Discriminating maize inbred lines using molecular and DUS data

Growing numbers of candidate varieties, decrease of their variability for morphological traits, and internationalization of the national list all contribute to excessive increase of the trial costs, thus creating the need for the improvement of current variety evaluation procedures, especially regards their distinctness, Uniformity, and Stability (DUS) component. Due to rapid advancement in molecular techniques, the use of molecular markers in DUS testing as a complement to, or replacement of, morphological observations became the subject of great interest in scientific studies, and consequently topic for discussion within International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV). In order to explore the potential of simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers for distinctness tests, present study involved set of 41 maize inbred lines that were scored for 32 DUS characters prescribed by UPOV and genotyped at 28 SSR loci. Results were largely in favor of the use of molecular markers, revealing or confirming their already known advantages over morphological markers like better consistency with the pedigree, and relatively higher discriminative power. However, their integration into DUS testing protocols still depends upon resolving of several important issues.

[1]  A. Charcosset,et al.  Large scale molecular analysis of traditional European maize populations. Relationships with morphological variation , 2001, Heredity.

[2]  J. Ziegle,et al.  Variation of DNA fingerprints among accessions within maize inbred lines and implications for identification of essentially derived varieties. , 2002, Molecular Breeding.

[3]  M. Ganal,et al.  Assessment of the uniformity of wheat and tomato varieties at DNA microsatellite loci , 2003, Euphytica.

[4]  F. Eeuwijk,et al.  Conceptual and statistical issues related to the use of molecular markers for distinctness and essential derivation , 2001 .

[5]  R. Koebner,et al.  DNA profiling and plant variety registration. III: The statistical assessment of distinctness in wheat using amplified fragment length polymorphisms , 1998, Euphytica.

[6]  F. V. van Eeuwijk,et al.  Statistical aspects of essential derivation, with illustrations based on lettuce and barley , 2004, Euphytica.

[7]  I. Pejić,et al.  Genetic divergence of elite maize inbred lines comparing to Illinois high oil source , 2007 .

[8]  Byung-Dong Kim,et al.  Use of SSR markers to complement tests of distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability (DUS) of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) varieties. , 2005, Molecules and cells.

[9]  J. Burstin,et al.  Relationship between phenotypic and marker distances: theoretical and experimental investigations , 1997, Heredity.

[10]  M. Trick,et al.  The development of multiplex simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers to complement distinctness, uniformity and stability testing of rape (Brassica napus L.) varieties , 2003, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[11]  C. Dillmann,et al.  Comparison of RFLP and morphological distances between maize Zea mays L. inbred lines. Consequences for germplasm protection purposes , 1997, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[12]  M. Bohn,et al.  Identification of essentially derived varieties obtained from biparental crosses of homozygous lines: II. Morphological distances and heterosis in comparison with simple sequence repeat and amplified fragment length polymorphism data in maize , 2005 .

[13]  M. Bohn,et al.  Identification of Essentially Derived Varieties Obtained from Biparental Crosses of Homozygous Lines: I. Simple Sequence Repeat Data from Maize Inbreds , 2005 .

[14]  J. Romero‐Severson,et al.  Pedigree analysis and haplotype sharing within diverse groups of Zea mays L. inbreds , 2001, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[15]  J. Gower.  A General Coefficient of Similarity and Some of Its Properties , 1971 .

[16]  H. Hopp,et al.  Feasibility of integration of molecular markers and morphological descriptors in a real case study of a plant variety protection system for soybean , 2002, Euphytica.

[17]  S. Kresovich,et al.  SSR Variation in Important U.S. Maize Inbred Lines , 2002 .

[18]  Leaf Chicory.  GUIDELINES FOR THE CONDUCT OF TESTS FOR DISTINCTNESS, UNIFORMITY AND STABILITY , 1996 .

[19]  A. Charrier,et al.  Optimization of the choice of molecular markers for varietal identification in Vitis vinifera L. , 1999, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[20]  N. Mantel.  The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. , 1967, Cancer research.

[21]  J. H. Ward.  Hierarchical Grouping to Optimize an Objective Function , 1963 .

[22]  M. De Loose,et al.  AFLP based alternatives for the assessment of Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability of sugar beet varieties , 2001, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.

[23]  V. Lefebvre,et al.  Evaluation of genetic distances between pepper inbred lines for cultivar protection purposes: comparison of AFLP, RAPD and phenotypic data , 2001, Theoretical and Applied Genetics.