Subscribe to RSS
DOI: 10.1055/s-0030-1264339
CAPS-microsatellites are suitable for Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) genetic studies
Ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) is a perennial plant in the family Zingiberaceae. Rhizomes of plant have been used safely for thousands of years in folk medicine and cooking. Although production areas increase, ginger production is seriously being affected by several diseases. DNA based technologies can be applied for the identification of wild germplasm or commercially important plants with disease resistance genes. However, there exists limited research on the characterization of ginger germplasm. DNA markers are valuable for germplasm identification and plant genetic mapping studies [1,2]. Expressed sequence tags (ESTs) in data bases can be used in development of DNA markers suitable for ginger genetic studies [2,3]. However EST-based microsatellites have low level of polymorphism [4]. Recently it has been reported that monomorphic microsatellite markers can be converted into polymorphic markers using a method called CAPS-microsatellites [4]. Up to date researchers and commercial companies have developed more than one thousand restriction enzymes. This study was undertaken to identify types of restriction enzymes suitable in CAPS-microsatellite analysis. Using Sequencher software we identified restriction enzymes which frequently digest ESTs (Table 1) [5]. Genomic DNAs of two ginger samples were extracted and amplified with several EST-based microsatellite primer pairs [3,4]. Results indicated that CAPS-microsatellite markers are valuable in genetic studies in Zingiber officinale Roscoe.
Restriction Enzymes |
||
Aci I |
Hinf I |
NIa IV |
Alw I |
Hph I |
Rsa I |
Apo I |
Mae I |
Sau96 I |
Bsl I |
Mae III |
ScrF I |
Bst7 II |
Mbo I |
Sec I |
Cac8 I |
Mbo II |
SfaN I |
Dde I |
Msp I |
Taq I |
Fnu4H I |
Mwo I |
Tfi I |
Hae III |
Nia III |
Tru9 I |
References: 1. Karaca, M., Ince, A.G. (2008)J. Genet. 87:83–86.
2. Ince, A.G. et al. (2008) Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 94:281–290.
3. Ince, A.G. et al. (2010) Mol. Breed. 25:645–658.
4. Ince, A.G. et al. (2010) 25:491–499.
5. Karaca, M. et al. (2005) Anal. Biochem. 343:353–355.