Review Article - Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology (2021) Volume 4, Issue 6
Molecular markers: A novel vista in vegetable improvement.
Shweta*, Sonia Sood
Department of Vegetable Science & Floriculture, Chaudhary Sarwan Kumar Himachal Pradesh Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, (CSK HPKV) Palampur, India
- Corresponding Author:
- Shweta G
Department of Vegetable Science and Floriculture,
University of CSKHPKV,
E-mail: [email protected]
Accepted date: October 27, 2021
Citation: Shweta, Sood S. Molecular markers: A novel vista in vegetable improvement. 2021; 4(6): 5-17
Vegetables are the major source of nutrients in the daily diet in both developing and developed countries. But these groups of plants are most susceptible to a variety of pests. The growth and economic yield are severely reduced under a variety of biotic and abiotic stresses. A number of conventional breeding methods are available for genetic improvement of vegetable crops. But, selection of desirable plants in the breeding programme often becomes misleading due to inadequate biotic and abiotic stress conditions and other environmental factors. Recent advances in the development of molecular markers have made it possible for reliable selection and to speed up the breeding cycle in vegetable crops. Molecular markers directly reveal the polymorphism at the level of DNA. These are tags that can be used to identify specific genes and locate them in relation to other genes. Therefore, in the present article, the authors offered a detailed review of the role of molecular markers to assist breeding programme of important vegetable crops.
Molecular markers, Gene tagging, QTL detection, Marker aided selection, Vegetable crops.
Conventional plant breeding (classical breeding or traditional breeding) is basically the development of new varieties of plants by using older tools and natural processes . Breeding for improved varieties can no longer rely on ten years cycles and all the technologies to shorten the selection cycles must be mobilized, use of markers is one such technology . Marker is basically a tag which is prominent or helps in the identification of the trait . Markers are classified into four type’s viz., morphological, biochemical, cytological and molecular markers . Morphological markers are visually characterized phenotypic traits like flower colour, seed shape, growth habit and those gene loci that have direct effect on the morphology of plant . These markers enable the assessment of genetic variability and diversity based on single phenotypic difference yet there are limitations associated with these markers and these limitations led to the development of molecular markers . Biochemical markers or isozymes are molecular form of enzyme that is based on the protein staining but having different electrophoretic mobilities. Basically these biochemical markers are encoded by different genes and have same functions . Biochemical markers are allelic variations of enzymes and can be used to estimate the gene frequency, genotypic frequency and successfully help in the detection of genetic diversity, gene flow, structure and subdivision of population . Cytological markers are the variations associated with morphology of chromosomes such as chromosome number, size, sequence specificity, meiotic behavior of chromosome. These are the variations present in the number, size, shape, order, position and banding patterns of chromosomes are called as cytological markers . A cytological marker reveals the differences in the euchromatin and heterochromatin, normal and mutated chromosomes and used in the identification of mapping and linkage groups .
A marker is a sequence of DNA which serves as flag post or signpost which is directly or indirectly linked to the trait gene of interest and is generally co-inherited with the trait [ 6].Molecular markers are nucleotide sequences which are estimated by level of polymorphism present between the nucleotide sequences of different individuals. The level of polymorphism is based on insertion, deletion, duplication, translocation and point mutations whereas they did not affect the activity of genes . These markers are basically the landmarks whose position in the genome is known and are directly exposed the polymorphism at DNA level . The ideal molecular marker must have following properties viz., marker should be easily available, inexpensive, non-time consuming, abundant in number, polymorphic in nature, tightly linked to target loci, frequently distributed throughout the genome, preferably <5 centi Morgan (cM) from a gene of interest,indiscriminating, easily reproducible, multiallelic, easy to operate, neutral phenotypically and co-dominant [ 9]. The occurrence of different molecular techniques and different principles and methodologies need cautious deliberation in choosing one or more of such marker types . DNA markers are advantageous and beneficial to use as they are efficiently used in the detection of presence or absence of allelic variation in the genes associated with the trait of interest and tremendously increased the precision and accuracy [31-45]. The theoretical benefits of utilizing DNA markers, the potent value of genetic linkage construction maps and direct selection was first reported about eighty years ago in crop improvement . Now- a-days more efficient molecular markers systems that are inexpensive and involves better detection systems are being developed . Molecular marks were divided into many groups on the basis of mode of their gene action (dominant or co-dominant markers), method of detection (hybridization based molecular markers or PCR based markers) and method of transmission (maternal organelle inheritance, paternal organelle inheritance, biparental nuclear inheritance or maternal nuclear inheritance . Molecular marker were proven to be the most effective and efficient tool in the genetic variation evaluation and in clarification of genetic relationships within and among species . So, the use of molecular genetics or molecular/DNA markers in detecting the DNA differences of single plant has many applications in vegetable crops improvement [50-65]. Various types of molecular markers have been reported till date and discussed in Table 1.
|S.No.||Name of marker||Full Form||Reference (s)|
|PCR/Hybridization based molecular marker|
|1||RFLP||Restriction fragment length polymorphism||Botstein et al., 1980|
|PCR based molecular marker|
|1.||RAPD||Random amplified polymorphic DNA||Williams et al., 1990|
|2.||AFLP||Amplified fragment length polymorphism||Vos et al., 1995|
|Kumar et al., 2003|
|3.||SSR||Simple sequence repeats||Hearne et al., 1992|
|4.||ISSR||Inter simple sequence repeat||Reddy et al., 2002|
|5.||SNP||Single nucleotide polymorphisms||Kumar et al., 2012|
|6.||STS||Sequence tagged site||Fukuoka et al., 1994|
|7.||EST||Expressed sequence tags||Pashley et al., 2006|
|8.||SCAR||Sequence characterized amplified region||Feng et al., 2018|
|9.||CAPS||Cleaved amplified polymorphism sequence||Lyamichev et al., 1993|
|10.||ALP||Amplicon length polymorphism||Ghareyazei et al., 1995|
|11.||SSCP||Single- strand conformation polymorphism||Orita et al., 1989|
|12.||SSLP||Minisatellite simple sequence length polymorphism||Jarmen and Wells, 1989|
|13.||SSLP||Microsatellite simple sequence length||Saghai et al., 1994|
|14.||AP-PCR||Arbitrarily-primed PCR||McClelland and Welsh, 1994|
|15.||AS-PCR||Allele specific PCR||Sarkar et al., 1990|
|16.||DAF||DNA amplification finger printing||Caetano-Anolles et al., 1991|
|17.||SRAP||Sequence-related amplified polymorphism||Robarts and Wolfe et al., 2014|
|18.||DarT||Diversity Array Technologies||Jing et al., 2009|
|20.||ScoT||Start codon targeted||Zhang et al., 2015|
|21.||DAMD||Direct amplified minisatellite DNA||Somers and Demmon, 2002|
|22.||InDels||Insertion or deletion of bases in the genome||Guo et al., 2019|
Table 1. Various types of molecular markers.
Advantages and disadvantages of molecular markers
The first big size efforts to produce genetic maps were performed mainly by using RFLP markers, the best known genetic markers at the time [66-75]. Molecular markers are advantageous over morphological and biochemical markers as they have high reproducibility,detect coupling phase of DNA, show co dominant alleles and easily estimate the linked trait to the gene of interest in both hom ozygous and heterozygous individuals . The major disadvantage of utilizing molecular marker is that they are highly expensive, labor intensive, time consuming and requires higher amount of maximum molecular weight DNA . There are several advantages and disadvantages of different types of molecular marker that are discussed in detail (Table 2).
|S. No.||Marker||Advantages||Disadvantages||Reference (s)|
|1.||RFLP||Highly reproducible||Time consuming||Beckmann and Soller, 1986|
|Robust and reliable||Expensive||Tanksley et al., 1989|
|Locus specific||High quality of pure DNA needed||Mishra et al., 2014|
|Transferable across the population||Not amenable for automation|
|No need of prior sequence information|
|2.||RAPD||Easy to use||Not locus specific||Demeke et al., 1997|
|Quick and simple||Dominant marker||Jiang, 2013|
|Polymorphic||Generally not transferrable|
|Small quantity of DNA required||Highly purified DNA is required|
|3.||AFLP||Reliable||Dominant marker||Blears et al., 1998|
|High reproducibility||Complicated methodology||Ridout and Donini, 1999|
|Highly polymorphic||High quality and quantity of DNA required|
|Provide good genome coverage|
|4.||SSR||Co dominant marker||Developmental cost is high||Provan et al., 2001|
|High reproducibility||Time consuming and laborious||Zane et al., 2002|
|Robust and reliable||Polyacrylamide electrophoresis is required||Kalia et al., 2011|
|Locus specific||Presence of more null alleles|
|Transferable across the population||Occurrence of homoplasy|
|Less quantity of DNA is required|
|Amenable for automation and technically simple|
|5.||ISSR||Highly polymorphic||Low reproducibility||Dirlewanger et al., 1998|
|Simple and easy to use||Pure DNA is required||Moreno et al., 1998|
|No need of prior sequence information||Generally not transferable||Arcade et al., 2000|
|Fragment are not same sized||Ng and Tan, 2015|
|6.||SNP||Cost effective||Developmental cost is high||Jiang, 2013|
|Widely distributed throughout genome|
|No need of prior sequence information|
|7.||EST||Co-dominant marker||Marker development is limited to species for which sequencing database already exist||Cato et al., 2001|
|Highly reproducible, robust and reliable|
|High degree of sequence conservation|
|Enable a transfer of linkage information between species|
|8.||SRAP||Simple||Dominant marker||Li et al., 2001|
|Easy to use||Moderate to high throughput ratio||Uzun et al., 2009|
|Easy isolation of bands|
|9.||DarT||Cost-effective||Dominant marker||Jaccoud et al., 2001|
|High reproducibility||Developmental cost is high||Wenzl et al., 2004|
|Prior sequence information not needed|
|10.||Retrotransposons||Simple||Dominant marker||Kalender et al., 1999|
|Easy to use||Kalender et al., 2011|
|High reproducibility||Roy et al., 2015|
|No need of prior sequence information|
Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of different molecular markers.
Applications of molecular markers in vegetable crops improvement
There are several applications of molecular markers that aid in improvement of vegetable crops viz., (i) assessment of genetic diversity (ii) gene tagging (iii) DNA fingerprinting for varietal identification (iv) Detection of Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs) (v) Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) for traits of interest [78-85].
Assessment of genetic diversity: Recent advancements in the field of molecular markers and genome sequencing offer a great and potential opportunity to examine the genetic diversity in a large number of germplasm [86-91]. Molecular markers have been proven as an efficient tool for the assessment of genetic diversity in a very wide range of plant species. This tool is of direct use to plant breeders as it showed the adaption, performance and agronomic qualities of the germplasm . This information gives an idea about the overall genetic range of germplasm of the crops and plant breeders can effectively utilize the germplasm particularly to the unique genes and search aspects [93-105]. Assessment of genetic diversity is very helpful in the study of evolution of plants, their comparative genomics and helps to understand the structure of different populations . Molecular markers now days have been successfully used for the evaluation of genetic diversity and the classification of the genetic material . Many researchers have reported to use molecular markers to assess genetic diversity in various vegetable crops (Table 3).
|S.No.||Crop||Molecular marker||Traits improved||Reference (s)|
|1.||Tomato||RAPD and ISSR||Genetic divergence and high yield of genotypes under high temperature||El-Mansy et al., 2021|
|ISSR||Genetic diversity and genetic variability||Vargas et al., 2020|
|SSR and SCAR||Genetic diversity and resistance against fungal diseases||Gonias et al., 2019|
|RAPD||Genetic diversity||Herison et al., 2018|
|ISSR||Genetic diversity and genetic relationships among varieties||Kiani and Siahchehreh, 2018|
|SRAP||Genetic variation and genetic diversity||Shaye et al., 2018|
|SSR||Genetic diversity and morphological variation||Kaushal et al., 2017|
|SSR||Genetic variation and genetic diversity studies||Benor et al., 2008|
|RAPD||Genetic variation||Archak et al., 2002|
|RAPD||Genetic diversity||Villand et al., 1998|
|2||Brinjal||SSR||Genetic diversity and population structure||Liu et al., 2018|
|RAPD||Genetic diversity||Sultana et al., 2018|
|RAPD||Genetic diversity, molecular characterization and genetic variation||Ansari and Singh, 2013|
|RAPD and SSR||Genetic variation and genetic diversity||Verma et al., 2012|
|EST-SSR||Genetic diversity and evolutionary relationships analysis||Tumbilen et al., 2011|
|RAPD and SSR||Molecular characterization and genetic variation||Demir et al., 2010|
|3||Chilli||SSR||Genetic variability and genetic diversity||Sharmin et al., 2018|
|ISSR||Genetic diversity, level of polymorphism and potential of digital fingerprinting||Thuy et el., 2016|
|AFLP||Genetic diversity, genetic studies and identification of chilli genotypes||Krishnamurthy et al., 2015|
|SSR||DNA fingerprinting and genetic diversity analysis||Hossain et al., 2014|
|RAPD||Genetic diversity and level of polymorphism||Bahurupe et al., 2013|
|SSR and SNP||Wide genetic variability and genetic diversity||Yumnam et al., 2012|
|RAPD||Genetic diversity||Makari et al., 2009|
|4||Capsicum||SCoT and DAMD||Genetic diversity, genetic structure and estimate of gene flow||Igwe et al., 2019|
|SSR||Pungency characterization, population structure, genetic diversity||Jesus et al., 2019|
|Microsatellite and InDel||Genetic diversity and anthracnose resistance||Nugroho et al., 2019|
|SSR||Genetic diversity, genetic relationships and population structure improvement||Xiao-min et al., 2016|
|5||Potato||SSR||Genetic diversity and population structure||Lee et al., 2021|
|SSR||Genetic diversity, DNA fingerprinting and molecular variance||La Cruz et al., 2020|
|SSR||Genetic diversity and level of polymorphism||Singh et al., 2020|
|SSR and RAPD||Genetic diversity, genetic variation, evolutionary relatedness, genetic relationships and molecular characterization||Kapuria et al., 2019|
|SSR||Genetic diversity, DNA fingerprinting and detect genetic differences||Tillault and Yevtushenko, 2019|
|SSR||Evaluation of genetic diversity and population structure||Wang et al., 2019|
|EST-SSR||Genetic diversity and genetic relationships within and among potatoes from different geographical regions||Salimi et al., 2016|
|SSR||Genetic diversity, resistance to bacterial wilt, potato virus Y and low chilling temperature||Carputo et al., 2013|
|SSR and RAPD||Genetic diversity and cultivar identification||Rocha et al., 2010|
|6||Okra||AFLP||Genetic diversity, genetic variability and level of polymorphism||Massucato et al., 2020|
|AFLP||Genetic and phenotypic diversity||Muhanad et al., 2018|
|SSR and RAPD||Genetic diversity and yellow vein mosaic virus resistance||Patel et al., 2018|
|SSR||Genetic diversity and genetic variation||Kumar et al., 2016|
|SSR||Genetic diversity and genetic relationships among cultivars||Fougat et al., 2015|
|AFLP||Genetic diversity and genetic heterogeneity||Kyriakopoulou et al., 2014|
|ISSR||Genetic diversity and differentiation||Yuan et al., 2014|
|RAPD||Genetic diversity and genetic relatedness||Prakash et al., 2011|
|RAPD||Genetic diversity and crop improvement||Sawadogo et al., 2009|
Table 3. Molecular markers for genetic diversity in different vegetable crops.
Gene tagging: Gene tagging is a pre requisite for Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) and map based cloning in crop improvement programme . Gene tagging refers to the gene mapping of economic value close to wellknown markers. Molecular marker play important role in facilitating the method of traditional gene transfer. Molecular markers that are very closely related to the trait of interest and gene act as tag and these tags are effectively utilized for the indirect selection of genes in breeding programmes . By constructing molecular maps, different genes of economic importance viz., stress tolerance, disease resistance, insect-pests resistance and yield contributing characters have been tagged . Different genes have been tagged to impart resistance in various vegetable crops in resistance by several scientists (Table 4).
|S. No.||Crop||Pathogen/Pest||Gene||Marker (s)||Reference (s)|
|1||Tomato||Yellow leaf curl virus||Ty2||RFLP||Hanson et al., 2000|
|Tomato mosaic virus||Tm2||SCAR||Sobir et al., 2000|
|Cucumber mosaic virus||Cmr||RFLP||Stamova and Chetalat, 2000|
|Verticillium dahliae||Ve||RFLP||Diwan et al., 1999|
|Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Radicislycopersici||Fr2||RAPD||Fazio et al., 1999|
|Cladosporium fulvum||Cf2||RFLP||Dixon et al., 1995|
|Meloidogyne javanica||Mi3||RAPD||Yaghoobi et al., 1995|
|Meloidogyne incognita||Mi||RAPD||Williamson et al., 1994|
|2||Pepper||Tomato spotted wilt virus||Tsw||RAPD||Jahn et al., 2000|
|Tomato spotted wilt virus||Tsw||CAPS||Moury et al., 2000|
|Xanthomonas vesicatoria||Bs2||AFLP||Tai et al., 1999|
|3||Pea||Pea common mosaic virus||Mo||RFLP||Dirlewanger et al., 1994|
|Erysiphe polygone||Er||RAPD||Dirlewanger et al., 1994|
|4||Bean||Common bean mosaic virus||I||RAPD||Meiotto et al., 1996|
|5||Cucumber||Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Melonis||Fo||SSP||Wechter et al., 1998|
|6||Melon||Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. Melonis||Fo||RAPD||Wechter et al., 1995|
Table 4. Molecular markers linked to major resistant genes in different vegetables.
DNA fingerprinting for varietal identification: It is one of the most important aspects that identifies and detect any genotype of crops along with whole living organisms . DNA fingerprinting can successfully utilize for varietal identification as well as for detecting variability in a wide variety of germplasm . Although any type of marker can be used for DNA fingerprinting but RAPDs, microsatellite and RFLPs are the markers of preference for the purpose because all these markers are PCR based and did not require any pre information on nucleotide sequences [113-141]. Identification of different varieties of vegetable crops has been reported by several workers (Table 5).
|S.No.||Vegetable crop (s)||Molecular marker (s)||Reference (s)|
|1||Tomato||Microsatellites, RAPD, RFLP||Kaemmer et al., 1995|
|Bredemeijer et al., 1998|
|Noli et al., 1999|
|2||Brinjal||RAPD||Karihaloo et al., 1995|
|3||Chilli||RAPD, ISSR||Mongkolporn et al., 2004|
|4||Pepper||RAPD, AFLP||Prince et al., 1995|
|Paran et el., 1998|
|5||Potato||RAPD, AFLP, ISSR, Microsatellites||McGregor et al., 2000|
|Ashkenazi et al., 2001|
|6||Pea||RAPD||Thakur et al., 2018|
|7||Beans||RAPD, RFLP||Stockton and Gepts, 1994|
|8||Onion, garlic and related species||AFLP, Microsatellites, ISSR, RAPD||Arifin et al., 2000|
|Fischer and Bachmann, 2000|
|9||Brassica||RAPD, Microsatellites||Margale et al., 1995|
|Cansian and Echeverrigaray, 2000|
|10||Cucurbits||RAPD, ISSR, Microsatellites||Gwanama et al., 2000|
|Danin et al., 2001|
|11||Carrot||RAPD, AFLP||Shim and Jorgensen, 2000|
|12||Sweet potato||RAPD, AFLP||He et al., 1995|
|13||Lettuce||AFLP, Microsatellites||Hill et al., 1996|
|14||Asparagus||RAPD||Khandka et al., 1996|
|Roose and Stone, 1996|
|15||Spinach||Microsatellites||Groben and Wricke, 1998|
|16||Artichoke||RAPD||Tivang et al., 1996|
Table 5. Identification of varieties of different vegetables by using molecular markers.
Detection of QTLs: The identification and detection of linkage between QTLs and markers are the prime and foremost objective of the breeders that are engaged in the resistance breeding of plants though it can be performed using various statistical methods .Disease resistance can be detect with ordinary scales whether data do not always show normal distribution, so researchers have been testing putative QTLs with non-parametric statistical tests and procedures .The conclusion of genetic studies of complex interactions has been observed and first time reported the insect resistance in tomato .In addition to this, QTL mapping could be useful for identify and detect the loci associated with quantitative components of resistance to infections in crop plants, its rate of multiplication as well as its movement and in the host and progression of the disease .By this unique technique of detection of QTL new genes for partial resistance might be identified and utilized for resistance in crop plants . Different types of QTLs have been detected by several researchers in vegetable crops (Table 6).
|S.No.||Crops||Traits||QTL/gene||Chromosome number||Marker||Population used||Source||Reference (s)|
|1||Tomato||Fruit morphology||QTL||10||SNP||RIL||NC30PXNC-22L-1||Adhikari et al., 2020|
|Late blight and yield||QTL||11||SNP||F2||Koralik||Brekketet et al. 2019|
|Glandular trichomes||QTL||1||SNP||BC||Solanum habrocha-ites||Bennewitz et al. 2018|
|Late blight||QTL||2,3,10||SNP||F2||PI163245||Ohlson et al. 2018|
|Early flowering||QTL||1||SNP||F2||BoneMM cultivar||Ruanggrak et al. 2018|
|Fruit mineral content||QTL||-||SSR||RIL||Solanum pimpinellifolium||Capel et al., 2017|
|Late blight||QTL||9 and 12||SNP||F2||L3707||Panthee et al., 2017|
|2||Cucumber||Salt tolerance||QTL||6||SSR||RIL||CG104 and CG37||Liu et al., 2021|
|Fruit size and fruit shape||QTL||1 and 6||SNP||F2 and BC1F1||Inbred line CNS21 and Inbred line RNS7||Gao et al., 2020|
|Low temperature||qLTG1.2||1||-||RIL||Low germination tolerant variety||Yagcioglu et al. 2019|
|Germination ability||qLTG2.1||2||-||RIL||Low germination tolerant variety||Yagcioglu et al. 2019|
|Cucumber mosaic virus||CMV6.1||6||SSR||RIL||Inbred line 02245||Shi et al., 2018|
|Alternaria leaf spot||Ps15.1, ps15.2||5||SSR||RIL||GY14||Slomnicka et al. 2018|
|Fruit peduncle length||Qfp16.1||6||SSR||F2||Inbred line 1101||Song et al. 2016|
|Powdery mildew||Pm1.1, pm1.2||1||SSR||F2.3||WI 2757||He et al., 2013|
Table 6. Detection of QTLs in different vegetable crops.
Marker assisted selection: Marker assisted selection refers to the use of molecular (DNA) markers to assist phenotypic selection in crop improvement . Basically, it is a technique in which phenotypic selection is made on the basis of genotype of a marker .It is based on the concept that it is possible to infer presence of a gene from the presence of a marker which is tightly linked to the trait of interest . MAS provided a tremendous potential for increasing the selection efficiency by allowing for earlier selection and reducing plant population size used during selection . It is a molecular breeding technique which helps to avoid the difficulties related to traditional plant breeding and it has tremendously changed the standardof selection[151-152].Plant breeders mostly use MAS for the identification and detection of suitable dominant or recessive allele across the generation and for the identification of most favourable individuals across the segregating progeny . There are four important schemes in marker assisted selection namely marker- assisted backcrossing, gene pyramiding, marker-assisted recurrent selection, genome selection in crop plants . Marker-assisted selection for the traits of interest has been reported in different vegetable crops by several scientists [155-159] (Table 7).
|S.No.||Crop||Marker/gene||Lines used||Trait improved||Reference (s)|
|1||Cabbage||InDel markers A1 and M10||D21, D29, D70, D120 and D162||Head splitting and Fusarium wilt resistance||Li et al., 2020|
|2||Tomato||TG101 (RFLP) and Fr1 gene||Pusa Ruby||Fusarium wilt resistance||Devran et al., 2018|
|SNP and Bwr-6 and Bwr-12||Pusa Rohini, Pusa 120||Bacterial wilt resistance||Kim et al., 2018|
|ACY (InDel) and Ty-3 gene||Pusa Rohini, Pusa 120||Yellow leaf curl virus resistance||Nevame et al., 2018|
|3||Onion||Orf725||A and B lines of onion in Brazilian germplasm||Cytoplasmic male sterility||Ferreira and Santos, 2018|
|4||Cucumber||SSR11||Cmv6.1||Cucumber mosaic virus resistance||Shi et al., 2018|
|pmsSR27 pmSSR17||Pm-s||Powdery mildew resistance||Liu et al., 2017|
|5||Watermelon||MCPI11, CYSTSIN and Pm gene||Arka Manik||Powdery mildew resistance||Gama et al., 2015|
|6||Pea||SCAR and er-2 gene||JI2480||Powdery mildew resistance||Katoch et al., 2010|
Table 7. Marker assisted selection in different vegetable crops.
Discussion and Conclusion
Genetic diversity means the variety of genes in all organisms from human beings to crops, fungi, bacteria and viruses. It determines the distinctiveness of each individual or population within the species. There are basically four methods of measuring genetic diversity namely ethinobotanical classification, morphological, biochemical and molecular characterization. Morphological markers allow the finding of genetic variation based on Individual phenotypic variations. However, there are limitations confined to these types of markers. Morphological markers limitations lead to the assessment of biodiversity from relying on morphological markers to using isozymes and DNA markers that is popularly known as molecular markers. There are various types of molecular markers which are classified based on variation type at the DNA level, mode of gene action and method of analysis. They are key tools in genome analysis which ranges from localization of a gene to improvement of plant varieties through marker aided selection. Even though there are various uses of DNA markers but among all Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) is the most promising technique for crops cultivar development. MAS can be employed as an effective tool to facilitate selection of progeny in an early generation who have desirable traits resulting speeding up of the selection procedure in the breeding programme. There are different conventional and modern breeding tools and techniques that can be utilized for crop improvement of vegetable crops despite the ban on genetically modified organisms. The controlled crosses between individuals produce desirable genetic variation to be recombined and transferred to next progeny through natural process.
The last thirty years have witnessed a continuous and tremendous development I the molecular markers technology from RFLP to SNPs and a diversity of arraytechnology- based markers. In spite of the presence of these highly advanced molecular genetic techniques, we are still not achieving our goals. Unfortunately, molecular markers are currently unavailable for several important traits controlled by many genes or polygenes. The main reason behind these lies in inaccurate phenotyping. High-throughput phenotyping techniques solve these problems by using light, cameras, sensors, computers and highly modi?ed devices for the collection of very precise phenotypic data, which is a core requirement to achieving our breeding goals successfully. The coming years are likely to see continued innovations in molecular marker technology to make it more precise, productive and costeffective in order to investigate the underlying biology of various traits of interest.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
- Botstein D, White RL, Skolnick M, et al. Construction of a genetic linkage map in man using restriction fragment length polymorphisms. Am J Hum Genet. 1980;32(3):314.
- Williams JG, Kubelik AR, Livak KJ, et al. DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990;18(22):6531-6535.
- Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, et al. AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995;23(21):4407-4414.
- Kumar S, Kumar S, Singh M, et al. Marker aided selection for disease resistance in vegetable crops. Veg Sci. 2003:30(1);10-20.
- Hearne CM, Ghosh S, Todd JA. Microsatellites for linkage analysis of genetic traits. Trends Genet. 1992;8(8):288-294.
- Reddy MP, Sarla N, Siddiq EA. Inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) polymorphism and its application in plant breeding. euphytica. 2002;128(1):9-17.
- Kumar S, Banks TW, Cloutier S. SNP discovery through next-generation sequencing and its applications. Int J Plant Genomics. 2012;1-15.
- Fukuoka S, Inoue T, Miyao A, et al. Mapping of sequence-tagged sites in rice by single strand conformation polymorphism. DNA Res. 1994;1(6):271-277.
- Pashley CH, Ellis JR, McCauley DE, et al. EST databases as a source for molecular markers: lessons from Helianthus. J Hered. 2006;97(4):381-388.
- Feng S, Zhu Y, Yu C, et al. Development of species-specific SCAR markers, based on a SCoT analysis, to authenticate Physalis (Solanaceae) species. Front genet. 2018;9:192.
- Lyamichev V, Brow MA, Dahlberg JE. Structure-specific endonucleolytic cleavage of nucleic acids by eubacterial DNA polymerases. Science. 1993;260(5109):778-783.
- Ghareyazie B, Huang N, Second G, et al. Classification of rice germplasm. I. Analysis using ALP and PCR-based RFLP. Theor Appl Genet. 1995;91(2):218-227.
- Orita M, Iwahana H, Kanazawa H, et al. Detection of polymorphisms of human DNA by gel electrophoresis as single-strand conformation polymorphisms. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1989;86(8):2766-2770.
- Jarman AP, Wells RA. Hypervariable minisatellites: recombinators or innocent bystanders? Trends Genet. 1989 ;5:367-371.
- Maroof MS, Biyashev RM, Yang GP, et al. Extraordinarily polymorphic microsatellite DNA in barley: species diversity, chromosomal locations, and population dynamics. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1994;91(12):5466-5470.
- McClelland M, Welsh J. DNA fingerprinting by arbitrarily primed PCR. Genome Res. 1994;4(1):59-65.
- Bottema CD, Sarkar G, Cassady JD, et al.  Polymerase chain reaction amplification of specific alleles: A general method of detection of mutations, polymorphisms, and haplotypes. Methods Enzymol. 1993;218:388-402.
- Caetano-Anolles G. DNA amplification fingerprinting using very short arbitrary oligonucleotide primers. Nat Bio Tech. 1991;9(6):553-557.
- Robarts DW, Wolfe AD. Sequence?related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) markers: A potential resource for studies in plant molecular biology1. Appl Plant Sci. 2014;2(7):1400017.
- Jing HC, Bayon C, Kanyuka K, et al. DArT markers: diversity analyses, genomes comparison, mapping and integration with SSR markers in Triticum monococcum. BMC Genom. 2009;10(1):1-7.
- Han JS. Non-long terminal repeat (non-LTR) retrotransposons: mechanisms, recent developments, and unanswered questions. Mobile Dna. 2010;1(1):1-2.
- Zhang J, Xie W, Wang Y, et al. Potential of start codon targeted (SCoT) markers to estimate genetic diversity and relationships among Chinese Elymus sibiricus accessions. Molecules. 2015;20(4):5987-6001.
- Somers DJ, Demmon G. Identification of repetitive, genome-specific probes in crucifer oilseed species. Genome. 2002;45(3):485-492.
- Guo G, Zhang G, Pan B, et al. Development and application of InDel markers for Capsicum spp. based on whole-genome re-sequencing. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1-4.
- Beckmann JS, Soller M. Restriction fragment length polymorphisms in plant genetic improvement. Plan Mol Cell Biol. 1986;3:196-250.
- Tanksley SD, Young ND, Paterson AH, et al. RFLP mapping in plant breeding: new tools for an old science. Nat BioTech. 1989;7(3):257-264.
- Madhumati B. Potential and application of molecular markers techniques for plant genome analysis. Int J Pure App Biosci. 2014;2(1):169-188.
- Demeke T, Hucl P, Sasikumar B, et al. Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) in cereal improvement. Maydica (Italy). 1997.
- Jiang GL. Molecular markers and marker-assisted breeding in plants. Plan Breed lab fiel. 2013:45-83.
- Blears MJ, De Grandis SA, Lee H, et al. Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP): a review of the procedure and its applications. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol. 1998;21(3):99-114.
- Ridout CJ, Donini P, Ridout CJ, et al. Use of AFLP in cereals research. Trends Plant Sci. 1999;4(2):76-79.
- Provan J, Powell W, Hollingsworth PM. Chloroplast microsatellites: new tools for studies in plant ecology and evolution. Trends Ecol Evol. 2001;16(3):142-147.
- Zane L, Bargelloni L, Patarnello T. Strategies for microsatellite isolation: a review. Mol Ecol. 2002;11(1):1-16.
- Kalia RK, Rai MK, Kalia S, et al. Microsatellite markers: an overview of the recent progress in plants. Euphytica. 2011;177(3):309-334.
- Dirlewanger E, Pronier V, Parvery C, et al. Genetic linkage map of peach [Prunus persica (L.) Batsch] using morphological and molecular markers. Theor Appl Genet. 1998;97(5):888-895.
- Moreno S, Martín JP, Ortiz JM. Inter-simple sequence repeats PCR for characterization of closely related grapevine germplasm. Euphytica. 1998;101(1):117-25.
- Arcade A, Anselin F, Rampant PF, et al. Application of AFLP, RAPD and ISSR markers to genetic mapping of European and Japanese larch. Theor Appl Genet. 2000;100(2):299-307.
- Ng WL, Tan SG. Inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers: are we doing it right. ASM Sci J 2015;9(1):30-39.
- Cato SA, Gardner RC, Kent J, et al. A rapid PCR-based method for genetically mapping ESTs. Theor Appl Genet. 2001;102(2):296-306.
- Li G, Quiros CF. Sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP), a new marker system based on a simple PCR reaction: its application to mapping and gene tagging in Brassica. Theor Appl Genet. 2001;103(2):455-461.
- Uzun AY, Yesiloglu T, Aka-Kacar YI, et al. Genetic diversity and relationships within Citrus and related genera based on sequence related amplified polymorphism markers (SRAPs). Sci Hortic. 2009;121(3):306-312.
- Jaccoud D, Peng K, Feinstein D, et al. Diversity arrays: a solid state technology for sequence information independent genotyping. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Feb;29(4):25.
- Wenzl P, Carling J, Kudrna D, et al. Diversity Arrays Technology (DArT) for whole-genome profiling of barley. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101(26):9915-9920.
- Kalendar R, Grob T, Regina M, et al. IRAP and REMAP: two new retrotransposon-based DNA fingerprinting techniques. Theor Appl Genet. 1999;98(5):704-711.
- Kalendar R, Flavell AJ, Ellis TH, et al. Analysis of plant diversity with retrotransposon-based molecular markers. Heredity. 2011;106(4):520-530.
- Roy NS, Choi JY, Lee SI, et al. Marker utility of transposable elements for plant genetics, breeding, and ecology: a review. J Genet Genomics. 2015;37(2):141-151.
- EL-Mansy AB, El-Moneim A, ALshamrani SM, et al. Genetic Diversity Analysis of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) with Morphological, Cytological, and Molecular Markers under Heat Stress. Sci Hortic. 2021;7(4):65.
- Vargas JE, Aguirre NC, Coronado YM. Study of the genetic diversity of tomato (Solanum spp.) with ISSR markers 1. Rev Ceres. 2020;67:199-206.
- Gonias ED, Ganopoulos I, Mellidou I, et al. Exploring genetic diversity of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) germplasm of genebank collection employing SSR and SCAR markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2019;66(6):1295-1309.
- Herison C, Sutjahjo SH, Sulastrini I, et al. Genetic diversity analysis in 27 tomato accessions using morphological and molecular markers. AGRIVITA, J Agric Sci. 2017;40(1):36-44.
- Kiani G, Siahchehreh M. Genetic diversity in tomato varieties assessed by ISSR markers. Int J Veg Sci. 2018;24(4):353-360.
- Al Shaye N, Migdadi H, Charbaji A, et al. Genetic variation among Saudi tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) landraces studied using SDS-PAGE and SRAP markers. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2018;25(6):1007-1015.
- Kaushal A, Singh A, Jeena AS. Genetic diversity in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) genotypes revealed by simple sequence repeats (SSR) markers. J Nat Appl Sci. 2017;9(2):966-973.
- Benor S, Zhang M, Wang Z, et al. Assessment of genetic variation in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) inbred lines using SSR molecular markers. J Genet Genome. 2008;35(6):373-379.
- Archak S, Karihaloo JL, Jain A. RAPD markers reveal narrowing genetic base of Indian tomato cultivars. Curr Sci. 2002:1139-1143.
- Villand J, Skroch PW, Lai T, et al. Genetic variation among tomato accessions from primary and secondary centers of diversity. Crop Sci. 1998;38(5):1339-1347.
- Liu J, Yang Y, Zhou X, et al. Genetic diversity and population structure of worldwide eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) germplasm using SSR markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2018;65(6):1663-1670.
- Sultana S, Islam MN, Hoque ME. DNA fingerprinting and molecular diversity analysis for the improvement of brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) cultivars. J Adv Biotechnol Exp Ther. 2018;1(1):1-6.
- Ansari AM, Singh YV. Molecular diversity of brinjal (Solanum melongena L.) genotypes revealed by RAPD marker. J Res (BAU). 2013;25(1):41-48.
- Chen CX, Wang ZL, Yang DE, et al. Molecular tagging and genetic mapping of the disease resistance gene RppQ to southern corn rust. Theor Appl Genet. 2004;108(5):945-950.
- Nybom H, Weising K, Rotter B. DNA fingerprinting in botany: past, present, future. Investig Genet. 2014;5(1):1-35.
- Pasqualone A, Montemurro C, di Rienzo V, et al. Evolution and perspectives of cultivar identification and traceability from tree to oil and table olives by means of DNA markers. J Sci Food Agric. 2016;96(11):3642-3657.
- Lander ES, Botstein D. Mapping mendelian factors underlying quantitative traits using RFLP linkage maps. Genetics. 1989;121(1):185-199.
- Young ND, Tanksley SD. RFLP analysis of the size of chromosomal segments retained around the Tm-2 locus of tomato during backcross breeding. Theor Appl Genet. 1989;77(3):353-938.
- Nienhuis J, Helentjaris T, Slocum M, et al. Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism Analysis of Loci Associated with Insect Resistance in Tomato 1. Crop Science. 1987;27(4):797-803.
- Pilet-Nayel ML, Moury B, Caffier V, et al. Quantitative resistance to plant pathogens in pyramiding strategies for durable crop protection. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1838.
- Hanson PM, Bernacchi D, Green S, et al. Mapping a wild tomato introgression associated with tomato yellow leaf curl virus resistance in a cultivated tomato line. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 2000;125(1):15-20.
- Ohmori T, Murata M, Motoyoshi F. Molecular characterization of the SCAR markers tightly linked to the Tm-2 locus of the genus Lycopersicon. Theor Appl Genet. 2000;101(1-2):64-69.
- Stamova BS, Chetelat RT. Inheritance and genetic mapping of cucumber mosaic virus resistance introgressed from Lycopersicon chilense into tomato. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2000;101(4):527-537.
- Diwan N, Fluhr R, Eshed Y, et al. Mapping of Ve in tomato: a gene conferring resistance to the broad-spectrum pathogen, Verticillium dahliae race 1. Theor Appl Genet. 1999;98(2):315-319.
- Fazio G, Stevens MR, Scott JW. Identification of RAPD markers linked to fusarium crown and root rot resistance (Frl) in tomato. Euphytica. 1999;105(3):205-210.
- Dixon MS, Jones DA, Hatzixanthis K, et al. High-resolution mapping of the physical location of the tomato Cf-2 gene. Plant Microbe Interact. 1995;8(2):200-206.
- Yaghoobi J, Kaloshian I, Wen Y, et al. Mapping a new nematode resistance locus in Lycopersicon peruvianum. Theor Appl Genet. 1995;91(3):457-464.
- Williamson VM, Ho JY, Wu FF, et al. A PCR-based marker tightly linked to the nematode resistance gene, Mi, in tomato. Theor Appl Genet. 1994 Feb 1;87(7):757-763.
- Jahn M, Paran I, Hoffmann K, et al. Genetic mapping of the Tsw locus for resistance to the Tospovirus Tomato spotted wilt virus in Capsicum spp. and its relationship to the Sw-5 gene for resistance to the same pathogen in tomato. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2000;13(6):673-682.
- Moury B, Pflieger S, Blattes A, et al. A CAPS marker to assist selection of tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) resistance in pepper. Genome. 2000;43(1):137-142.
- Tai T, Dahlbeck D, Stall RE, et al. High-resolution genetic and physical mapping of the region containing the Bs2 resistance gene of pepper. Theor Appl Genet. 1999;99(7-8):1201-1206.
- Dirlewanger E, Isaac PG, Ranade S, et al. Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of loci associated with disease resistance genes and developmental traits in Pisum sativum L. Theor Appl Genet. 1994;88(1):17-27.
- Melotto M, Afanador L, Kelly JD. Development of a SCAR marker linked to the I gene in common bean. Genome. 1996;39(6):1216-1219.
- Wechter WP, Dean RA, Thomas CE. Development of sequence-specific primers that amplify a 1.5-kb DNA marker for race 1 Fusarium wilt resistance in Cucumis melo L. HortScience. 1998;33(2):291-292.
- Wechter WP, Whitehead MP, Thomas CE, et al. Identification of a randomly amplified polymorphic DNA marker linked to the Fom 2 fusarium wilt resistance gene in muskmelon MR-1.
- Kaemmer D, Weising K, Beyermann B, et al. Oligonucleotide fingerprinting of tomato DNA. Plan Bre. 1995;114(1):12-17.
- Bredemeijer GM, Arens P, Wouters D, et al. The use of semi-automated fluorescent microsatellite analysis for tomato cultivar identification. Theor Appl Genet. 1998;97(4):584-590.
- Noli E, Conti S, Maccaferri M, et al. Molecular characterization of tomato cultivars. Seed Sci Technol. 1999;27(1):1-10.
- Karihaloo JL, Brauner S, Gottlieb LD. Random amplified polymorphic DNA variation in the eggplant, Solanum melongena L.(Solanaceae). Theor Appl Genet. 1995;90(6):767-770.
- Mongkolporn O, Dokmaihom Y, Kanchana-Udomkan C, et al. Genetic purity test of F1 hybrid Capsicum using molecular analysis. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol. 2004 ;79(3):449-451.
- Prince JP, Lackney VK, Angeles C, et al. A survey of DNA polymorphism within the genus Capsicum and the fingerprinting of pepper cultivars. Genome. 1995;38(2):224-231.
- Paran I, Aftergoot E, Shifriss C. Variation in Capsicum annuum revealed by RAPD and AFLP markers. Euphytica. 1998;99(3):167-173.
- McGregor CE, Lambert CA, Greyling MM, et al. A comparative assessment of DNA fingerprinting techniques (RAPD, ISSR, AFLP and SSR) in tetraploid potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) germplasm. Euphytica. 2000;113(2):135-144.
- Ashkenazi V, Chani E, Lavi U, et al. Development of microsatellite markers in potato and their use in phylogenetic and fingerprinting analyses. Genome. 2001;44(1):50-62.
- Thakur B, Sharma S, Sharma I, et al. Diversity analysis of pea genotypes using RAPD markers. Legum Res. 2018;41(2):196-201.
- Stockton T, Gepts P. Identification of DNA probes that reveal polymorphisms among closely related Phaseolus vulgaris lines. Euphytica. 1994;76(3):177-183.
- Arifin NS, Ozaki Y, Okubo H. Genetic diversity in Indonesian shallot (Allium cepa var. ascalonicum) and Allium× wakegi revealed by RAPD markers and origin of A.× wakegi identified by RFLP analyses of amplified chloroplast genes. Euphytica. 2000;111(1):23-31.
- Fischer D, Bachmann K. Onion microsatellites for germplasm analysis and their use in assessing intra-and interspecific relatedness within the subgenus Rhizirideum. Theor App Genet. 2000;101(1):153-164.
- Margale E, Herve Y, Hue J, et al. Determination of genetic variability by RAPD markers in cauliflower, cabbage and kale local cultivars from France. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 1995;42(3):281-289.
- Cansian RL, Echeverrigaray S. Discrimination among cultivars of cabbage using randomly amplified polymorphic DNA markers. HortScience. 2000;35(6):1155-1158.
- Gwanama C, Labuschagne MT, Botha AM. Analysis of genetic variation in Cucurbita moschata by random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers. Euphytica. 2000;113(1):19-24.
- Danin-Poleg Y, Reis N, Tzuri G, et al. Development and characterization of microsatellite markers in Cucumis. Theor Appl Genet. 2001;102(1):61-72.
- Shim SI, Jorgensen RB. Genetic structure in cultivated and wild carrots (Daucus carota L.) revealed by AFLP analysis. Theor Appl Genet. 2000;101(2):227-233.
- He G, Prakash CS, Jarret R. Analysis of genetic diversity in a sweetpotato (Ipomoea batatas) germplasm collection using DNA amplification fingerprinting. Genome. 1995;38(5):938-945.
- Hill M, Witsenboer H, Zabeau M, et al. PCR-based fingerprinting using AFLPs as a tool for studying genetic relationships in Lactuca spp. Theor Appl Genet.. 1996;93(8):1202-1210.
- Khandka DK, Nejidat A, Golan-Goldhirsh A. Polymorphism and DNA markers for asparagus cultivars identified by random amplified polymorphic DNA. Euphytica. 1996;87(1):39-44.
- Roose ML, Stone NK. Development of genetic markers to identify two asparagus cultivars. Acta Hortic. 1993:(415);129-136.
- Groben R, Wricke G. Occurrence of microsatellites in spinach sequences from computer databases and development of polymorphic SSR markers. Plant Breed. 1998;117(3):271-274.
- Tivang J, Skroch PW, Nienhuis J, et al. Randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) variation among and within artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.) cultivars and breeding populations. J Am Soc Hortic Sci. 1996;121(5):783-788.
- Adhikari P, McNellie J, Panthee DR. Detection of Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) Associated with the Fruit Morphology of Tomato. Genes. 2020;11(10):1117.
- Brekke TD, Stroud JA, Shaw DS, et al. QTL mapping in salad tomatoes. Euphytica. 2019;215(7):1-2.
- Bennewitz S, Bergau N, Tissier A. QTL mapping of the shape of type VI glandular trichomes in tomato. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1421.
- Ohlson EW, Ashrafi H, Foolad MR. Identification and mapping of late blight resistance quantitative trait loci in tomato accession PI 163245. The plant genome. 2018;11(3):180007.
- Ruangrak E, Su X, Huang Z, et al. Fine mapping of a major QTL controlling early flowering in tomato using QTL-seq. Can J Plant Sci. 2018 May 28;98(3):672-682.
- Capel C, Yuste-Lisbona FJ, López-Casado G, et al. QTL mapping of fruit mineral contents provides new chances for molecular breeding of tomato nutritional traits. Theor Appl Genet. 2017;130(5):903-913.
- Panthee DR, Piotrowski A, Ibrahem R. Mapping quantitative trait loci (QTL) for resistance to Late Blight in tomato. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18(7):1589.
- Liu D, Dong S, Bo K, et al. Identification of QTLs Controlling Salt Tolerance in Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) Seedlings. Plants. 2021;10(1):85.
- Gao Z, Zhang H, Cao C, et al. QTL Mapping for cucumber fruit size and shape with populations from long and round fruited inbred lines. Hortic Plant J. 2020;6(3):132-144.
- Yagcioglu M, Jiang B, Wang P, et al. QTL mapping of low temperature germination ability in cucumber. Euphytica. 2019;215(4).
- Shi L, Yang Y, Xie Q, et al. Inheritance and QTL mapping of cucumber mosaic virus resistance in cucumber (Cucumis Sativus L.). PloS one. 2018;13(7):200571.
- Slomnicka R, Olczak-Woltman H, Korzeniewska A, et al. Genetic mapping of psl locus and quantitative trait loci for angular leaf spot resistance in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Mol breed. 2018;38(9).
- Song ZC, Miao H, Zhang S, et al. Genetic analysis and QTL mapping of fruit peduncle length in cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). PloS one. 2016;11(12):167845.
- He X, Li Y, Pandey S, et al. QTL mapping of powdery mildew resistance in WI 2757 cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). Theor Appl Genet. 2013;126(8):2149-2161.
- Verma M, Rathi S, Munshi AD, et al. Genetic diversity of Indian brinjal revealed by RAPD and SSR markers. Indian J Hortic. 2012;69(4):517-522.
- Tumbilen Y, Frary A, Daunay MC, et al. Application of EST-SSRs to examine genetic diversity in eggplant and its close relatives. Turk J Biol. 2011;35(2):125-136.
- Demir K, Bakir ME, Sarikamis G, et al. Genetic diversity of eggplant (Solanum melongena) germplasm from Turkey assessed by SSR and RAPD markers. Genet Mol Res. 2010;9(3):1568-1576.
- Sharmin A, Hoque ME, Haque MM, et al. Molecular diversity analysis of some chilli (Capsicum spp.) genotypes using SSR markers. Am J Plant Sci. 2018;9(3):368-379.
- Vo TB, Huynh K, Tran TB, et al. Assessment of genetic diversity of chili rootstock using ISSR marker. J Sci. 2016:(03);7-13.
- Krishnamurthy SL, Prashanth Y, Rao AM, et al. Assessment of AFLP marker based genetic diversity in chilli (Capsicum annuum L. & C. baccatum L.).
- Hossain SM, Habiba U, Bhuyan SI, et al. DNA fingerprinting and genetic diversity analysis of chilli germplasm using microsatellite markers. Bio Tech. 2014;13(4):174-180.
- Bahurupe SB, Sakhare SB, Kulwal PL, et al. Genetic diversity analysis in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.) using RAPD markers. The Bioscan. 2013;8(3):915-918.
- Yumnam JS, Tyagi W, Pandey A, et al. Evaluation of genetic diversity of chilli landraces from North Eastern India based on morphology, SSR markers and the Pun1 locus. Plant Mol Biol Rep. 2012;30(6):1470-1479.
- Makari HK, Patil HR, Abhilash M, et al. Genetic diversity in commercial varieties of chilli as revealed by RAPD method. Indian J Sci Technol. 2009;2(4):91-94.
- Igwe DO, Afiukwa CA, Acquaah G, et al. Genetic diversity and structure of Capsicum annuum as revealed by start codon targeted and directed amplified minisatellite DNA markers. Hereditas. 2019;156(1):1-3.
- Jesus RD, Santos GD, Piccin AS, et al. Characterization of pepper accessions using molecular markers linked to pungency and SSR. Hortic Bras. 2019;37:152-160.
- Nugroho K, Terryana RT, Manzila I, et al. The Use of Molecular Markers to Analyze the Genetic Diversity of Indonesian Pepper (Capsicum spp.) Varieties Based on Anthracnose Resistance. Makara J Sci. 2019;23(3):4.
- Zhang XM, Zhang ZH, Gu XZ, et al. Genetic diversity of pepper (Capsicum spp.) germplasm resources in China reflects selection for cultivar types and spatial distribution. J Integr Agric. 2016;15(9):1991-2001.
- Lee KJ, Sebastin R, Cho GT, et al. Genetic Diversity and Population Structure of Potato Germplasm in RDA-Genebank: Utilization for Breeding and Conservation. Plants. 2021;10(4):752.
- De la Cruz G, Miranda TY, Blas RH, et al. Simple Sequence Repeat-Based Genetic Diversity and Analysis of Molecular Variance among on-Farm Native Potato Landraces from the Influence Zone of Camisea Gas Project, Northern Ayacucho, Peru. Am J Potato Res. 2020:1-9.
- Singh SS, Mishra A, Kar MK, et al. Genetic diversity analysis of table potato genotypes using SSR markers. Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci. 2020:9(8);3198-3211.
- Kapuria M, Dharajiya D, Pachchigar K, et al. Molecular characterization and genetic diversity of Indian potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) germplasms using microsatellite and RAPD markers. Biosci Biotechnol Res Commun. 2019;12(1):80-89.
- Tillault AS, Yevtushenko DP. Simple sequence repeat analysis of new potato varieties developed in Alberta, Canada. Plant direct. 2019;3(6):e00140.
- Wang Y, Rashid MA, Li X, et al. Collection and evaluation of genetic diversity and population structure of potato landraces and varieties in China. Front Plant Sci. 2019;10:139.
- Salimi H, Bahar M, Mirlohi A, et al. Assessment of the genetic diversity among potato cultivars from different geographical areas using the genomic and EST microsatellites. Iran J Biotechnol. 2016;14(4):270.
- Carputo D, Alioto D, Aversano R, et al. Genetic diversity among potato species as revealed by phenotypic resistances and SSR markers. Plant Genet Resou. 2013;11(2):131-139.
- Rocha EA, Paiva LV, Carvalho HH, et al. Molecular characterization and genetic diversity of potato cultivars using SSR and RAPD markers. Crop Breed Appl Biotechnol. 2010;10:204-210.
- Massucato LR, Nakamura KK, Ruas PM, et al. Genetic diversity among Brazilian okra landraces detected by morphoagronomic and molecular descriptors. Acta Sci Agron. 2019;42.
- Muhanad A, Mahmoud AH, Ayed AA, et al. Genetic and phenotypic diversity among local okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) landraces using AFLP markers. Res J Biotechnol. 2018;13(10):1-3.
- Patel JS, Japda AR, Dhruve JJ. Assessment of genetic diversity of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) for YVMV using RAPD and SSR markers. Int J Adv Biol. 2018;8(2):2250-3579.
- Kumar S, Parekh MJ, Fougat RS, et al. Assessment of genetic diversity among okra genotypes using SSR markers. J. Plant Biochem Biotechnol. 2017;26(2):172-178.
- Fougat RS, Purohit AR, Kumar S, et al. SSR based genetic diversity in Abelmoschus species. Indian J Agr Sci. 2015;85:1223-1228.
- Kyriakopoulou OG, Arens P, Pelgrom KT, et al. Genetic and morphological diversity of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus [L.] Moench.) genotypes and their possible relationships, with particular reference to Greek landraces. Sci Hortic. 2014;171:58-70.
- Yuan CY, Zhang C, Wang P, et al. Genetic diversity analysis of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) by inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers. Genet Mol Res. 2014;13(2):3165-3175.
- Prakash K, Pitchaimuthu M, Ravishankar KV. Research Article Assessment of genetic relatedness among okra genotypes [abelmoschus esculentus (l.) Moench] using rapd markers. Electron J Plant Breed. 2011;2(1):80-86.
- Sawadogo M, Ouedraogo JT, Balma D, et al. The use of cross species SSR primers to study genetic diversity of okra from Burkina Faso. Afr J Bio. 2009;8(11).
- Li Q, Shi Y, Wang Y, et al. Breeding of cabbage lines resistant to both head splitting and fusarium wilt via an isolated microspore culture system and marker-assisted selection. Euphytica. 2020;216(2):1-9.
- Devran Z, Kahveci E, Hong Y, et al. Identifying molecular markers suitable for Frl selection in tomato breeding. Theor Appl Genet. 2018;131(10):2099-3105.
- Kim B, Hwang IS, Lee HJ, et al. Identification of a molecular marker tightly linked to bacterial wilt resistance in tomato by genome-wide SNP analysis. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 2018;131(5):1017-1030.
- Nevame AY, Xia L, Nchongboh CG, et al. Development of a new molecular marker for the resistance to tomato yellow leaf curl virus. Biomed Res Int. 2018;2018.
- Ferreira RR, Santos CA. Partial success of marker-assisted selection of ‘A’and ‘B’onion lines in Brazilian germplasm. Sci Hortic. 2018;242:110-115.
- Liu PN, Miao H, Lu HW, et al. Molecular mapping and candidate gene analysis for resistance to powdery mildew in Cucumis sativus stem. Genet Mol Res. 2017;16(3).
- de Souza Gama RN, Santos CA, de Cassia Souza Dias R, et al. Microsatellite markers linked to powdery mildew resistance locus in watermelon. Aust J Crop Sci. 2015;9(1):92-97.
- Katoch V, Sharma S, Pathania S, et al. Molecular mapping of pea powdery mildew resistance gene er2 to pea linkage group III. Mole breed. 2010;25(2):229-237.