Search Results

You are looking at 51 - 60 of 297 items for :

  • "genetic distance" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Free access

James Nienhuis, Joao B. dos Santos, Paul Skroch, and Jan Tivang

Genetic distance was calculated among 92 tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum, genotypes, which included open pollinated cultivars and commercial hybrids of both fresh market and processing types. Over 800 were screened, and 44 10-mer primers which had clear banding patterns and were polymorphic among cultivars were selected. From each of the primers an average of five polymorphic bands were classified for their presence or absence for each genotype. Genetic distance was calculated as the ratio of discordant to total bands scored. A multidimensional scaling (MDS) plot indicated that the processing cultivars, `UC82' derivatives and fresh market types generally formed separate clusters. Within groups, genetic distance corresponded to known pedigree relationships. The genetic distance between duplicate samples of 10 genotypes ranged from 0.01 to 0.05. The results of this study indicated that RAPDs provide a high degree of resolution for estimating genetic relationships among tomato cultivars.

Free access

Eiichi Inoue, Lin Ning, Hiromichi Hara, Shuan Ruan, and Hiroyuki Anzai

disequilibrium (LD) within populations was analyzed using the Markov chain parameters. Pairwise genetic distances, which were determined on the basis of the proportion of shared alleles, were calculated for all the genotypes. A dendrogram was generated using the

Open access

Beibei Li, Xiucai Fan, Ying Zhang, Chonghuai Liu, and Jianfu Jiang

populations was calculated using GenALEx version 6.41 (standard model) ( Peakall and Smouse, 2006 ). Genetic distances were calculated in accordance with Nei (1973) and were used to construct a dendrogram based on the unweighted pair–group method of

Free access

Amnon Levi, John Coffey, Laura Massey, Nihat Guner, Elad Oren, Yaakov Tadmor, and Kai-shu Ling

potyviruses might be controlled by common gene(s). Because of the wide genetic distance between C. colocynthis and C. lanatus var. lanatus ( Levi et al., 2001 , 2013 ), the question that is being asked is if the resistant PIs identified here could be a

Free access

Guojing Li, Yonghua Liu, Jeffrey D. Ehlers, Zhujun Zhu, Xiaohua Wu, Baogeng Wang, and Zhongfu Lu

plants. To estimate the genetic distance of ABRS AAG/CTG98 marker from the Rr1 gene, linkage analysis was carried out on 127 F 2 individuals with MAPMAKER/EXP , ver. 3.0, software ( Lander et al., 1987 ), with a LOD threshold of 3.0. It is estimated

Free access

Isabelle Y. Delannay, Jack E. Staub, and Jin Feng Chen

-derived WI 7012A, and a diverse set of 94 inbred backcross lines after multidimensional scaling as framed by Rogers genetic distances ( Rogers, 1972 ), modified by Wright (1978) , as defined by 37 marker loci. Discussion The development

Free access

Unaroj Boonprakob and David H. Byrne

Diploid plums such as Prunus salicina, P. simonii, P. cerasifera, P. americana, P. angustifolia, P. mexicana, and their hybrids have a high level of RAPD polymorphisms. Of 71 successfully used primers, there are 417 reproducible RAPD markers and only 55 (13%) markers are not polymorphic. Genetic relationships of these diploid plums based on RAPD data is estimated using genetic distance (GD) defined as GDij = 1 – Sij, where Sij is similarity coefficient. Two similarity coefficients, Jaccard's and simple matching coefficient, are compared. Simple matching always yields higher similarity coefficients. Genetic distance within and between each gene pool: California, southeastern U.S., foreign, is estimated. Genetic distances of these diploid plums ranged from 0.32 to 0.68, and agreed well with the natural geographic distribution of the species. The cluster analysis using unweighted pair-group methods using arithmetic averages (UPGMA) was used to construct phenograms to summarize the relationships among these cultivated diploid plums and plum species.

Free access

Yunyan Sheng, Feishi Luan, Faxing Zhang, and Angela R. Davis

.37 for the most distant [ T. kirilowii and Gy0041 (Northwestern ecological types)]. Most cultigens were closely related. The genetic distance among non-Chinese cultigens ranged from 0.67 to 0.91 with an average of 0.88. Cluster analysis (JC = 0.74) using

Free access

Neil O. Anderson, Adnan Younis, and Ye Sun

principal groups separating at Nei's (1972) genetic distance of GD = 0.63 ( Fig. 2 ), with only two subsequent monophyletic singletons (a set with exactly one genotype or clonal ramet) found (11-2-13, 11-2-4). Each principal group further separated into 2

Full access

Josh A. Honig, Megan F. Muehlbauer, John M. Capik, Christine Kubik, Jennifer N. Vaiciunas, Shawn A. Mehlenbacher, and Thomas J. Molnar

2217 markers and spanned a total genetic distance of 1383.4 cM with an average marker spacing of 0.65 cM. The genetic distance of individual LGs ranged from a low of 70.5 cM (98 markers) for LG3, to a high of 196.0 cM (269 markers) for LG2. LG