, A, Taylor, SA, Jakab, J, Kevei, Z, Kereszt, A, Endre, G, Ellis, THN and Kiss, GB (2004) Comparative mapping between Medicago sativa and Pisum sativum. Molecular Genetics and Genomics 272: 235246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karp, A, Seberg, O and Buiatti, M (1996) Molecular techniques in the assessment of botanical diversity. Annals of Botany 78: 143149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kochert, G, Halward, T and Stalker, HT (1996) Genetic variation in peanut and its implications in plant breeding. In: Pickersgill, B and Lock, JM (eds) Advances in Legume Systematics 8: Legumes of Economic Importance. London: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp. 1930.Google Scholar
Lackey, JA (1981) Tribe 10. Phaseoleae DC. In: Polhill, RM and Raven, PH (eds) Advances in Legume Systematics, Part 1. London: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp. 301306.Google Scholar
Ladizinsky, G (1998) Plant Evolution under Domestication. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, CJ (1996) Genetic diversity and relationships among Lablab purpureus genotypes evaluated using RAPD as markers. Euphytica 90: 115119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, J, Knox, MR, Ambrose, MJ, Brown, JKM and Ellis, THN (1996) Comparative analysis of genetic diversity in pea assessed by RFLP- and PCR-based methods. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 93: 11031111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maass, BL (2006) Changes in seed morphology, dormancy and germination from wild to cultivated hyacinth bean germplasm (Lablab purpureus: Papilionoideae). Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 53: 11271135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maass, BL, Jamnadass, RH, Hanson, J and Pengelly, BC (2005) Determining sources of diversity in cultivated and wild Lablab purpureus related to provenance of germplasm by using amplified fragment length polymorphism. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 52: 683695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mahadevu, P and Byre Gowda, M (2005) Genetic improvement of Dolichos bean (Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet) through use of exotic and indigenous germplasm. Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources 18: 4748.Google Scholar
Maughan, PJ, Maroof, MAS and Buss, GR (1996) Molecular-marker analysis of seed weight: genomic locations, gene action, and evidence for orthologous evolution among three legume species. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 93: 574579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mba, C and Tohme, J (2005) Use of AFLP markers in surveys of plant diversity. Methods in Enzymology 395: 177201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, AM and Colucci, PE (1999) A tropical forage solution to poor quality ruminant diets: a review of Lablab purpureus. Livestock Research for Rural Development 11: 117.Google Scholar
Palmer, JD, Jorgensen, RA and Thompson, WF (1985) Chloroplast DNA variation and evolution in Pisum – patterns of change and phylogenetic analysis. Genetics 109: 195213.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pengelly, BC and Maass, BL (2001) Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet – diversity, potential use and determination of a core collection of this multi-purpose tropical legume. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 48: 261272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, NK, Reddy, LJ and Bramel, PJ (2003) Potential of wild species for genetic enhancement of some semi-arid food crops. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50: 707721.Google Scholar
Timmerman-Vaughan, GM, McCallum, JA, Frew, TJ, Weeden, NF and Russell, AC (1996) Linkage mapping of quantitative trait loci controlling seed weight in pea (Pisum sativum L). Theoretical and Applied Genetics 93: 431439.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Udupa, SM, Sharma, A, Sharma, RP and Pai, RA (1993) Narrow genetic variability in Cicer arietinum L. as revealed by RFLP analysis. Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology 2: 8386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vos, P, Hogers, R, Bleeker, M, Reijans, M, Vandelee, T, Hornes, M, Frijters, A, Pot, J, Peleman, J, Kuiper, M and Zabeau, M (1995) AFLP – a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research 23: 44074414.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, ML, Gillaspie, AG, Newman, ML, Dean, RE, Pittman, RN, Morris, JB and Pederson, GA (2004) Transfer of simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers across the legume family for germplasm characterization and evaluation. Plant Genetic Resources 2: 107119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, JGK, Kubelik, AR, Livak, KJ, Rafalski, JA and Tingey, SV (1990) DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Research 18: 65316535.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winter, P, Benko-Iseppon, AM, Hüttel, B, Ratnaparkhe, M, Tullu, A, Sonnante, G, Pfaff, T, Tekeoglu, M, Santra, D, Sant, VJ, Rajesh, PN, Kahl, G and Muehlbauer, FJ (2000) A linkage map of the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genome based on recombinant inbred lines from a C. arietinum ×  C. reticulatum cross: localization of resistance genes for fusarium wilt races 4 and 5. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 101: 11551163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wojciechowski, MF (2003) Reconstructing the phylogeny of legumes (Leguminosae): an early 21st century perspective. In: Klitgaard, BB and Bruneau, A (eds) Advances in Legume Systematics, Part 10, Higher Level Systematics. London: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, pp. 535.Google Scholar
Wright, DA and Voytas, DF (2002) Athila4 of Arabidopsis and Calypso of soybean define a lineage of endogenous plant retroviruses. Genome Research 12: 122131.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Young, ND, Mudge, J and Ellis, THN (2003) Legume genomes: more than peas in a pod. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 6: 199204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zhu, HY, Choi, HK, Cook, DR and Shoemaker, RC (2005) Bridging model and crop legumes through comparative genomics. Plant Physiology 137: 11891196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed