TitleMiscanthus: Inter- and Intraspecific Genome Size Variation Among M. × Giganteus, M. Sinensis, M. Sacchariflorus Accessions
Journal titleActa Biologica Cracoviensia s. Botanica
Divisions of PASNauki Biologiczne i Rolnicze
AbstractAbstract Since M. sinensis Anderss., M. sacchariflorus (Maxim.) Hack. and M. ×giganteus J.M.Greef & Deuter ex Hodk. and Renvoize have considerably the highest potential for biomass production among Miscanthus Anderss. species, there is an urgent need to broaden the knowledge about cytological characteristics required for their improvement. In this study our objectives were to assess the genome size variation among eighteen Miscanthus accessions, as well as estimation of the monoploid genome size (2C and Cx) of the M. sinensis cultivars, which have not been analyzed yet. The characterization of three Miscanthus species was performed with the use of flow cytometry and analysis of the stomatal length. The triploid (2n = 3x = 57) M. sinensis ‘Goliath’ and M. ×giganteus clones possessed the highest 2C DNA content (8.34 pg and 7.43 pg, respectively). The intermediate 2C-values were found in the nuclei of the diploid (2n = 2x = 38) M. sinensis accessions (5.52–5.72 pg), whereas they were the lowest in the diploid (2n = 2x = 38) M. sacchariflorus ecotypes (4.58–4.59 pg). The presented study revealed interspecific variation of nuclear DNA content (P<0.01) and therefore allowed for recognition of particular taxa, inter- and intraspecific hybrids and prediction of potential parental components. Moreover, intraspecific genome size variation (P<0.01) was observed in M. sinensis cultivars at 3.62%. The values of the stomatal size obtained for the triploid M. ×giganteus ‘Great Britain’ (mean 30.70 μm) or ‘Canada’ (mean 29.67 μm) and diploid M. sinensis ‘Graziella’ (mean 29.96 μm) did not differ significantly, therefore this parameter is not recommended for ploidy estimation.
PublisherBiological Commission of the Polish Academy of Sciences – Cracow Branch
Date2015[2015.01.01 AD - 2015.12.31 AD]
IdentifiereISSN 1898-0295 ; ISSN 0001-5296
ReferencesDoleželJ (1998), Plant genome size estimation by flow cytometry : inter - laboratory comparison, Annals of Botany, 82, 17. ; MaXF (2012), High resolution genetic mapping by genome sequencing reveals genome duplication and tetraploid genetic structure of the diploidMiscanthussinensis ONE, PLoS, 7. ; DoleželJ (2005), Plant DNA flow cytometry and estimation of nuclear genome size, Annals of Botany, 95, 99, doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci005 ; HodkinsonTR (2002), a The use of DNA sequencing ( ITS andtrnL and fluorescentin situhybridization to study allopolyploidMiscanthus, American Journal of Botany, 89, 279, doi.org/10.3732/ajb.89.2.279 ; SwaminathanK (2010), Genomic and small RNA sequencing ofMiscanthus giganteusshows the utility of sorghum as a reference genome sequence forAndropogoneaegrasses, Genome Biology, 11, doi.org/10.1186/gb-2010-11-2-r12 ; DohlemanFG (2009), More productive than maize in the Midwest : how doesMiscanthusdo it, Plant Physiology, 150, 2104, doi.org/10.1104/pp.109.139162 ; JeżowskiS (2008), Yield traits of six clones ofMiscanthusin the first years following planting in Poland, Industrial Crops and Products, 27, 65, doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2007.07.013 ; LiX (2013), Nuclear DNA content variation of threeMiscanthusspecies in China Genes, Genomics, 35, 13. ; CichorzS (2014), Miscanthus : Genetic diversity and genotype identification using ISSR and RAPD markers, Molecular Biotechnology, 56, 911, doi.org/10.1007/s12033-014-9770-0 ; LeitchIJ (2004), Genome downsizing in polyploid plants, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 82, 651, doi.org/10.1111/j.1095-8312.2004.00349.x ; PurdySJ (2013), Characterization of chilling - shock responses in four genotypes ofMiscanthusreveals the superior tolerance ofM giganteuscompared withM sinensisandM sacchariflorus, Annals of Botany, 111, 999, doi.org/10.1093/aob/mct059 ; ÖzkanH (2001), Allopolyploidy - induced rapid genome evolution in the wheat group, Plant Cell, 13, 1735, doi.org/10.1105/tpc.13.8.1735 ; NishiwakiA (2011), Discovery of naturalMiscanthus triploid plants in sympatric populations ofMiscanthus sacchariflorusandMiscanthus sinensisin southern Japan, American Journal of Botany, 98, 154, doi.org/10.3732/ajb.1000258 ; Linde (1993), Cytogenetic analysis ofMiscanthus Giganteus , an interspecific hybrid, Hereditas, 119, 297, doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1993.00297.x ; MeyerMH (1999), MiscanthusAnderss produces viable seed in four USDA hardiness zones of, Journal Environmental Horticulture, 17, 137. ; ZubHW (2011), Key traits for biomass production identified in differentMiscanthusspecies at two harvest dates and, Biomass Bioenergy, 35, 637, doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.10.020 ; McLaughlinSB (1998), Evaluating environmental consequences of producing herbaceous crops for bioenergy and, Biomass Bioenergy, 14, 317, doi.org/10.1016/S0961-9534(97)10066-6 ; DoleželJ (2007), Estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants using flow cytometry, Nature Protocols, 2, 2233, doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2007.310 ; HodkinsonTR (2002), Phylogenetics ofMiscanthus , Saccharum and related genera based on DNA sequences from ITS nuclear ribosomal DNA and plastidtrnLintron andtrnL - Fintergenic spacers, Journal of Plant Research, 115, 381, doi.org/10.1007/s10265-002-0049-3 ; HodkinsonTR (2002), Characterization of a genetic resource collection forMiscanthus using AFLP and ISSR PCR, Annals of Botany, 89, 627, doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf091 ; ZhangJ (2012), Genome size variation in threeSaccharumspecies, Euphytica, 185, 511, doi.org/10.1007/s10681-012-0664-6 ; Clifton (2000), Overwintering problems of newly establishedMiscanthusplantations can be overcome by identifying genotypes with improved rhizome cold tolerance, New Phytologist, 148, 287, doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00764.x ; QuinnLD (2010), Invasiveness potential ofMiscanthussinensis : implications for bioenergy production in the United States, Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2, 310, doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2010.01062.x ; ZubHW (2012), Late emergence and rapid growth maximize the plant development ofMiscanthusclones, BioEnergy Research, 5, 841, doi.org/10.1007/s12155-012-9194-2 ; BennetzenJL (2005), Mechanisms of recent genome size variation in flowering plants, Annals of Botany, 95, 127, doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci008 ; AdatiS (1962), The cytotaxonomy of the genusMiscanthusand its phylogenic status Bulletin of the Faculty of Agriculture Mie, University, 25, 1. ; ZuccoloA (2007), Transposable element distribution , abundance and role in genome size variation in the genusOryza, BMC Evolutionary Biology, 7, 152, doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-7-152 ; RayburnAL (2004), Documenting intraspecific genome size variation in soybean, Crop Science, 44, 261, doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.0261 ; JensenE (2011), Characterization of flowering time diversity inMiscanthusspecies, Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 3, 387, doi.org/10.1111/j.1757-1707.2011.01097.x ; Chramiec (2012), Cytogenetic analysis ofMiscanthus giganteusand its parent forms, Caryologia, 65, 234, doi.org/10.1080/00087114.2012.740192 ; RayburnAL (2005), Genome size analysis of weedyAmaranthusspecies, Crop Science, 45, 2557, doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.0163 ; SliwinskaE (2005), Are seeds suitable for flow cytometric estimation of plant genome size, Cytometry PartA, 64, 72, doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.20122 ; MoonYH (2013), Diversity in ploidy levels and nuclear DNA amounts in KoreanMiscanthusspecies, Euphytica, 193. ; GłowackaK (2010), In vitroinduction of polyploidy by colchicine treatment of shoots and preliminary characterization of induced polyploids in twoMiscanthusspecies, Industrial Crops and Products, 32, 88, doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.03.009 ; RayburnAL (2009), Genome size of threeMiscanthusspecies, Plant Molecular Biology Reporter, 27, 184, doi.org/10.1007/s11105-008-0070-3 ; BennettMD (2005), Plant genome size research : a field in focus, Annals of Botany, 95, 1, doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci001 ; HuangH (2013), Genome size variation among and withinCamelliaspecies by using flow cytometric analysis ONE, PLoS, 8. ; DoleželJ (2003), Nuclear DNA content and genome size of trout and human, Cytometry Part A, 51, 127. ; GłowackaK (2015), Genetic variation inMiscanthus giganteusand the importance of estimating genetic distance thresholds for differentiating clones, Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 7, 386, doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12166 ; TrávnícekP (2013), Substantial genome size variation inTaraxacum stenocephalum, Folia Geobotanica, 48, 271, doi.org/10.1007/s12224-013-9151-7 ; SanMiguelP (1998), Evidence that a recent increase in maize genome size was caused by the massive amplification of intergene retrotransposons, Annals of Botany, 82, 37, doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0746 ; BennettMD (1987), Variation in genomic form in plants and its ecological implications, New Phytologist, 106, 177, doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1987.tb04689.x ; HeatonEA (2010), Miscanthus : a promising biomass crop, Advances in Botanical Research, 56, 75, doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-381518-7.00003-0 ; HernándezP (2001), Microsatellites and RFLP probes from maize are efficient sources of molecular markers for the biomass energy cropMiscanthus, Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 102, 616, doi.org/10.1007/s001220051688 ; ŠmardaP (2010), Understanding intraspecific genome size variation, Preslia, 82, 41. ; OhriD (1998), Genome size variation and plant systematics, Annals of Botany, 82, 75, doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0765