Paper · 2011 · International Journal of Agriculture and Biology

RAPD marker-assisted identification of genetic diversity among mango (Mangifera indica) varieties in Mauritius

A.D. Ramessur; V. M. Ranghoo-Sanmukhiya

11
claims
17
verbatim quotes
20
citations
3
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

ABSTRACT Morphological and molecular techniques were used to evaluate the characteristics of 12 mango ( Mangifera indica L. ) varieties cultivated in Mauritius and to compare their genetic relatedness. Genomic DNA was extracted from leaf samples and genetic characterization was carried out using the RAPD technique making use of 30 decamer Operon primers. 77.1% polymorphism was obtained with Operon primer OPD-2 being the least discriminatory in contrast to OPA-9 and OPL-14, which were most polymorphic. An Un-weighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean dendogram of cophenetic ratio 0.9732 was constructed with distance values of 0.222 to 0.667. Two major clusters consisting of a mixture of foreign and native mango varieties were delimited with Overseer being the least related to the rest of the varieties. No clear distinction between the landraces and exotic varieties was observed. Phenotypically similar Jose and Eugenie varieties were also genetically close. The 3 ‘pickle’ varieties Dauphine, Sabre and Blanc were within the same cluster. Considerable genetic variation was observed between the studied mango varieties. The RAPD technique together with the analysis of morphological characters proved useful for assessing the diversity existing between the mango varieties. In conclusion, the mango varieties used in this study could be tapped in breeding programs aimed at cu ltivar improvement. © 2011 Friends Science Publishers

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

Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RAPD analysis yielded 77.1% polymorphism, with OPD-2 least discriminatory and OPA-9 and OPL-14 most polymorphic.

Outcome
polymorphisme0
Value
77.1%e0
Qualifier
Operon primer OPD-2 being the least discriminatory in contrast to OPA-9 and OPL-14, which were most polymorphice0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“77.1% polymorphism was obtained with Operon primer OPD-2 being the least discriminatory in contrast to OPA-9 and OPL-14, which were most polymorphic.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 357–506 · show in text ↑
t0

“mango (Mangifera indica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–87 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The constructed dendrogram had cophenetic ratio 0.9732.

Outcome
cophenetic ratioe0
Value
0.9732e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“An Un-weighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean dendogram of cophenetic ratio 0.9732 was constructed with distance values of 0.222 to 0.667.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 507–653 · show in text ↑
t0

“mango (Mangifera indica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–87 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Genetic distance values ranged from 0.222 to 0.667.

Outcome
distance valuese0
Value
0.222 to 0.667e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“An Un-weighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Mean dendogram of cophenetic ratio 0.9732 was constructed with distance values of 0.222 to 0.667.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 507–653 · show in text ↑
t0

“mango (Mangifera indica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–87 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Two major clusters mixed foreign and native mango varieties.

Outcome
major clusters consisting of a mixture of foreign and native mango varietiese0
Value
Twoe0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Two major clusters consisting of a mixture of foreign and native mango varieties were delimited with Overseer being the least related to the rest of the varieties.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–817 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Overseer was least related to the other mango varieties.

Material
Overseere0
Outcome
relatede0
Direction
leaste0
Comparator
rest of the varietiese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Two major clusters consisting of a mixture of foreign and native mango varieties were delimited with Overseer being the least related to the rest of the varieties.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 654–817 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Landraces and exotic varieties were not clearly distinguished.

Outcome
No clear distinction between the landraces and exotic varietiese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“No clear distinction between the landraces and exotic varieties was observed.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 818–895 · show in text ↑
t0

“mango (Mangifera indica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–87 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Phenotypically similar Jose and Eugenie were genetically close.

Material
Jose and Eugeniee0
Outcome
genetically closee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Phenotypically similar Jose and Eugenie varieties were also genetically close.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 896–974 · show in text ↑
t0

“mango (Mangifera indica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–87 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Dauphine, Sabre and Blanc pickle varieties clustered together.

Material
Dauphine, Sabre and Blance0
Outcome
within the same clustere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The 3 ‘pickle’ varieties Dauphine, Sabre and Blanc were within the same cluster.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 975–1055 · show in text ↑
t0

“mango (Mangifera indica)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 63–87 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Considerable genetic variation occurred among the mango varieties.

Outcome
genetic variatione0
Qualifier
Considerablee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Considerable genetic variation was observed between the studied mango varieties.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1056–1136 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RAPD with morphological analysis was useful for assessing mango variety diversity.

Outcome
assessing the diversity existing between the mango varietiese0
Qualifier
usefule0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The RAPD technique together with the analysis of morphological characters proved useful for assessing the diversity existing between the mango varieties.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1137–1290 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

The mango varieties could be used in breeding for cultivar improvement.

Outcome
breeding programs aimed at cu ltivar improvemente0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Mangifera indica
Mangifera indica · TaxonBilljones94 · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“the mango varieties used in this study could be tapped in breeding programs aimed at cu ltivar improvement”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1306–1412 · show in text ↑