molecular markers for cultivar identification and...
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Vol 6 September 2001 pp 377-388
Molecular Markers for Cultivar Identification and PBR
Syamal Krishna Ghosh, Chitore Kr Guha Sarkar
Nagarjuna Agricultural Research and Development Institute, 61, Nagarjuna Hills, Panjagutta, Hyderabad 500 082
and
Subhojit Datta
Biotechnology Centre, Indian Institute of Pulses Research, Kanpur
(Received 23 April 2001)
Identification of plant varieties is important in many areas of agriculture, marketing, research and development and for protection of Plant Breeders Right (PBR). Molecular marker techniques based on DNA profiling provide novel approaches for cultivar identification. They offer advantages for comparison over morphological and biochemical markers, with respect to resolving power, cost effectiveness, testing at any stages of development, rapidity, environment independent expression and produce an anay of polymorphism. Markers such as RFLP, RAPD, SSR, STS, AFLP, SNP are used for DNA fingerprinting and a comparative analysis was made among these markers for cultivar identification. With the revised wro regime and privatization of agricultural research, PBR is a prerequisite for investment in plant breeding and wro has provided under UPOV the protection of plant varieties by patents or by sui generis system like PBR. Identification of plant cultiyars has become increasingly important with the requirement of PBR to demonstrate distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS) for each new cultivar. In this context, molecular profiling helps in the finding and creation of minor variants from initial varieties and can be used to demonstrate the DUS of the variety. DNA profiling has not yet been adopted by UPOV as an essential character but this may be included as supplementary character information and it is expected to become the prefened method for characterization of cultivars in future. In this discussion an attempt was taken to know about the molecular markers for plant cultivar identification as well as their role and effectiveness.
The legal right to market a newly-bred cultivar depends on the results of statutory testing, which provides information regarding
distinctness, uniformity and stability (DUS). The DUS testing guarantees the quality of the new cultivar for farmers and
378 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, SEPTEMBER 2001
merchants that the new cultivar is distinct from all other released cultivars as well as uniform and stable for traits evaluated in the tests. Moreover it is also used to protect PBR and encourages the continuous development of new varieties. PBR have evolved since the introduction of the concept of essentially derived varieties in the International Conventions for the Protection of new Varieties of Plant (UPOV) convention of 1991. An essentially derived cultivar is one that is clearly distinguishable from the initial cultivar by phenotypic characteristic that could be a single simply inherited trait. This phenomenon has increased since the development of GE technology, which made possible the introduction of a single gene into a variety.
Cultivar identification allows farmers and processors to be assured that varieties available in the market are of correct genotype as specified by the breeder. Traditionally, morphological characters were used to identify varietal genotype and purity. The distinctions of cultivars are sometimes difficult on the basis of morphological characters because descriptive lists from DUS tests do not provide useful morphological markers l
.
The performance in VCU (Value for Cultivation and Use) trials such as yield and flowering are of limited value and cannot be used for cultivar identification. TIle difficulties are still more when large number of cultivars with short commercial life span have to be evaluated for discrimination. Phenology and morphological characters may not be significantly distinct and usually require growing plants to full maturity prior to classification and characterization. The phenological and morphological characters used for cultivar identification include plant growth period 2
and seed shape 3.
Biochemical methods such as isozymes have been widely used for routine testing of
parentage and monitoring genetic purity. However, these data do not provide significant discrimination to provide estimates of genetic distance 4 that can be helpful to provide PBR and effective varietal identification. For most species DUS testing only relies on the comparison of morphological traits and is quite expensive and time consuming. To complement it isozyme analysis has been used in DUS testing and cultivar identification in maize, wheat, and barley. The only drawback with isozyme markers is its limited availability 5 and low polymorphism level 6. Therefore, the technology, which utilizes DNA and allows complete sampling of the genome, has become useful as a discriminating tool. To avoid these problems DUS testing would benefit from the use of molecular markers. Molecular markers (MM) are advantageous as they are cost effective, rapid, environment independent, unlimited in number and do not require the survey of the whole crop growth period.
MMs have been successfully applied in registration activities like cultivar identification7
, controlling seed purity of hybrids 8,
etc. MMs could also be used for checking the genetic relatedness 5 between cultivars, for reducing the number of reference varieties for comparison and would improve the comparison of morphological traits.
Biochemical Markers
Several biochemical methods such as fatty acid profile by GLC, glucosinalates by HPLC and isozymes are available but such techniques detect only a limited degree of polymorphism l , are sensitive to environmental and developmental variation 9 and the discrimination between different genotypes is not always possible 10. Electrophoresis of seed proteins has been a prominent test for cultivar identification in crops such as
SYAMAL KRISHNA GHOSH et at.: MOLECULAR MARKERS .. .. . 379
wheatll, cotton l2, etc. HPLC has replaced I .;: . 13 . 14 t electrop 10resls lor maize , nce , e c.
DNA Markers
1. RFLP
DNA hybridization as a tool for detecting specific DNA sequences after electrophoratic separation was first described by Southern 15' and since then it has became an indispensable tool for molecular analysis. This technique allows probes to hybridize with filters containing DNA which has been digested with restriction enzymes (RE). The RE generates an array of DNA fragments and the length differences between homologous fragments of DNA from different cultival'S are caused by changes in primary sequence of DNA as a result of point mutation / insertion or deletion of DNA/ DNA rearrangement. Such differences when present, can be detected by DNA hybridization
M · fi . ti' 16 and used as a M m ngerpnn ng .
Among the various DNA markers, RFLPs were the first to be developed and used in human genome mapping 17 and later
. 18 t adopted for plant genome mappmg 00. RFLPs are co-dominant and can identify unique locus with very reliable detection of polymorphism, and can be used for population studies and diversity classification. RFLP, the first molecular technique to be used in plant breeding has witnessed a revolution due its application in crop improvement programmes and subsequent use in cultivar identification and registration. Disadvantages of RFLP technology include relatively slow process, less cost effectiveness, producing fewer numbers of discriminating loci 19 and requiring large quantities of DNA samples.
Intra cultivar polymorphism of DNA mark-h b 'd tifi d' . 20 B P 21 ers as een I en e m nce , . na us
22 and sunflower using RFLPs. RFLPs have been also used for the pUrPose of varietal . d 'fi . . t t 23 . 24 d I entt Icatton 111 po a 0 , maize , an whea~5 .
2. PCR- based Multilocus-Profiling Techniques
The amplification of genomic DNA using short oligonucleotide primers results in multiple amplification products from the loci dis-
26 Th' tributed through out the genome . IS developm~nt le~ to the use o~ oliionuc1eotide pnmers m genome mappmg and fingerprinting 27. Depending on the amplification conditions or product separation and detection, the arbiratory primer amplification methods were tenned as randomly amplified polymorphic DNA CRAPD) 26, arbitrarily primed PCR CAP-PCR) 27. These methods are comparatively simple and applicable to any genome and their added advantage is that they can provide infonnation on numerous loci that give strength in distinguishing individuals for cultivar identification, detennining parentage, fingerprinting and differentiating genotypes.
A. RAPD: In this technique the amplification products are separated on agarose gels and then stained with ethidium bromide and visualized under UV light. RAPD is a simple, quick and convenient procedure requiring much smaller quantities of template DNA and requires no previous sequence infonnation for the fingerprinting of cultivar genomes. It is an effective, cost-efficient method for genotype identification and pedigree analysis. RAPDs have allowed cultivar and genotvne identification in pearl mille~8,
'(. 29 30 d B. napus , soybeans , mango an ap-ple31. Using RAPD sunflower lines and Fl hybrids32 were characterized and relationships33 between sunflower in bred lines were detennined.
380 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, SEPTEMBER 2001
B. AP-PCR: It is a versatile method that generates fi ngerprints of genomes using arbitrarily selected primers 27 under conditions where the primers initiate synthesis on DNA, even when the match with the template is impeliect. AP-PCR has been used is genetic mapping, phylogenetics, taxonomy and molecular genetics of animals and plants34
. DNA profiles based on AP-PCR are both time and cost effective35 and are used for cParentage determination of maize hybrids3
.
C. AFLP: Itisa powerful DNA marker technique and helps in the construction of very high-density molecular maps for application in genome research, positional cloning and genotyping. AFLP is based on the detection of DNA restriction fragments by PCR amplification37
. The restJiction fragments are amplified by liga ting the double stranded adapter seq uences to the ends of restriction sites which serves as 'u niversal' b inding sites for primer annealing in PCR In this way, restriction fragments of a particular segmentofDNAcan be amplified withAFLP primers corresponding to the restriction site and adapter sequence. The AFLP primers result in selective amplification of those fragments in which the primer extension match the nucleotides flanking the restriction site and the number of fragments to be amplified can be selected. Restriction fragment patterns generated by the AFLP technique are called AFLP fingerprints and gives polymorphism. It provides a large number of markers in a single analysis without requiring sequence information for their development 37
It is used for genetic diversity analysis and relationships between inbred lines in sunflower38
, wheat39 and for genetic linkage mapping in lice 40. AFLP have very attractive properties for DUS testing in rapeseed5 and
for estimating the level of relatedness between cultivars.
Do Microsatellite Markers: Microsatelli tes are tandemly repeated nucleotide units of 1-6 base pairs and alleles usually differ in the number of repeated units. Microsatellites are generally co-dominant and highly polymorphic, wide spread in the genome, detectable by simple PCR based assays and thei r multiplexing potential makes them highly attractive markers for genotyping, identification and population studies. Microsatellite markers are also known as simple sequence repeats (SSRs) 4 1 and are rapidly becoming popular for identiiication of individuals. The SSRs are small repetitive DNA sequences present through out the eukaryotic genome and provide the basis of PCR based co-dominant marker system. Length polymorphism is created when PCR products from different individuals vary in length as a result of variation in the number of repeat units in the SSR.
Microsatellitc markers are used for genotype identiiication in soybean43
, rice44, suo
flower45• pea rl millet28
, e tc. In r ice , micro satellites have demonstrated ~olymorph ism between46,47 and within20, 4 rice varieties and Charters et at. 1 used SSR marker for identifying the variability at the inter and intra-cultivar levels of oilseed rape cultivars. In addition, inter simple sequence repeatPCR aSSR-PCR), DNA sequences between two have also been applied for DNA fingerprinting of maize48
, wheat49 ,etc.
E . Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs): SNPs are the new generation MMs for individual genotyping needed for MAS and identification of cultivars. SNPs are bialleHc and very stable in inheritance than other marker systems. However, the disadvantage of being biallelic nature is overcome by the abundance of SNPs. According to
SY. CAL KRISHNA GHOSH et at.: MOLECULAR MAJU<ERS .....
estimate, one SNP occurs in every 100-300 bp in any genome, thus making them the most abundant MM known so far50. SNPs seem to be more abundant in plant systems, occurring at one in 20 bp in wheat 51 and one in 70 bp in maize52, as recorded in certain regions of their respective genomes. RFLP, RAPD and SSRs are MMs where gel based assays are required , therefore being time consuming and expensive. Whereas, SNPs can be detected by non-gel based assays, and are represented by sites and DNA sequences that differ by a single base50. Several methods50 are available for detection of S Ps, which are fo und within a gene or in its close proximity. SNPs have already been used for cul tivar identification in barJey53.
Choice of Markers for Cultivar Identification
All DNA markers have their own advantages and disadvantages but fo r diversity analysis multilocus profiling techniques have their strengths in fingerprinting, identification and characterization, and are preferable for genotyping and population studies. Classical phenotypic methods of identification are not always sufficient to solve these problems because of instability of morphological characters as well as an inability to use such information for identification at juvenile stages or from isolated plant parts. The choice of appropriate DNA profiling technique is dependent on the aim of the testing. Under PVR the formal obligation is the demonstration of the DUS criteria. Practical feasibility of the tests ask for it to b e straightforward, inexpensive, reliable, reproducible and capable of unambiguous analysis.
The PCR based DNA fingerprinting techniques offer a number of advantages over RFLPs54, as they require small amount of
DNA, involve fewer steps and are therefore faster, technically straightforward, do not involve radioactivity, readily automated and the vast range of potential primer sequence available gives the technique the great diagnostic power. It is generally concluded that DNA profiling technique via PCR will also be much cheaper than RFLP analysis. Ragot and Hoisington:i5 uggested that RAPD analyses is cheaper for small sample sizes and RFLP analysis becomes cost effective fo r larger sample sizes. Any comparison of cost between PCR and RFLP must take into account the type of PCR based marker to be used, costs of developing suitable primers. costs of developing the technique and the sample size to be screened51 . RFLP is preferable over isozyme pattern since RFLP can distinguish between several Cll Itivars belonging to the same isozyme group56. The frequency of polymorphism of RFLP markers limits its application in distinguishing closely related cultivars.
As described earlier that in RAPD prior DNA sequence information is not required to study the anonymous genomes but the inevitable trade offs with this technique is that the amplification is perfOlmed under conditions of low stringency54. Other probiem with RAPD is a low incidence of non-inherited bands as found in maize57, reproducibility amongst laboratories58 and band dominance. RFLP and RAPDs detect low level of polymorphism in wheat59. Many of the limitations can be overcome with careful study and can provide valuable supplementary evidence54.
The main advantages of AP-PCR over RFLP are increased speed of analysis and the amount of DNA required36. Detection of polymorphism by using AP-PCR or RAPD technology is faster and less laborious than by using RFLP technology, as long as prim-
382 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, SEPTEMBER 2001
ers of approximately the same length and GC content are used in a given set of experiments, so that other reaction parameters can be kept constant36.
SSRs are abundant, ubiquitous in presence, hypervariable in nature and have high polymorphic infonnation content60
. It has also been shown that the use of a limited number of microsatellites is adequate to discriminate even the most closely related wheat61 and barely62 genotypes. DNA fingerprinting by SSR is most infonnative as compared to isozyme and RAPD in case of sunflower lines and hybrids32. SSR markers overcome many of the inherent problems of RAPD analysis and provide highly reproducible, infonnative, co-dominant markers. Microsatellite markers may prove to be the DNA profiliny method of choice for primary DUS criteria5 .
The ISSR- PCR produces reliable and highly polymorphic band profiles63 than either RFLP & RAPD analyses. ISSR-PCR is technically simple and quick, where PCR products can be generated, fractionated and detected within 9 hours. Microsatellites have been shown to be ten times more polymorphic than RFLPs in plants 64 and is being increasingly explored for their application in plants. Among the available molecular markers, AFLP is a powerful technique for cultivar identification 65.
Different kinds of markers have been developed and used for identification of markers for agronomically important genes and the identification of cu1tivars, lines and hybrids but such studies do not focus on the important problem which markers have to be used optimally for variety identification purposes. The greatest challenges faced are to reduce the cost of analysis as well as the risk of confusing one of these elite genotypes with a randomly chosen genotype taken from a large sample66. The recent development of
PCR to amplify DNA and the use of RAPD and AP-PCR has resulted in a potentially useful tool for cultivar identification. With prudient selection of primers, it appears to offer a reliable method of cultivar identification and have advantages over many of the chemotaxonomic and biochemical methods used for the purpose.
Advantages of Molecular Markers
-DNA sequences of an organism are independent of environmental influences.
·-Simple Mendelian inheritance. -Infinite number of polymorphic
markers can be identified ---DNA allows tests on any tissue at
any stage of the plant development.
- -Simultaneous evaluation of multiple loci is possible.
Molecular Markers and PBR
PBR67 is a legal mechanism to maintain trade secrets for a limited period to enjoy the benefits by the breeder or company. wro agreement also envisages protection of IPR of member countries through a special agreement, viz. TRIPS which covers protection of wide ranging IPRs such as patents, trademarks, copyrights and PBR The WTO provides scope for the plant varieties to be protected by patents or by sui generis system such as PBR provided under the UPOV. Agreement on TRIPS stipulated that 'members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof" and therefore PBR system is evoked for the effective sui generis system of plant varieties.
The purpose of UPOV to ensure PBR is to have an exclusive property right on new
SYAMAL KRISHNA GHOSH et at.: MOLECUU\R lv1ARKERS .. ... 383
plant varieties in order to provide incentive to the development of agriculture and to safeguard the interests of plant breeders and seed industries. upav prescribes guidelines that member states are to set PBR laws as sui generis system. A set of characters with detailed parameters is established for th e de novo description of new varieties. New varieties must be distinct, uniform and stable 4. Distinctness is determined by comparisons to descriptions of previously released varietie s. Revised upav (March 1991) treaty has made provisions to manage and restrict commercialization of close copies of initial varieties throu~h the concept of essentially derived variety . Identification of plant cultivars has become increasingly important with the requirement of PBR to demonstrate DUS for each new cultivar. In this context molecular profiling makes the monitoring of minor variants from initial varieties a quick and relatively simple method68.
With the revised wra scenalio and privatization of agriculture the IPR and PBR are a prerequisite for private investment into plant breeding. Private investment will not occur without effective measures to prevent misappropriation. Similarly, the use of proprietary variety will not be allowed if there is no sharing of revenues to cover R&D of the initial variety4. However, molecular markers are more quick and accurate in revealing genetic identification and provide significant differences among the genotypes.
DNA profiling has not yet been adopted by upav as an essential character but after some time this may be included as supplementary character information. The evaluation of DNA profiling technique as a tool for describing DUS characters under the upav system was under consideration for particu-
69 lar crops ' . In the revised upav (1991) con-vention the enactment of PBR may be
facilitated by DNA profiling technique which will help in extending the PBR in essentially derived varieties from a protected variety and harvested material. It may playa key role in the resolution of disputes over the derivation of varieties or the identity of harvested material.
Conclusion
Mankind stands at a technological threshold that has no parallel in history. We are entering a world in which humanity will start to manage evolution in more direct ways. It is an unknown world that promises great benefits and poses numerous policy dilemmas. ll1e creation of the WTa in 1995 is of considerable importance to the future of agriculture and presents s ome e thical and socio-economic issues in India. In India, TRIPS has received much special attention and it has been seen as an opportunity. It has also been viewed with apprehension by some, particularly in the contest of plant variety registration (PVR).
The need for cultivar discrimination is reflected in the number of alternative methods developed in the recent years. According to International Seed Testing Associations (ISTA) 70 the common rapid tests that were done by the laboratories were biochemical and electrophoratic analysis, which can be now accomplished by genetic fingerprinting using DNA markers. However, DNA fingerprinting is expected to become the preferred method for characterization of cultivars in future. The recent developments in marker technology can be used to demonstrate the DUS of the variety. The data generated through DNA profiling can be tendered as supplementary information in PBR registration. The DNA marker data in addition to morphological characters will be the most powerful tool as the basis for plant variety
384 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, SEPTEMBER 2001
identification and the potential exists for a bitrary primers, Th eoretical Applied greater exploitation of DNA marker technol- Genetics, 87, 1994,697-704. ogy. 8 Marshall P, Marchand M C, Lisieczko
Z and Landry B S, A simple method to References estimate the percentage of hybridity in
1 Charters Y M, Robertson A, Wilkinson canol a (Brassica napus) F1 hybrids,
M] and Ramsay G, PCR analysis of TheoreticalApplied Genetics, 89,1994,
oilseed rape cuItivars using 5 - an- 853-858.
chored SSR primers, Th eoretical Ap- 9 Falkenhagen E R, Isozyme studiesin plied Genetics, 92, 1996,442-447. provenance research of forest trees,
2 Halligan E A, Forde M Band War- Theoretical Applied Genetics, 69,1985, ring tor. I ] . Discrimination of rye 335-347.
grasses by heading date under various 10 Tobolski]] and Kemery R D C, Iden-combinations of vernalization and day tification of red mapple cultivars by length, Plant Varieties & Seeds, 4 , isozyme analysis, Horticulture Science, 1991,115-123. 2 7 ,1992,169-171.
3 Barker T A, Vuori T A, Hegedus M R 11 Wrigley C W, Austran] C and Bushuk and Myers D G, The use of ray W, Identification of cereal varieties by paramaters for the discrimination of gel electrophoresis of the grain pro-Australian wheatvarieties,Plant Varie- teins, Advances in Cereal Science and ties & Seeds, 5, 1992,35-45. Technology, 5, 1982,211-259.
4 Smith S, Cultivar Identification And 12 Rao T N, Nerker Y Sand Patil V D, Varietal Protection, In DNA Markers:
Identification of cultivars of cotton by Protocols, Applications And Overviews (wiley-VCH, New York) 1998, 283-
sodium dodecylsulphate polyacry-
300. lamide-gel e lectrophoresis (SDS-PAGE) of soluble seed proteins, Plant
5 Lombard V, Baril C P, Dubreuil P, Varieties & Seeds, 3, 1990,7-13. Blouet F and Zhang D, Genetic rela-
13 Smith] S C, Identification of pedigrees tionships and fingerprinting of rape-seed cultivars by AFLP: consequences of hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) cultivars
for varietal registration, Crop Science, by isozyme electrophoresis and re-
40,2000,1417-1425. versed-phase high-performance liquid
6 Lee D, Reeves] C, and Cooke R], DNA chromatography, Euphytica, 39,
profiling and plant variety registration: 1988,199-205.
2. Restriction fragment length poly- 14 Huebner F R, Bietz] A, Webb B D,
morphisms in variety of oilseed and ] uliano B 0, Rice cultivar identification rape, Plant Varieties & Seeds, 9, 1996, by high-perforn1ance liquid chroma-
181-190. tography of endosperm proteins, Ce-
7 Mailer R J. Scarth R, and Fristensky, real Chemistry, 67,1990,129-135.
Discrimination among cultivars of 15 Southern E M, Detection of specific rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) using sequences among DNA fragments DNA polymorphism amplified from ar- seperated by electrophoresis, Journal
SYAMAL KRISHNA GHOSH ei al.: MOLECULAR MARKERS ..... 385
of Molecular Biology, 98, 1975, 503-527.
16 Grant D and Shoemaker R, Molecular Hybridization, In DNA Markers: Protocols, Applications And Overviews (Wiley-VCH, New York) 1998,15-26.
17 Botstein B, White R L, Skolnick M and Davis R W, Construction of genetic linkage map in man using RFLP, American Journal of Human Genetics, 22, 1980,314-331.
18 Weber D and He1enljaris T, Mapping RFLP loci in maize using B - A translocations, Genetics, 121,1989,583-590.
19 Waugh J and Powell W, Using RAPD markers for crop improvement, Trends in Biotechnology, 10, 1992, 186-191.
20 Olufowote J 0 , Xu Y, Chen X., Park W 0, Beachell H M, Dilday R H, Goto M and Mc Couch S R, Comparative evaluation of within-cultivar variation in rice (0. sativa) using microstellite and RFLP markers, Genome, 40,1997,370-378.
21 Hallden C, Nilsson N 0, Rading I M and Sall T, Evaluation of RFLP and RAPD markers in a comparison of Brassica breeding lines, Theoretical Applied Genetics, 88,1994,123-128. .
22 Berry S T, Allen R J, Barnes S R, and Caligari P D S, Molecular marker analysis of Helianthus annusL. 1. RFLP between inbred lines of cultivated sunflower, Theoretical Applied Genetics, 89,1994,435-441.
23 Gorg R, Schachtschabel U, Ritter E, Salamini Fand Gebhardt C, Discrimination among 136 tetraploid potato varieties by fingerprints using highly-polymorphic DNA markers, Crop Science, 32, 1992, 815-819.
24 Smith J S C and Smith 0 S, Restriction fragment length polymorphisms can differentiate among US maize hybrids, Crop Science, 31, 1991, 893~899.
25 Vaccino P, Accerbi M and Corbellini M, Cultivar identification in T aestivum using highly polymorphic RFLP probes, Theoretical APPlied Genetics, 86, 1993, 833-836.
26 Williams J G K, Kubelik A R, Livak KJ, Rafalski J A, and Tingey S V, DNA polymorph isms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers, Nucleic Acids Research, 18,1990,6531-6535.
27 Welsh J and McClelland M, Fingerprinting genomes using PCR with arbitrary primers, Nucleic Acids Research, 18, 1990, 7213-7218.
28 Chowdari KV, DavierwalAP, Gupta V S, Ranjekar P K, and Govila 0 P, Genotype identification and assessment of genetic relationships in pearlmillet (Pennisitium glaucum L.) micro satellites & RAPDs, Theoretical Applied Genetics, 97,1998,157-162.
29 Chowdhury A K, Srinives P, Tongpamnak P, and Saksoong P, Identification of cultivars of vegetable soybeans (GLycine max L. Merr.) by RAPD markers, SABRAO Journal of Breeding & Genetics, 32 (2), 63-72.
30 Schnell RJ, Ronneing C M and Knight R J, Identification of cultivars and validation of genetic relationships in Mangifera indica using RAPD markers, Theoretical Applied Genetics, 90, 1995,269-274.
31 Koller B, Lehmann A, McDermott J M and Gessler C, Identification of apple cultivars using RAPD markers, Theo-
386 ] INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, SEPTEMBER 2001
retical Applied Genetics, 85, 1993,901- among wheat cultivars from the Pacific 904. Northwest, Crop Science, 38, 1998,
32 Mozges G and Friedt W, Genetic fin- 1261-127l.
gerprinting of sunflower lines & F1 40 Maheswaran M, Subudhi P K. Nandi hybrids using isozymes, simple repeti- S, Xu J C, Parco A, Yang D C and tive sequences as hybridization probes Huang N, Polymorphism, distribution and random primers for PCR, Plant and segregation of AFLP markers in a Breeding, 1 13,1994,114-124. doubled haploid rice population, Theo-
33 Arias D M, and Rieseberg LH, Genetic retical Applied Genetics, 94, 1997, 39-
re latio nsh ips among domesticated 45.
and wild sunflower, Economic Botany, 41 Jacob H J, Lindpaintner K., Lincolin S 49, 1995,239-248. E, Kusumi K, Bunker R K, Mao Y P,
34 Sharma PC, Winter P, BungerT, Hut- Ganten D, Dzau V J and Lander E S,
tel B, Weigand F, Wei sing K and Khal Genetic mapping of a gene causing
G, Abundence and polymorphism of hypertension in the stroke-prone spon-
di, tri and tetrap-nucleotide tandem re- taneously hypertensive rat, Cell, 67,
pea ts inc hick pea C Cicer arietinum L.), 1991 ,213-224.
Theoretical Applied Genetics, 90, 1995, 42 Hearne C M, Ghosh S and Todd J A, 90-96. Microsaatellites for linkage analysis of
35 Hedrick P, Shooting the RAPDs, Na- genetic traits, Trends in Genetics, 8,
ture, 3 55, 1992, 679-680. 1992,288-294.
36 Welsh], Honeycutt RJ, McClelland M 43 Maughan, P J, Sanhai-Maroof, M.A.
and Sobral B W S, Parentage determi- and Buss, G.R. 1995. Microsatellite
nation in maize hybrids using the arbi- markers in soybean: genotype identifi-
t ra r il y primed polyme rase chain cation, Genome, 38, 715-723
reaction CAP-PCR) , Th eoretical Ap- 44 Wu KS and Tanksley S D, Abundence, plied Genetics, 82, 1991, 473-476. polymorphism and genetic mapping of
37 Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans microsatellites in rice, Molecular &
M, van de Lee T, Homes M, Frijters A, General Genetics, 241,1993,225 -235.
Pot}, Peleman J, Kuiper M and Zabeau 45 BruneI D, A microsatellite marker in M, AFLP: a new technique for DNA Helianthus annus L, Plant Molecular fi ngerprinting. Nucleic Acids Research, Biology, 24, 1994, 397-400. 2 3, 1995, 4407-4414. 46 Akagi H, Yokozeki Y, Inagaki A and
38 Hongtrakul V, Huestis G M and Knapp Fujimura T, Highly polymorphic mi-S J, Amplified fragment length poly- crosatelites of lice consist of AT re-morphisms as a tool for DNA finger- peats and a classification of closely printing s unflower germplasm: related cultivars with these microstel-genetic diversity among oilseed in- lite loci, Theoretical Applied Genetics, bred lines, Theoretical Applied Genet- 94, 1997,61-67. ics, 95, 1997,400-407. 47 Garland S H, Lewin L, Abedinia M,
39 Barrett B A and Kidwell K K. AFLP- Henry R and Blakeney A, The use of based genetic diversity assessment microsatellite polymorphism for the
SYAMAL KRISHNA GHOSH et al.: MOLECUlAR MARKERS ..... 387
identification of Australian breeding lines of rice (Oryza sativa), Euphytica, 108,1999, 53-63.
48 Kantety R V, Zeng X P, Bennetzen J L and Zher B E, Assessment of genetic diversity in Dent and Popcorn (Zea mays L.) inbred lines using ISSR amplification, Molecular Breeding, 1, 1995, 365-373.
49 Nagaoka T and Ogihara Y, Applicability of ISSR polymorph isms in wheat for use as DNA markers in comparison to RFLP and RAPD markers, Theoretical Applied Genetics, 94, 1997,597-602.
50 Gupta P K, Roy J K and Prasad M, SNPs: a new paradigm for molecular marker technology and DNA polymorphism detection with emphasis on their use in plants, Current Science, 80,2001, 524-535.
51 Wolters P, Powell W, Lagudah E, Snape J and Henderson K, in. Plant and Animal Genome VIII Conference, 9-12 January 2000, San Diego, USA (http:// www.intlpag.org/pag/8/abstracts/).
52 Bhattramakki D, et al, in Plant and Animal Genome VIII Conference, 9-12 January, 2000, San Diego, USA. (http://www.intlpag.org/pag/8/abst racts/) .
53 See D, Kanazin V, Talbert H and Blake T, 1998, Cultivar identification in barleyusing SNPs. (http://wheat.pwusda. ov / ggpages/Barley N ewsleter / 42/ post 26.himl).
54 Morell M K, Peakall R, Appels L R, Preston L R and Lloyd H L, DNA profiling techniques for plant cultivar identification, Australian Journal of experimental Agriculture, 35, 1995,807-819.
55 Ragot M and Hoisington D A, Molecular markers for plant breeding: comparison of RFLP and RAPD genotyping costs, Theoretical Applied Genetics, 86, 1993,975-984.
56 McCouch F R and Tanksley S D, Development And Use Of RFLP In Rice Breeding And Gen etics, In , Rice Biotechnology (CAB I , Welling Ford) , 1991, 109-133.
57 Heun M and Helentjaris T, Inheritance of RAPDs in F1 hybrids of corn, Th eoretical Applied Genetics, 85, 1993,961-968.
58 Penner G A, Bush A, Wise R, Kim W, Domier L, Kasha K, Laroche A, Scoles G, Motnar SJ and Fedak G, Reproducibility of RAPD analysis among laboratories. PCR Methods and Applications , 2, 1993,341-353.
59 Roder M S, Korzun V, Wendehake K, Plaschke J, Tixier M H, Leroy P and Ganal M W, A microsatellite map of wheat, Genetics, 149,1998,2007-2023.
60 Gupta P K, Balyan H S, Sharma P C and Ramesh B, Microsatellites in plants: a new class of molecular markers, Current Science, 70, 1996,45-54.
61 Plaschke J, Ganal M Wand Roder M S, Detection of genetic diversity in closely related bred wheat using microsatellite markers, Theoretical Applied Genetics, 91, 1995, 1001-1007.
62 Struss D and Plieske J , The use of micro satellite markers for detection of genetic diversity in barley populations, Theoretical Applied Genetics, 87,1998, 789-794.
63 Prevost A and Wilkinson M J, A new system of comparing PCR primers applied to ISSR fingerprinting of potato
388 J INTELLEC PROP RIGHTS, SEPTEMBER 2001
cultivars, Theoretical Applied Genetics, 68 Michelmore R W, Paran I and Kesseli 98,1999,107-112. R V, Identification of markers linked to
64 Bel1 C] and Ecker] R, Assignment of disease resistance genes by bulked
30 microsatellite loci to the linkage segregant analysis: a rapid method to
map of Arabidopsis, Genomics, 19, detect markers in specific genomic re-
1994,137 - 144. gions by using segregating popula-
65 Powel1 W, Morgente M, Andre C, Ha- tions, Proceedings 0/ the Na tional
nafey M, Vogel] Tingey and Rafalski Academy 0/ Sciences, USA, 88, 1991,
A, The comparison of RFLP, RAPD, 9828-9832.
AFLP and SSR (micro satellite) mark- 69 Morel1 M K, Peakal1 R, Appels L R, ers for germ plasm analysis, Molecular Preston L R, Bul1er CDS, Thomas M Breeding, 2, 1996, 225-238. R, Scott N S, Kijas] M H, Flower ] C S
66 Tessier C, David], This P, Boursiquot and Lloyd H L, The application of DNA
] M and Charrier A, Optimisation of profiling to the determination of dis-
the choice of molecular markers for tinctness between varieties in Citrus
varietal identification in Vitis vini/era, and implications for varietal identifica-
Theoretical Apptied Genetics, 98,1999, tion in other plant species. UPOV
171-177. document BMT/2/3, 1994.
67 Baenziger P S, Kleese R and Barnes R 70 Van den Burg W] and Van Zwol R A, F, IPR: Protection of plant materials. Rapid identification techniques of the Crop Science Society 0/ America, 1993, ISTA a survey, Seed Science and Tech-Madison, WI. nology, 19, 1991,687-700.