Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 60, Issue 1, pp 1–11 | Cite as

Detection of duplicates among repatriated Nordic spring barley (Hordeum vulgare L. s.l.) accessions using agronomic and morphological descriptors and microsatellite markers

  • Birgitte Lund
  • Rodomiro Ortiz
  • Roland von Bothmer
  • Sven-Bode Andersen
Research Article


Duplicate accessions in gene banks may be increasing while funding resources to maintain them are not always available. This research investigated the ability of agronomic and morphological descriptors for detecting duplicates among 138 repatriated putative Nordic barley germplasm and compared their use with results from previous research with microsatellite markers. These accessions were initially grouped into 36 potential duplicates according to passport data but further analysis with microsatellites reduce them to 22 genetically homogeneous groups. The analysis with 26 agronomic and morphological descriptors of putative Nordic spring barley accessions from nine gene banks was compared with a previous study with microsatellites. Each agronomic and morphological descriptor was weighed relative to its genetic determination with the aim of reducing the effect of environmental errors on genetic distances. Nonetheless, weighted and non-weighted genetic distances were significantly correlated (r = 0.956) but their respective correlations with genetic distances based on microsatellites were smaller (r = 0.526 and r = 0.498, respectively). Genetic distances based on agronomic and morphological descriptors were smaller than those based on microsatellites. The genetic distances based on agronomic and morphological descriptors showed a bimodal distribution, which was apparently due to the number of rows per spike. Our research demonstrated, nonetheless, the ability of genetic distances based on agronomic and morphological discriminators to detect genetic heterogeneity, although with reduced sensitivity compared with microsatellite markers. These results also suggest that grouping ensuing from either approach could reflect distinct patterns of diversity (due to different mutation rates and selection intensity) and are therefore complementary.


Conservation Genetic distance Hordeum vulgare Plant genetic resources Repatriation Variance components 


  1. Anonymous (1990) SAS/STAT user’s guide. Version 6, 3rd edn. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, North CarolinaGoogle Scholar
  2. Ayoub M, Symons SJ, Edney MJ, Mather DE (2002) QTLs affecting kernel size and shape in two-rowed by six-rowed barley cross. Theor Appl Genet 105:237–247PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Charlesworth B, Sniegowski P, Stephan W (1994) The evolutionary dynamics of repetitive DNA in eukaryotes. Nature 371:215–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chavarriaga-Aguirre P, Maya MM, Tohme J, Iglesias C, Bonierbale MW, Kresovich S, Korchet G (1999) Using microsatellites, isozymes and AFLPs to evaluate genetic diversity and redundancy in the cassava core collection and to assess the usefulness of DNA-based markers to maintain germplasm collections. Mol Breed 5:263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dean RE, Dahlberg JA, Hopkins MS, Mitchell SE, Kresovich S (1999) Genetic redundancy and diversity among “Orange” accession in the U.S. national sorghum collection as assessed with simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. Crop Sci 39:1215–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diederichsen A (2009) Duplication assessments in Nordic Avena sativa accessions at the Canadian national genebank. Genet Resour Crop Evol 56:587–597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franckowiak JD, Lundqvist U, Konishi T (1997) New and revised names for barley genes. Barley Genet Newslett 26:4–8Google Scholar
  8. Gower J (1971) A general coefficient of similarity and some of its properties. Biometrics 27:857–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene SL, Pederson GA (1996) Eliminating duplicates in germplasm collections: a white clover example. Crop Sci 36:1398–1400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hodgkin T (1998) Perspectives on the availability and use of plant genetic resources. Plant Varieties Seeds 11:15–27Google Scholar
  11. Huamán Z, Stegemann H (1989) Use of electrophoretic analysis to verify morphologically identically clones in a potato collection. Plant Varieties Seeds 2:155–161Google Scholar
  12. IPGRI (1994) Descriptors for barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  13. Knüpffer H, von Bothmer R (2001) ECP/GR barley working group: review of the group progress and future perspectives. In: Maggioni L, Spellman O (eds) Report of a network coordinating group on cereals. Adhoc meeting, 7–8 July 2000, Radzików, Poland. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy, pp 14–22Google Scholar
  14. Komatsuda T, Mano Y (2002) Molecular mapping of the intermedium spike-c (int-c) and non-brittle rachis 1 (btr1) locus in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Theor Appl Genet 105:85–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lund B, Ortiz R, Skovgaard IM, Waugh R, Andersen SB (2003) Analysis of potential duplicates in barley gene bank collections using re-sampling of microsatellite data. Theor Appl Genet 106:1129–1138PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Metzgar D, Bytoft J, Wills C (2000) Selection against frame shift mutation limits microsatellite expansion in coding DNA. Genome Res 10:72–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ortiz R, Mohamed SF, Weibull J, Madsen S, Christiansen JL (2001) Assessment of phenotypic variation in winter barley in Scandinavia. Acta Agric Scand Sect B Soil Plant Sci 51:151–159Google Scholar
  18. Ortiz R, Nurmeniemi M, Madsen S, Rognli OA, Bjornstad Å (2002) Cultivar diversity in Nordic spring barley breeding (1930–1991). Euphytica 123:111–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Phippen WB, Kresovich S Candelas FG, McFerson JR (1997) Molecular characterization can quantify and partition variation among genebank holdings: a case study with phenotypically similar accessions of Brasicca oleracea var. capitata L. (cabbage) “Golden Acre”. Theor Appl Genet 94:227–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ruiz M, Varela F, Carrillo JM (1997) Analysis of the discriminating power of agro/morphological and biochemical descriptors in a sample of the Spanish collection of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Genet Resour Crop Evol 44:247–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Russell JR, Ellis RP, Thomas WTB, Waugh R, Provan J, Booth A, Fuller J, Lawrence P, Young G, Powell W (2000) A retrospective analysis of spring barley germplasm development from “foundation genotypes” to currently successful cultivars. Mol Breed 6:553–568CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schut JW, Qi X, Stam P (1997) Association between relationships measures based on AFLP markers, pedigree data and morphological traits in barley. Theor Appl Genet 95:1161–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. UPOV (1981) Guidelines for the conduct of tests for distinctness, homogeneity and stability. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). TG/19/7. International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Genève, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  24. UPOV (1991) International convention for the protection of new varieties of plants. Pub 221 (E). International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Genève, Switzerland.TG/19/7Google Scholar
  25. van Hintum ThJL, Knüpffer H (1995) Duplication within and between germplasm collections. I. Identifying duplication on the basis of passport data. Genet Resour Crop Evol 42:127–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. van Treuren R, van Soest LJM, van Hintum ThJL (2001) Marker-assisted rationalization of genetic resource collections: a case study in flax using AFLPs. Theor Appl Genet 103:144–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wang Z, Weber JL, Zhong G, Tanksley D (1994) Survey of plant short tandem DNA repeats. Theor Appl Genet 88:1–6Google Scholar
  28. Willner E, Sackville Hamilton NR, Knüpffer H (1998) Duplication in forage collections. In: Maggioni L, Marum P, Sackville Hamilton R, Thomas I, Gass T, Lipman E (eds) Report of a working group on forages. 6th Meeting, 6–8 March 1997, Beitostølen, Norway, pp 92–95Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Birgitte Lund
    • 1
  • Rodomiro Ortiz
    • 3
  • Roland von Bothmer
    • 3
  • Sven-Bode Andersen
    • 2
  1. 1.Ministry of Food, Agriculture and FisheriesThe Danish AgriFish AgencyKøbenhavn VDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Sciences, Faculty of Life SciencesUniversity of CopenhagenFrederiksbergDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Plant Breeding and BiotechnologySwedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarpSweden

Personalised recommendations