Hybrid Origin of Paeonia × yananensis Revealed by Microsatellite Markers, Chloroplast Gene Sequences, and Morphological Characteristics

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to International Journal of Plant Sciences.In Paeonia, hybridization is an important path for both the development of new cultivars and species formation in nature, but the characterization of hybrids has long been a problem. To establish the relationship among Paeonia yananensis, P. jishanensis, and P. rockii, we sampled 159 individuals from 11 populations around the core population of P. yananensis. Samples were subjected to morphological analysis of 22 characters and molecular analysis of three chloroplast DNA (cpDNA) fragments and 14 microsatellites. Paeonia yananensis was distinguishable from the other two species on the basis of morphological characteristics. The phylogenetic tree based on three intergenic spacers in the chloroplast genome (petB-petD, rps16-trnQ, and psbA-trnH) demonstrated that P. yananensis was very closely related to P. jishanensis. However, analysis of 14 microsatellite loci revealed that P. yananensis shared a considerable number of alleles with both P. jishanensis and P. rockii. These results demonstrated that P. yananensis (¼P. 3 yananensis) is of hybrid origin, with P. jishanensis as a maternal parent and P. rockii as a paternal parent. Our success in documenting the hybrid origin of P. yananensis suggests that combined evidence from morphology, maternally inherited cpDNA, and biparentally inherited microsatellites could serve as a powerful tool in hybrid studies.

Independent domestications of cultivated tree peonies from different wild peony species

“…; Yuan et al . , ). We generated 10 6 genetic data sets from coalescent simulations using model parameters drawn from prior distributions under the three previously specified scenarios.…”

The phylogeographic structure and conservation genetics of the endangered tree peony, Paeonia rockii (Paeoniaceae), inferred from chloroplast gene sequences

“…The DNA concentration was estimated either by agarose gel electrophoresis or using a photometer, and dilutions of 5-10 ng/ll were prepared. cpDNA polymerase chain reaction amplification, nucleotide sequencing and sequence alignment Based on Yuan et al (2010) and Zhang et al (2009), the petB-petD chloroplast region and two other cpDNA markers, rps16-trnQ, and psbA-trnH, were used for our analysis. We used the amplification primers for the petBpetD spacer, as described by Grivet et al (2001), and the primers for rps16-trnQ and psbA-trnH spacers designed by Sang et al (1997).…”

“…These applications are informative because the genetic structure of cpDNA markers may be maintained for a longer period than that of nuclear (n) DNA markers (Arroyo-García et al 2002). Moreover, a few cpDNA markers with moderate to high levels of genetic variation within and among tree species have been detected in some intergenic spacers (Yuan et al 2010;Zhang et al 2009). Therefore, using such informative sites will counterbalance the relatively slow evolution of cpDNA compared with that of nuclear markers.…”

Genetic diversity analysis of tree peony germplasm using iPBS markers

“…Currently, genetic diversity studies of tree peony are mainly concentrated at the phenotypic level. The rapid development of molecular biology has provided a method for studying tree peony resources at the DNA level, including random-amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) (Hosoki et al, 1997;Chen et al, 2002;Meng and Zheng, 2004), simple-sequence repeats (Yuan et al, 2010;Hou et al, 2011;Gao et al, 2013), inter-simple sequence repeat (Li et al, 2011a), amplified fragment length polymorphism (Hou et al, 2006a), sequence-related amplified polymorphism (Han et al, 2008;Guo et al, 2009;Wang et al, 2011), and conserved DNA-derived polymorphism (Wang et al, 2014). However, different markers have different specificities, and studies have shown inconsistent results, thus, showing the need for additional methods.…”