2022
DOI: 10.1186/s12864-021-08277-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigation of genetic relationships within three Miscanthus species using SNP markers identified with SLAF-seq

Abstract: Background Miscanthus, which is a leading dedicated-energy grass in Europe and in parts of Asia, is expected to play a key role in the development of the future bioeconomy. However, due to its complex genetic background, it is difficult to investigate phylogenetic relationships in this genus. Here, we investigated 50 Miscanthus germplasms: 1 female parent (M. lutarioriparius), 30 candidate male parents (M. lutarioriparius, M. sinensis, and M. sacchariflorus), and 19 offspring. We used high-thro… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
(65 reference statements)
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…SLAFseq methods, however, are not the same as GBS methods in a few respects. For example, one tag is identified by SLAF-seq roughly every 10 K, the uniform distribution of SLAF tags guarantees that significant chromosomal segments are not overlooked, and SLAFseq is a cost-effective method since it avoids repeating sequences (Chen et al, 2022b). While both SLAF-seq and WGS can identify SNPs, they greatly differ in terms of cost-effectiveness and missing data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…SLAFseq methods, however, are not the same as GBS methods in a few respects. For example, one tag is identified by SLAF-seq roughly every 10 K, the uniform distribution of SLAF tags guarantees that significant chromosomal segments are not overlooked, and SLAFseq is a cost-effective method since it avoids repeating sequences (Chen et al, 2022b). While both SLAF-seq and WGS can identify SNPs, they greatly differ in terms of cost-effectiveness and missing data.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In earlier times, conventional breeding methods encouraged plant growth under water stressed environments. These methods are very time-consuming and costly, and therefore the development of molecular markers played a crucial role in detecting the genetic variability in crops ( Chen et al, 2022 ). Many QTLs have been detected in many crops, but their reliability and accuracy are often problematic ( Xu et al, 2022 ).…”
Section: Molecular Techniques To Enhance Drought Tolerance In Ramiementioning
confidence: 99%
“…Over time, various types of molecular markers have been developed, encompassing the first-generation markers such as restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), and amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), as well as the second-generation markers like simple sequence repeats (SSR) and inter-simple sequence repeats (ISSR). Nonetheless, these markers exhibit limitations in terms of throughput, accuracy, time consumption, labor intensiveness, and cost ( Zheng et al., 2018 ; Clifton-brown et al., 2019 ; Chen et al., 2022 ). To surmount these challenges, a third generation of molecular markers known as SNPs has emerged.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%