|
Authors
Info
R.K. Kalia*, S.K. Singh,
S. Chhajer, R. Pathak
and R.K. Bhatt? ?
ICAR- Central Arid Zone?? Research
Institute, Jodhpur-342 003, India
*Corresponding
Author Email :
rajwantkalia@yahoo.com
|
Abstract
Aim: The present study
was undertaken to analyze the extent of genetic variability existing among
twenty accessions of Lawsonia inermis, collected from Rajasthan and
Gujarat states of India, using gene targeted SCoT, arbitrarily amplified ISSR
and nuclear rDNA markers.
Methodology: Twenty henna
accessions, vegetatively established at the Institute were collected from
Rajasthan (7) and Gujarat (13). Twenty-six SCoT and twenty ISSR markers
generating distinct, unambiguous and scorable fragments were selected, after
preliminary screening for assessment of genetic diversity. Data analysis was
performed using NTSYS-pc, GenAlEx 6 and POPGENE version 1.31 programs, and dendrograms
were generated using unweighted pair group method for arithmetic mean
(UPGMA). The internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of ribosomal DNA was
amplified using universal primers followed by sequencing and dendrogram
generation.?
Results: SCoT markers revealed
lower values of similarity coefficients ranging from 0.87 - 0.93 compared to
0.93 - 0.98 for ISSR. SCoT markers delineated the L. inermis cultivars
into three distinct clusters while ISSR markers demarcated them into five
clusters.
Interpretation: The Gujarat
population of L. inermis was richer in genetic diversity than that of
Rajasthan. SCoT markers proved better than the ISSR markers for genetic
diversity analysis. Substantial variation in ITS-1 region due to SNPs, INDELS
and ITS length polymorphism the nucleotide sequences signified its
phylogenetic utility in assessing genetic diversity in of L. inermis.
Key words: Genetic diversity, ISSR markers, Lawsonia inermis,
Molecular markers, rDNA, SCoT markers
|
|
Copyright
? 2019 Triveni Enterprises. All rights reserved. No part of the Journal can
be reproduced in any form without prior permission. Responsibility
regarding the authenticity of the data, and the acceptability of the
conclusions enforced or derived, rest completely with the author(s).
|