Molecular polymorphisms in Palestinian Figs (Ficus carica L.) as revealed by Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD)

Abstract

The genetic diversity of 13 local Palestinian fig genotypes was investigated using RAPD markers. Among the 30 tested primers, 28 revealed various banding patterns and 2 generated no polymorphic bands. In addition, 13 primers (46.4%) produced good amplification products with high intensity and pattern stability. A total of 94 DNA fragments (loci), separated by electrophoresis on agarose gel were detected, ranging in size from 190 to 1300 bp. Of these fragments, 72 (76.6%) were polymorphic and 22 (23.4%) were monomorphic. A minimum of three and a maximum of eight DNA fragments were obtained using (OPH-02 and OPT-10) as well as (OPA-13, OPA-18 and OPY-07) primers respectively. The maximum percentage of polymorphic markers was 100.0 (Z-5, Z-12, and OPT-10) and the minimum was 60.0 (OPH-02). Primers OPY-07 and OPA-13 revealed high collective resolving power (Rp) values with 4.640 and 4.760 respectively and therefore, they were the most useful RAPD primers to assess the genetic diversity in the Palestinian figs. Genetic distance matrix showed an average distance range from 0.186 to 0.559 with a mean of 0.373. Thus, the cultivars tested in this study were characterized by large divergence at the DNA level. To our knowledge, this is the first report using RAPD marker to assess genetic diversity of Palestinian figs.

Genetic Diversity of the Palestinian Fig (<i>Ficus carica</i> L.) Collection by Pomological Traits and RAPD Markers

“…[12], Papadopoulou et al [16] and Basheer-salimia et al [11] using RAPD markers or phenotypic markers [11]. In the current study, positive correlation was evidenced between morphological descriptors and RAPD markers.…”

“…The genetic similarity matrix showed an average similarity mean of 0.375. In an earlier RAPD study, Basheer-salimia et al [11] observed genetic diversity values ranging from 0.238 -0.477 with a mean of 0.358 among 9 different local Palestinian fig genotypes. The selected RAPD markers in this study revealed a wider range of genetic diversity than that observed by Basheer-salimia et al [11].…”

“…In an earlier RAPD study, Basheer-salimia et al [11] observed genetic diversity values ranging from 0.238 -0.477 with a mean of 0.358 among 9 different local Palestinian fig genotypes. The selected RAPD markers in this study revealed a wider range of genetic diversity than that observed by Basheer-salimia et al [11]. The maximum similarity values of 0.750, and 0.679 were registered between the two wild type accessions and between Ghzali and Zraqi respectively; suggesting low dissimilarities and close relatedness.…”

“…However, morphological characters are influenced by plant age, phenological stage, cultivation conditions, and environmental conditions and are therefore prone to phenotypic modifications, in addition to the high plasticity for many morphological traits [10]. Thus morphological characters can often yield unclear results [11]. On the other hand, the use of DNA-based markers (RFLP, AFLP, SSR, ISSR, and RAPD methods) [6]- [8] [12]- [19] has proved to be a powerful tool to assess genetic diversity and genotype identity in figs.…”

Evaluation of Genetic Diversity among Persian Fig Cultivars by Morphological Traits and RAPD Markers

“…1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 1 1.000 2 0.687 1.000 3 0.693 0.619 1.000 4 0.629 0.597 0.723 1.000 5 0.554 0.596 0.590 0.532 1.000 6 0.601 0.524 0.671 0.697 0.591 1.000 7 0.595 0.570 0.634 0.631 0.538 0.745 1.000 8 0.630 0.636 0.686 0.603 0.712 0.592 0.595 1.000 five times and 7.5 fold higher than RAPD, respectively (Dunham, 2011). RAPD molecular markers have been previously used for the genetic assessment of Palestinian fig genotypes and to determine the genetic variability in fig trees (Basheer-salimia et al, 2012;Rodrigues et al, 2012). Microsatellite markers were often preferred for characterizing different fig cultivars, including Egyptian, Spanish, and Tunisian figs, because they were codominant, hypervariable, and highly reproducible (Abou-Ellail et al, 2014;Achtak et al, 2009;Balas et al, 2014;Saddoud et al, 2005).…”