2009
DOI: 10.1080/14620316.2009.11512569
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification of 57 sweet orange cultivars using AFLP markers

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
2
1

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 23 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All cultivars exhibited some variation in traits such as fruit character, maturity time, and more. As indicated in the CCPP website (http://www.ccpp.ucr.edu/variety/navels.html) and some reports (Kahn et al 2007;Fang et al 2009). Total DNA was isolated from mixed samples of several leaves growing at different growing stages determined by leaf sizes, including the leaves about 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 cm long, collected from two trees of each cultivar in May and November, 2005.…”
Section: Plant Materials and Dna Isolationmentioning
confidence: 98%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…All cultivars exhibited some variation in traits such as fruit character, maturity time, and more. As indicated in the CCPP website (http://www.ccpp.ucr.edu/variety/navels.html) and some reports (Kahn et al 2007;Fang et al 2009). Total DNA was isolated from mixed samples of several leaves growing at different growing stages determined by leaf sizes, including the leaves about 1.5, 2.5, and 3.5 cm long, collected from two trees of each cultivar in May and November, 2005.…”
Section: Plant Materials and Dna Isolationmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…Although variation of agronomic traits among sweet orange adult trees can be obvious, genetic variability within cultivars is difficult to be detected by molecular markers (Bretò et al 2001;Fang and Roose 1997;Federici et al 1998;Herrero et al 1996;Fang et al 2009). In studies addressing the diversity of sweet orange cultivars (Fang et al 2009;Fang and Roose 1997), a combination of polymorphic amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) and simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers could not distinguish and individualize all the cultivars, and were not sufficient to account for the diversity suggested by the observed differences in agronomic traits. Thus, the diversity in agronomic traits of orange cultivars could be explained somehow by other kinds of non-sequence changes, such as DNA methylation or other epigenetic mechanisms that are involved in gene regulation or other mechanisms.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Exemples of the use of molecular markers in citrus are phylogenetic studies, germplasm characterization, distinction between zygotic and nucelar plantules, marker assisted selection and genetic mapping. For that moleculars markers used include among others: Isozymes (Roose, 1988;Torres et al, 1982Torres et al, , 1978, RAPDs (Randomly Amplified PolymorphicDNAs; (Luro et al, 1994;Xiao et al, 1995), ISSRs (Inter-Simple SequenceRepeats; (Fang et al, 1998, AFLPs (Amplified Fragment LengthPolymorphisms; (de Oliveira et al, 2007;Fang et al, 2009;Liang et al, 2006), RFLPs (Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphisms; (Durham et al, 1992;Federici et al, 2000Federici et al, , 1998Luro et al, 1996) and SSRs (Simple SequenceRepeats or microsatellites; (Barkley et al, 2006;Chen et al, 2006;Kijas et al, 1995;Liang et al, 2015;Liu et al, 2013;Luro et al, 2008;Ollitrault et al, 2010;.…”
Section: Breeding For Seedlessnessmentioning
confidence: 99%