SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Botany / 2017 / Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 1

Relationships between Sorghum bicolor (Poaceae) and its closerelatives based on genomic in situ hybridization evidence

Huan LIU
Qing LIU
Jun WEN
Pages
11–24
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Therefore, the degree of genomic divergence may be presented as: S. halepense-S. bicolor < S.halepense-S. arundinaceum < S. halepense-S. propinquum.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench (sorghum) is a naturally well-established diploid species with 2n = 2x = 20.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The probe signal intensity of S. arundinaceum and S. propinquum is greater on the 17 chromosomes than on the remaining 23 chromosomes of S. halepense (L.) Pers., whereas S. bicolor and S. propinquum probes produced spotted or patchy signals on the 40 S. halepense chromosomes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Therefore, the degree of genomic divergence may be presented as: S. halepense-S. bicolor < S.halepense-S. arundinaceum < S. halepense-S. propinquum.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench (sorghum) is a naturally well-established diploid species with 2n = 2x = 20. Here we provide evidence to identify the genomic relationships of S. bicolor and its extant relatives using genomic in situ hybridization. The genomic divergences between S. bicolor and its close relatives may be presented as: S. bicolor-S. × drummondii (Nees ex Steud.) Millsp. & Chase < S. bicolor-S. × almum Parodi < S. bicolor S. arundinaceum (Desv.) Stapf < S. bicolor-S. propinquum (Kunth) Hitchc. Sorghum arundinaceumprobe signals showed spotted or painted patterns on the S. bicolor chromosomes, indicating that the degree of genomic divergence between S. bicolor and S. arundinaceum is distinct. It is reasonable to infer that S. bicolor might have diverged from S. arundinaceum in the early diversification history of the subgenus. The probe signal intensity of S. arundinaceum and S. propinquum is greater on the 17 chromosomes than on the remaining 23 chromosomes of S. halepense (L.) Pers., whereas S. bicolor and S. propinquum probes produced spotted or patchy signals on the 40 S. halepense chromosomes. Therefore, the degree of genomic divergence may be presented as: S. halepense-S. bicolor < S.halepense-S. arundinaceum < S. halepense-S. propinquum.

🔖

Cite This Article

LIU, H., LIU, Q., WEN, J. (2022). Relationships between Sorghum bicolor (Poaceae) and its closerelatives based on genomic in situ hybridization evidence. Turkish Journal of Botany, Cilt: 41 - Sayı: 1, 11–24. https://ajindex.com/articles/600981

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Biscotti MA, Olmo E, Heslop-Harrison JS (2015). Repetitive DNA in eukaryotic genomes. Chromosome Res 23: 415-420.
  2. Carmona A, Friero E, de Bustos A, Jouve N, Cuadrado A (2013). The evolutionary history of sea barley (Hordeum marinum) revealed by comparative physical mapping of repetitive DNA. Ann Bot-London 112: 1845-1855.
  3. Celarier RP (1958). Cytotaxonomic notes on the subsection Halepensia of the genus Sorghum. B Torrey Bot Club 85: 49-62.
  4. Chen SL, Phillips SM (2006). Sorghum Moench. In: Wu ZY, Raven PH, editors. Flora of China, Vol. 22. Beijing, China: Science Press, pp. 602-604.
  5. Clayton WD, Renvoize SA (1982). Gramineae (Part 3). In: Polhill RM, editor. Flora of Tropical East Africa. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: August Aimé Balkema, pp. 320-734.
  6. Crow JF (1994). Anecdotal, historical and critical commentaries on genetics. Genetics 137: 891-894.
  7. Dai F, Chen ZH, Wang XL, Li ZF, Jin GL, Wu DZ, Cai SG, Wang N, Wu FB, Nevo E et al. (2004). Transcriptome profiling reveals mosaic genomic origins of modern cultivated barley. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111: 13403-13408.
  8. De Wet JMJ (1978). Systematics and evolution of Sorghum sect. Sorghum (Gramineae). Am J Bot 65: 477-484.
  9. Dodsworth S, Chase MW, Kelly LJ, Leitch IJ, Macas J, Novák P, Piednoël M, Weiss-Schneeweiss H, Leitch AR (2015). Genomic repeat abundances contain phylogenetic signal. Syst Biol 64: 112-126.
  10. Doggett J (1970).
  11. Sorghum. London, UK: Green and Company, Longmans. Doggett H (1976). Sorghum. In: Simmonds NW, editor. Evolution of Crop Plants. London, UK: Longman Scientific and Technical, pp. 112-117.
  12. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1987). A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Phytochemical Bulletin 19: 11-15.
  13. Hacker JB (1992). Sorghum × drummondii (Steud) Millsp. & Chase. In: Mannetje LT, Jones RM, editors. Plant Resources of South-East Asia. No. 4. Forages. Wageningen, Germany: Pudoc Scientific Publishers, pp. 206-208.
  14. Hawkins JS, Ramachandran D, Henderson A, Freeman J, Carlise M, Harris A, Willison-Headley Z (2015). Phylogenetic reconstruction using four low-copy nuclear loci strongly supports a polyphyletic origin of the genus Sorghum. Ann Bot-London 116: 291-299.
  15. He GM, Zhu XP, Elling AA, Chen LB, Wang XF, Guo L, Liang MZ, He H, Zhang HY, Chen FF et al. (2010). Global epigenetic and transcriptional trends among two rice subspecies and their reciprocal hybrids. Plant Cell 22: 17-33.
  16. Heslop-Harrison JS (2000). Comparative genome organization in plants: from sequence and markers to chr