| Literature DB >> 16995939 |
Rosana P V Brondani1, Emlyn R Williams, Claudio Brondani, Dario Grattapaglia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eucalypts are the most widely planted hardwood trees in the world occupying globally more than 18 million hectares as an important source of carbon neutral renewable energy and raw material for pulp, paper and solid wood. Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs) in Eucalyptus have been localized on pedigree-specific RAPD or AFLP maps seriously limiting the value of such QTL mapping efforts for molecular breeding. The availability of a genus-wide genetic map with transferable microsatellite markers has become a must for the effective advancement of genomic undertakings. This report describes the development of a novel set of 230 EMBRA microsatellites, the construction of the first comprehensive microsatellite-based consensus linkage map for Eucalyptus and the consolidation of existing linkage information for other microsatellites and candidate genes mapped in other species of the genus.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2006 PMID: 16995939 PMCID: PMC1599733 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-6-20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Figure 1Inheritance and segregation of fully informative microsatellites in Eucalyptus. Denaturing polyacrylamide gel resolution and detection by silver staining of markers EMBRA180, (top panel), EMBRA192 (bottom panel). First and last lanes contain the 10 bp ladder size standard, Invitrogen) with sizes of two fragments indicated in base pairs; lane 2 and 3 are the two parents, E. grandis G44 and E. urophylla U28, followed by 92 F1 progeny individuals.
Figure 2Parental and consensus maps of Eucalyptus involving a total of 234 microsatellite markers on 11 linkage groups. Markers in bold were mapped on one of the parental maps and on the consensus map; markers in grey boxes were mapped on one of the parental maps but not on the consensus map; underlined markers were mapped on both parental maps but not on the consensus map. Asterisks indicate markers with segregation distortion. Dotted lines connect the same markers in different maps, so that crossing lines indicate changes in locus ordering among maps. Distances in centiMorgan, (cM) Kosambi are indicated on the left of each linkage group.
Comparative summary and main attributes of the parental and consensus maps of Eucalyptus.
| Linkage group | Total # markers mapped | # markers mapped on the | # mapped markers segregating only from | Size in cM | Mean distance between markers, cM)b | # markers mapped on the | # markers mapped only on | # markers mapped on the | # mapped markers segregating only from | Size in cM | Mean distance between markers, cM)b | # markers mapped on the | # markers mapped only on | # fully informative markers on consensus map | # markers on consensus map segregating only in | # markers on consensus map segregating only in | # markers mapped on consensus map | Size in cM | Mean distance between markers, cM)b | # markers mapped on |
| 1 | 22 | 21 | 6 | 164.2 | 15.9 | 18 | 2 | 16 | 1 | 134.3 | 9.0 | 14 | 1 | 14 | 4 | 0 | 18 | 151.0 | 8.9 | 1 |
| 2 | 28 | 24 | 7 | 169.7 | 7.4 | 17 | 4 | 21 | 4 | 97.2 | 4.9 | 18 | 0 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 21 | 144.0 | 7.2 | 3 |
| 3 | 15 | 14 | 4 | 143.2 | 11.0 | 11 | 3 | 11 | 1 | 60.7 | 6.1 | 11 | 0 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 12 | 73.5 | 6.7 | 0 |
| 4 | 19 | 13 | 3 | 123.6 | 10.3 | 13 | 0 | 16a | 6 | 92.9 | 6.6 | 16 | 0 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 19 | 119.7 | 6.7 | 0 |
| 5 | 26 | 24 | 6 | 202.1 | 8.8 | 23 | 0 | 20 | 2 | 134.9 | 7.1 | 19 | 0 | 17 | 6 | 2 | 25 | 168.7 | 7.0 | 1 |
| 6 | 21 | 20 | 18 | 164.8 | 8.7 | 14 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 50.9 | 25.5 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 12 | 0 | 14 | 122.1 | 9.4 | 0 |
| 7 | 24 | 20 | 6 | 100.2 | 5.3 | 19 | 1 | 18 | 4 | 82.2 | 4.8 | 18 | 0 | 14 | 5 | 4 | 23 | 95.4 | 4.3 | 0 |
| 8 | 28 | 27 | 8 | 274.1 | 10.5 | 24 | 3 | 20 | 1 | 141.0 | 7.4 | 20 | 0 | 19 | 5 | 1 | 25 | 211.8 | 8.8 | 0 |
| 9 | 20 | 16 | 4 | 202.6 | 13.5 | 14 | 2 | 16 | 4 | 139.4 | 9.3 | 16 | 0 | 12 | 2 | 4 | 18 | 206.9 | 12.2 | 0 |
| 10 | 18 | 11 | 2 | 184.5 | 18.5 | 8 | 2 | 16 | 7 | 183.0 | 12.2 | 15 | 0 | 8 | 0 | 7 | 15 | 209.0 | 14.9 | 1 |
| 11 | 13 | 12 | 10 | 85.5 | 7.8 | 11 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 16.9 | 8.5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 12 | 65.6 | 6.0 | 0 |
a Linkage group # 4 in E. urophylla is composed by two separate linkage groups.
b Mean distance between markers is computed as the arithmetic mean of the map distances between adjacent markers shown in Figure 2.
c Arithmetic mean of the mean distance between markers in each linkage group.
Microsatellite markers that displayed null alleles, indicated by (-). and their respective mating configuration observed.
| EMBRA84 | 1/2 | -/- | 1 |
| EMBRA21 | 1/- | -/3 | 10 |
| EMBRA43 | 1/2 | -/- | 2 |
| EMBRA55 | 1/2 | 3/- | 2 |
| EMBRA111 | 1/- | 3/4 | 5 |
| EMBRA118 | 1/2 | -/- | 8 |
| EMBRA129 | 1/2 | -/- | 6 |
| EMBRA147 | 1/2 | 3/- | 1 |
| EMBRA153 | 1/2 | -/- | 10 |
| EMBRA159 | 1/2 | -/- | 2 |
| EMBRA185 | 1/2 | -/- | 2 |
| EMBRA187 | 1/- | -/- | 6 |
| EMBRA199 | 1/2 | -/- | 1 |
| EMBRA207 | 1/- | -/- | 2 |
| EMBRA216 | 1/- | 3/- | 2 |
| EMBRA218a | 1/2 | 3/- | 2 |
| EMBRA224 | 1/2 | -/- | 8 |
| EMBRA230 | 1/2 | -/- | 6 |
| EMBRA236 | 1/2 | -/- | 11 |
| EMBRA361 | 1/2 | -/- | 3 |
Homologies of linkage groups among different Eucalyptus sp. mapping studies that employed microsatellite markers. Localization of microsatellites derived and mapped from other Eucalyptus species [17, 44] and candidate genes [17], on the linkage groups of the consensus map of E. grandis and E. urophylla. The EMBRA microsatellites that allowed this analysis are listed in italics between parenthesis.
| Linkage groups (this study) | Linkage groups Thamarus | CSIRO Microsatellites Thamarus | Candidate genes Thamarus | Linkage groups Bundock | CRC Microsatellites Bundock |
| 1 | 7 | En006, Eg084, Eg065, Eg134, ( | COMT, SAMS (est), Laccase (est) | - | - |
| 2 | 4a | Eg008, Eg076, Eg111, Eg086, Eg096 | EAP1, PAL | - | - |
| 3 | 8b | Eg094, Eg098, Eg131 | ECS1 | - | - |
| 4 | 11g | Eg128, En011, Eg030 | MsaS2 | - | - |
| 5 | 9 | ( | AGE2 | 3 | EMCRC4, ( |
| 6 | 6c | Eg015b, Eg062, En016, | EXS2 | - | - |
| 7 | 2d | Eg061, En012, En014 | CCOAOMT, ECA1, XET(est) | 2 | EMCRC9, ( |
| 8 | 1e | Es076, En013, En015, Eg117, Eg126, En010 | 6 | EMCRC8, ( | |
| 9 | 5 | Eg067, Eg089, Eg015a, Es140, Eg115 | EXS2, | 1 | EMCRC1, ( |
| 10 | 10f | Eg023, Eg091, Es115 | CCR | - | - |
| 11 | 3 | Eg099, Eg024, ( | 4CL, AGE1, ELF, SAMS (est) | - | - |
a Homology was established based on markers Eg086 and Eg096 mapped by Missiaggia [72]
b Homology was established based on markers Eg094 and Eg098 mapped by Missiaggia [72]
c Homology was established based on marker Eg062 mapped by Missiaggia [72]
d Homology was established based on markers En014 mapped by Missiaggia [72]
e Homology was established based on markers En010 and Eg126 mapped by Missiaggia [72]
f Homology was established based on markers Eg091 mapped by Missiaggia [72]
g Homology was established based on the fact that only linkage group 4 of this work and group 11 of Thamarus et al. [17] were left.