Discriminating maize inbred lines using molecular and DUS data

Euphytica

Volumn 161, Issue 1-2, 2008, Pages 165-172

  Gunjaca, Jerko ^a   Buhinicek, Ivica ^b   Jukic, Mirko ^b   Sarcevic, Hrvoje ^a   Vragolovic, Antun ^b   Kozic, Zdravko ^b   Jambrovic, Antun ^c   Pejic, Ivan ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ZAGREB   (Croatia)

^b Bc Institute for Breeding and Production of Field Crops   (Croatia)

^c AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE OSIJEK   (Croatia)

Author keywords

Discriminative power; DUS; Maize; SSR

Indexed keywords

ZEA MAYS;

EID: 42149191961     PISSN: 00142336     EISSN: 15735060     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10681-007-9518-z     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bar-Hen A, Charcosset A (1995) Relationship between molecular and morphological distances in a maize inbred lines collection. Applications for breeders' rights protection. In: Van Ooijen JW, Jansen J (eds) Biometrics in plant breeding: applications of molecular markers. Proceedings of the 9th Meeting of the EUCARPIA Section Biometrics in Plant Breeding, Wageningen, 1994. CPRO-DLO, Wageningen, p 57
2. Buhinicek I, Pejic I, Suresh J, Vragolovic A, Phillips RL (2004) Genetic divergence of elite maize inbred lines comparing to Illinois high oil source. Die Bodenkultur 55(1):29-35
3. Burstin J, Charcosset A (1997) Relationships between phenotypic and marker distance: theoretical and experimental investigations. Heredity 79:477-483
4. Cooke RJ, Bredemeijer GMM, Ganal MW, Peeters R, Isaac P, Rendell S, Jackson J, Röder MS, Korzun V, Wendehake K, Areshchenkova T, Dijcks M, Laborie D, Bertrand L, Vosman B (2003) Assessment of the uniformity of wheat and tomato varieties at DNA microsatellite loci. Euphytica 132:331-341
5. De Riek J, Calsyn E, Everaert I, Van Bockstaele E, De Loose M (2001) AFLP based alternatives for the assessment of Distinctness, Uniformity and Stability of sugar beet varieties. Theor Appl Genet 103:1254-1265
6. Dillman C, Bar-Hen A, Guérin D, Charcosset A, Murigneux A (1997) Comparison of RFLP and morphological distances between maize Zea mays L. inbred lines. Consequences for germplasm protection purposes. Theor Appl Genet 95:92-102
7. Gethi JG, Labate JA, Lamkey KR, Smith ME, Kresovich S (2002) SSR variation in important U.S. maize inbred lines. Crop Sci 42:951-957
8. Giancola S, Marcucci Poltri S, Lacaze P, Hopp HE (2002) Feasibility of integration of molecular markers and morphological descriptors in a real case study of a plant variety protection system for soybean. Euphytica 127:95-113
9. Gower JC (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857-874
10. Heckenberger M, Bohn M, Ziegle JS, Joe LK, Hauser JD, Hutton M, Melchinger AE (2002) Variation of DNA fingerprints among accessions within maize inbred lines and implications for identification of essentially derived varieties. I. Genetic and technical sources of variation in SSR data. Mol Breed 10:181-191
11. Heckenberger M, Bohn M, Melchinger AE (2005a) Identification of essentially derived varieties obtained from biparental crosses of homozygous lines: I. Simple sequence repeat data from maize inbreds. Crop Sci 45:1120-1131
12. Heckenberger M, Bohn M, Klein D, Melchinger AE (2005b) 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. Crop Sci 45:1132-1140
13. Kwon YS, Lee JM, Yi GB, Yi SI, Kim KM, Soh EH, Bae KM, Park EK, Song IH, Kim BD (2005) Use of SSR markers to complement tests of distinctiveness, uniformity, and stability (DUS) of pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) varieties. Mol Cells 19:428-435
14. Law JR, Donini P, Koebner RMD, Reeves JC, Cooke RJ (1998) DNA profiling and plant variety registration. III: the statistical assessment of distinctness in wheat using amplified fragment length polymorphisms. Euphytica 102:335-342
15. Lefebvre V, Goffinet B, Chauvet JC, Caromel B, Signoret P, Brand R, Palloix A (2001) Evaluation of genetic distances between pepper inbred lines for cultivar protection purposes: comparison of AFLP, RAPD and phenotypic data. Theor Appl Genet 102:741-750
16. Mantel N (1967) The detection of disease clustering and a generalised regression approach. Cancer Res 27:209-220
17. Rebourg C, Gouesnard B, Charcosset A (2001) Large scale molecular analysis of traditional European maize populations. Relationships with morphological variation. Heredity 86:574-587
18. Romero-Severson J, Smith JSC, Ziegle J, Hauser J, Joe L, Hookstra G (2001) Pedigree analysis and haplotype sharing within diverse groups of Zea mays L. inbreds. Theor Appl Genet 103:567-574
19. © Release 8.2. SAS Institute Inc., Cary
20. Tessier C, David J, This P, Boursiquot JM, Charrier A (1999) Optimization of the choice of molecular markers for varietal identification in Vitis vinifera L. Theor Appl Genet 98:171-177
21. Tommasini L, Batley J, Arnold GM, Cooke RJ, Donini P, Lee D, Law JR, Lowe C, Moule C, Trick M, Edwards KJ (2003) The development of multiplex simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers to complement distinctness, uniformity and stability testing of rape (Brassica napus L.) varieties. Theor Appl Genet 106:1091-1101
22. UPOV (1994) Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, uniformity and stability: maize. Document TG/2/6, UPOV, Geneva
23. van Eeuwijk FA, Baril CP (2001) Conceptual and statistical issues related to the use of molecular markers for distinctness and essential derivation. Acta Hortic 546:35-53
24. van Eeuwijk FA, Law JR (2004) Statistical aspects of essential derivation, with illustrations based on lettuce and barley. Euphytica 137:129-137
25. Ward JH (1963) Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function. Am Stat Assoc J 56:236-244