Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-klj7v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-03T03:25:32.177Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Analysis of wild Lactuca accessions: conservation and identification of redundancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2008

Tatjana Sretenović Rajičić*
Affiliation:
Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Corrensstr. 3, 06466Gatersleben, Germany
Theo van Hintum
Affiliation:
Centre for Genetic Resources, The Netherlands (CGN), Wageningen University and Research Centre, PO Box 16, 6700 AAWageningen, The Netherlands
Aleš Lebeda
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Palacký University, Slechtitelu 11, 783 71Olomouc-Holice, Czech Republic
Klaus J. Dehmer
Affiliation:
Leibniz Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Corrensstr. 3, 06466Gatersleben, Germany
*

Abstract

Germplasm accessions of wild Lactuca species are maintained worldwide in ex situ collections as gene reservoirs for quality and disease resistance traits for cultivated lettuce. Accessions of 12 Lactuca species from 6 genebanks were compared via morphological characterization and AFLP (Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism)-based profiling to estimate the extent of duplication. A method of assessing redundancy within very similar, but not identical accessions, is proposed, based on 352 polymorphic AFLP products. Seven duplication groups showed a high level of AFLP similarity, and one pair of Lactuca saligna accessions displayed identical AFLP profiles. In several cases, the morphological assessment indicated that a taxonomic reclassification of accessions was necessary. Candidate duplicates were identified using population parameters and inter- and intra-accession variability. The implications of these findings on the conservation of wild species are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2008

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

Doležalová, I, Krístková, E, Lebeda, A, Vinter, V, Astley, D and Boukema, IW (2003) Basic morphological descriptors for genetic resources of wild Lactuca spp. Plant Genetic Resources Newsletter 134: 19.Google Scholar
Dostál, J (1989) Nová květena ČSSR, 2. díl. Prague: Academia, pp. 11121115.Google Scholar
Doyle, JJ and Doyle, JL (1990) Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 12: 1315.Google Scholar
Excoffier, L, Smouse, PE and Quattro, JM (1992) Analysis of molecular variance inferred from metric distances among DNA haplotypes: application to human mitochondrial DNA restriction data. Genetics 131: 479491.Google Scholar
Feráková, V (1977) The Genus Lactuca L. in Europe. Bratislava: Komenský University Press.Google Scholar
Guarino, L, Ramanatha Rao, V and Reid, R (1995) Collecting Plant Genetic Diversity, Technical Guidelines. Rome, Italy: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.Google Scholar
Iwatsuki, K, Yamazaki, T, Boufford, DE and Ohba, H (1995) Flora of Japan. vol. IIIb. Tokyo: Kodansha.Google Scholar
Jaccard, P (1908) Nouvelles rescherches sur la distribution florale. Bulletin de la Société Vaudoise des Sciences Naturelles 44: 223270.Google Scholar
Lebeda, A, Doležalová, I and Astley, D (2004) Representation of wild Lactuca spp. (Asteraceae, Lactuceae) in world genebank collections. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51: 167174.Google Scholar
Lindqvist, K (1960) The origin of cultivated lettuce. Hereditas 46: 319349.Google Scholar
McGregor, CE, Van Treuren, R, Hoekstra, R and Van Hintum, ThJL (2002) Analysis of the wild potato germplasm of the series Acaulia with AFLPs: Implications for ex situ conservation. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 104: 146156.Google Scholar
Rohlf, FJ (2002) NTSYSpc: Numerical Taxonomy System, ver. 2.11a. Detauket, NY: Exter Publishing, Ltd., pp. 381391.Google Scholar
Sretenović Rajičić, T and Dehmer, KJ (2008) Analysis of wild Lactuca genebank accessions and implication on wild species conservation. In: Maxted, Ford-Lloyd, Kell, Iriondo, Dulloo, Turok (eds) Crop Wild Relative Conservation and Use. CABI Publishing, pp. 429–436.Google Scholar
Spooner, D, Van Treuren, R and De Vicente, MC (2006) Molecular markers for genebank management. IPGRI Technical Bulletin No. 10. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy..Google Scholar
Van Hintum, ThJL, Boukema, IW and Visser, DL (1996) Reduction of duplication in a Brassica oleracea germplasm collection. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 43: 343349.Google Scholar
Van Treuren, R, Van Soest, LJM and Van Hintum, ThJL (2001) Marker-assisted rationalisation of genetic resource collections: a case study in flax using AFLPs. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 103: 144152.Google Scholar
Virk, PS, Newbury, HJ, Jackson, MT and Ford-Lloyd, BV (1995) The identification of duplicate accessions within a rice germplasm collection using RAPD analysis. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 90: 10491055.Google Scholar
Waycott, W and Fort, SB (1994) Differentiation of nearly identical germplasm accessions by a combination of molecular and morphologic analyses. Genome 37: 577583.Google Scholar
Weir, BS (1996) Genetic Data Analyses II. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Winfield, MO, Arnold, GM, Cooper, F, Le Ray, M, White, J, Karp, A and Edwards, KJ (1998) A study of genetic diversity in Populus nigra subsp. betulifolia in the Upper Severn area of the UK using AFLP markers. Molecular Ecology 7: 310.Google Scholar
Yeh, FC and Boyle, TJB (1997) Population genetic analysis of co-dominant and dominant markers and quantitative traits. Belgian Journal of Botany 129: 157.Google Scholar