Duplication within and between germplasm collections

Hintum, T.J.L. van; Knüpffer, H.

doi:10.1007/bf02539516

Cited by 32 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He used the term ''hyper-inflation'' for this development as it indicates a high amount of redundant material. Van Hintum and Knüpffer (1995) made a similar statement: ''Most collections in genebanks are still rather haphazard.'' The historical genebanks in Russia (N.I.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…The usefulness of intra-accession diversity in phenotypically homogeneous genebank preserved landrace accessions when re-introducing such genebank material into on-farm situations was recently demonstrated in lentil which, similar to oat, is a self-pollinating species (Horneburg and Becker 2008). Van Hintum and Knüpffer (1995) introduced the term ''common duplicates'' for accessions that trace back to the same initial population but may have altered genetic identities (allelic compositions) and they distinguish them from ''identical duplicates''. Sensitive methods for assessment of genetic diversity will pick these differences up.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the accession has the status of a landrace, then it may well be that all distinct types can claim to be authentic, because the accession name is not closely associated with a single genotype. Using the terminology of van Hintum and Knüpffer (1995) this would fall in the category of ''partly duplication''. This relates to the fact that genebank accessions can be heterogeneous for morphological characters: that is, the inherent accession diversity may not allow unambiguous assessments for distinguishing between two or more members of a duplication group.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is probably impossible or a mistake to declare one single accession of the PGRC collection of such a landrace-cultivar as the most authentic representative. Even if these accessions are common or partial duplicates in the terminology of van Hintum and Knüpffer (1995), they should be kept as separate genebank accessions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, not all duplicates are true duplicates. According to the terminology of van Hintum and Knüpffer (1995) duplicates can be (1) identical duplicates (genetically identical) or (2) common duplicates (derived from the same initial population). In living collections evolutionary processes can not be avoided and the term ''maintenance breeding'' points at the fact that reselection to original cultivar types is often necessary when breeders want to maintain their material over several generations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Duplication assessments in Nordic Avena sativa accessions at the Canadian national genebank

Diederichsen

2008

Genet Resour Crop Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study applied two methods to assess intra-collection duplication within 339 Nordic oat (Avena sativa L.) accessions preserved by Plant Gene Resources of Canada (PGRC). Putative duplicates, that is accessions carrying a similar accession name, were grouped into 52 duplication groups and included 230 of the 339 Nordic oat accessions. A field assessment based on visual inspection of field plots was conducted during two growing seasons to detect distinct phenotypes within each duplication group. Simultaneously, a descriptor assessment using seven characters with altogether sixteen character states was used in both years for the same purpose. The combined results of both assessments and both years indicated that among the 230 accessions in duplication groups only 118 could be identified as distinct. This would allow for a reduction of 33% of the Nordic oat accessions at PGRC. The field assessment method detected fewer (75%) distinct accessions than the descriptor assessment (84%), when considering all accessions identified as distinct as 100%. Repeatability between years was higher in the field assessment (70%) than in the descriptor assessment (64%). The field assessment requires an experienced germplasm evaluator, but allows for handling large numbers of germplasm accessions and for detecting functional, fitness related, and user-relevant diversity. Combining field assessment with descriptor assessment and more sophisticated methods on selected subgroups may be the most efficient method for determination of internal duplication in genebank collections. Bulking phenotypically similar accessions within duplication groups is preferable to eliminating duplicate accessions when collection rationalization is required, as it reduces the risk of loosing diversity.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Duplication assessments in Nordic Avena sativa accessions at the Canadian national genebank

Diederichsen

2008

Genet Resour Crop Evol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Using Genomics to Exploit Grain Legume Biodiversity in Crop Improvement

Dwivedi¹,

Upadhyaya²,

Jayashree³

et al. 2005

Plant Breeding Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Data, Duplication, and Decentralisation: Gene Bank Management in the 1980s and 1990s

Curry

2022

Towards Responsible Plant Data Linkage: Data Challenges for Agricultural Research and Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the 1970s, the number of accessions held in national and international seed and gene banks increased steadily. This growth, initially a source of pride, was recognised as a liability by the 1980s. Too many accessions lacked the basic information necessary for researchers to access and use samples knowledgably. Many gene banks came under scrutiny for poor management practices and several found themselves accused of mishandling a ‘global patrimony’ entrusted to their care. In this paper, I explore one response to these concerns that attracted attention from many in the germplasm conservation community: creating linked, standardised databases of collections. Calls for more and better data about accessions often emphasised that these data would make collections easier to use and therefore more valued. Here I take a close look at the early history of data collation and standardisation as a means of ‘rationalising’ collections, a motivation that was not advertised as prominently. This historical example shows the infrastructures developed to facilitate data exchange in the context of seed and gene banking to have been tied up with both mundane imperatives to cut costs and lofty goals of building political bridges—in addition to the often-repeated ambition of making plant breeding more efficient.

show abstract

Duplication within and between germplasm collections

Cited by 32 publications

References 4 publications

Duplication assessments in Nordic Avena sativa accessions at the Canadian national genebank

Duplication assessments in Nordic Avena sativa accessions at the Canadian national genebank

Using Genomics to Exploit Grain Legume Biodiversity in Crop Improvement

Data, Duplication, and Decentralisation: Gene Bank Management in the 1980s and 1990s

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About