2008
DOI: 10.1111/j.0018-0661.2008.2042.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Molecular characterisation of indigenous Swedish apple cultivars based on SSR and S-allele analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

4
27
1

Year Published

2011
2011
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
4
27
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In plant germplasm characterization, duplicates and mislabeling of accessions might occur, which are unwanted, costly and time consuming (Gustavsson et al 2008). In these cases, molecular markers are very useful to detect identical, synonymous and homonymous accessions, and also to help breeders to form their core collections (Gross et al 2012).…”
Section: Ghf Klabunde Et Almentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In plant germplasm characterization, duplicates and mislabeling of accessions might occur, which are unwanted, costly and time consuming (Gustavsson et al 2008). In these cases, molecular markers are very useful to detect identical, synonymous and homonymous accessions, and also to help breeders to form their core collections (Gross et al 2012).…”
Section: Ghf Klabunde Et Almentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the molecular ones, microsatellite markers (SSR-simple sequence repeats) are highly polymorphic, multiallelic, co-dominant, reproducible and are distributed throughout the entire genome, making them ideal for revealing genetic diversity (Morgante et al 2002). Therefore, the use of molecular markers to access the apple germplasm is a trustworthy tool (Gustavsson et al 2008, Zhuang et al 2011, Potts et al 2012, Reim et al 2013, Burak et al 2014. Almost 400 microsatellite markers have already been identified and mapped in Malus and other fruit species (Guilford et al 1997, Liebhard et al 2002, Silfverberg-Dilworth et al 2006, Han and Korban 2008.…”
Section: Ghf Klabunde Et Almentioning
confidence: 99%
“…among the different molecular markers, microsatellites (or SSrs) have been the most widely applied for cultivar identification and characterization of germplasm resources, because of their high variability and reproducibility, their random occurrence in the genome, co-dominant inheritance and selective neutrality as well as the potential for analysis on automated systems (e.g. garkava-gustavsson et al 2008;guarino et al 2006;Hokanson et al 1998;Pereiralorenzo et al 2007). a collaborative study involving the Molecular Biology laboratory and the institute of Plant Sciences of the University of graz addressed the potential for the exchange of genotyping data produced in different laboratories, since the integration of different datasets would be useful for direct comparisons of the genetic diversity of germplasm resources within and among regions or for identification of synonym or homonym cultivars (Baric et al 2008b).…”
Section: Molecular Markers For Identification Of Apple Cultivarsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One of them, Research and Breeding Institute of Pomology Holovousy is the national centre for maintaining and preservation of apple genetic resources (1,087 cultivars). Accurate and permanent identification of plant material within a germplasm collection is of utmost importance, especially for vegetatively propagated crops which are expensive to maintain, and should consist of a single genotype in the whole distribution area (Garkava-Gustavsson et al 2008).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…During the past 10-15 years, microsatellites or simple sequence repeats have become the markers of choice for verification of cultivar identity and for diversity studies due to their abundance in plant genomes, large number of alleles per locus and high informativeness, codominant inheritance, and suitability for automatization (Garkava-Gustavsson et al 2008). For apple, several hundreds of microsatellite markers were developed (Guilford et al 1997;Hokanson et al 1998;Liebhard et al 2002;Silfverberg-Dilworth et al 2006).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%