Abstract
Using a set of 18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques to evaluate their applicability for the study of genetic diversity. Also, a DNA-pooling strategy (bulked samples) that proved to be effective in RFLP analysis of maize populations was employed in order to certify if it could be applied with the same success with SSR and AFLP markers. Twenty-five SSR markers generated a total of 224 polymorphic bands, while three AFLP primer combinations generated 188 bands with 79.2% being polymorphic. The average polymorphism content (PIC) was higher for SSRs, i.e. 0.79 for SSRs versus 0.28 for AFLPs. Higher genetic similarity (GS) values were estimated for AFLPs. The Pearson's correlation coefficient calculated for SSR and AFLP genetic similarities was low (0.149) indicating a poor agreement between the two marker systems. The ranking of the agroecological groups according to their mean GS values (the average GS calculated for the three populations representing each group) was congruent for both marker systems and the Pearson's correlation coefficient calculated using these values was 0.853. The cluster analysis did not group populations precisely with expectations based upon their agro-ecological groups, although a much better agreement was accomplished with AFLP analysis. Based on the results in this work it could be concluded that, when using a DNA-pooling strategy, AFLPs are more reliable in assessing genetic diversity of maize populations.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 11
Claim · model-written summary
Twenty-five SSR markers generated 224 polymorphic bands in maize populations.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e1“Twenty-five SSR markers generated a total of 224 polymorphic bands, while three AFLP primer combinations generated 188 bands with 79.2% being polymorphic”
Claim · model-written summary
Three AFLP primer combinations generated 188 bands in maize populations.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e1“Twenty-five SSR markers generated a total of 224 polymorphic bands, while three AFLP primer combinations generated 188 bands with 79.2% being polymorphic”
Claim · model-written summary
Of the AFLP bands, 79.2% were polymorphic.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e1“Twenty-five SSR markers generated a total of 224 polymorphic bands, while three AFLP primer combinations generated 188 bands with 79.2% being polymorphic”
Claim · model-written summary
The average polymorphism content (PIC) was higher for SSRs than for AFLPs (0.79 versus 0.28).
- Outcome
- average polymorphism content (PIC)e2
- Direction
- highere2
- Value
- 0.79 for SSRs versus 0.28 for AFLPse2
- Comparator
- AFLPse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e2“The average polymorphism content (PIC) was higher for SSRs, i.e. 0.79 for SSRs versus 0.28 for AFLPs”
Claim · model-written summary
Genetic similarity values estimated for AFLPs were higher than those for SSRs.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e3“Higher genetic similarity (GS) values were estimated for AFLPs”
Claim · model-written summary
The Pearson correlation between SSR and AFLP genetic similarities was low (0.149), indicating poor agreement between the marker systems.
- Outcome
- Pearson's correlation coefficiente4
- Direction
- lowe4
- Value
- 0.149e4
- Qualifier
- indicating a poor agreement between the two marker systemse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e4“The Pearson's correlation coefficient calculated for SSR and AFLP genetic similarities was low (0.149) indicating a poor agreement between the two marker systems”
Claim · model-written summary
The ranking of agro-ecological groups by mean GS values was congruent for both marker systems.
- Outcome
- ranking of the agroecological groups according to their mean GS valuese5
- Direction
- congruente5
- Comparator
- both marker systemse5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e5“The ranking of the agroecological groups according to their mean GS values (the average GS calculated for the three populations representing each group) was congruent for both marker systems and the Pearson's correlation coefficient calculated using these values was 0.853”
Claim · model-written summary
The Pearson correlation coefficient calculated from the mean GS values was 0.853.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e5“The ranking of the agroecological groups according to their mean GS values (the average GS calculated for the three populations representing each group) was congruent for both marker systems and the Pearson's correlation coefficient calculated using these values was 0.853”
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster analysis did not group maize populations precisely with expectations based on their agro-ecological groups.
- Outcome
- cluster analysise6
- Direction
- did not groupe6
- Comparator
- expectations based upon their agro-ecological groupse6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e6“The cluster analysis did not group populations precisely with expectations based upon their agro-ecological groups, although a much better agreement was accomplished with AFLP analysis”
Claim · model-written summary
Cluster analysis agreed much better with agro-ecological expectations when using AFLP analysis than SSR markers.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e6“The cluster analysis did not group populations precisely with expectations based upon their agro-ecological groups, although a much better agreement was accomplished with AFLP analysis”
Claim · model-written summary
When using a DNA-pooling strategy, AFLPs are more reliable than SSRs for assessing genetic diversity of maize populations.
- Treatment
- DNA-pooling strategye7
- Outcome
- genetic diversity of maize populationse7
- Direction
- more reliablee7
- Comparator
- SSRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“18 maize populations belonging to six different agro-ecological groups we report on a comparison of AFLP and SSR techniques”
e7“when using a DNA-pooling strategy, AFLPs are more reliable in assessing genetic diversity of maize populations”