Bluecrop (V4), Duke (V5) and Elliot (V3 and V6), but it is not possible to separate varieties V7 and V8.

When using primer P5 and comparing the 8 varieties (Figure 3), it can be seen that there is a band in lane 6, of around 1724 pb, that is not seen in the other lanes, thus differentiating V2 from V1, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7 and V8. In lane 8 there is a band of around 1680 pb that is not seen in the other lanes, thus differentiating V7 from V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6 and V8. Thus, with this primer it is only possible to differentiate between Michigan (V2) and V7.

The profiles from primer P10 are shown in Figure 4. In lane 4 a band of around 1786 pb can been seen that is not in any other lane, thus differentiating V4 from V1, V2, V3, V5, V6, V7 and V8. In lanes 10 and 11 there are two bands, around 1966 and 227 pb, that are not seen in the other lanes, thus differentiating V3 and V6 from V1,

Figure 3. Analysis of chosen primers with all solutions of genomic DNA. Tests were performed with the four chosen primers using the solutions of genomic DNA (V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7 and V8), the above are images obtained from electrophoresis with the respective analysis data. 1.0% agarose gel showing the band patterns of the DNAg V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7 and V8 with primer 5.

V2, V4, V5, V7 and V8. Thus, with this divider it is only possible to differentiate Bluecrop (V4) from Elliot (V3 and V6).

Finally, with primer P16 (Figure 5) we can see a band on lane 7, of around 879 pb, that is not found in any other lane and a band that is not in this lane and is in all the others, around 2125 pb, thus differentiating V5 from V1, V2, V3, V4, V6, V7 and V8. In lane 8 there is a band, around 758 pb, that is not seen in the other lanes, thus differentiating V7 from V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6 and V8. Hence, this divider differentiates between Duke (V5) and V7.

Based on two extracts of DNAg (V3 and V6) from the same variety (Elliot) it can be seen that they followed the same band profile with all four of the chosen primers (P1, P5, P10 and P16).

The varieties that could not be determined are V7 and V8, of which V7 could be differentiated from the rest, meaning that it is a variety that is different from the other six mentioned above. Variety V8, on the other hand, could not be differentiated from all other varieties using

Figure 4. Analysis of chosen primers with all solutions of genomic DNA. Tests were performed with the four chosen primers using the solutions of genomic DNA (V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7 and V8), the above are images obtained from electrophoresis with the respective analysis data. 1.0% agarose gel showing the band patterns of the DNAg V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7 and V8 with primer 10.

the chosen primers, but there were very similar patterns with between V8 and V1 (Misty). Comparing these it can be seen that the band patterns of V1 with primers 10 and 16 are exactly the same as those of V8 with the same primers. With primer 5, V1 also has the same pattern as V8 with this primer, though the latter has lower band intensity. The only difference found was with the pattern given by primer 1: with V8 a band can be seen in the profile of around 644 pb that is not seen in the pattern given with V1. This may mean that V8 is a sub-variety of V1.

4. CONCLUSION

With the results, it can be conclude that it is possible to establish banding patterns, obtained by RAP-Marker technique, to determine the varieties of blueberry Vaccinium corimbosum (nursery commercial interests). It’s of great interest to the productive sector: a quick and economical access to information of clones, to optimiz-

Figure 5. Analysis of chosen primers with all solutions of genomic DNA. Tests were performed with the four chosen primers using the solutions of genomic DNA (V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7 and V8), the above are images obtained from electrophoresis with the respective analysis data. 1.0% agarose gel showing the band patterns of the DNAg V1, V2, V3, V4, V5, V6, V7 and V8 with primer 16.

ing the production and profitability of the sector.

REFERENCES

  1. Ratnaparkhe, M.B. (2007) Fruits and nuts. Genome Mapping and Molecular Breeding in Plants, 4, 217. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-34533-6_10
  2. Bravo, J. (2012) Mercado de arándanos, sin nubarrones en el horizonte. http://www.chilealimentos.com/medios/Servicios/noticiero/EstudioMercadoCoyuntura_2012/Congelados/mercado_arandanos_Odepa.pdf
  3. Urrutia, G. (2000) Arándanos: Un mercado en expansión. Programa gestión Agropecuaria, Fundación Chile.
  4. Bradshaw, A.D. (1965) Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants. Advanced Generation, 13, 115-155.
  5. Stewart, C.N. and Nilsen, E.T. (1995) Phenotypic plasticity and genetic variation of Vaccinium macrocarpon, the American cranberry. II. Reaction norms and spatial clonal patterns in two marginal populations. International Journal of Plant Sciences, 156, 698-708. doi:10.1086/297292
  6. Persson, H.A. and Gustavsson, B. A. (2001) The extent of clonality and genetic diversity in lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) revealed by RAPDs and leaf-shape analysis. Molecular Ecology, 10, 1385-1397. doi:10.1046/j.1365-294X.2001.01280.x
  7. Scrosati, R. (2002) An updated definition of genet aplicable to clonal seaweeds bryophytes, and vascular plant. Basic and Applied Ecology, 3, 97-99. doi:10.1078/1439-1791-00106
  8. Eriksson, O. (1992) Evolution of seed dispersal and recruitment in clonal plants. Oikos, 63, 439-448. doi:10.2307/3544970
  9. Garkava-Gustavsson, L., Persson, H.A., Nybom, H., Rumpunen, K., Gustavsson, A. and Bartish, I.V. (2005) RAPD-based analysis of genetic diversity and selection of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) material for ex situ conservation. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution, 52, 723-735. doi:10.1007/s10722-003-6123-4
  10. Hjalmarsson, I. and Ortiz, R. (1998) Effect of Genotype and enviroment on vegetative and reproductive characteristics of Lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.). Acta Agric. Scan. Sect. and Plant Sci. 48, 255-262.
  11. Kabelka, E.A. and Kristen, K. (2010) Identification of molecular markers associated with resistance to squash silver leaf disorder in summer squash (Cucurbita pepo). Euphytica, 173, 49-54. doi:10.1007/s10681-009-0105-3
  12. Emshwiller, E. (2000) Ploidy levels among species in th “Oxalis tuberose Alliance” as inferred by flow cytometry. Annals of Botany, 89, 741-753.
  13. Karp, A., Kresovich, S., Bhat, K.V., Ayad, W.G. and Hodgkin, T. (1997) Molecular tools in plant genetic resources conservation: a guide to the technologies. http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/publications/pdf/138.pdf
  14. Kellogg, E. and Bennetzen, J.L. (2004) The evolution of nuclear genome structure in seed plant. American Journal of Botany, 91, 1709-1725. doi:10.3732/ajb.91.10.1709
  15. Fischer, M., Husi, R., Prati, D., Peintinger, M., van Kleunen, M. and Schmid, B. (2000) RAPD variation among and within small and large populations of the rare clonal plant Ranunculus reptans (RANUNCULACEAE). American Journal of Botany, 87, 1128-1137. doi:10.2307/2656649
  16. Manfield, I.W., Pavlov, V.K., LI, J., Cook, H.E., Hummel, F. and Gilmartin, P.M. (2005) Molecular characterization of DNA sequences from the Primula vulgaris S-locus. Journal of Experimental Botany, 56, 1177-1188. doi:10.1093/jxb/eri110
  17. Saghai-Maroof, K., Soliman, M., Jorgensen, R.A. and Allard, R.W. (1984) Ribosomal DNA spacer-length polymorphisms in barley: Mendelian inhertance, chromosomal location, and population dynamics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, 81, 8014-8018.

Journal Menu >>