Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (36)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Krutovskii, K. V.
Right arrow Articles by Strauss, S. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Krutovskii, K. V.
Right arrow Articles by Strauss, S. H.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

The Journal of Heredity 1998:89(3)
© 1998 The American Genetic Association 89:197-205

RAPD Genome maps of Douglas-fir

KV Krutovskii1, SS Vollmer1, FC Sorensen2, WT Adams1, SJ Knapp3, and SH Strauss1

1Departments of Forest Science, 3Crop and Soil Science, Oregon State University, USA 2USDA Forest Service, Corvallis, Oregon 97331-7501, USA Corresponding author e-mail: strauss@fsl.orst.edu.

We present linkage maps and estimate genome length for two hybrid individuals of Douglas-fir [Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco], a coniferous tree species of wide distribution in the western United States. The hybrids were produced by crosses between the coastal (var. menziesii) and interior (var. glauca) varieties. Haploid megagametophytes from 80 seeds of each individual were analyzed using 81 10-bp random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) primers selected for polymorphism, fragment strength, and repeatability in preliminary segregation analysis. Most (82-90%) of the segregating fragments followed the expected 1:1 Mendelian segregation; however, 10-18% showed significant segregation distortion (P < .05) among megagametophytes of the two trees. In one tree, 201 of 221 segregating loci analyzed were combined into 16 major linkage groups of 4 more loci (plus 1 group of 3 loci, 3 groups with pairs of loci, and 11 unlinked loci); In the other, 238 of 250 segregating loci were combined into 18 major groups (plus 2 groups of 3 loci each and 6 unlinked loci). Analyses of the distribution of markers indicated highly significant clustering in both trees (P < .001). Including flanking regions and unlinked loci, both trees had linkage maps of similar length, 2600 cM and 3000 cM; expected total map size ranged from 2800 to 3500 cM based on method-of-moments estimation. When a common RAPD protocol was used, more than one-third of the RAPD markers segregated in both hybrids. These maps of Douglas-fir are among the largest reported for conifers, a possible consequence of its 13 haploid chromosomes.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 GeneticsHome page
B. Wang and A. H. Porter
An AFLP-Based Interspecific Linkage Map of Sympatric, Hybridizing Colias Butterflies
Genetics, September 1, 2004; 168(1): 215 - 225.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
K. V. Krutovsky, M. Troggio, G. R. Brown, K. D. Jermstad, and D. B. Neale
Comparative Mapping in the Pinaceae
Genetics, September 1, 2004; 168(1): 447 - 461.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 GeneticsHome page
M.-T. Cervera, V. Storme, B. Ivens, J. Gusmao, B. H. Liu, V. Hostyn, J. Van Slycken, M. Van Montagu, and W. Boerjan
Dense Genetic Linkage Maps of Three Populus Species (Populus deltoides, P. nigra and P. trichocarpa) Based on AFLP and Microsatellite Markers
Genetics, June 1, 2001; 158(2): 787 - 809.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.