Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T11:26:29.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prospects for celeriac (Apium graveolens var. rapaceum) improvement by using genetic resources of Apium, as determined by AFLP markers and morphological characterization

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Jasmina Muminović ,
Albrecht E. Melchinger  and
Thomas Lübberstedt
Jasmina Muminović
Affiliation:
University of Hohenheim, Institute of Plant Breeding, Seed Science, and Population Genetics, 70593 Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany
Albrecht E. Melchinger
Affiliation:
University of Hohenheim, Institute of Plant Breeding, Seed Science, and Population Genetics, 70593 Stuttgart-Hohenheim, Germany
Thomas Lübberstedt*
Affiliation:
Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, 4200, Slagelse, Denmark
*
*Corresponding author: E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Genetic relationships among elite celeriac varieties and celeriac accessions conserved in genebanks are generally unknown. The objective of this study was to use amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) markers and morphological characterization to identify material that could be of use in celeriac breeding. Genetic relationships were estimated in 34 elite celeriac varieties bred in Europe and 28 celeriac accessions conserved at the German genebank. Two varieties of celery, two varieties of leaf celery and three genebank accessions of wild Apium species were additionally analysed. Fifteen EcoRI/MseI-based AFLP primer combinations were used. Polymorphic AFLP fragments were scored for calculation of Jaccard's coefficient of genetic similarity (GS). Morphological distances (MD) were determined based on 11 morphological traits. Average GS estimate in elite germplasm (GS=0.90) was higher than in exotic germplasm (GS=0.80). An AMOVA (analysis of molecular variance) revealed that a high proportion of variation was due to variation within elite celeriac varieties and genebank accessions. Although GS and MD matrices were poorly correlated (r=0.22), UPGMA (unweighted pair group method using arithmetic averages) cluster analyses revealed clear genetic groupings of celeriac germplasm, which was supported by morphological traits. Elite, moderately bred and exotic varieties formed distinct clusters, indicating that only a part of the available genetic diversity in celeriac germplasm has been exploited in breeding. Distinct Apium species might be useful for the introgression of new genes into cultivated celeriac material. Broadening of celeriac collections in genebanks and detection of new genetic resources are vital for improvements in celeriac breeding.

Keywords

AFLPAMOVAApium graveolenscluster analysisgenetic resourcesgenetic similaritymorphological distance
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , December 2004 , pp. 189 - 198
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2004

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

Abdalla, AM, Reddy, OUK, El-Zik, KM and Pepper, AE (2000) Genetic diversity and relationships of diploid and tetraploid cottons revealed using AFLP. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 102: 222–229.Google Scholar
Bohn, M, Utz, HF and Melchinger, AE (1999) Genetic similarities among winter wheat cultivars determined on the basis of RFLPs, AFLPs, and SSRs and their use for predicting progeny variance. Crop Science 39: 228–237.Google Scholar
Bundessortenamt (2001) Beschreibende Sortenliste: Wurzelgemu ¨se, Zwiebelgemüse, Kohlgemüse, Hülsenfrüchte.Google Scholar
Capo-chichi, LJA, Weaver, DB and Morton, CM (2001) AFLP assessment of genetic variability among velvetbean (Mucuna sp.) accession. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 103: 1180–1188.Google Scholar
Excoffier, L, Smouse, PE and Quattro, JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distance among DNA haplotypes; application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131: 479–491.Google Scholar
Frisch, M, Bohn, M and Melchinger, AE (2000) Plabsim: software for strategies of marker-assisted backcrossing. Journal of Heredity 91: 86–87.Google Scholar
Gower, JC and Legendre, P (1986) Metric and Euclidean properties of dissimilarity coefficients. Journal of Classification 3: 5–48.Google Scholar
Hahn, V, Blankenhorn, K, Schwall, M and Melchinger, AE (1995) Relationship among early European maize inbreds: III. Genetic diversity revealed with RAPD markers and comparison with RFLP and pedigree data. Maydica 40: 299–310.Google Scholar
Heckenberger, M, Rouppe van der Voort, J, Melchinger, AE, Peleman, J and Bohn, M (2003) Variation of DNA fingerprints among accessions within maize inbred lines and implications for identification of essentially derived varieties. II Genetic and technical sources of variation in AFLP data and comparison to SSR data. Molecular Breeding 12: 97–106.Google Scholar
Hoisington, DA, Khairallah, MM and Gonzales-de-Leon, D (1994) Laboratory Protocols. Mexico, DF: CIMMYT Applied Molecular Genetics Laboratory.Google Scholar
Huestis, G, McGrath, JM and Quiros, CF (1993) Development of genetic markers in celery based on restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 85: 889–896.Google Scholar
Ihaka, R and Gentleman, R (1996) R: a language for data analysis and graphics. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics 5: 299–341.Google Scholar
Jaccard, P (1908) Nouvelles recherches sur la distribution florale. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 44: 223–270.Google Scholar
Karp, A (2002) The new genetic era: will it help us in managing genetic diversity? In: Engels, JMM, Ramanatha, Rao V, Brown, AHD and Jackson, MT (eds) Managing Plant Genetic Diversity. Rome: IPGRI, pp. 43–56.Google Scholar
Kim, JH, Joung, H, Kim, HY and Lim, YP (1998) Estimation of genetic variation and relationship in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars using AFLP markers. American Journal of Potato Research 75: 107–112.Google Scholar
Lombard, V, Baril, CP, Dubreuil, P, Blouet, F and Zhang, D (2000) Genetic relationships and fingerprinting of rapeseed cultivars by AFLP: consequences for varietal registration. Crop Science 40: 1417–1425.Google Scholar
Lübberstedt, T, Melchinger, AE, Dussle, C, Vuylsteke, M and Kuiper, M (2000) Relationship among early European maize inbreds: IV. Genetic diversity revealed with AFLP markers and comparison with RFLP, RAPD and pedigree data. Crop Science 40: 783–791.Google Scholar
Mantel, N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Research 27: 209–220.Google Scholar
McGregor, CE, van Treuren, R, Hoekstra, R and van Hintum, TJL (2002) Analysis of the wild potato germplasm of the series Acaulia with AFLPs: implications for ex situ conservation. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 104: 146–156.Google Scholar
Messmer, MM, Melchinger, AE, Herrmann, RG and Boppenmaier, J (1993) Relationship among early European maize inbreds: II. Comparison of pedigree and RFLP data. Crop Science 33: 944–950.Google Scholar
Miller, RG (1974) The jackknife—a review. Biometrika 61: 1–15.Google Scholar
Muminović, J, Lübberstedt, T and Melchinger, AE (2004) Genetic diversity in cornsalad (Valerianella locusta L.) and related species determined by AFLP markers. Plant Breeding (in press).Google Scholar
Powell, W, Morgante, M, Andre, C, Hanafey, M, Vogel, J, Tingey, S and Rafalski, A (1996) The comparison of RFLP, RAPD, AFLP and SSR (microsatellite) markers for germplasm analysis. Molecular Breeding 2: 225–238.Google Scholar
Quiros, CF (1993) Celery (Apium graveolens L.). In: Kalloo, G and Bergh, BO (eds) Genetic Improvement of Vegetable Crops. Oxford: Pergamon Press, pp. 523–534.Google Scholar
Quiros, CF, Douches, D and D’Antonio, V (1987) Inheritance of annual habit in celery: cosegregation with isozyme and anthocyanin markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 74: 203–208.Google Scholar
Rohlf, FJ (1998) NTSYSpc Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System, version 2.0. Setauket, NY: Exeter Software.Google Scholar
Roldán-Ruiz, I, Calsyn, E, Gilliland, TJ, Coll, R, van Eijk, MJT and De Loose, M (2000) Estimating genetic conformity between related ryegrass (Lolium) varieties. 2. AFLP characterization. Molecular Breeding 6: 593–602.Google Scholar
Scarascia-Mugnozza, GT and Perrino, P (2002) The history of ex situ conservation and use of plant genetic resources. In: Engels, JMM, Ramanatha, Rao V, Brown, AHD and Jackson, MT (eds) Managing Plant Genetic Diversity. Rome: IPGRI, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar
Schneider, S, Roessli, D and Excoffier, L (2000) Arlequin Version 2.000: A Software for Population Genetics Data Analysis. Geneva: Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, University of Geneva.Google Scholar
Schut, JW, Qi, X and Stam, P (1997) Association between relationship measures based on AFLP markers, pedigree data and morphological traits in barley. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 95: 1161–1168.Google Scholar
Simioniuc, D, Uptmoor, R, Friedt, W and Ordon, F (2002) Genetic diversity and relationships among pea cultivars revealed by RAPDs and AFLPs. Plant Breeding 121: 429–435.Google Scholar
Smith, PM (1979) Celery (Apium graveolens, Umbelliferae). In: Simmonds, NW (ed.) Evolution of Crop Plants. London: Longman, pp. 322–323.Google Scholar
Sneath, PHA and Sokal, RR (1973) Numerical Taxonomy. The Principles and Practice of Numerical Classification. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Soleimani, VD, Baum, BR and Johnson, DA (2002) AFLP and pedigree-based genetic diversity estimates in modern cultivars of durum wheat [Triticum turgidum L. subsp. durum (Desf.) Husn]. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 104: 350–357.Google Scholar
Thierry, d’Ennequin M, Panaud, O, Toupance, B and Sarr, A (2000) Assessment of genetic relationships between Setaria italica and its wild relative S. viridis using AFLP markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 100: 1061–1066.Google Scholar
UPOV (2002) Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability: Celeriac (Apium graveolens L. var. rapaceum (Mill.) Gaud.). Geneva: UPOV.Google Scholar
Vos, P, Hogers, R, Bleeker, M, Reijans, M, Van, de Lee T, Hornes, M, Frijters, v, Pot, J, Peleman, J, Kuiper, M and Zabeau, M (1995) AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research 23: 4407–4414.Google Scholar
Yang, X and Quiros, C (1993) Identification and characterization of celery cultivars with RAPD markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86: 205–212.Google Scholar
Yap, IV and Nelson, RJ (1996) A Program for Performing Bootstrap Analysis of Binary Data to Determine Confidence Limits of UPGMA-based Dendrograms. Manila, Philippines: International Rice Research Institute.Google Scholar
Zeid, M, Schön, CC and Link, W (2003) Genetic diversity in recent elite faba bean lines using AFLP markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 107: 1304–1314.Google Scholar
Zhu, J, Gale, MD, Quarrie, S, Jackson, MT and Bryan, GJ (1998) AFLP markers for the study of rice biodiversity. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 96: 602–611.Google Scholar