Genetic Relationship of Iranian Pear Genotypes with European and Asian Pears as Revealed by Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA Markers

Figures & data

Table 1. Name and origin of evaluated Pyrus genotypes and cultivars.

Species	Cultivar or genotype	Origin
Pyrus communis L.	Anjou	France
Pyrus communis L.	Spadona	Italy
Pyrus communis L.	Williams (Bartlett)	England
Pyrus communis L.	Passe Crassane	France
Pyrus communis L.	Beurre d`Amanlis	France
Pyrus communis L.	Lisbon	Unknown
Pyrus communis L.	Coscia	Italy, Russia
Pyrus communis L.	Red Bartlet	England
Pyrus communis L.	Beurre Giffard	France
Pyrus communis L.	Palestine	Unknown
Pyrus communis L.	Bulghar 2	Unknown
Pyrus communis L.	Anjo Andomax	France
Pyrus communis L.	Beurre Hardy	France
Pyrus communis L.	Beurre Bosc	France
Pyrus communis L.	Louise Bonne	France
Pyrus communis L.	Shah-Miveh	Iran
Pyrus communis L.	Mohammad Ali	Iran
Pyrus communis L.	Sardroud	Iran
Pyrus spp.	Khuj 1	Iran
Pyrus spp.	Khuj 2	Iran
Pyrus spp.	Khuj 3	Iran
Pyrus spp.	Khuj 4	Iran
Pyrus spp.	Khuj 5	Iran
Pyrus serotina Rehd	KS6	Japan
Pyrus serotina Rehd	KS7	Japan
Pyrus serotina Rehd	KS8	Japan
Pyrus serotina Rehd	KS9	Japan
Pyrus serotina Rehd	KS10	Japan
Pyrus serotina Rehd	KS11	Japan
Pyrus serotina Rehd	KS12	Japan
Pyrus serotina Rehd	KS14	Japan

Table 2. List of the primers used in RAPD analysis, their sequences, band scored (BS), no. of polymorphism band (NPB), percent of polymorphism (PP), no. of different allels (Na), expected heterozygosity of the marker (He), Shannon’s information index (I), and polymorphic information content of the markers (PIC).

Primer code	Primer sequence (5’–3’)	BS	NPB	PP	Na	He	I	PIC
OPB 12	5’ CCTTGACGCA 3’	11	7	63.64	1.50	0.22	0.33	0.27
DH 17	5’ GGTCAACCCT 3’	10	8	80.00	1.68	0.27	0.39	0.29
OPC 06	5’ GAACGGACTC 3’	23	19	82.61	1.59	0.25	0.37	0.33
DI 11	5’ CCTCACCTGT 3’	6	4	66.67	1.63	0.27	0.39	0.30
OPD 01	5’ ACCGCGAAGG 3’	4	1	25.00	1.25	0.11	0.15	0.06
OPC 07	5’ GTCCCGACGA 3’	4	1	25.00	1.25	0.07	0.10	0.11
OPD 10	5’ GGTCTACACC 3’	5	1	20.00	1.20	0.09	0.14	0.12
OPA 12	5’ GGGTAACGCC 3’	10	6	60.00	1.43	0.20	0.29	0.29
OPA 18	5’ AGGTGACCGT 3’	12	6	50.00	1.40	0.19	0.27	0.24
OPA 19	5’ GTTGCGATCC 3’	9	6	66.67	1.53	0.25	0.37	0.29
OPB 08	5’ GTCCACACGG 3’	13	9	69.23	1.58	0.24	0.35	0.30
OPE 03	5’ CCAGATGCAC 3’	10	6	60.00	1.68	0.28	0.40	0.30
OPE 07	5’ AGATGCAGCC 3’	9	6	66.67	1.61	0.23	0.34	0.30
OPE 20	5’ AACGGTGACC 3’	14	9	64.29	1.54	0.22	0.32	0.25
OPAL-16	5’ CTTTCGAGGG 3’	10	6	60.00	1.45	0.20	0.29	0.30
Average		10	6.33	57.32	1.49	0.21	0.30	0.25

Table 3. Analysis of molecular variance (AMOVA) among and within populations.

Source	Df	SS	MS	Est. Var.	PMV (%)
Among populations	3	133.44	44.48**	3.78	17
Within populations	27	500.76	18.55**	18.55	83
Total	30	634.19		22.33	100

Note. df: degree of freedom; SS: sum of squares; MS: means of squares; Est. Var.: estimated variance; PMV: percentage of molecular variance.

Figure 1. Dendrogram of 31 pear species, cultivars, and genotypes generated by UPGMA cluster analysis using the RAPD data based on Dice’s coefficient. (Source: Nei and Li, 1979.)

Nei, M., and W.H. Li. 1979. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 76:5269–5273.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar