| Literature DB >> 19604363 |
Wim Deleu1, Cristina Esteras, Cristina Roig, Mireia González-To, Iria Fernández-Silva, Daniel Gonzalez-Ibeas, José Blanca, Miguel A Aranda, Pere Arús, Fernando Nuez, Antonio J Monforte, Maria Belén Picó, Jordi Garcia-Mas.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are few genomic tools available in melon (Cucumis melo L.), a member of the Cucurbitaceae, despite its importance as a crop. Among these tools, genetic maps have been constructed mainly using marker types such as simple sequence repeats (SSR), restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP) and amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLP) in different mapping populations. There is a growing need for saturating the genetic map with single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), more amenable for high throughput analysis, especially if these markers are located in gene coding regions, to provide functional markers. Expressed sequence tags (ESTs) from melon are available in public databases, and resequencing ESTs or validating SNPs detected in silico are excellent ways to discover SNPs.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2009 PMID: 19604363 PMCID: PMC2722630 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2229-9-90
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Plant Biol ISSN: 1471-2229 Impact factor: 4.215
Amplicons designed from ESTs for SNP discovery
| Amplicons | Failed | Monomorphic | Polymorphic | Polymorphic amplicons* | ||
| Random ESTs | 223 | 58 | 72 | 93 | 56.3% | |
| 269 | 41 | 69 | 159 | 69.7% | 51.8% | |
| 97 | 14 | 57 | 26 | 31.3% | 21.3% | |
| TOTAL | 589 | 113 | 198 | 278 | 58.4% | |
ESTs were selected at random or chosen because they contained pSNPs or pSCHs in the MELOGEN database. Columns show the number of amplicons that failed to amplify or gave bad quality sequences, and monomorphic and polymorphic amplicons between SC and PS. The percentages of polymorphic amplicons and in silico SNPs that were validated are shown in the last two columns. (*) Polymorphic amplicons rate was calculated without considering failed amplicons.
Frequency of SNPs and indels found after resequencing EST-derived amplicons
| Amplicons sequenced in SC and PS | Length sequenced (bp) | SNPs | bp per SNP | indels | bp per indel | Reference |
| 368 | 177,518 | 431 | 411.9 | 59 | 3,008.8 | this report |
| 34 | 15,000 | 34 | 441.2 | 9 | 1,666.6 | [ |
Data from a previous report using the same two melon parental lines is shown as a comparison.
Gene diversity indexes for SNP and SSR alleles using all, inodorus or genotypes described in a previous study [28]
| Genotypes | Marker type | Major allele frequency | Ho | He | He range |
| all | SNP | 0.69 | 0.10 | 0.40 | 0.14–0.50 |
| SNP | 0.85* | 0.07 | 0.15 | 0–0.50 | |
| group used in [ | SNP | 0.63 | 0.09 | 0.47 | 0.16–0.50 |
| group used in [ | SSR | 0.47 | 0.14 | 0.64 | 0.51–0.83 |
Ho, observed heterozygosity; He expected heterozygosity. * Major allele frequency was only calculated for polymorphic SNPs.
Figure 1Dendogram and population structure based on the variability of 45 SNPs in 48 melon accessions. The neighbor-joining (NJ) tree based on Nei genetic distances [44] for the selected melon accessions is shown on the right. The subdivision based on STRUCTURE is shown on the left; each accession on the NJ is colored according to its group assignation defined from STRUCTURE analysis.
Figure 2EST-SNP bin map of . Linkage groups are represented by vertical bars, divided in bins defined by the joint genotype of the selected DHLs. The mapped SNPs in this report are shown in bold. Underlined markers are candidate genes previously reported [23,35,36]. The other markers have been described in [21]. Genetic distances are shown on the left, indicating the position of the last marker included in the bin according to the framework map in [21]. Markers defining new bins are shown in italics. The hypothetical position of the last marker of these bins is indicated by a dashed horizontal line within the linkage group bar, without the genetic distance.
Figure 3EST-SNP bin map of . Linkage groups are represented by vertical bars, divided in bins defined by the joint genotype of the selected DHLs. The mapped SNPs in this report are shown in bold. Underlined markers are candidate genes previously reported [23,35,36]. The other markers have been described in [21]. Genetic distances are shown on the left, indicating the position of the last marker included in the bin according to the framework map in [21]. Markers defining new bins are shown in italics. The hypothetical position of the last marker of these bins is indicated by a dashed horizontal line within the linkage group bar, without the genetic distance.