Paper · 1992 · HortScience

MOLECULAR MARKERS FOR CHARACTERIZATION OF GRAPE CULTIVARS II

Y. Gogorcena; S. Arulsekar; D.E. Parfitt

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
0
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

The work reported here is an extension of studies reported in 1990. The general objective was to develop molecular markers for genotype `fingerprinting', with specific reference to possible clonal differences among `Pinot noir' clones. Leaf DNA from 8 cultivars and 9 `Pinot noir' clones were isolated. RFLP and RAPD markers were identified and used to characterize the genotypes. 65 32-P labelled cloned probes were constructed with the pUC18 plasmid and Hind-III digested `Pinot noir' DNA. The probes were tested for their ability to discriminate among the 8 cultivars. 3 probes pGAD10, pGAD15, and pGAD44 showed polymorphisms among the cultivars. pGAD15 was most useful, with 5 polymorphisms for the 8 cultivars. RAPD makers were also tested for `fingerprinting'. Several primers were tested and polymorphisms were identified among cultivars. However, significant problems with repeatability for some bands were observed. Therefore, a series of experiments were conducted to test the effect of season and extraction method. These factors did not account for the inconsistancy which seemed to be more a function of the primer used. None of these studies showed clear evidence that the `Pinot noir' clones tested were geetically different.

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 6

Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Three RFLP probes showed cultivar polymorphisms.

Taxon
GRAPE CULTIVARSt0
Outcome
polymorphisms among the cultivarse0
Value
3 probese0

Verbatim

e0

“3 probes pGAD10, pGAD15, and pGAD44 showed polymorphisms among the cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 572–649 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE CULTIVARS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–57 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

pGAD15 was the most useful probe, showing five polymorphisms among eight cultivars.

Taxon
GRAPE CULTIVARSt0
Gene
pGAD15e0
Outcome
polymorphismse0
Value
5 polymorphismse0
Qualifier
8 cultivarse0

Verbatim

e0

“pGAD15 was most useful, with 5 polymorphisms for the 8 cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 650–715 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE CULTIVARS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–57 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

RAPD primers revealed polymorphisms among grape cultivars.

Taxon
GRAPE CULTIVARSt0
Outcome
polymorphisms were identified among cultivarse0
Comparator
cultivarse0

Verbatim

e0

“Several primers were tested and polymorphisms were identified among cultivars.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 767–845 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE CULTIVARS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–57 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Some RAPD bands had significant repeatability problems.

Taxon
GRAPE CULTIVARSt0
Outcome
repeatability for some bandse0
Comparator
some bandse0

Verbatim

e0

“significant problems with repeatability for some bands were observed.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 855–924 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE CULTIVARS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–57 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Season and extraction method did not account for marker inconsistency, which appeared more dependent on primer.

Taxon
GRAPE CULTIVARSt0
Outcome
inconsistancye0
Qualifier
season and extraction methode1
Comparator
primer usede0

Verbatim

e0

“These factors did not account for the inconsistancy which seemed to be more a function of the primer used.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1027–1133 · show in text ↑
e1

“effect of season and extraction method”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 987–1025 · show in text ↑
t0

“GRAPE CULTIVARS”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 42–57 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The tested Pinot noir clones showed no clear genetic differences.

Taxon
Pinot noire0
Material
Pinot noire0
Outcome
geetically differente0

Verbatim

e0

“None of these studies showed clear evidence that the `Pinot noir' clones tested were geetically different.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1134–1240 · show in text ↑