Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 63, Issue 6, pp 1023–1033 | Cite as

Molecular and flow cytometric evaluation of pear (Pyrus L.) genetic resources of the German and Romanian national fruit collections

  • Melinda Puskás
  • Monika Höfer
  • Radu Emil Sestraş
  • Andreas Peil
  • Adriana Florina Sestraş
  • Magda-Viola Hanke
  • Henryk Flachowsky
Research Article


A total of 188 German and 28 Romanian pear accessions were evaluated using flow cytometry and molecular markers to detect homonymous and synonymous genotypes, triploids, which are not useful for breeding, and genotypes having favorable traits for breeding. Genotyping was done using a set of 11 simple sequence repeat markers proposed by the European Cooperative Program for Plant Genetic Resources, along with a standard set of six reference pear genotypes used in previous studies. The observed number of alleles ranged between 21 and 38 per locus. Twenty-three accessions could be confirmed as triploids. Because of the expected cross-incompatibility they are only of limited interest for breeding. The study confirmed that 180 of the 188 tested German accessions represent unique genotypes, while some accessions were found to be genetically identical. In parallel additional markers, which are known to be linked to resistance/susceptibility to major pathogens (e.g. black spot, aphid, fire blight, and apple scab), were applied to the German accessions. The comparative screening of the Romanian pear genetic resources demonstrated that only a few accessions with identical/very similar names to German accessions really have an identical fingerprint. Mislabeling and homonymous designation of different genotypes seems to occur frequently in different collections.


ECPGR Fingerprint Genetic resources Pear Pyrus L. SSR marker 



The authors are grateful to A. Patocchi and M. Schanze (Agroscope Wädenswil, Switzerland) for providing some pear genotypes’ DNA, which were used to establish the fire blight markers at JKI Dresden (Germany). The authors further acknowledge the Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt (DBU) for contributing to the costs of the work (AZ: Puskas_22112013).

Supplementary material

10722_2015_298_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (60 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 59 kb)
10722_2015_298_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (40 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (XLSX 39 kb)


  1. Ahmed M, Anjum MA, Khan MQ, Ahmed MJ, Pearce S (2010) Evaluation of genetic diversity in Pyrus germplasm native to Azad Jammu and Kashmir (Northern Pakistan) revealed by microsatellite markers. African J Biotechnol 9(49):8323–8333Google Scholar
  2. Bell RL, Quamme HA, Layne REC, Skirvin RM (1996) Pears. In: Janick J, Moore JN (eds) Fruit breeding, vol I. Tree and tropical fruits. Wiley, New York, pp 441–514Google Scholar
  3. Bennett E (1965) Plant introduction and genetic conservation: genecological aspect of an urgent world problem. Scottish Plant Breeding Station, pp 27–113Google Scholar
  4. Bouvier L, Bourcy M, Boulay M, Tellier M, Guérif P, Denancé C, Durel CE, Lespinasse Y (2012) A new pear scab resistance gene Rvp1 from the European pear cultivar ‘Navara’ maps in a genomic region syntenic to an apple scab resistance gene cluster on linkage group 2. Tree Genet Genom 8:53–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brini W, Mars M, Hormaza JL (2008) Genetic diversity in local Tunisian pears (Pyrus communis L.) studied with SSR markers. Sci Hortic 115:337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cho KH, Shin IS, Kim KT, Suh EJ, Hong SS, Lee HJ (2009) Development of AFLP and CAPS markers linked to the scab resistance gene Rvn2 in an inter-specific hybrid pear (Pyrus spp.). J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 84:619–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Costa F, Weg WE, Stella S, Dondini L, Pratesi D, Musacchi S, Sansavini S (2008) Map position and functional allelic diversity of Md-Exp7, a new putative expansin gene associated with fruit softening in apple (Malus × domestica Borkh.) and pear (Pyrus communis). Tree Genet Genom 4:575–586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans KM, Govan CL, Fernández-Fernández F (2008) A new gene for resistance to Dysaphis pyri in pear and identification of flanking microsatellite markers. Genome 51:1026–1031CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Evans KM, Fernández-Fernández F, Govan C (2009) Harmonising fingerprinting protocols to allow comparisons between germplasm collections—Pyrus. Acta Hortic 814:103–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ferreira dos Santos ARF, Ramos-Cabrer AM, Díaz-Hernández MB, Pereira-Lorenzo S (2011) Pear diversity in northwestern Spain determined by microsatellites. Acta Hortic 918:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flachowsky H, Hanke M-V (2010) The network of the “German National Fruit Genebank”, a new concept for sustainable preservation of fruit genetic resources.
  12. Flachowsky H, Höfer M (2010) The German Fruit Genebank, a decentral network for sustainable preservation of fruit genetic resources. J Kulturpfl 62:9–16Google Scholar
  13. Frankel OH (1975) Genetic resources survey as a basis for exploration. In: Frankel OH, Hawkes JG (eds) In Crop genetic resources for today and tomorrow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 99–109Google Scholar
  14. Freiman A, Shlizerman L, Golobovitch S, Yablovitz Z, Korchinsky R, Cohen Y, Samach A, Chevreau E, Le Roux PM, Patocchi A, Flaishman MA (2012) Development of a transgenic early flowering pear (Pyrus communis L.) genotype by RNAi silencing of PcTFL1-1 and PcTFL1-2. Planta 235:1239–1251CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Frey JE, Frey B, Sauer C, Kellerhals M (2004) Efficient low-cost DNA extraction and multiplex fluorescent PCR method for marker-assisted selection in breeding. Plant Breed 123:554–557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galbraith DW, Harkins KR, Maddox JM, Ayres NM, Sharma DP, Firoozabady E (1983) Rapid flow cytometric analysis of the cell cycle in intact plant tissues. Science 220:1049–1051CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Gasi F, Kurtovica M, Kalamujicb B, Pojskicb N, Grahica J, Kaiserc C, Melandd M (2013) Assessment of European pear (Pyrus communis L.) genetic resources in Bosnia and Herzegovina using microsatellite markers. Sci Hortic 157:74–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Katayama H, Uematsu C (2003) Comperative analysis of chloroplast DNA in Pyrus species: physical map and gene localization. Theor Appl Genet 1006:303–310Google Scholar
  19. Le Roux P-MF, Christen D, Duffy B, Tartarini S, Dondini L, Yamamoto T, Nishitani C, Terakami S, Lespinasse Y, Kellerhals M, Patocchi A (2012) Redefinition of the map position and validation of a major quantitative trait locus for fire blight resistance of the pear cultivar ‘Harrow Sweet’ (Pyrus communis L.). Plant Breed 131:656–664CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Monte-Corvo L, Cabrita L, Oliveira C, Leitaõ J (2000) Assessment of genetic relationships among Pyrus species and cultivars using AFLP and RAPD markers. Genet Res Crop Evol 47:57–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nishitani C, Terakami S, Sawamura Y, Takada N, Yamamoto T (2009) Development of novel EST-SSR markers derived from Japanese pear (Pyrus pyrifolia). Breed Sci 59:391–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oliveira CM, Mota M, Monte-Corvo L, Goulaõ L, Silva DM (1999) Molecular typing of Pyrus based on RAPD markers. Sci Hortic 79:163–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Potter D, Eriksson T, Evans RC, Oh S, Smedmark J, Morgan DR, Kerr M, Robertson KR, Arsenault M, Dickinson TA, Campbell CS (2007) Phylogeny and classification of Rosaceae. Plant Sys Evol 266:5–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rubzov GA (1944) Geographical distribution of the genus Pyrus and trends and factors in its evolution. Chic Am Nat 78:358–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sehic J, Garkava-Gustavsson L, Fernández-Fernández F, Nybom H (2012) Genetic diversity in a collection of European pear (Pyrus communis) cultivars determined with SSR markers chosen by ECPGR. Sci Hortic 145:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Terakami S, Adachi Y, Iketani H, Sato Y, Sawamura Y, Takada N, Nishitani C, Yamamoto T (2007) Genetic mapping of genes for susceptibility to black spot disease in Japanese pears. Genome 50:735–741CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wöhner TW, Flachowsky H, Richter K, Garcia-Libreros T, Trognitz F, Hanke M-V, Peil A (2014) QTL mapping of fire blight resistance in Malus × robusta 5 after inoculation with different strains of Erwinia amylovora. Mol Breed 34:217–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zeven AC, Zhukovsky PM (1975) Dictionary of cultivated plants and their centres of diversity. Centre for Agricultural Publishing and Documentation, Wageningen, pp 9–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Melinda Puskás
    • 1
    • 2
  • Monika Höfer
    • 1
  • Radu Emil Sestraş
    • 2
  • Andreas Peil
    • 1
  • Adriana Florina Sestraş
    • 2
    • 3
  • Magda-Viola Hanke
    • 1
  • Henryk Flachowsky
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Breeding Research on Fruit Crops, Federal Research Centre for Cultivated PlantsJulius Kühn-InstituteDresdenGermany
  2. 2.Genetics and Plant BreedingUniversity of Agricultural Sciences and Veterinary Medicine Cluj-NapocaCluj-NapocaRomania
  3. 3.Fruit Research StationCluj-NapocaRomania

Personalised recommendations