Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T18:39:25.318Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Genetic relationships among Prunus rootstocks for sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) cultivars

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 April 2012

Z. Turkoglu
Affiliation:
Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Livestock, Atatürk Orman Çiftliği, Ankara, Turkey
A. Koc
Affiliation:
Black Sea Agricultural Research Institute, Gelemen, Samsun, Turkey
S. Ercisli*
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
S. Bilgener
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey
M. Akbulut
Affiliation:
Rize University, Pazar Vocational School, Rize, Turkey
N. Yildirim
Affiliation:
Ankara University Biotechnology Institute, Ankara, Turkey
R. Gercekcioglu
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
A. Esitken
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey
M. Gunes
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Agriculture, Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: sercisli@gmail.com
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sweet cherries can be grafted on a wide range of rootstocks belonging to Prunus avium, Prunus cerasus, Prunus mahaleb, Prunus angustifolia or hybrids of different Prunus species. Identification of Prunus rootstocks using morphological traits is almost impossible particularly during the dormant season. However, molecular analysis carried out on actively growing shoot tips, leaves or dormant buds provides good opportunity to reliably distinguish rootstocks. In this study, DNA was extracted from the leaves of a total of 184 sweet cherry rootstock candidates belonging to P. avium L., P. cerasus L., P. mahaleb L. and P. angustifolia L. previously selected from the north-western part of Turkey. The rootstock candidates were tested with ten simple sequence repeat (SSR) primers, developed for the Prunus genus. The primers successfully identified all rootstock candidates. The results showed that the number of alleles per locus ranged from 10 (UDAp-401, UCD-CH21 and CPSCT010) to 20 (UCD-CH31) with an average of 13.3 alleles per locus, indicating that the SSRs were highly informative. Unweighted Pair-Group Method with Arithmetic mean analysis demonstrated that P. avium accessions are closely related to P. cerasus. The reference rootstocks were clustered with their associated botanical species.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2012

Introduction

The genus Prunus includes more than 200 species of flowering shrubs and trees in the Rosaceae family and has great economic importance, as it includes the cultivated almond, peach, plum, cherry and apricot (Ercisli, Reference Ercisli2004; Yilmaz et al., Reference Yilmaz, Ercisli, Asma, Dogan and Kafkas2009).

All commercially grown sweet cherries grafted or budded on rootstocks belong to different Prunus species. Sweet cherry rootstocks can directly influence productivity, precocity, tree size, tree architecture, fruit size and fruit quality of sweet cherry cultivars. The choice of certain rootstocks will also influence many horticultural decisions such as pruning, training, tree support and labour management (Jimenez et al., Reference Jimenez, Pinochet, Gogorcena, Betran and Moreno2007; Cantín et al., Reference Cantín, Pinochet, Gogorcena and Moreno2010; Radunic et al., Reference Radunic, Jazbec, Pecina, Cosic and Pavicic2011). Traditionally, sweet cherry rootstocks were identified based on morphological characteristics and those parameters were strongly affected by the environment and the developmental stage of plant as well. This dependence on morphological traits makes rootstock identification nearly impossible particularly during the dormant season of plants. Moreover, botanical classification of species within this genus is sometimes controversial, partly because of the easiness of interspecific hybridization of the Prunus genus (Dosba et al., Reference Dosba, Bernhard and Zanetto1994).

For breeding and commercialization of promising rootstock candidates, a precise determination and discrimination of these materials is requested. In the case of rootstocks, it is very difficult to observe their morphological traits after grafting. Therefore, markers independent from the environment are necessary for reliable identification and discrimination of accessions. Superiority of molecular markers over morphological characterization in fruit species is well established and widely accepted (Ercisli et al., Reference Ercisli, Agar, Orhan, Yildirim and Hizarci2007; Zamani et al., Reference Zamani, Sarkhosh, Fatahi and Ebadi2007; Kafkas et al., Reference Kafkas, Ozgen, Dogan, Ozcan, Ercisli and Serce2008; Duminil and Di Michele, Reference Duminil and Di Michele2009; Szikriszt et al., Reference Szikriszt, Hegedus and Halasz2011).

Microsatellites or simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers have been very useful for studying the extent and distribution of genetic variability in wild and cultivated plants including various Prunus species (Cheng and Huang, Reference Cheng and Huang2009; Guarino et al., Reference Guarino, Santoro, De Simone and Cipriani2009; Nas et al., Reference Nas, Bolek and Bardak2011) and the number of microsatellite loci available, in particular, for the Prunus genus has greatly increased. In Prunus, microsatellites have been used for germplasm characterization (Lacis et al., Reference Lacis, Rashal, Ruisa, Trajkovski and Iezzoni2009), determination of genetic diversity (Bouhadida et al., Reference Bouhadida, Martin, Eremin, Pinochet, Moreno and Gogorcena2007), germplasm management (Cheng and Huang, Reference Cheng and Huang2009), parentage analysis (Yamamoto et al., Reference Yamamoto, Mochida, Imai, Haji, Yaegaki, Yamaguchi, Matsuta, Ogiwara and Hayashi2003), cultivar identification (Xuan et al., Reference Xuan, Wang, Buchele, Moller and Hartmann2009) and mapping genetic linkage (Lalli et al., Reference Lalli, Abbott, Zhebentyayeva, Badenes, Damsteegt, Polak, Krska and Salava2008). In Prunus, microsatellites developed in one species have been used in a different species, demonstrating their transferability and ability to detect polymorphism (Wunsch, Reference Wunsch2009).

In cultivated sweet cherries, many reports related to SSR analysis have been published in different countries (Cheng and Huang, Reference Cheng and Huang2009; Lacis et al., Reference Lacis, Rashal, Ruisa, Trajkovski and Iezzoni2009; Gulen et al., Reference Gulen, Ipek, Ergin and Akcay2010). However, much less has been done to assess genetic diversity of wild cherry species by molecular markers.

The objective of this study was to select a set of microsatellite loci useful to detail polymorphism in different accessions belonging to Prunus species used as rootstocks for sweet cherry. It is expected that the information presented here would be useful for selection and more efficient utilization of this germplasm as rootstocks for sweet cherries in future.

Materials and methods

Plant material

For SSR and genetic relationship studies, a total of 184 accessions including representatives of the species Prunus avium (110 accessions), Prunus mahaleb (40 accessions), Prunus cerasus (29 accessions) and Prunus angustifolia (5 accessions) were used for SSR analysis. These accessions were previously selected from wild cherry populations in a national-wide sweet cherry rootstock selection study conducted in the north-western part of Turkey (supplementary material available online at http://journals.cambridge.org/). All accessions are maintained in a germplasm collection at the Black Sea Agricultural Research Center in Samsun, Turkey. Three standard Prunus rootstocks, SL64 (P. mahaleb L.), F12/1 (P. avium L.) and Montmorency (P. cerasus L.), were also included in the SSR analysis as a reference.

DNA extraction

Genomic DNA was extracted from young leaf tissue using the Wizard® Genomic DNA Purification Kit (Promega, Madison, WI, USA) according to the instructions provided by the manufacturer. Subsequently, an RNase treatment was performed on the eluted DNA samples. Purity and concentration of the DNA were checked both on 1% (w/v) agarose gels and by using a NanoDrop® ND-1000 Spectrophotometer.

SSR analysis

We initially checked 16 SSR primers. These 16 SSR primers are widely used in Prunus for molecular characterization (Akpinar et al., Reference Akpinar, Kocal, Ergul, Kazan, Selli, Bakir, Aslantas, Kaymak and Saribas2010; Gulen et al., Reference Gulen, Ipek, Ergin and Akcay2010; Ercisli et al., Reference Ercisli, Agar, Yildirim, Duralija, Vokurka and Karlidag2011; Yilmaz et al., Reference Yilmaz, Paydas-Kargi, Dogan and Kafkas2012). However, ten of them gave better amplification in this study. Therefore, ten SSRs were selected to check polymorphism by capillary electrophoresis in 184 accessions of the four different Prunus species (Table 1). Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was conducted in a volume of 10 μl and contained 15 ng genomic DNA, 5 pmol of each primer, 0.5 mM dNTP, 0.5 unit GoTaq DNA polymerase (Promega), 1.5 mM MgCl2 and 2 μl 5 ×  buffer. The forward primers were ‘labelled’ with WellRED fluorescent dyes D2 (black), D3 (green) and D4 (blue) (Pro-ligo, Paris, France). Reactions without DNA were included as negative controls. PCR amplification was performed using the Biometra® PCR System. The amplification conditions consisted of an initial denaturation step of 3 min at 94°C, followed by 35 cycles of 1 min at 94°C, 1 min at 52–56°C and 2 min at 72°C with a final extension at 72°C for 10 min. For the determination of polymorphisms, the PCR products were run on a CEQTM 8800 XL Capillary Genetic Analysis System (Beckman Coulter, Fullerton, CA, USA). The analyses were repeated at least twice to ensure reproducibility of the results. In each run, SL64, F12/1 and Montmorency were included as reference rootstocks.

Table 1 Simple sequence repeat primer pairs used in this study to characterize 184 rootstocks belonging to Prunus

Genetic analysis

The genetic analysis program ‘IDENTITY’ 1.0 (Wagner and Sefc, Reference Wagner and Sefc1999) was used according to Paetkau et al. (Reference Paetkau, Calvert, Stirling and Strobeck1995) for the calculation of number of alleles, expected and observed heterozygosity (H e and H o), estimated frequency of null alleles, and the probability of genetic identity per locus. Probability of genetic identity corresponds to the probability of two random individuals displaying the same accessions. That means if probability of identity (PI) = 1, it indicates that the primer pair is not able to distinguish between the accessions, and vice versa the smaller is the PI value, the more informative the SSR primer pair (locus) is. Null alleles are non-amplified alleles that, when segregating with another allele, result in an apparent homozygote. For microsatellites, such null alleles can arise when mutations occur in the flanking regions, preventing one or both of the primers from binding (Holm et al., Reference Holm, Loeschcke and Bendixen2001). Genetic similarity was determined by the program ‘MICROSAT’ (version 1.5) (Minch et al., Reference Minch, Ruiz-Linares, Goldstein, Feldman and Cavalli-Sforza1995) using the proportion of shared alleles, which was calculated by using ‘ps (option 1 − (ps))’, as described by Bowcock et al. (Reference Bowcock, Ruiz-Linares, Tomfohrde, Minch, Kidd and Cavalli-Sforza1994). The results were then converted to a similarity matrix, and a dendrogram was constructed with the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) method (Sneath and Sokal, Reference Sneath and Sokal1973) using software NTSYS-pc (Numerical Taxonomy and Multiware Analysis System, version 2.0) (Rohlf, Reference Rohlf1988).

Results

In the study, a total of 133 alleles with an average of 13.3 alleles per locus obtained. The number of alleles per primer ranged from 10 (UDAp-401, UCD-CH21 and CPSCTO10 primers) to 20 (UCD-CH31) (Table 2).

Table 2 List of genetic parameters obtained with simple sequence repeat used in this study

N, number of alleles; H o, observed heterozygosity; H e, expected heterozygosity; PI, probability of identity; r, null allele frequencies.

We observed an average SSR heterozygosity (H o) of 0.57, while the H e was 0.81. The H o, identified by each primer pair, ranged between 0.34 (UCD-CH21) and 0.81 (UDAp-404) and the H e was found between 0.70 (UDAp-404) and 0.87 (UCD-CH31 and UDP96-005). UCD-CH31, UDP96-001 and UDP96-005 were the markers with the highest informative value with regard to the lowest PI (0.06) value, whereas the least informative locus was UCD-CH17 (PI = 0.72) (Table 2). Null allele frequency was the highest in loci UCD-CH17 and UCD-CH21 (0.25) and was the lowest in UDAp-404 ( − 0.06) (Table 2).

Genetic similarity measured within the species ranged between 0.05 and 1.00 within P. avium, 0.45 and 1.00 within P. cerasus, 0.55 and 0.80 within P. angustifolia and 0.05 and 1.00 within P. mahaleb accessions. The average similarity ratios within the species in a descending order were P. cerasus (0.77)>P. angustifolia (0.69)>P. mahaleb (0.55)>P. avium (0.37), respectively.

A tree constructed from the SSR data divided the cultivars into two main clusters according to their taxonomic classification. The first cluster included the P. avium and P. cerasus accessions, the first subcluster consisted of P. avium and the second subcluster included P. cerasus. P. avium seemed to be more differentiated. P. cerasus was divided into five groups, the two biggest groups contained many accessions and these accessions seemed to be identical or very closely related. The second main cluster included the P. mahaleb and P. angustifolia accessions and was also further divided into two subclusters: its first and second subcluster consisted of the P. mahaleb and P. angustifolia accessions, respectively. In contrast to P. cerasus, P. mahaleb and P. angustifolia seemed to be more differentiated. The reference rootstocks were also clustered with their associated botanical species (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1 Dendrogram of 184 Prunus accessions based on UPGMA analysis using the genetic similarity matrix generated by the Nei and Li similarity coefficient after amplification with ten pairs of microsatellite primers.

Discussion

The results obtained in the present study show that microsatellites could be effectively used for fingerprinting purposes in Prunus. In the present study, ten loci in wild Prunus accessions were assayed. The number of alleles per locus ranged from 10 to 20 with an average of 13.3 putative alleles per locus. Previously, Kacar et al. (Reference Kacar, Iezzoni and Cetiner2005) obtained a total of 37 alleles among ten sweet cherry cultivars by nine SSR primers. Clarke and Tobutt (Reference Clarke and Tobutt2003) used 14 sweet cherry cultivars for SSR analysis and determined two to seven alleles per SSR primer. In addition, Vaughan and Russell (Reference Vaughan and Russell2004) used 16 wild cherry accessions for molecular analysis by using ten SSR primers and they detected two to six alleles. In fact, all tested microsatellite primer pairs worked well and produced variable levels of amplifications. The UCD-CH31 locus developed for cherries was the most polymorphic among the ten loci with the highest effective number of alleles (20 alleles) with the lowest PI value (0.06). The CPSCT010, UCD-CH21 and UDAp-401 loci were the less informative with the lowest allele number. Ercisli et al. (Reference Ercisli, Agar, Yildirim, Duralija, Vokurka and Karlidag2011) also found that UDAp-401 and CPSCTO10 were the less informative loci in wild sweet cherries (P. avium). The results showed high amplification of cherry groups with plum, apricot and peach indicating a congeneric relationship within Prunus species. Ercisli et al. (Reference Ercisli, Agar, Yildirim, Duralija, Vokurka and Karlidag2011) successfully used SSR markers identified in other Prunus species to study genetic diversity in wild sweet cherries. Dirlewanger et al. (Reference Dirlewanger, Cosson, Tavaud, Aranzana, Poizat, Zanetto, Arús and Laigret2002), Wunsch and Hormaza (Reference Wunsch and Hormaza2002) and Bouhadida et al. (Reference Bouhadida, Casas, Gonzalo, Arús, Moreno and Gogorcena2009) also showed transportability of SSR markers across Prunus species. Our results demonstrated the cross-species transferability of SSR primers developed in cultivated species to wild species in Prunus for the discrimination of accessions.

Previously, UCD-CH31 (Struss et al., Reference Struss, Ahmad, Southwick and Boritzki2003) and PS12A02 loci were found to be the most informative in other studies (Downey and Iezzoni, Reference Downey and Iezzoni2000; Gulen et al., Reference Gulen, Ipek, Ergin and Akcay2010; Ercisli et al., Reference Ercisli, Agar, Yildirim, Duralija, Vokurka and Karlidag2011). According to Sefc et al. (Reference Sefc, Lopez, Lefort, Botta, Roubelakis-Angelakis, Ibanez, Pejic, Wagner, Glossl and Steinkellner2000), the PI value should be over 0.05 and all loci used in this study had PI values higher than 0.05, indicating that the selected loci were highly polymorphic for used materials. As mentioned before, null allele frequency was the highest in loci UCD-CH17 and UCD-CH21 (0.25) and was the lowest in UDAp-404 ( − 0.06) (Table 2). Null alleles are generally referred to as alleles that fail to amplify during the PCR.

The overall genetic diversity within the tested species was relatively low as evident from the polymorphic ratio of 21% found using SSR primers (Struss et al., Reference Struss, Ahmad, Southwick and Boritzki2003), 19% reported by Zhou et al. (Reference Zhou, Kapel, Hampson, Wiersma and Bakkeren2002) and 20% reported by Zhou et al. (Reference Zhou, Kapel, Hampson, Wiersma and Bakkeren2002) in cherries. We found a high diversity ratio within P. avium compared with other species. A higher level of polymorphism was expected in sweet cherry due to its predominant self-incompatibility (Hegedus et al., Reference Hegedus, Lenart and Halasz2012).

SSR markers have been widely used for molecular characterizations and similarity relationships among Prunus accessions and revealed a high level of polymorphism to discriminate among these accessions (Sosinski et al., Reference Sosinski, Gannavarapu, Hager, Beck, King, Ryder, Rajapakse, Baird, Ballard and Abbott2000; Dirlewanger et al., Reference Dirlewanger, Cosson, Tavaud, Aranzana, Poizat, Zanetto, Arús and Laigret2002; Pedryc et al., Reference Pedryc, Ruthner, Herman, Krska, Hegedus and Halasz2009).

The higher levels of within-group variation observed within P. avium accessions suggest the development of P. avium in the Black Sea and Northeast Anatolia. Introduction and spread of wild and semi-domesticated Prunus species, especially from its native Near Eastern range, domestication of indigenous wild Prunus species, natural hybridization between indigenous and introduced plants, and human selection may have contributed to this high variation.

The H o and H e averaged over the ten SSR loci were, respectively, 0.57 and 0.81, indicating higher mean values than those reported for SSRs in Prunus species (Aranzana et al., Reference Aranzana, Pineda, Cosson, Dirlewanger, Ascasibar, Cipriani, Ryder, Testolin, Abbott, King, Iezzoni and Arús2003; Bouhadida et al., Reference Bouhadida, Casas, Gonzalo, Arús, Moreno and Gogorcena2009). A high allele number and high heterozygosity obtained in the present study reflect the ability of SSR markers to provide a unique genetic profile for individual plant accessions, in particular, for P. avium, P. mahaleb and P. angustifolia accessions.

Such high levels of heterozygosity are commonly observed among clonally propagated, outbreeding, perennial species since they are favoured during selection and are known to confer greater adaptability, vigour and productivity on clonal varieties (Aradhya et al., Reference Aradhya, Liana, Zee and Manshardt1998; Sefc et al., Reference Sefc, Lopez, Lefort, Botta, Roubelakis-Angelakis, Ibanez, Pejic, Wagner, Glossl and Steinkellner2000).

Conclusion

In conclusion, the gene pool of the Prunus species surveyed in Northeast Anatolia has significant amounts of genetic variation. With regard to germplasm management, our results show that the germplasm collection is highly variable and most variation is common to all genetic groups identified. The Prunus germplasm from the region would have economically important adaptive traits that can potentially be incorporated into Prunus breeding programmes. Hence, it is expected that the results of this study will assist current Prunus rootstock breeding efforts in Turkey as well as maintain the genetic integrity of the genetic resources. The SSR-based phylogeny was also generally consistent with Prunus taxonomy based on molecular evidence, suggesting the applicability of SSR analysis for genotyping and phylogenetic studies in the Prunus genus.

References

Akpinar, AE, Kocal, H, Ergul, A, Kazan, K, Selli, ME, Bakir, M, Aslantas, S, Kaymak, S and Saribas, R (2010) SSR-based molecular analysis of economically important Turkish apricot cultivars. Genetics and Molecular Research 9: 324332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Aradhya, MK, Liana, Y, Zee, FT and Manshardt, RM (1998) Genetic variability in Macadamia. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 45: 1932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aranzana, J, Pineda, A, Cosson, P, Dirlewanger, E, Ascasibar, J, Cipriani, G, Ryder, CD, Testolin, R, Abbott, A, King, GJ, Iezzoni, AF and Arús, P (2003) A set of simple-sequence repeat (SSR) markers covering the Prunus genome. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 106: 819825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouhadida, M, Martin, JP, Eremin, G, Pinochet, J, Moreno, MA and Gogorcena, Y (2007) Chloroplast DNA diversity in Prunus and its implication on phylogenetic relationships. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 132: 670679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouhadida, M, Casas, AM, Gonzalo, MJ, Arús, P, Moreno, MA and Gogorcena, Y (2009) Molecular characterization and genetic diversity of Prunus rootstocks. Scientia Horticulturae 120: 237245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowcock, AM, Ruiz-Linares, A, Tomfohrde, J, Minch, E, Kidd, JR and Cavalli-Sforza, LL (1994) High resolution of human evolutionary trees with polymorphic microsatellites. Nature 368: 455457.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cantín, CM, Pinochet, J, Gogorcena, Y and Moreno, MA (2010) Fruit quality and yield of ‘Van’ and ‘Stark Hardy Giant’ sweet cherry cultivars as influenced by grafting on different rootstocks. Scientia Horticulturae 123: 329335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Z and Huang, H (2009) SSR fingerprinting Chinese peach cultivars and landraces (Prunus persica) and analysis of their genetic relationships. Scientia Horticulturae 120: 188193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cipriani, G, Lot, G, Huang, WG, Marrazzo, MT, Petelunger, E and Testolin, R (1999) AC/GT and AG/CT microsatellite repeats in peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch): isolation, characterisation and cross-species amplification in Prunus . Theoretical and Applied Genetics 99: 6572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clarke, JB and Tobutt, KR (2003) Development and characterization of polymorphic microsatellites from Prunus avium ‘Napoleon’. Molecular Ecology Notes 3: 578580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dirlewanger, E, Cosson, P, Tavaud, M, Aranzana, MJ, Poizat, C, Zanetto, A, Arús, P and Laigret, F (2002) Development of microsatellite markers in peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] and their use in genetic diversity analysis in peach and sweet cherry, Prunus avium L. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 105: 127138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dosba, F, Bernhard, R and Zanetto, A (1994) Importance des ressources génétiques des Prunus . Comptes-rendus des Seances de l'Academie d'Agriculture de France 80: 4557.Google Scholar
Downey, SL and Iezzoni, AF (2000) Polymorphic DNA markers in black cherry (Prunus serotina) are identified using sequences from sweet cherry, peach and sour cherry. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 125: 7680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duminil, J and Di Michele, M (2009) ‘Plant species delimitation: a comparison of morphological and molecular markers’. Plant Biosystems 143: 528542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ercisli, S (2004) A short review of the fruit germplasm resources of Turkey. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51: 419435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ercisli, S, Agar, G, Orhan, E, Yildirim, N and Hizarci, Y (2007) Interspecific variability of RAPD and fatty acid composition of some pomegranate cultivars (Punica granatum L.) growing in Southern Anatolia Region in Turkey. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 35: 764769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ercisli, S, Agar, G, Yildirim, N, Duralija, B, Vokurka, A and Karlidag, H (2011) Genetic diversity in wild sweet cherries (Prunus avium L.) in Turkey revealed by SSR markers. Genetics and Molecular Research 10: 12111219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guarino, C, Santoro, S, De Simone, L and Cipriani, G (2009) Prunus avium: nuclear DNA study in wild populations and sweet cherry cultivars. Genome 52: 320337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gulen, H, Ipek, A, Ergin, S and Akcay, MA (2010) Assessment of genetic relationships among 29 introduced and 49 local sweet cherry accessions in Turkey using AFLP and SSR markers. Journal of Horticultural Science & Biotechnology 85: 427431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hegedus, A, Lenart, J and Halasz, J (2012) Review of sexual incompatibility in tree fruit species: molecular interactions and evolutionary dynamics. Biologia Plantarum 56, (2): 201209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L-E, Loeschcke, V and Bendixen, C (2001) Elucidation of the molecular basis of a null allele in a Rainbow trout microsatellite. Marina Biotechnology 3: 555560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jimenez, S, Pinochet, J, Gogorcena, Y, Betran, JA and Moreno, MA (2007) Influence of different vigour cherry rootstocks on leaves and shoots mineral composition. Scientia Horticulturae 112: 7379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kacar, AY, Iezzoni, A and Cetiner, S (2005) Sweet cherry cultivar identification by using SSR markers. Journal of Biological Sciences 5: 616619.Google Scholar
Kafkas, S, Ozgen, M, Dogan, Y, Ozcan, B, Ercisli, S and Serce, S (2008) Molecular characterization of mulberry accessions in Turkey by AFLP markers. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 133: 593597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacis, G, Rashal, I, Ruisa, S, Trajkovski, V and Iezzoni, AF (2009) Assessment of genetic diversity of Latvian and Swedish sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) genetic resources collections by using SSR (microsatellite) markers. Scientia Horticulturae 121: 451457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lalli, D, Abbott, AG, Zhebentyayeva, TN, Badenes, ML, Damsteegt, V, Polak, J, Krska, B and Salava, A (2008) A genetic linkage map for an apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.). BC1 population mapping plum pox virus resistance. Tree Genetics & Genomes 4: 481493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messina, R, Lain, O, Marrazzo, MT, Cipriani, G and Testolin, R (2004) New set of microsatellite loci isolated in apricot. Molecular Ecology Notes 4: 432434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minch, E, Ruiz-Linares, A, Goldstein, DB, Feldman, M and Cavalli-Sforza, LL (1995) Microsat (Version 1.4d): A Computer Program for Calculating Various Statistics on Microsatellite Allele Data. Stanford: Stanford University Medical Center.Google Scholar
Mnejja, M, Garcia-Mas, J, Howad, W and Arús, P (2005) Development and transportability across Prunus species of 42 polymorphic almond microsatellites. Molecular Ecology Notes 5: 531535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nas, MN, Bolek, Y and Bardak, A (2011) Genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationships of Prunus microcarpa C.A. Mey. subsp. tortusa analyzed by simple sequence repeats (SSRs). Scientia Horticulturae 127: 220227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paetkau, D, Calvert, W, Stirling, I and Strobeck, C (1995) Microsatellite analysis of population structure in Canadian polar bears. Molecular Ecology 4: 347354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pedryc, A, Ruthner, SZ, Herman, R, Krska, B, Hegedus, A and Halasz, J (2009) Genetic diversity of apricot revealed by a set of SSR markers from linkage group G1. Scientia Horticulturae 121: 1926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radunic, M, Jazbec, A, Pecina, M, Cosic, T and Pavicic, N (2011) Growth and yield of the sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) as affected by training system. African Journal of Biotechnology 10: 49014906.Google Scholar
Rohlf, FJ (1988) NTSYS-PC Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System. New York: Exeter Publishing.Google Scholar
Sefc, K, Lopez, MS, Lefort, F, Botta, R, Roubelakis-Angelakis, KA, Ibanez, J, Pejic, I, Wagner, HW, Glossl, J and Steinkellner, H (2000) Microsatellites variability in grapevine cultivars from different European regions and evaluation of assignment testing to assess the geographic origin of cultivars. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 100: 498505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sosinski, B, Gannavarapu, M, Hager, LD, Beck, LE, King, GJ, Ryder, CD, Rajapakse, S, Baird, WV, Ballard, RE and Abbott, AG (2000) Characterisation of microsatellite markers in peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch]. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 101: 421428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sneath, PH and Sokal, RR (1973) Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.Google Scholar
Struss, D, Ahmad, R, Southwick, SM and Boritzki, M (2003) Analysis of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) cultivars using SSR and AFLP markers. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 128: 904909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szikriszt, B, Hegedus, A and Halasz, J (2011) Review of genetic diversity studies in almond (Prunus dulcis). Acta Agronomica Hungarica 59: 379395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughan, SP and Russell, K (2004) Characterization of novel microsatellites and development of multiplex PCR for large-scale population studies in wild cherry, Prunus avium . Molecular Ecology Notes 4: 429431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, HW and Sefc, KM (1999) Identity 1.0. Vienna: Centre for Applied Genetics, University of Agricultural Science.Google Scholar
Wunsch, A (2009) SSR markers for fingerprinting Prunus species. Acta Horticulturae 814: 689694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wunsch, A and Hormaza, JI (2002) Molecular characterisation of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) genotypes using peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] SSR sequences. Heredity 89: 5663.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xuan, H, Wang, R, Buchele, M, Moller, O and Hartmann, W (2009) Microsatellite markers (SSR) as a tool to assist in identification of sweet (Prunus avium) and sour cherry (Prunus cerasus). Acta Horticulturae 839: 507514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yamamoto, T, Mochida, K, Imai, T, Haji, T, Yaegaki, H, Yamaguchi, M, Matsuta, N, Ogiwara, I and Hayashi, T (2003) Parentage analysis in Japanese peaches using SSR markers. Breeding Science 53: 3540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, KU, Ercisli, S, Asma, BM, Dogan, Y and Kafkas, S (2009) Genetic relatedness in Prunus genus revealed by inter-simple sequence repeat markers. HortScience 44: 293297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yilmaz, KU, Paydas-Kargi, S, Dogan, Y and Kafkas, S (2012) Genetic diversity analysis based on ISSR, RAPD and SSR among Turkish apricot germplasms in Iran Caucasian eco-geographical group. Scientia Horticulturae doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2012.02.017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zamani, Z, Sarkhosh, A, Fatahi, R and Ebadi, A (2007) Genetic relationships among pomegranate genotypes studied by fruit characteristics and RAPD markers. Journal Horticultural Science and Biotechnology 82: 1118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, L, Kapel, F, Hampson, C, Wiersma, PA and Bakkeren, G (2002) Genetic analysis and discrimination of sweet cherry cultivars and selections using amplified fragment length polymorphism fingerprints. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 127: 786792.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1 Simple sequence repeat primer pairs used in this study to characterize 184 rootstocks belonging to Prunus

Figure 1

Table 2 List of genetic parameters obtained with simple sequence repeat used in this study

Figure 2

Fig. 1 Dendrogram of 184 Prunus accessions based on UPGMA analysis using the genetic similarity matrix generated by the Nei and Li similarity coefficient after amplification with ten pairs of microsatellite primers.

Supplementary material: File

Turkoglu supplementary material

Turkoglu supplementary material

Download Turkoglu supplementary material(File)
File 187.9 KB