2012
DOI: 10.3109/07388551.2012.675314
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Plant variety and cultivar identification: advances and prospects

Abstract: Plant variety and cultivar identification is one of the most important aspects in agricultural systems. The large number of varieties or landraces among crop plants has made it difficult to identify and characterize varieties solely on the basis of morphological characters because they are non stable and originate due to environmental and climatic conditions, and therefore phenotypic plasticity is an outcome of adaptation. To mitigate this, scientists have developed and employed molecular markers, statistical … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

1
76
0
4

Year Published

2013
2013
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 116 publications
(81 citation statements)
references
References 106 publications
1
76
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In contrast, molecular markers such as restriction fragment length polymorphism, random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), amplified fragment length polymorphism, and simplesequence repeats (SSR) can provide an effective tool for variety identification since they are independent of environmental variation (Korir et al, 2013). Among the different available marker systems, SSR markers have become an important marker system for variety identification because of their genetic co-dominance, high reproducibility, and multiallelic variation (Powell et al, 1996), in addition to relative abundance and good genome coverage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In contrast, molecular markers such as restriction fragment length polymorphism, random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), amplified fragment length polymorphism, and simplesequence repeats (SSR) can provide an effective tool for variety identification since they are independent of environmental variation (Korir et al, 2013). Among the different available marker systems, SSR markers have become an important marker system for variety identification because of their genetic co-dominance, high reproducibility, and multiallelic variation (Powell et al, 1996), in addition to relative abundance and good genome coverage.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By June 2012, there were over 18,208 SSR markers deposited in the Sol Genomics Network (http//:www.solgenomics.net) and available for public use. In addition, many more are found in other databases and laboratories worldwide (Korir et al, 2013). The generation and characterization of EST-derived microsatellites from the tomato and crossspecies amplification in its closely related species and varieties by SSR markers have been done with a total of 7599 SSR markers being generated by in silico data mining of 83,785 sequences (Shirasawa et al, 2010).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The presence of homonyms or synonyms within existing tomato varieties being sold in the markets shows the need to properly identify wild and cultivated tomato varieties and cultivars for conservation and use of these germplasm resources as well as in plant variety protection. The ability to distinguish varieties could be greatly enhanced by using appropriate molecular markers (Patil et al, 2010;Ezekiel et al, 2011;Korir et al, 2012). The well-documented advantages of optimized RAPD markers make it the technique of choice for the initial phase of this study.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The use of molecular markers serves as a modern and suitable approach to cultivar and variety identification, since it is more rapid and cost-effective (Korir et al, 2012). Different molecular marker techniques have been used in plant population genetics and identification, phylogenetic and biodiversity studies, analysis of recombination frequencies between genotypes, identification of genes for important agricultural traits and marker-assisted selection (Vishwanath et al, 2010;Sonah et al, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation