Briana L Gross1, Adam D Henk2, Christopher M Richards2, Gennaro Fazio3, Gayle M Volk2. 1. Biology Department, University of Minnesota Duluth, 207 Swenson Science Building, 1035 Kirby Drive, Duluth, Minnesota 55812 USA. 2. USDA-ARS, National Center for Genetic Resource Preservation, 1111 S. Mason Street, Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 USA. 3. USDA-ARS, Plant Genetic Resources Unit, Geneva, New York 14456 USA.
Abstract
UNLABELLED: • PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Patterns of genetic diversity in domesticated plants are affected by geographic region of origin and cultivation, intentional artificial selection, and unintentional genetic bottlenecks. While bottlenecks are mainly associated with the initial domestication process, they can also affect diversity during crop improvement. Here, we investigate the impact of the improvement process on the genetic diversity of domesticated apple in comparison with other perennial and annual fruit crops.• METHODS: Apple cultivars that were developed at various times (ranging from the 13th through the 20th century) and 11 of the 15 apple cultivars that are used for 90% of the apple production in the United States were surveyed for genetic diversity based on either 9 or 19 simple sequence repeats (SSRs). Diversity was compared using standard metrics and model-based approaches based on expected heterozygosity (He) at equilibrium. Improvement bottleneck data for fruit crops were also collected from the literature.• KEY RESULTS: Domesticated apples showed no significant reduction in genetic diversity through time across the last eight centuries. Diversity was generally high, with an average He > 0.7 for apples from all centuries. However, diversity of the apples currently used for the bulk of commercial production was lower.• CONCLUSIONS: The improvement bottleneck in domesticated apples appears to be mild or nonexistent, in contrast to improvement bottlenecks in many annual and perennial fruit crops, as documented from the literature survey. The low diversity of the subset of cultivars used for commercial production, however, indicates that an improvement bottleneck may be in progress for this perennial crop.
UNLABELLED: • PREMISE OF THE STUDY: Patterns of genetic diversity in domesticated plants are affected by geographic region of origin and cultivation, intentional artificial selection, and unintentional genetic bottlenecks. While bottlenecks are mainly associated with the initial domestication process, they can also affect diversity during crop improvement. Here, we investigate the impact of the improvement process on the genetic diversity of domesticated apple in comparison with other perennial and annual fruit crops.• METHODS:Apple cultivars that were developed at various times (ranging from the 13th through the 20th century) and 11 of the 15 apple cultivars that are used for 90% of the apple production in the United States were surveyed for genetic diversity based on either 9 or 19 simple sequence repeats (SSRs). Diversity was compared using standard metrics and model-based approaches based on expected heterozygosity (He) at equilibrium. Improvement bottleneck data for fruit crops were also collected from the literature.• KEY RESULTS: Domesticated apples showed no significant reduction in genetic diversity through time across the last eight centuries. Diversity was generally high, with an average He > 0.7 for apples from all centuries. However, diversity of the apples currently used for the bulk of commercial production was lower.• CONCLUSIONS: The improvement bottleneck in domesticated apples appears to be mild or nonexistent, in contrast to improvement bottlenecks in many annual and perennial fruit crops, as documented from the literature survey. The low diversity of the subset of cultivars used for commercial production, however, indicates that an improvement bottleneck may be in progress for this perennial crop.
Authors: Lara D Shepherd; Peter J de Lange; Simon Cox; Patricia A McLenachan; Nick R Roskruge; Peter J Lockhart Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-24 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Jorge Urrestarazu; Caroline Denancé; Elisa Ravon; Arnaud Guyader; Rémi Guisnel; Laurence Feugey; Charles Poncet; Marc Lateur; Patrick Houben; Matthew Ordidge; Felicidad Fernandez-Fernandez; Kate M Evans; Frantisek Paprstein; Jiri Sedlak; Hilde Nybom; Larisa Garkava-Gustavsson; Carlos Miranda; Jennifer Gassmann; Markus Kellerhals; Ivan Suprun; Anna V Pikunova; Nina G Krasova; Elnura Torutaeva; Luca Dondini; Stefano Tartarini; François Laurens; Charles-Eric Durel Journal: BMC Plant Biol Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 4.215
Authors: Dietmar F Schulz; Rena T Schott; Roeland E Voorrips; Marinus J M Smulders; Marcus Linde; Thomas Debener Journal: Front Plant Sci Date: 2016-12-06 Impact factor: 5.753
Authors: Hrannar Smári Hilmarsson; Timo Hytönen; Sachiko Isobe; Magnus Göransson; Tuomas Toivainen; Jón Hallsteinn Hallsson Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-30 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mahsa Mousavi-Derazmahalleh; Bruno Nevado; Philipp E Bayer; Dmitry A Filatov; James K Hane; David Edwards; William Erskine; Matthew N Nelson Journal: Theor Appl Genet Date: 2018-09-17 Impact factor: 5.699