19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Conserving Plants in Gene Banks and Nature: Investigating Complementarity with Trifolium thompsonii Morton

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          A standard conservation strategy for plant genetic resources integrates in situ (on-farm or wild) and ex situ (gene or field bank) approaches. Gene bank managers collect ex situ accessions that represent a comprehensive snap shot of the genetic diversity of in situ populations at a given time and place. Although simple in theory, achieving complementary in situ and ex situ holdings is challenging. Using Trifolium thompsonii as a model insect-pollinated herbaceous perennial species, we used AFLP markers to compare genetic diversity and structure of ex situ accessions collected at two time periods (1995, 2004) from four locations, with their corresponding in situ populations sampled in 2009. Our goal was to assess the complementarity of the two approaches. We examined how gene flow, selection and genetic drift contributed to population change. Across locations, we found no difference in diversity between ex situ and in situ samples. One population showed a decline in genetic diversity over the 15 years studied. Population genetic differentiation among the four locations was significant, but weak. Association tests suggested infrequent, long distance gene flow. Selection and drift occurred, but differences due to spatial effects were three times as strong as differences attributed to temporal effects, and suggested recollection efforts could occur at intervals greater than fifteen years. An effective collecting strategy for insect pollinated herbaceous perennial species was to sample >150 plants, equalize maternal contribution, and sample along random transects with sufficient space between plants to minimize intrafamilial sampling. Quantifying genetic change between ex situ and in situ accessions allows genetic resource managers to validate ex situ collecting and maintenance protocols, develop appropriate recollection intervals, and provide an early detection mechanism for identifying problematic conditions that can be addressed to prevent further decline in vulnerable in situ populations.

          Related collections

          Most cited references13

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting.

          A novel DNA fingerprinting technique called AFLP is described. The AFLP technique is based on the selective PCR amplification of restriction fragments from a total digest of genomic DNA. The technique involves three steps: (i) restriction of the DNA and ligation of oligonucleotide adapters, (ii) selective amplification of sets of restriction fragments, and (iii) gel analysis of the amplified fragments. PCR amplification of restriction fragments is achieved by using the adapter and restriction site sequence as target sites for primer annealing. The selective amplification is achieved by the use of primers that extend into the restriction fragments, amplifying only those fragments in which the primer extensions match the nucleotides flanking the restriction sites. Using this method, sets of restriction fragments may be visualized by PCR without knowledge of nucleotide sequence. The method allows the specific co-amplification of high numbers of restriction fragments. The number of fragments that can be analyzed simultaneously, however, is dependent on the resolution of the detection system. Typically 50-100 restriction fragments are amplified and detected on denaturing polyacrylamide gels. The AFLP technique provides a novel and very powerful DNA fingerprinting technique for DNAs of any origin or complexity.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            How to track and assess genotyping errors in population genetics studies.

            Genotyping errors occur when the genotype determined after molecular analysis does not correspond to the real genotype of the individual under consideration. Virtually every genetic data set includes some erroneous genotypes, but genotyping errors remain a taboo subject in population genetics, even though they might greatly bias the final conclusions, especially for studies based on individual identification. Here, we consider four case studies representing a large variety of population genetics investigations differing in their sampling strategies (noninvasive or traditional), in the type of organism studied (plant or animal) and the molecular markers used [microsatellites or amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs)]. In these data sets, the estimated genotyping error rate ranges from 0.8% for microsatellite loci from bear tissues to 2.6% for AFLP loci from dwarf birch leaves. Main sources of errors were allelic dropouts for microsatellites and differences in peak intensities for AFLPs, but in both cases human factors were non-negligible error generators. Therefore, tracking genotyping errors and identifying their causes are necessary to clean up the data sets and validate the final results according to the precision required. In addition, we propose the outline of a protocol designed to limit and quantify genotyping errors at each step of the genotyping process. In particular, we recommend (i) several efficient precautions to prevent contaminations and technical artefacts; (ii) systematic use of blind samples and automation; (iii) experience and rigor for laboratory work and scoring; and (iv) systematic reporting of the error rate in population genetics studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Estimating population structure in diploids with multilocus dominant DNA markers.

              Multilocus DNA markers [random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPDs), amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLPs)] are important for population studies because they reveal many polymorphic loci distributed over the genome. The markers are dominant, that is two phenotypes are distinguished at each locus, with a band and with no band. The latter one represents null-homozygotes with unamplified, recessive null-alleles. The frequency of a null-allele can be estimated by taking the square root of the fraction of individuals with no band. Lynch and Milligan (1994) have suggested a modified procedure that reduces bias introduced by the square-root transform. However, the procedure recommends to ignore those samples in which fewer than four null-homozygotes are observed. This may lead to significant bias in estimates of genetic diversity. In this study, I introduce a Bayesian approach to estimation of null-allele frequencies for dominant DNA markers. It follows from computer simulations and data on two conifer species that the Bayesian method gives nearly unbiased estimates of heterozygosity, genetic distances and F-statistics. The influence of a prior distribution and departure from Hardy-Weinberg proportions on the estimates is also considered.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2014
                14 August 2014
                : 9
                : 8
                : e105145
                Affiliations
                [1 ]National Center for Genetic Resource Preservation, United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Fort Collins, Colorado, United States of America
                [2 ]Western Regional Plant Introduction Station, United States Department of Agriculture-Agricultural Research Service, Pullman, Washington, United States of America
                [3 ]Departamento de Biologıa Vegetal, Universidad Politecnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain
                USDA- ARS, United States of America
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: SLG. Performed the experiments: SLG TJK. Analyzed the data: SLG TJK LXY MPQ. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MPQ LXY. Wrote the paper: SLG TJK.

                Article
                PONE-D-14-09077
                10.1371/journal.pone.0105145
                4133347
                25121602
                1e33f3a3-ca7d-4f8e-8868-8092c2d88fb9
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

                History
                : 27 February 2014
                : 21 July 2014
                Page count
                Pages: 12
                Funding
                Sources of funding included USDA Agricultural Research Service National Program 301 and 215 and the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture - FAO. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology and Life Sciences
                Agriculture
                Agronomy
                Plant Breeding
                Evolutionary Biology
                Population Genetics
                Gene Flow
                Genetics
                Plant Genetics
                Crop Genetics
                Conservation Genetics

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article