Genetic structure and differentiation in cultivated fig (Ficus carica L.)

Abstract One hundred ninety-four germplasm accessions of fig representing the four fig types, Common, Smyrna, San Pedro, and Caprifig were analyzed for genetic diversity, structure, and differentiation using genetic polymorphism at 15 microsatellite loci. The collection showed considerable polymorphism with observed number of alleles per locus ranging from four for five different loci, MFC4, LMFC14, LMFC22, LMFC31 and LMFC35 to nine for LMFC30 with an average of 4.9 alleles per locus. Seven of the 15 loci included in the genetic structure analyses exhibited significant deviation from panmixia, of which two showed excess and five showed deficiency of heterozygote. The cluster analysis (CA) revealed ten groups with 32 instances of synonymy among cultivars and groups differed significantly for frequency and composition of alleles for different loci. The principal components analysis (PCA) confirmed the results of CA with some groups more differentiated than the others. Further, the model based Bayesian approach clustering suggested a subtle population structure with mixed ancestry for most figs. The gene diversity analysis indicated that much of the total variation is found within groups (H G /H T = 0.853; 85.3%) and the among groups within total component (G GT = 0.147) accounted for the remaining 14.7%, of which *64% accounted for among groups within clusters (G GC = 0.094) and *36% among clusters (G CT = 0.053). The analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) showed approximately similar results with nearly 87% of variation within groups and *10% among groups within clusters, and *3% among clusters. Overall, the gene pool o

Genetic structure and differentiation in cultivated fig (Ficus carica L.)

One hundred ninety-four germplasm accessions of fig representing the four fig types, Common, Smyrna, San Pedro, and Caprifig were analyzed for genetic diversity, structure, and differentiation using genetic polymorphism at 15 microsatellite loci. The collection showed considerable polymorphism with observed number of alleles per locus ranging from four for five different loci, MFC4, LMFC14, LMFC22, LMFC31 and LMFC35 to nine for LMFC30 with an average of 4.9 alleles per locus. Seven of the 15 loci included in the genetic structure analyses exhibited significant deviation from panmixia, of which two showed excess and five showed deficiency of heterozygote. The cluster analysis (CA) revealed ten groups with 32 instances of synonymy among cultivars and groups differed significantly for frequency and composition of alleles for different loci. The principal components analysis (PCA) confirmed the results of CA with some groups more differentiated than the others. Further, the model based Bayesian approach clustering suggested a subtle population structure with mixed ancestry for most figs. The gene diversity analysis indicated that much of the total variation is found within groups (HG/HT = 0.853; 85.3%) and the among groups within total component (GGT = 0.147) accounted for the remaining 14.7%, of which ~64% accounted for among groups within clusters (GGC = 0.094) and ~36% among clusters (GCT = 0.053). The analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) showed approximately similar results with nearly 87% of variation within groups and ~10% among groups within clusters, and ~3% among clusters. Overall, the gene pool of cultivated fig analyzed possesses substantial genetic polymorphism but exhibits narrow differentiation. It is evident that fig accessions from Turkmenistan are somewhat genetically different from the rest of the Mediterranean and the Caucasus figs. The long history of domestication and cultivation with widespread dispersal of cultivars with many synonyms has resulted in a great deal of confusion in the identification and classification of cultivars in fig

Additional file 1: of Genetic diversity analysis of cultivated and wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) accessions around the Mediterranean basin and Central Asia

Table S1. SSR allelic profile of 1378 sativa and sylvestris grapevine samples genotyped at 20 SSR molecular markers. (XLSX 643 kb

Additional file 5: of Genetic diversity analysis of cultivated and wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) accessions around the Mediterranean basin and Central Asia

Table S5. Results of the AMOVA analysis carried out among and within 12 populations of wild and cultivated grapevine. (DOCX 16 kb

Additional file 3: of Genetic diversity analysis of cultivated and wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) accessions around the Mediterranean basin and Central Asia

Table S3. Ancestry values (mean and standard deviation values over 20 iterations) for the genetic groups inferred by STRUCTURE analysis of 1378 sativa and sylvestris grapevine samples genotyped at 20 SSR loci. (XLSX 145 kb

Additional file 4: of Genetic diversity analysis of cultivated and wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) accessions around the Mediterranean basin and Central Asia

Table S4. Locus-wise genetic differentiation parameter comparisons of 12 populations from both V. vinifera subspecies sativa and sylvestris. (DOCX 19 kb

Genetic diversity analysis of cultivated and wild grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.) accessions around the Mediterranean basin and Central Asia

Abstract Background The mountainous region between the Caucasus and China is considered to be the center of domestication for grapevine. Despite the importance of Central Asia in the history of grape growing, information about the extent and distribution of grape genetic variation in this region is limited in comparison to wild and cultivated grapevines from around the Mediterranean basin. The principal goal of this work was to survey the genetic diversity and relationships among wild and cultivated grape germplasm from the Caucasus, Central Asia, and the Mediterranean basin collectively to understand gene flow, possible domestication events and adaptive introgression. Results A total of 1378 wild and cultivated grapevines collected around the Mediterranean basin and from Central Asia were tested with a set of 20 nuclear SSR markers. Genetic data were analyzed (Cluster analysis, Principal Coordinate Analysis and STRUCTURE) to identify groups, and the results were validated by Nei’s genetic distance, pairwise FST analysis and assignment tests. All of these analyses identified three genetic groups: G1, wild accessions from Croatia, France, Italy and Spain; G2, wild accessions from Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia; and G3, cultivars from Spain, France, Italy, Georgia, Iran, Pakistan and Turkmenistan, which included a small group of wild accessions from Georgia and Croatia. Wild accessions from Georgia clustered with cultivated grape from the same area (proles pontica), but also with Western Europe (proles occidentalis), supporting Georgia as the ancient center of grapevine domestication. In addition, cluster analysis indicated that Western European wild grapes grouped with cultivated grapes from the same area, suggesting that the cultivated proles occidentalis contributed more to the early development of wine grapes than the wild vines from Eastern Europe. Conclusions The analysis of genetic relationships among the tested genotypes provided evidence of genetic relationships between wild and cultivated accessions in the Mediterranean basin and Central Asia. The genetic structure indicated a considerable amount of gene flow, which limited the differentiation between the two subspecies. The results also indicated that grapes with mixed ancestry occur in the regions where wild grapevines were domesticated