| Literature DB >> 22429788 |
Hager Snoussi1, Marie-France Duval, Andres Garcia-Lor, Zina Belfalah, Yann Froelicher, Ange-Marie Risterucci, Xavier Perrier, Jean-Pierre Jacquemoud-Collet, Luis Navarro, Moncef Harrabi, Patrick Ollitrault.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Citrus represents a substantial income for farmers in the Mediterranean Basin. However, the Mediterranean citrus industry faces increasing biotic and abiotic constraints. Therefore the breeding and selection of new rootstocks are now of the utmost importance. In Tunisia, in addition to sour orange, the most widespread traditional rootstock of the Mediterranean area, other citrus rootstocks and well adapted to local environmental conditions, are traditionally used and should be important genetic resources for breeding. To characterize the diversity of Tunisian citrus rootstocks, two hundred and one local accessions belonging to four facultative apomictic species (C. aurantium, sour orange; C. sinensis, orange; C. limon, lemon; and C. aurantifolia, lime) were collected and genotyped using 20 nuclear SSR markers and four indel mitochondrial markers. Multi-locus genotypes (MLGs) were compared to references from French and Spanish collections.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22429788 PMCID: PMC3323426 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2156-13-16
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genet ISSN: 1471-2156 Impact factor: 2.797
Genetic diversity of the Tunisian germplasm for 20 SSR markers
| Tunisian germplasm | Tunisian germplasm+ref | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Ho | He | N | |
| 3 | 0.891 | 0.494 | 3 | |
| 6 | 0.108 | 0.233 | 9 | |
| 4 | 0.881 | 0.554 | 9 | |
| 5 | 0.985 | 0.614 | 10 | |
| 4 | 0.911 | 0.549 | 5 | |
| 6 | 0.950 | 0.584 | 9 | |
| 6 | 0.098 | 0.234 | 9 | |
| 5 | 0.990 | 0.586 | 8 | |
| 6 | 0.965 | 0.615 | 8 | |
| 5 | 0.965 | 0.585 | 7 | |
| 5 | 0.970 | 0.584 | 5 | |
| 6 | 0.980 | 0.618 | 11 | |
| 8 | 0.980 | 0.649 | 9 | |
| 7 | 0.975 | 0.626 | 9 | |
| 5 | 0.970 | 0.613 | 8 | |
| 9 | 0.901 | 0.609 | 8 | |
| 10 | 0.995 | 0.615 | 12 | |
| 7 | 0.921 | 0.560 | 8 | |
| 7 | 0.911 | 0.546 | 7 | |
| 6 | 0.970 | 0.608 | 8 | |
| All loci | 120 | 0.866 +/-0.115 | 0.554 +/-0.050 | 162 |
n: allele number per locus for Tunisian germplasm; Ho: observed heterozygosity; He: expected heterozygosity; confidence interval at 95%; N: allele number per locus for Tunisian germplasm and reference accessions
Genetic diversity of the four varietal groups prospected in Tunisia
| na | G/N | He | Ho | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sour oranges | 3.10 | 10/169 | 0.45 +/-0.07 | 0.88 +/-0.13 |
| Oranges | 1.75 | 1/12 | 0.37 +/-0.10 | 0.75 +/-0.19 |
| Lemons | 1.90 | 2/12 | 0.42 +/-0.08 | 0.85 +/-0.16 |
| Limes | 3.15 | 3/8 | 0.50 +/-0.09 | 0.63 +/-0.15 |
na: mean number of allele/locus; G: MLGs number; N: total number of prospected accessions; Ho: observed heterozygosity; He: expected heterozygosity;
Confidence interval at 95%
Figure 1Rooted Neighbour Joining tree illustrating relationships between Tunisian MLGs and reference accessions analysed with 20 nuclear SSR loci. Bootstrap values (1000 replicates) are shown next to the branches if > 50. Tunisian MLGs names are coloured in black and reference accessions in grey. n: number of accessions sharing the MLG; Ho: observed heterozygosity. Reference accession names are indicated in Additional file 1b.
Different loci and alleles distinguishing local accessions from the references
| Loci different from the corresponding reference MLG | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sour Orange A (id ref) | 128 | 10% | Sevillano | |||||
| Sour Orange B | 32 | 10% | 1 | 0% | 1 | none | Mutation | |
| Sour Orange C | 2 | 15% | 1 | 100% | 0 | Mutation | ||
| Sour Orange D | 1 | 40% | 6 | 100% | 0 | Selfing | ||
| Sour Orange E | 1 | 60% | 10 | 100% | 0 | Selfing | ||
| Sour Orange F | 1 | 50% | 8 | 100% | 0 | Selfing | ||
| Sour Orange J | 1 | 50% | 8 | 100% | 0 | Selfing | ||
| Sour Orange H | 1 | 45% | 7 | 100% | 0 | Selfing | ||
| Sour Orange G | 1 | 20% | 14 | 21% | 11 | mandarin (10), lime Rangpur (4), Orange (3), Rough lemon (4)... | hybridization | |
| Sour Orange I | 1 | 30% | 17 | 35% | 12 | Sweet orange (12), mandarin (5), pummelo (3)... | hybridization | |
| Lemon A (id ref) | 11 | 15% | Eureka | |||||
| Lemon B | 1 | 15% | lemon (IVIA-297) | 1 | 0% | 1 | orange(1), sweet lime(1), mandarin (1) | Mutation |
| Lime Chiiri | 4 | 50% | Mexican lime | 14 | 50% | 9 | citron (8), lemon (6) | hybridization with citron |
N: Number of accession; Ho: % of homozygous loci; NL: number of loci; HoD: % of homozygous loci among the one differentiated from the reference; NA: number of alleles not found in the reference MLG; * the number of shared alleles are indicated between parenthesis.
Figure 2Maternal relationships between Tunisian genotypes and reference accessions analysed with four indel mitochondrial markers (NJ tree). Tunisian MLGs names are coloured in black, reference accessions are in grey.
Figure 3Geographical distribution of the analysed Tunisian accessions. Local Citrus accessions belonging to four species (C. aurantium, sour orange in blue; C. sinensis, orange in red; C. limon, lemon in green; and C. aurantifolia, lime in purple) were collected in main Tunisian regions. The number of each species accessions collected is represented in corresponding coloured sector within circle. Names of accessions for each sector correspond to the ones in Additional file 1a.
Primers of the 20 SSR loci used in the analysis
| Locus name | EMBL | Primer sequence Forward | Primer sequence Reverse | Repeat motifs | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACAGAAGGTAGTATTTTAGGG | TTGTTTGGATGGGAAG | (GA)9 | 55 | ||
| CAGAGACAGCCAAGAGA | GCTTCTTACATTCCTCAAA | (GA)16 | 55 | ||
| CTCTCTTTCCCCATTAGA | AGCAAACCCCACAAC | (GT)10(GA)7 | 50 | ||
| AATGATGAGGGTAAAGATG | ACCCATCACAAAACAGA | (GA)10 | 55 | ||
| GCCATAAGCCCTTTCT | CCCACAACCATCACC | (GT)10(GA)6 | 50 | ||
| CCACACAGGCAGACA | CCTTGGAGGAGCTTTAC | (GAAA)3(GA)11 | 50 | ||
| AAACCGAAATACAAGAGTG | TCCACAAACAATACAACG | (GA)14 | 55 | ||
| TCCCTATCATCGGCAACTTC | CAATAATGTTAGGCTGGATGGA | (TAA)9 | 55 | ||
| GAGCTCAAAACAATAGCCGC | CATACCTCCCCGTCCATCTA | (CAG)7 | 55 | ||
| CCCCCTCTTTTTCTCTTCCA | TTCTGGGCTGGTAGGTTCAG | (TC)12 | 55 | ||
| GGACCACAACAAAGACAG | TGGAGACACAAAGAAGAA | (GA)9 | 50 | ||
| GTCACTCACTCTCGCTCTTG | TTGCTAGCTGCTTTAACTTT | (CT)10 | 55 | ||
| GATCAAAACATTATTCCAA | TTTTTCATCAACAAGACTG | (CA)12 | 50 | ||
| TGAATGGTACGGGAAATGC | CAGGGTCGGTGGAGAGGAT | (GA)16 | 55 | ||
| AAGCATTTAGGGAGGGTCACT | TGCTGCTGCTGTTGTTGTTCT | (CT)13CC(CT)7 | 55 | ||
| ATGAGCTAAAGAGAAGAGG | GGACTCAACACAACACAA | (GAAT)6 | 50 | ||
| AAAACAACCAAAAGGACAAGATT | TTCAAACTAAACAAACCAACTCG | (GA)9 | 55 | ||
| GAACGATGGAATGAAGTG | ATGTTGATTACGAGACCTT | (GA)26 | 55 | ||
| CCTTTTCACAGTTTGCTAT | TCAATTCCTCTAGTGTGTGT | (TAAT)4N(TG)8(GA)11 | 55 | ||
| GCTGATGATACGCACGAACC | CACAACGCCAAAAACGACTC | (GA)10 | 55 | ||
Ta: annealing temperature. MEST: Marker selected from Clementine Expressed Sequence Tag, mCrCIR: Microsatellite selected from genomic sequences of C. reticulata at CIRAD