Molecular cytogenetic characterization of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) accessions

The FCM analyses revealed that the mean nuclear DNA content of the accessions varied from 1.28 pg2C-1 to 1.55 pg2G1 (mean 1.35 pg2C-1), and the differences between these accessions were statistically significant (P

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯

Amaç & Hipotez:With an annual global production of approximately 25 million tons, the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L), a member of the genus Phaseolus, is one of the major protein sources used as food for humans.

📊

Temel Bulgular & Veri:In this study, it was aimed to investigate the genome size of the common bean genetic resource collection (154 common bean accessions) in Turkey by flow cytometry (FCM) and determine whether geographical variables affected the genome size.

💡

Sonuç & Katkı:The FCM analyses revealed that the mean nuclear DNA content of the accessions varied from 1.28 pg2C-1 to 1.55 pg2G1 (mean 1.35 pg2C-1), and the differences between these accessions were statistically significant (P

🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi

📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem

⚙️Değişkenler:Phaseolus vulgaris · genome size · flow cytometry

Abstract

With an annual global production of approximately 25 million tons, the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L), a member of the genus Phaseolus, is one of the major protein sources used as food for humans. In this study, it was aimed to investigate the genome size of the common bean genetic resource collection (154 common bean accessions) in Turkey by flow cytometry (FCM) and determine whether geographical variables affected the genome size. In addition, the number and distribution of 5S and 45S ribosomal DNA loci were designated by performing a fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) analysis in some of the accessions. The FCM analyses revealed that the mean nuclear DNA content of the accessions varied from 1.28 pg2C-1 to 1.55 pg2G1 (mean 1.35 pg2C-1), and the differences between these accessions were statistically significant (P

Anahtar kelimeler

Phaseolus vulgaris genome size flow cytometry geographical variables fluorescence in situ hybridization gene pool

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

TUNA, G. S., YUCEL, G., ASCİOGUL, T. K., ATES, D., ESİYOK, D., TANYOLAC, M. B., TUNA, M. (2020). Molecular cytogenetic characterization of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) accessions. Turkish Journal of Agriculture and Forestry, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 6, 612–630. https://ajindex.com/articles/180219

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

Yeni Sekmede Aç ↗

↗Yeni Sekme

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (3)

Akbudak MA, 2018, GESUNDE PFLANZ, V70, P171, DOI 10.1007/s10343-018-0428-x Almeida C, 2011, CYTOGENET GENOME RES, V132, P212, DOI 10.1159/000321677 Altrock S, 2011, GENET MOL BIOL, V34, P459, DOI 10.1590/S1415-47572011005000029 Angioi SA, 2010, THEOR APPL GENET, V121, P829, DOI 10.1007/s00122-010-1353-2 Arumuganathan K., 1991, PLANT MOL BIOL REP, V9, P208, DOI DOI 10.1007/BF02672069 AYONOADU UW, 1974,
CHROMOSOMA, V48, P41, DOI 10.1007/BF00284865 Bareither N, 2017, ISR J PLANT SCI, V64, P83, DOI 10.1080/07929978.2017.1288406 Beletti P, 1997, FLOW CYTOMETRIC ESTI. BENNETT MD, 1995, ANN BOT-LONDON, V76, P113, DOI 10.1006/anbo.1995.1085 BENNETT MD, 1982, PROC R SOC SER B-BIO, V216, P179, DOI 10.1098/rspb.1982.0069 Bennetzen JL, 2007, CURR OPIN PLANT BIOL, V10, P176, DOI 10.1016/j.pbi.2007.01.010 Bilinski P, 2018, PLOS GENET, V14, DOI 10.1371/journal.pgen.1007162 Bitocchi E, 2013, NEW PHYTOL, V197, P300, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04377.x Blair MW, 2012, PLOS ONE, V7, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0049488 Blair MW, 2010, THEOR APPL GENET, V121, P237, DOI 10.1007/s00122-010-1305-x Bonifacio EM, 2012, THEOR APPL GENET, V124, P1513, DOI 10.1007/s00122-012-1806-x Bottini MCJ, 2000, ANN BOT-LONDON, V86, P565, DOI 10.1006/anbo.2000.1218 Caceres ME, 1998, THEOR APPL GENET, V96, P559, DOI 10.1007/s001220050774 Castagnaro A. P., 1990, Darwiniana, V30, P195 Castro-Guerrero NA, 2016, FRONT PLANT SCI, V7, DOI 10.3389/fpls.2016.00600 CECCARELLI M, 1995,
HEREDITY, V74, P180, DOI 10.1038/hdy.1995.26 Chacon MI, 2005, THEOR APPL GENET, V110, P432, DOI 10.1007/s00122-004-1842-2 Chia JM, 2012, NAT GENET, V44, P803, DOI 10.1038/ng.2313 Chung MC, 2008, THEOR APPL GENET, V116, P745, DOI 10.1007/s00122-007-0705-z Cortes AJ, 2012, BMC GENET, V13, DOI 10.1186/1471-2156-13-58 CREBER HMC, 1994, NEW PHYTOL, V128, P555, DOI 10.1111/j.1469-8137.1994.tb03001.x Lobaton JD, 2018, PLANT GENOME-US, V11, DOI 10.3835/plantgenome2017.08.0068 De Melo NF, 2003, ANN BOT-LONDON, V92, P309, DOI 10.1093/aob/mcg138 de Moraes AP, 2007, CHROMOSOME RES, V15, P115, DOI 10.1007/s10577-006-1101-2 Delgado-Salinas A, 2006, SYST BOT, V31, P779, DOI 10.1600/036364406779695960 Dolezel J, 2005, ANN BOT-LONDON, V95, P99, DOI 10.1093/aob/mci005 Feuillet C, 2002, ANN BOT-LONDON, V89, P3, DOI 10.1093/aob/mcf008 Fonseca A, 2010, CHROMOSOME RES, V18, P487, DOI 10.1007/s10577-010-9129-8 FUKUI K, 1994, THEOR APPL GENET, V87, P893, DOI 10.1007/BF00225782 Galeano CH, 2009, BMC GENOMICS, V10, DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-10-629 Gepts P,