Skip to main content
NCBI home page
DNA Research: An International Journal for Rapid Publication of Reports on Genes and Genomes logoLink to DNA Research: An International Journal for Rapid Publication of Reports on Genes and Genomes
. 2011 Dec 22;19(1):51–65. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsr041

Diversity Array Technology Markers: Genetic Diversity Analyses and Linkage Map Construction in Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.)

Harsh Raman 1,*, Rosy Raman 1, Matthew N Nelson 2,3, MN Aslam 2, Ravikesavan Rajasekaran 2,4, Neil Wratten 1, Wallace A Cowling 3,5, A Kilian 6, Andrew G Sharpe 7,†, Joerg Schondelmaier 8
PMCID: PMC3276259  PMID: 22193366

Abstract

We developed Diversity Array Technology (DArT) markers for application in genetic studies of Brassica napus and other Brassica species with A or C genomes. Genomic representation from 107 diverse genotypes of B. napus L. var. oleifera (rapeseed, AACC genomes) and B. rapa (AA genome) was used to develop a DArT array comprising 11 520 clones generated using PstI/BanII and PstI/BstN1 complexity reduction methods. In total, 1547 polymorphic DArT markers of high technical quality were identified and used to assess molecular diversity among 89 accessions of B. napus, B. rapa, B. juncea, and B. carinata collected from different parts of the world. Hierarchical cluster and principal component analyses based on genetic distance matrices identified distinct populations clustering mainly according to their origin/pedigrees. DArT markers were also mapped in a new doubled haploid population comprising 131 lines from a cross between spring rapeseed lines ‘Lynx-037DH’ and ‘Monty-028DH’. Linkage groups were assigned on the basis of previously mapped simple sequence repeat (SSRs), intron polymorphism (IP), and gene-based markers. The map consisted of 437 DArT, 135 SSR, 6 IP, and 6 gene-based markers and spanned 2288 cM. Our results demonstrate that DArT markers are suitable for genetic diversity analysis and linkage map construction in rapeseed.

Keywords: Diversity Array Technology, genetic diversity, genetic linkage mapping, Brassica species, rapeseed

1. Introduction

The Brassiceae tribe consists some of the world's most important oilseed and vegetable crops, such as Brassica napus L., (rapeseed, genomes = AACC, 2n = 4x = 38), Brassica rapa L. (Indian mustard, genome = AA, 2n = 2x = 20), Brassica juncea L. (genomes = AABB, 2n = 4x = 36), and Brassica oleracea L. (cauliflower, broccoli, Brussels sprout, cabbage, and kale, genome = CC, 2n = 2x = 18). Brassica napus originated as a result from spontaneous hybridization between B. rapa and B. oleracea1 and is believed to be originated in the Mediterranean region of south-western Europe where native B. rapa and B. oleracea overlap,2 although no wild populations exist. Today, rapeseed is one of the leading sources of vegetable oil, oil-meal, fodder, and serves as the raw material for a broad range of industrial products including bio-fuel, especially in European countries.

Various molecular marker system based upon restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), randomly amplified polymorphic DNA, amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP®), simple sequence repeats (SSRs), sequence related amplified polymorphisms, and single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) have been developed3–7 and further applied in rapeseed genetics and breeding research.2,8–15 Most of these markers are assayed on low-throughput agarose or polyacrylamide gel system, although markers based upon SSR and AFLP can be assayed on highly parallel genotyping platforms such as capillary electrophoresis systems, yet they are expensive to assay per data point.16

Rapeseed breeding programmes require an efficient, cost-efficient and reproducible marker platform that is amenable for whole genomic analysis especially for pedigree and association analysis,17,18 mapping-as-you-go,19 large-scale molecular evaluation of germplasm collections and for genome-wide selection of desirable alleles.20 Current polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based marker technologies are not practicable in terms of consumable and labour costs for such applications.

DNA hybridization-based technologies such as some SNP technologies and Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT) are suitable for such applications. SNP markers are recognized as ‘markers of choice’ due to their abundance and distribution in the genomes and the ability to screen populations at relatively low cost.21 In the recent years, a large number of SNP markers has been identified in B. napus and related species.22,23 However, the identification of SNPs and validation in the relevant germplasm especially those identified by sequencing candidate genes remains costly to implement for the routine marker-assisted selection, as it requires high-quality sequence information. This limits the broad application of SNP markers for rapeseed improvement using these strategies. Many genes of agronomic importance such as flowering time genes; Flowering Locus C (FLC) and Flowering Locus T (FT) occur in multiple copies in Brassica genomes.24,25 The presence of multiple copies of genes in amphidiploid rapeseed poses a great challenge to develop allele-specific SNP markers. To date, only a few genome-specific SNP markers are currently available for marker-assisted selection although the ability to resolve allelic variation in members of gene families has been demonstrated.26,27 In addition, a large number of SSR and SNP markers have been developed in private consortia and are not readily accessible to the rapeseed breeding programmes. The development of ‘genotyping by sequencing’ and multiplex sequencing strategies using next generation DNA-sequencing technologies offer to generate massive amount of genetic data for various applications.28,29 However, these technologies are currently in the development stage and bioinformatics tools to handle such massive data in polyploid Brassica species are still being developed.30 These limitations currently restrict the capacity of breeding programmes to routinely conduct genome-wide marker surveys.

DArT performs well in many polyploid species and does not require any DNA-sequence information. DArT marker analysis is a sequence-independent microarray-based genotyping platform, and enables high multiplexing; simultaneous typing of several hundred to several thousands of polymorphic loci spread over the genome.31,32 DArT polymorphisms results from nucleotide polymorphisms within restriction enzyme (RE) recognition sites and indels, and the high fidelity of the RE can provide better reproducibility compared with PCR-based assays that are based on lower fidelity selective primer annealing. DArT markers have been developed in more than 40 plant species including in wheat, durum, barley, oats, lupin (www.diversityarray.com) and have been employed extensively for construction of molecular maps,33–36 identifying trait-marker associations,37–40 assessment of genetic diversity,34,41,42 association mapping,43 and routine genotyping in various crops for varietal identification.

In this study, we report on (i) the development of a robust, cost-effective, and high-throughput DArT marker platform for rapeseed, and (ii) demonstrate the usefulness of DArT markers in the assessment of genetic diversity and linkage mapping.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Plant material

Eighty-nine accessions of B. napus, B. juncea, B. rapa and B. carinata comprising contemporary rapeseed cultivars and elite lines from Australian breeding programmes were chosen for molecular diversity analyses along with accessions from China, Germany, Japan, India, France, and Ethiopia (Table 1). Seed samples were procured from the Australian National Brassica Germplasm Improvement Programs (Wagga Wagga and Horsham) and Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection, Horsham.

Table 1.

List of genotypes, their country of origin, and species used for DArT analysis

Genotype ID Country of origin Species Breeding programmea Genetic status
03-p74-6 China B. napus Unknown Breeding line
04-p34 China B. napus Unknown Breeding line
44C73 Australia B. napus Pioneer Cultivar
44Y06a Australia B. napus Pioneer Cultivar
45C05 Australia B. napus Pioneer Cultivar
45C75a Australia B. napus Pioneer Cultivar
45Y77a Australia B. napus Pioneer Cultivar
46C04 Australia B. napus Pioneer Cultivar
46C76a Australia B. napus Pioneer Cultivar
46Y78 Australia B. napus Pioneer Cultivar
A-19890a Unknown B. napus USDA Breeding line
Ag-Comet Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
Ag-Emblem Australia B.napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
Ag-Mustera Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
Ag-Outbacka Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
Ag-Spectruma Australia B.napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
ATC93184-1a Unknown B. carinata USDA Breeding line
ATC94044-1a Ethiopia B. carinata USDA Breeding line
ATR409 Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
ATR-Barra Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
ATR-Beacon Australia B.napus AgVic Cultivar
ATR-Cobbler Australia B.napus Nugrain Cultivar
ATR-Hyden Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
ATR-Marlin Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
ATR-Signal Australia B. napus Nugrain Cultivar
ATR-Stubby Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
ATR-Summitt Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
AV-Jade Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
AV-Opal Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
AV-Ruby Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
AV-Sapphire Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
Barossaa Australia B. napus NSWA Cultivar
BravoTT Australia B. napus Nuseed Cultivar
Carousel-10a,b Europe B. napus Unknown Selection
Charlton Australia B. napus AgVic Cultivar
Colta Unknown B. rapa Unknown Cultivar
Drakkar France B. napus INRA Cultivar
Dunkeld Australia B. napus AgVic Cultivar
Eurekaa Australia B.napus NSWA Cultivar
Expanderb Germany B. napus BGRC Cultivar
Fan023 China B. napus Unknown Breeding line
Fan028 China B. napus Unknown Breeding line
Fan168 China B. napus Unknown Breeding line
FlindersTTC Australia B. napus Ag-Seed Cultivar
Georgie Australia B. napus NSWDPI Cultivar
Grouse Australia B. napus NSWA Cultivar
HurricaneTT Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Hyola50 Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Hyola60 Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Hyola61 Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Iwao-natanea,b Japan B. napus Unknown Cultivar
Karoo Australia B. napus AgVic Cultivar
Lantern Australia B. napus NSWDPI Cultivar
Lisorab Germany B. napus DSV Cultivar
Majora,b France B. napus Unknown Cultivar
Malukaa Australia B. napus NSWA Cultivar
Marnoo Australia B. napus AgVic Cultivar
Monty Australia B. napus NSWA Cultivar
Mutu98-1a,b Japan B. napus NSWA Breeding line
Mystic Australia B. napus AgVic Cultivar
Nindoo Australia B. napus AgVic Cultivar
Norin22a,b Japan B. napus Unknown Cultivar
OasisCLa Australia B. juncea AgVic Cultivar
Oscar Australia B. napus NSWDPI Cultivar
P624 China B. napus Unknown Breeding line
Purler Australia B. napus NSWDPI Cultivar
Qu1104 China B. napus Unknown Breeding line
Rainbowa Australia B. napus AgVic Cultivar
Range Australia B. napus Ag Seed Cultivar
Ripper Australia B. napus NSWDPI Cultivar
Rivette Australia B. napus NSWDPI Cultivar
RocketCL Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
RottnestTTC Australia B. napus Nuseed Cultivar
RSO94-67 (98-18) Unknown B. napus Unknown Breeding line
Scoop Australia B. napus NSWA Cultivar
Seethaa India B. juncea Unknown Cultivar
Shiraleea Australia B. napus NSWA Cultivar
Skipton Australia B. napus NSWDPI Cultivar
StormTT Australia B. napus Pacific seeds Cultivar
Surpass400a Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Surpass402CLa Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Surpass404CLa Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Surpass501TTa Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Surpass603CLa Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Tarcoola Australia B. napus NSWDPI Cultivar
Tatyoon Australia B. napus AgVic Cultivar
TawrifficTT Australia B. napus Nugrain Cultivar
TERI(OO)R9903a India B. napus TERI Breeding line
ThunderTT Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
TornadoTT Australia B. napus Pacific Seeds Cultivar
Tranby Australia B. napus AgWA Cultivar
WarriorCL Australia B. napus NSWDPI Cultivar
Wesbarkera Australia B. napus AgWA Cultivar
Wesreo Australia B. napus AgWA Cultivar
Wesroonaa Australia B. napus AgWA Cultivar
Yickadeea Australia B. napus NSWA Cultivar
Yu 178 China B. napus Unknown Cultivar
Zhongyou 821 China B. napus Unknown Cultivar
Open in a new tab

BGRC, Institut fur Pflanzenbau und Pflanzenzuchtung, Braunschweig (Germany); DSV, Deutsche Saatveredelung (Germany); AgWA, Department of Agriculture, Western Australia; NSWA, NSW Department of Agriculture (now NSW Department of Primary Industries - NSWDPI); USDA, United State Department of Agriculture; AgVic, Victorian Department of Agriculture.

aGenotypes were also used for testing suitability of DArT in differentiation of different species.

bGenotypes are winter/semi-spring types and unmarked are spring types.

DArT markers were tested for their performance in linkage mapping using a new B. napus doubled haploid (DH) mapping population named ‘BnaLMDH’.44 The founding parents of this population were ‘Lynx-037DH’ and ‘Monty-028DH’; these DH lines were derived from the open-pollinated spring B. napus varieties ‘Lynx’ and ‘Monty’, respectively, using the microspore culture methodology described by Cousin and Nelson.45 Lynx is a high oleic, low linolenic, and European spring variety; seed was provided by O. Sass (Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans-Georg Lembke KG, Hohenlieth, Germany). Monty is an Australian spring variety with typical canola quality seed oil characteristics;46 Monty-028DH seed was provided by Canola Breeders Western Australia Pty Ltd (Perth, Australia). The DH parental lines Lynx-037DH and Monty-028DH were crossed reciprocally to produce F1 seeds. A single F1 plant from each reciprocal cross was used as microspore donor for microspore culture using the same methods as used for the parental DH lines production. Self-seed of the primary DH progeny were multiplied either during the summer of 2004–05 at Manjimup Horticultural Research Centre (Manjimup, Australia) or during the winter of 2005 at The University of Western Australia's Shenton Park field station (Perth, Australia).

2.2. DNA isolation

DNA was obtained from 131 ‘BnaLMDH’ lines along with parental and F1 controls using a standard CTAB method44 or using Illustra Nucleon Phytopure Genomic DNA Extraction Kits (GE Healthcare).

2.3. Development of B. napus DArT array

Initially, the most frequently used seven methods of complexity reduction (all based on a combination of PstI RE and a single ‘frequently cutting’ RE) were tested in several Brassica accessions by resolving products of representation amplification on 1.2% agarose gel. After this initial test, two methods with the most heterodispersed (no observable banding) smears of PCR products were selected: PstI/BstNI and PstI/BanII (data not reported). The DArT markers were designated with the prefix ‘BrPb’ where ‘Br’ indicates for Brassica, ‘P’ for PstI (primary enzyme used) and ‘b’ for BanII (secondary RE used) followed by a number corresponding to their unique clone ID.

2.4. Preparation of genomic representations

The PstI/BstNI genomic representations were prepared as described before for barley,32 while PstI/BanII representations were prepared similarly as for sorghum according to a previous report.36 Briefly, ∼50 ng of genomic DNA was digested with either PstI and BstNI or PstI and BanII RE combinations and resulting fragments ligated to a PstI overhang compatible oligonucleotide adapter. A primer annealing to this adapter was used in PCR reaction to amplify complexity reduced representation of a sample. Amplification products were either used for cloning in marker development process or labelled with fluorescent dyes and hybridized to DArT array in genotyping process.

2.5. Library construction and array printing

For library construction, we used 107 Brassica genotypes (Supplementary Table S1). Amplified PstI restriction fragments from all accessions were cloned into pCR2.1-TOPO vector (Invitrogen, Australia) and 10 libraries were generated (Supplementary Table S2) as described by Jaccoud et al.31 The white colonies containing genomic fragments inserted into pCR2.1-TOPO vector were picked into individual wells of 384-well microtitre plates filled with ampicillin/kanamycin-supplemented freezing medium. There were 7680 clones in PstI/BstNI and 3840 clones in PstI/BanII libraries (a total of 11 520 clones). Inserts from these clones were amplified using M13F and M13R primers in 384 plate format, a subset of PCR products were assessed for quality (10% of 25 µl PCR reaction) through gel electrophoresis and all remaining PCR products dried, washed and dissolved in a spotting buffer as described previously.47 Microarrays were printed with spot duplication on SuperChip poly-l-lysine slides (Thermo Scientific, Australia) using a MicroGrid arrayer (Genomics Solutions, UK).

2.6. DArT genotyping

Each sample was assayed using methods described above for library construction. Genomic representations were assessed for quality through gel electrophoresis in 1.3% agarose and labelled with fluorescent dyes (Cy3 and Cy5) as described previously.32 Labelled targets were than hybridized to printed DArT arrays for 16 h at 62°C in a water bath. Slides were washed as described by Kilian et al.,47 dried initially by centrifugation at 500 × g for 7 min and later in a desiccator under vacuum for 30 min. The slides were scanned using Tecan LS300 scanner generating three images per array: one image scanned at 488 nm for reference signal measures the amount of DNA within the spot based on hybridization signal of FAM-labelled fragment of a TOPO vector multiple cloning site fragment and two images for ‘target’ signal measurement: one scanned at 543 nM (for Cy3-labelled targets) and one at 633 nm (for Cy-5-labelled targets).

2.7. Array image processing and polymorphism scoring

All the images were analysed with the DArTsoft v. 7.4.7 (DArT P/L, Canberra, Australia) software. The same software was used to score polymorphic markers in a binary manner (for the presence of marker in the representation as ‘1’ and for the absence as ‘0’) as described previously.32 For quality control, 30% of genotypes were genotyped in full technical replication. Clones with P > 77%, a call rate >97%, and 100% allele-calling consistency across the replicates were selected as markers. P-value represents the allelic-states variance of the relative target hybridization intensity as a percentage of the total variance.34 The informativeness of the DArT markers was determined by calculating the polymorphism information content (PIC), within the panel of diverse accessions (Table 1) according to Anderson et al.48

2.8. Genetic diversity analysis

Pair-wise genetic similarity matrix was calculated from binary DArT matrices using the Jaccard's coefficient (J) where J = a/(n – d) and ‘a’ is the number of fragments in common, ‘d’ is the number of fragments absent, and ‘n’ is the total number of DArT loci scored.49 Similarities matrices were converted to genetic distances according to Swofford and Olson.50 The dendrogram was generated based on Jaccard's coefficient with Unweighted Pair-Group Method using Arithmetic average (UPGMA) method in Sequential, Agglomerative, Hierarchical and Nested Clustering module51 of Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System for personal computers software (NTSYS-pc), version 2.21.52 The marker data were processed using the SIMINT module in NTSYS to compute a correlation among the columns for the 1000 bootstrap samples. The dendrogram was visualized using the program TREEVIEW implemented in NTSYSpc. The MXCOMP subroutine was used to calculate a cophenetic correlation matrix between the genetic similarity matrix and the tree matrix to measure goodness-of-fit implemented in the NTSYSpc package. Multivariate principle component analysis (PCA) based on genetic similarity matrices were used to resolve the genetic relationship and overall diversity among different accessions.

2.9. Linkage map construction

The ‘BnaLMDH’ mapping population of 131 DH lines along with parental and F1 controls were genotyped with the initial marker discovery DArT array (Version 1.0). Highly polymorphic DArT clones in the set of diverse rapeseed germplasm (Supplementary Table S1) were selected and arrayed for routine DArT analysis (Version 2.0). A subset of 91 DH lines was also genotyped with Version 2.0 DArT array as described previously.

SSR primer sequences were obtained from Lowe et al.53 and from the Agriculture and AgriFood Canada Brassica Microsatellite Consortium (for more information, see http://brassica.agr.gc.ca). Genetic map locations for the majority of these markers were reported previously.54 PCR and fragment analysis methods were as described by Nelson et al.55 In addition, intron polymorphism (IP) primer sequences and methods were reported by Panjabi et al.56 New gene-based markers were developed based on publicly available cDNA sequences for fatty acid desaturase and FLC genes.44 All polymorphic markers were scored using genotype codes ‘A’ (Lynx-037DH allele), ‘B’ (Monty-028DH allele), and ‘–’ (missing value).

Linkage mapping was conducted with the aid of MultiPoint 2.1 (MultiQTL Ltd, Haifa, Israel), which uses the ‘evolutionary optimization strategy’.57 We followed the general approach described by Nelson et al.58 with minor modifications. Markers showing significant allele segregation distortion (i.e. diverging from the Mendelian expectation of 1A:1B) were excluded from the analysis with DArT markers (which were scored in a dominant manner) and treated more strictly than the other markers types (which were codominant). DArT markers with very severe segregation distortion (χ2, P < 0.0001) were discarded before commencing linkage mapping on the basis that these may represent >1 locus, while DArT markers with less extreme segregation distortion (χ2, P < 0.001) were included in the analysis but only as ‘attached’ markers (see explanation of this term below). Some codominant SSR, IP, and gene-based markers with very significant segregation distortion (χ2, P < 0.0001) were included in the linkage analysis but were only permitted to act as ‘attached’ markers.

Iterative clustering analysis began at recombination frequency: rf = 0.14 and was increased at 0.02 increments to a maximum of 0.30. Linkage groups were assigned chromosome names and orientated using microsatellite markers mapped in reference populations.54 Recombination frequencies between high-quality ‘framework’ markers were transformed to Kosambi distances in centiMorgans. ‘Redundant’ markers (those with identical map positions to their respective framework markers) and lower quality ‘attached’ markers (those with less well-supported map positions) were integrated into the most appropriate positions in framework marker map. As a quality control measure, marker genotyping scores that introduced singletons into the genotyping matrix of framework markers were re-checked to distinguish apparently true double crossover events from scoring errors. Care was taken not to over-correct the data such that apparently true double crossover events were retained in the scoring matrix. After correcting clear marker scoring errors, genetic interval sizes were recalculated.

3. Results

3.1. Assessment of genetic diversity

A total of 1547 high-quality DArT markers were polymorphic in a set of 89 contemporary cultivars and elite rapeseed lines from breeding programmes. The call rate ranged from 78.9 to 100% with an average of 96.7% and scoring reproducibility was 100% for all selected markers. The PIC values of individual DArT markers ranged from 0.02 to 0.5 (original data not shown), with an average of 0.3. Similarity coefficients (J) based on the binary matrix between individual lines ranged from 0.50 to 0.93.

The hierarchical cluster analysis discriminated all 89 genotypes of rapeseed into three major clusters (I, II, and III; Fig. 1), but clear differences were observed within these clusters, which were generally consistent with their phenology and genetic lineage. The cluster I consisted of a large number of accessions requiring vernalization for flowering such as ‘Fan023’, ‘Fan 028’, ‘Fan168’, ‘Qu1104’, ‘Yu178’, ‘Zhongyou821’, ‘P624’, ‘03-p74-6’, ‘04-p34’, ‘Carousel-10’, ‘Major’, ‘Expander’, ‘Drakker’, and ‘Mutu 98-1’ (Fig. 1). These varieties originated from China, France, and Japan (Table 1). Clusters II and III consisted of the Australian cultivars or their derivatives. In Cluster III, ‘RocketCL’, ‘Surpass400’, ‘Surpass402CL’, ‘Surpass404CL’, ‘Surpass501TT’, ‘Surpass603CL’, ‘Hyola 50’, and ‘Hyola60’ (bred by Pacific Seeds); ‘Marnoo’ and ‘Tatyoon’ (bred by Department of Primary Industries, Victoria); and ‘TawrifficTT’ (bred by Nuseed) showed strong grouping. Several subclades were evident in cluster II, and comprised a range of rapeseed cultivars bred by different Australian breeding programmes (Table 1), as many of them share the same parents in their pedigrees.59 The cultivars released by Pioneer: ‘46C40’, ‘45C05’, ‘46C76’, ‘44C73’, ‘46Y78’, ‘45Y77’, and ‘44Y06’ showed tight genetic relationship with ‘Ag-Spectrum’ and ‘Rainbow’ and grouped together in subclade in cluster II. Likewise, a discrete grouping of triazine tolerant cultivars (‘ATR’- and ‘TT’) was also evident in cluster II. These groupings were strongly related to geographic origin, parentage and selection history (http:/www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pbr/). For example, ‘45C05’ and ‘46C76’ had Rainbow and Dunkeld in their pedigrees, respectively. Despite being of the same parentage ‘Major’ and ‘Wesreo’ (Major/Oro) varieties did not show tighter grouping, and may be heterogeneous or heterozygous.

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Dendrogram showing genetic similarity among 89 accessions of oilseed rape based upon the binary matrix obtained from 1547 DArT polymorphic loci, generated using the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic mean analysis and Jaccard's coefficient in SAHN module of the NTSYSpc version 2.21h.

Ultrametric cophenetic and genetic distance matrices that were used to generate the phylogenetic tree using the hierarchical clustering method, showed a ‘good’ fit (Z: cophenetic correlation coefficient = 0.8), indicating that the cophenetic distance is in congruence with the distance matrices obtained from the DArT marker data (Supplementary Fig. S1). Three principal components (first three axes), explaining 25% of variation, were sufficient to represent most of the structured information generated with multivariate analysis and reconfirmed the groupings of different accessions resultant from the UPGMA-based phenogram (Supplementary Fig. S2).

In order to test if the current DArT array is suitable for genetic analysis of other Brassica species, we analysed a subset of 32 genotypes representing B. rapa, B. juncea, B. carinata and investigated their genetic relationships in relation to selected B. napus cultivars representing ‘spring’ and ‘winter’ types from different breeding programmes (Table 1). Both cluster and PCA analyses differentiated different species of Brassica, as expected (Fig. 2, Supplementary Fig. S3). For example, cultivars/breeding lines of B. napus, B. rapa, B. carinata, and B. juncea clustered into distinct I–III groups. Within the B. napus cluster, two distinct subclades representing ‘winter and semi-spring cultivars’ (‘Carousel-10’, ‘Major’, ‘Norin 22’, ‘Iwao natame’, and ‘Mutu’) and ‘spring cultivars’ were clearly evident. Clustering of genotypes was consistent with their pedigrees and/or their origin (breeding programmes). Likewise, ‘Ag-Outback’ and ‘Ag-Muster’, and cultivars with suffix ‘Surpass’ share ancestry among themselves. For a general overview of Australian canola variety pedigrees, see Cowling.59 PCA of DArT data of 32 accessions also supported the grouping identified by cluster analysis. The top three principal components (dimensions) explained 58.6% of the genetic variation (Supplementary Fig. S3).

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Dendrogram showing the genetic relationship among 32 accessions of B. napus, B. rapa, B. juncea, and B. carinata. Binary matrix obtained from DArT polymorphisms were used to generate dendrogram using the unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic mean analysis and Jaccard's coefficient.

3.2. Identifying single-copy DArT markers for linkage mapping

In the 131 DH lines screened with the DArT array Version 1, 1171 DArT markers passed the standard DArT quality criteria. These criteria include minimal call rate for markers (>80%) and high reproducibility of technical replicates (average scoring consensus >99.7%). Given that B. napus is an allotetraploid species with strong residual homoeologous relationships among chromosomes, it was considered likely that some DArT markers would detect pairs of homoeologous loci rather than single loci. Therefore, χ2 tests were used to test each DArT marker for goodness-of-fit for a one-locus model (1:1 segregation ratio of parental alleles) and for two-locus models (1:3 or 3:1 ratio of parental alleles). Only those fitting the single-locus model were retained for linkage mapping purposes. Of 1171 DArT markers scored, 644 were monomorphic, 415 had allelic ratios consistent with the one-locus model (1:1; P < 0.001), and 112 had allelic ratios consistent with the two-locus model (3:1 or 1:3; P < 0.001). In the 91 DH lines screening the Version 2 array, 1020 DArT markers passed the standard DArT quality criteria (as above). Of these, 552 were monomorphic, 351 had allelic ratios consistent with the one-locus model (1:1; P < 0.001) and 117 had allelic ratios consistent with the two-locus model (3:1 or 1:3; P < 0.001). Markers that were putatively single-locus were combined from both DArT analyses to give 444 DArT loci that were used for subsequent linkage mapping. There were few inconsistencies between independent DArT analyses, which were entered as missing values in the combined DArT marker set.

3.3. Linkage mapping

In total, 584 marker loci (comprising 437 DArT, 135 SSR, 6 IP, and 6 gene-based markers) were used to generate a B. napus linkage map based on the BnaLMDH mapping population (Fig. 3, Supplementary Fig. S4; all scoring data provided in Supplementary Table S3, and summarized in Supplementary Table S4). Of these 584 loci, 329 were high-quality, non-redundant ‘framework’ markers, 209 were ‘redundant’ markers (i.e. co-segregated with respective framework markers), and 46 were lower quality ‘attached’ markers with less well-defined map positions. In consistent with the haploid chromosome number for B. napus (n = 19), there were 19 linkage groups with the shortest linkage group (A08) being 61.3 cM, the longest (C4) being 186.2 cM, and a total map length of 2288 cM (Supplementary Table S4). There were also two small clusters (Cluster-1 and Cluster-2) comprising four and three loci, respectively. There were also four markers (brPb-661033, brPb-662131, brPb-809033, and sN2675) that remained unlinked.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Graphical representation of the genetic linkage map constructed in the DH population from Lynx/Monty. Map distances are given in centiMorgan (cM) on the left of sample linkage groups.

Using SSR markers with known map locations, all linkage groups were unambiguously assigned chromosome names and orientated relative to the reference map.54 Alignment to the reference map revealed that this map encompasses ∼90% of the known B. napus genome with notably incomplete coverage of chromosomes A07 (bottom half) and A08 (top half). DArT marker were unevenly distributed, with the proportion of DArT loci ranging from 31% (chromosome C5) to 90% (chromosome A03), with an average of 70% across all chromosomes (Supplementary Table S4).

Several regions of the linkage map comprised markers with allelic segregation ratios diverging from the Mendelian expectation (1:1 for a DH population; Supplementary Table S3). The most significantly skewed deviations (χ2, P < 0.001) were on linkage groups A01, A03, and A06 and encompassed both DArT and SSR markers. We found evidence of high frequency of homoeologous recombination between chromosomes A07 and C6, as shown by the tendency of A07 and C6 to cluster together during the linkage mapping process, which had to be manually separated.

4. Discussion

We developed and applied a high-throughput DArT marker array for the first time in rapeseed. We demonstrated that this whole-genome profiling technology is useful for establishing phylogenetic relationships among varieties and elite breeding Brassica lines and for construction of linkage map that has extensive genome coverage of the rapeseed genome.

4.1. DArT markers for genetic diversity assessment

In this study, we utilized up to 1547 DArT markers for the assessment of genetic diversity among accessions of rapeseed and related species. A number of these markers were distributed across the genome in the ‘BnaLMDH’ population (Fig. 3). Previously, only a limited number of markers were used to analyse genetic diversity in rapeseed. For example, Wang et al.12 used 18 SSR primer pairs to generate 112 polymorphic features for genetic diversity analysis of 48 Australian rapeseed cultivars while Chen et al.60 used 55 SSR primer pairs to generate 287 polymorphic features for genetic diversity analysis of 72 cultivars. DArT markers with extensive genome coverage, developed in this study, will provide better estimate of the extent of genetic diversity. DArT markers have the additional advantage of being based largely on SNP variation, which more closely reflects normal genome evolutionary behaviour compared with SSRs that have high rates of mutation.61 Therefore, this DArT resource constitutes a significant improvement in marker density, and possibly quality, compared with that possible with marker technology previously available for rapeseed.

We employed both cluster and PCA analyses for studying genetic diversity and population structure. Results suggested that genetic diversity exists within the rapeseed germplasm. Most of the Australian varieties were grouped into distinct clusters according their common ancestry.59,62 For example, ‘Yickadee’, ‘Maluka’, ‘Eureka’, ‘Shiralee’, ‘Rainbow’, ‘45C75’, ‘44Y06’, ‘Ag-Spectrum’, ‘46C76’, and ‘45Y77’ share pedigrees with each other59 (Patel personal communication. http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pbr/index.shtml). This confirms that gene flow into Australian breeding programmes was restricted before the time of release of these varieties.59 Furthermore, all Australian varieties up to the year 2000 were developed from the same set of donor sources collected from Japan, France, Poland, Germany, Sweden, and Canada.59 However, some accessions overlapped or distributed across well-defined clusters, for example ‘Karoo’ (Fig 1). This could be due to the fact that rapeseed (syn canola) is a predominantly self-pollinated crop; however, outcrossing may occur, ranging from 5 to 36% under field conditions.63,64 Therefore, heterogeneity and heterozygosity in some varieties, such as ‘Karoo’, is very likely. This phenomena has been reported in previous studies,11 especially in the Australian cultivars which were developed using open-pollinated pedigree selection without ‘intentional selfing’.62 Furthermore, many breeding programmes have intentionally released ‘genetically mixed’ varieties to cope with environmental variation and biotic stresses.63,64 Phenograms also clearly differentiated ‘winter’ and ‘spring’ types, which represent to different gene pools as described previously using RFLP markers.8,65 Our results are consistent with previous studies which showed that rapeseed accessions can be grouped on the basis of flowering habit (winter and spring type), and on the basis of origin by geographical region and breeding organizations.8,9,12,65–67

DArT markers also enabled us to assess genetic diversity among four agricultural Brassica species that are extensively being used in rapeseed improvement programmes. Although we have not sampled extensively these species, DArT markers allowed us to differentiate B. rapa (AA), B. napus (AACC), B. juncea (AABB), and B. carinata (BBCC) on their polymorphism patterns. Therefore, the current DArT platform is suitable for genotyping of different Brassica species especially those having ‘A’ and ‘C’ genomes and may facilitate alien gene introgression from related species.

4.2. Implication of diversity

This DArT marker analysis supports previous studies that show that rapeseed accessions from Australia, Europe, and China are genetically differentiated.60 Crossing between these differentiated sources can be used to enlarge genetic diversity in rapeseed breeding programmes.59 Genetic distance estimates would assist breeding programmes to maximize the level of variation in their germplasm and to exploit high heterosis in hybrid varieties. DArT allelic profiles produced in this study will also be useful for fast and accurate DNA fingerprinting of elite Australian rapeseed genotypes and identifying loci associated with traits of agronomic importance using association mapping strategy.

4.3. Genome-wide coverage of DArT markers

A genetic map of ‘BnaLMDH’ was constructed using 437 DArT, 135 SSR, 6 IP, and 6 gene-based markers. These markers provided good coverage across all 19 linkage groups, corresponding to all 10 chromosomes of A and 9 chromosomes of C genome of B. napus. Good genome coverage could be partly attributed to the enrichment of the genic regions with the use of PstI. The map of ‘BnaLMDH’ population covering 2288 cM is comparable with the previous genetic linkage maps of B. napus, spanning distances of 1173–2619 cM.68–70 Approximately 10% of the DArT loci were found to be duplicated in this study. Therefore, a limited effect of homoplasmy is anticipated on the usage of DArT in diversity analysis in allotetraploid B. napus.

5. Conclusion

We developed the DArT platform for genetic analysis of Brassica genomes and demonstrated its usefulness in genetic diversity assessment and genetic map construction. Our results have proved that DArT technology is amenable for various downstream applications such as cluster analysis and map construction, including for trait-marker association analyses.66 It can supplement marker systems that cannot be analysed in a highly parallel genotyping format, such as SSR markers. SSRs are suitable to distinguish heterozygotes due to their, in general, co-dominance. Besides, excessive stutter bands and overlapping bands due to coamplification of loci also limit the usefulness of SSR markers in rapeseed. In light of the current paucity of high-density SNP assay formats for rapeseed and the embryonic nature of genotyping by sequencing technologies, the development of the DArT platform for rapeseed is a significant development for identifying trait-marker association, genetic diversity, and population genetics studies and whole-genome selection in this important crop species.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary Data are available at www.dnaresearch.oxfordjournals.org.

Funding

Authors are thankful to the NSW Agricultural Genomic Centre funded under BioFirst Initiative of NSW Government, and various organizations for supporting research under the DArT International Rapeseed Consortium led by Dr Kilian. M.N.A. was supported by Australian Research Council project LP0210571, with industry partners Council of Grain Grower Organizations Ltd (Australia) and Norddeutsche Pflanzenzucht Hans-Georg Lembke KG (Germany).

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Data
supp_19_1_51__index.html (1.6KB, html)

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Ms Belinda Taylor for technical assistance in DNA isolation and Ms Christine Sidebottom for technical support of SSR analysis.

References

  • 1.Nagaharu U. Genomic analysis in Brassica with special reference to the experimental formation of B. napus and peculiar mode of fertilisation. Jpn. J. Bot. 1935;7:389–452. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Cruz V.M.V., Luhman R., Marek L.F., et al. Characterisation of flowering time and SSR marker analysis of spring and winter type Brassica napus L. germplasm. Euphytica. 2007;153:43–57. doi:10.1007/s10681-006-9233-1. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Botstein D., White R., Skolnick M., Davis R. Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1980;32:314–31. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Weber J., May P. Abundant class of human DNA polymorphisms which can be typed using the polymerase chain reaction. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1989;44:388–96. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Vos P., Hogers R., Bleeker M., et al. AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995;23:4407–14. doi: 10.1093/nar/23.21.4407. doi:10.1093/nar/23.21.4407. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Williams J., Kubelik A., Livak K., Rafalski J., Tingey S. DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990;18:6531–5. doi: 10.1093/nar/18.22.6531. doi:10.1093/nar/18.22.6531. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Chee M., Yang R., Hubbell E., et al. Accessing genetic information with high-density DNA arrays. Science. 1996;274:610–4. doi: 10.1126/science.274.5287.610. doi:10.1126/science.274.5287.610. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Diers B. W., Osborn T. C. Genetic diversity of oilseed Brassica napus germplasm based on restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1994;88:662–8. doi: 10.1007/BF01253968. doi:10.1007/BF01253968. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Lombard V., Baril C. P., Dubreuil P., Blouet F., Zhang D. Genetic relationships and fingerprinting of rapeseed cultivars by AFLP: consequences for varietal registration. Crop Sci. 2000;40:1417–25. doi:10.2135/cropsci2000.4051417x. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Mailer R. J., Wratten N., Vonarx M. Genetic diversity amongst Australian canola cultivars determined by randomly amplified polymorphic DNA. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 1997;37:793–800. doi:10.1071/EA97059. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hasan M., Seyis F., Badani A., et al. Analysis of genetic diversity in the Brassica napus L. gene pool using SSR markers. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 2006;53:793–802. doi:10.1007/s10722-004-5541-2. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Wang J., Kaur S., Cogan N., et al. Assessment of genetic diversity in Australian canola (Brassica napus L.) cultivars using SSR markers. Crop Pasture Sci. 2009;60:1193–201. doi:10.1071/CP09165. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Snowdon R. J., Friedt W. Molecular markers in Brassica oilseed breeding: current status and future possibilities. Plant Breed. 2004;123:1–8. doi:10.1111/j.1439-0523.2003.00968.x. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Tommasini L., Batley J., Arnold G. M., et al. The development of multiplex simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers to complement distinctness, uniformity and stability testing of rape (Brassica napus L.) varieties. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003;106:1091–101. doi: 10.1007/s00122-002-1125-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Meng J., Sharpe A., Bowman C., Tian Z., Qian X., Lydiate D. Genetic diversity of Brassica napus accessions mainly from China detected with RFLP markers. Chin. J. Genet. 1997;23:221–32. [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Xia L., Peng K., Yang S., et al. DArT for high-throughput genotyping of Cassava (Manihot esculenta) and its wild relatives. Theor. Appl.Genet. 2005;110:1092–8. doi: 10.1007/s00122-005-1937-4. doi:10.1007/s00122-005-1937-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Yu J., Pressoir G., Briggs W. H., et al. A unified mixed-model method for association mapping that accounts for multiple levels of relatedness. Nat. Genet. 2006;38:203–8. doi: 10.1038/ng1702. doi:10.1038/ng1702. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jordan D. R., Tao Y. Z., Godwin I. D., Henzell R. G., Cooper M., McIntyre C. L. Comparison of identity by descent and identity by state for detecting genetic regions under selection in a sorghum pedigree breeding program. Mol. Breed. 2004;14:441–54. doi:10.1007/s11032-005-0901-y. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Podlich D., Winkler C., Cooper M. Mapping As You Go: An effective approach for marker-assisted selection of complex traits. Crop Sci. 2004;44:1560–71. doi:10.2135/cropsci2004.1560. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jannink J.-L., Lorenz A. J., Iwata H. Genomic selection in plant breeding: from theory to practice. Brief. Funct. Genomics. 2010;9:166–77. doi: 10.1093/bfgp/elq001. doi:10.1093/bfgp/elq001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gut I. G. Automation in genotyping of single nucleotide polymorphisms. Hum. Mutat. 2001;17:475–92. doi: 10.1002/humu.1131. doi:10.1002/humu.1131. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Trick M., Long Y., Meng J., Bancroft I. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) discovery in the polyploid Brassica napus using Solexa transcriptome sequencing. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2009;7:334–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2008.00396.x. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2008.00396.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Durstewitz G., Polley A., Plieske J., et al. SNP discovery by amplicon sequencing and multiplex SNP genotyping in the allopolyploid species Brassica napus. Genome. 2010;53:948–56. doi: 10.1139/G10-079. doi:10.1139/G10-079. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Wang J., Long Y., Wu B. D., et al. The evolution of Brassica napus FLOWERING LOCUS T paralogues in the context of inverted chromosomal duplication blocks. BMC Evol. Biol. 2009;9:271. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-9-271. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-271. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Tadege M., Sheldon C., Helliwell C., Stoutjesdijk P., Dennis E., Peacock W. Control of flowering time by FLC orthologues in Brassica napus. Plant J. 2001;28:545–53. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.2001.01182.x. doi:10.1046/j.1365-313X.2001.01182.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Parkin I. A. P., Clarke W. E., Sidebottom C., et al. Towards unambiguous transcript mapping in the allotetraploid Brassica napus. Genome. 2010;53:929–38. doi: 10.1139/G10-053. doi:10.1139/G10-053. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Bancroft I., Morgan C., Fraser F., et al. Dissecting the genome of the polyploid crop oilseed rape by transcriptome sequencing. Nat. Biotech. 2011;29:762–6. doi: 10.1038/nbt.1926. doi:10.1038/nbt.1926. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Elshire R. J., Glaubitz J. C., Sun Q., et al. A robust, simple Genotyping-by-Sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE. 2011;6:e19379. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0019379. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Baird N. A., Etter P. D., Atwood T. S., et al. Rapid SNP discovery and genetic mapping using sequenced RAD markers. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e3376. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0003376. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0003376. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Edwards D., Batley J., Lorenc M., et al. Sequence analysis of the canola genome. Proceedings of the International Rapeseed Conference (Abstract Book); Prague, Czech Republic: 2011. p. 9. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Jaccoud D., Peng K., Feinstein D., Kilian A. Diversity arrays: a solid state technology for sequence information independent genotyping. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001;29:e25. doi: 10.1093/nar/29.4.e25. doi:10.1093/nar/29.4.e25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Wenzl P., Carling J., Kudrna D., et al. Diversity arrays technology (DArT) for whole-genome profiling of barley. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2004;101:9915–20. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0401076101. doi:10.1073/pnas.0401076101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Mantovani P., Maccaferri M., Sanguineti M., et al. An integrated DArT-SSR linkage map of durum wheat. Mol. Breed. 2008;22:629–48. doi:10.1007/s11032-008-9205-3. [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Akbari M., Wenzl P., Caig V., et al. Diversity arrays technology (DArT) for high-throughput profiling of the hexaploid wheat genome. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2006;113:1409–20. doi: 10.1007/s00122-006-0365-4. doi:10.1007/s00122-006-0365-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Francki M., Walker E., Crawford A., et al. Comparison of genetic and cytogenetic maps of hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) using SSR and DArT markers. Mol. Genet. Genomics. 2009;281:181–91. doi: 10.1007/s00438-008-0403-9. doi:10.1007/s00438-008-0403-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Mace E., Xia L., Jordan D., et al. DArT markers: diversity analyses and mapping in Sorghum bicolor. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:26. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-26. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Wenzl P., Li H., Carling J., et al. A high-density consensus map of barley linking DArT markers to SSR, RFLP and STS loci and agricultural traits. BMC Genomics. 2006;7:206. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-7-206. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-7-206. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Raman R., Allen H., Diffey S., Raman H., Martin P., McKelvie K. Localisation of quantitative trait loci for quality attributes in a doubled haploid population of wheat (Triticum aestivum L) Genome. 2009;52:701–15. doi: 10.1139/g09-045. doi:10.1139/G09-045. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wenzl P., Raman H., Wang J., Zhou M., Huttner E., Kilian A. A DArT platform for quantitative bulked segregant analysis. BMC Genomics. 2007;8:196. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-8-196. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-8-196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ryan P. R., Raman H., Gupta S., Horst W. J., Delhaize E. A second mechanism for aluminum resistance in wheat relies on the constitutive efflux of citrate from roots. Plant Physiol. 2009;149:340–51. doi: 10.1104/pp.108.129155. doi:10.1104/pp.108.129155. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Raman H., Stodart B., Cavanagh C., et al. Molecular diversity and genetic structure of modern and landrace cultivars of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Crop Pasture Sci. 2010;61:222–9. doi:10.1071/CP09093. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Stodart B. J., Mackay M. C., Raman H. Assessment of molecular diversity in landraces of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) held in an ex situ collection with Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT) Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2007;58:1174–82. doi:10.1071/AR07010. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Raman H., Stodart B., Ryan P., et al. Genome wide association analyses of common wheat (Triticum aestivum L) germplasm identifies multiple loci for aluminium resistance. Genome. 2010;53:957–66. doi: 10.1139/G10-058. doi:10.1139/G10-058. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Aslam M. N. Perth: The University of Western Australia; 2007. Inheritance of molecular markers for high oleic and low linolenic acids in canola (Brassica napus L.) and impact of genotype and environment on these traits. Thesis submitted to the School of Plant Biology. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Cousin A., Nelson M. Twinned microspore-derived embryos of canola (Brassica napus L.) are genetically identical. Plant Cell Rep. 2009;28:831–5. doi: 10.1007/s00299-009-0677-3. doi:10.1007/s00299-009-0677-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Aslam M. N., Kailis S., Nelson M. N., Bayliss K. L., Cowling W. A. Variation in fatty acid composition among genetically homogeneous seeds of canola (Brassica napus), and implications for genotypic selection based on single seeds. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 2008;59:926–32. doi:10.1071/AR08153. [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Kilian A., Wenzl P., Huttner E., et al. Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT)—a generic genome profiling technology on open platforms. In: Bonin A, P. F., editor. Data Production and Analysis in Population Genomics. Methods in Molecular Biology Series. New York, USA: Humana Press; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Anderson J. A., Churchill G. A., Autrique J. E., Tanksley S. D., Sorrells M. E. Optimizing parental selection for genetic linkage maps. Genome. 1993;36:181–6. doi: 10.1139/g93-024. doi:10.1139/g93-024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Jaccard P. Nouvelles recherches sur la distribution florale. Bull. Soc. Vaudoise Sci. Nat. 1908;44:223–70. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Swofford D. L., Olson G. J. Phylogeny reconstruction. In: Hillis D. M., Mortiz C., editors. Molecular Systematics. MA: Sinauer Associates, S.; 1990. pp. 411–501. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sneath P. H., Sokal R. R. Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman; 1973. p. 573. [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Rohlf F. J. NTSYS-PC: Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System, Ver. 2.10z. Setauket, NY: Exeter Software; 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Lowe A., Moule C., Trick M., Edwards K. Efficient large-scale development of microsatellites for marker and mapping applications in Brassica crop species. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2004;108:1103–12. doi: 10.1007/s00122-003-1522-7. doi:10.1007/s00122-003-1522-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Wang J., Lydiate D., Parkin I., et al. Integration of linkage maps for the amphidiploid Brassica napus and comparative mapping with Arabidopsis and Brassica rapa. BMC Genomics. 2011;12:101. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-12-101. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-12-101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Nelson M., Mason A., Castello M.-C., Thomson L., Yan G., Cowling W. Microspore culture preferentially selects unreduced (2n) gametes from an interspecific hybrid of Brassica napus L. × Brassica carinata Braun. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2009;119:497–505. doi: 10.1007/s00122-009-1056-8. doi:10.1007/s00122-009-1056-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Panjabi P., Jagannath A., Bisht N., et al. Comparative mapping of Brassica juncea and Arabidopsis thaliana using Intron Polymorphism (IP) markers: homoeologous relationships, diversification and evolution of the A, B and C Brassica genomes. BMC Genomics. 2008;9:113. doi: 10.1186/1471-2164-9-113. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-9-113. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mester D., Ronin Y., Minkov D., Nevo E., Korol A. Constructing large-scale genetic maps using an evolutionary strategy algorithm. Genetics. 2003;165:2269–82. doi: 10.1093/genetics/165.4.2269. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Nelson M., Moolhuijzen P., Boersma J., et al. Aligning a new reference genetic map of Lupinus angustifolius with the genome sequence of the model legume, Lotus japonicus. DNA Res. 2010;17:73–83. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsq001. doi:10.1093/dnares/dsq001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Cowling W. A. Genetic diversity in Australian canola and implications for crop breeding for changing future environments. Field Crop. Res. 2007;104:103–11. doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2006.12.014. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Chen S., Nelson M. N., Ghamkhar K., Fu T., Cowling W. A. Divergent patterns of allelic diversity from similar origins: the case of oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) in China and Australia. Genome. 2008;51:1–10. doi: 10.1139/g07-095. doi:10.1139/G07-095. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Grover A., Aishwarya V., Sharma P. C. Biased distribution of microsatellites in rice genome. Mol. Genet. Genomics. 2007;277:469–80. doi: 10.1007/s00438-006-0204-y. doi:10.1007/s00438-006-0204-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Salisbury P. A., Wratten N. Brassica napus breeding. Canola in Australia: the First 30 Years. In: Salisbury P. A., Potter T. D., McDonald G., Green A. G., editors. Organising Committee of the 10th International Rapeseed Congress. Australia: Canberra; 1999. pp. 29–35. [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Huhn M., Rakow G. Einige experimentaelle Ergebnisse zur Fremdbefurchtungsrate bei Winterrap (Brassica napus oleifera) in Abhangigkeit von Sorte and Abstand. Z. Pflanzenzuecht. 1979;83:289–307. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Rakow G., Woods D. L. Outcrossing in rape and mustard under Saskatchewan prairie conditions. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1987;67:147–51. doi:10.4141/cjps87-017. [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Becker H. C., Engqvist G. M., Karlsson B. Comparison of rapeseed cultivars and resynthesized lines based on allozyme and RFLP markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1995;91:62–7. doi: 10.1007/BF00220859. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Raman H., Raman R., Prangnell R., et al. Genetic dissection of natural variation for flowering time in rapeseed. Proceedings of the International Rapeseed Congress (Abstract Book); Prague, Czech Republic: 2011. p. 139. [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Ferreira M. E., Satagopan J., Yandell B. S., Williams P. H., Osborn T. C. Mapping loci controlling vernalisation requirement and flowering time in Brassica napus. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1995;90:727–32. doi: 10.1007/BF00222140. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Piquemal J., Cinquin E., Couton F., et al. Construction of an oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) genetic map with SSR markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2005;111:1514–23. doi: 10.1007/s00122-005-0080-6. doi:10.1007/s00122-005-0080-6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Lombard V., Delourme R. A consensus linkage map for rapeseed (Brassica napus L.): construction and integration of three individual maps from DH populations. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2001;103:491–507. doi:10.1007/s001220100560. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Kaur S., Cogan N. O. I., Ye G., et al. Genetic map construction and QTL mapping of resistance to blackleg (Leptosphaeria maculans) disease in Australian canola (Brassica napus L.) cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2009;120:71–83. doi: 10.1007/s00122-009-1160-9. doi:10.1007/s00122-009-1160-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Data
supp_19_1_51__index.html (1.6KB, html)
supp_dsr041_dsr041supp_fig2.pdf (111.7KB, pdf)
supp_dsr041_dsr041supp_table3.pdf (434.8KB, pdf)
supp_dsr041_dsr041supp_table4.pdf (43.8KB, pdf)
supp_dsr041_dsr041supp_fig1.ppt (392KB, ppt)
supp_dsr041_dsr041supp_table1.xlsx (41KB, xlsx)
supp_dsr041_dsr041supp_table2.xlsx (32KB, xlsx)

Articles from DNA Research: An International Journal for Rapid Publication of Reports on Genes and Genomes are provided here courtesy of Oxford University Press

RESOURCES