2014
DOI: 10.1111/ajgw.12079
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative ampelographic and genetic analysis of grapevine cultivars from Algeria and Morocco

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

1
4
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
1
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…High diversity was found at a morphological level, as only 6 out of 74 ampelographic and ampelometric parameters studied were homogeneous for all varieties. This high morphological diversity has also been reported in other collections (Lamine et al, 2014;Zinelabidine et al, 2014;Khalil et al, 2017;Abiri et al, 2020;Milisǐćet al, 2021). The variation explained by the first three axes of the PCA using ampelographic, ampelometric, and leaf disc test data was low and similar to that obtained by Merkouropoulos et al (2015) in an ampelographic study in a Greek grapevine collection.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…High diversity was found at a morphological level, as only 6 out of 74 ampelographic and ampelometric parameters studied were homogeneous for all varieties. This high morphological diversity has also been reported in other collections (Lamine et al, 2014;Zinelabidine et al, 2014;Khalil et al, 2017;Abiri et al, 2020;Milisǐćet al, 2021). The variation explained by the first three axes of the PCA using ampelographic, ampelometric, and leaf disc test data was low and similar to that obtained by Merkouropoulos et al (2015) in an ampelographic study in a Greek grapevine collection.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…For the remaining 55 accessions included in this study, there was a previous genetic identification through microsatellite markers (SSRs) (Dıáz-Losada et al, 2012; Dıáz- et al, 2013a). This information allowed us to directly assign the existing SSR genotype values with the corresponding SNP profiles already stated by the "Instituto de Ciencias de la Vid y el Vino" (ICVV) DNA database (Cabezas et al, 2011;Cunha et al, 2016; ICVV-DNA database (data non-published); Zinelabidine et al, 2014). SNP data origin for each accession is shown in the last column of Table 1.…”
Section: Measured Parameters 221 Snp Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Vitis leaves differ for instance in their degree of lobing, in the lengths and angles of their five major veins and in margin dentation. Ampelographic measurements have therefore been largely used to discriminate between Vitis vinifera cultivars [31][32][33][34][35][36], and more recently Vitis species [37][38][39]. Moreover, Chitwood et al [40] found evidence for an important genetic component determining leaf shape and venation patterning in grape.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first alternative to SSR markers for fingerprinting was a set of 48 single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers [38]. Although this set has been used by other researchers through direct comparison with IMIDRAs database [39,40], the SNP profiles obtained are not publicly accessible, even though they have been proposed for routine fingerprinting. Large grapevine collections have also genotyped their germplasm with SNP markers [20,41,42], and the most comprehensive SNP analysis of grapevine germplasm [43] is result of a large GrapeReSeq consortium that used the Vitis18KSNP chip and, consequently, suggested the use of 14 most informative SNPs for cultivar distinction.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%