Plant Molecular Biology Reporter

, Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 145–153 | Cite as

Isolation and Characterization of Microsatellite Markers for Viola websteri (Violaceae) and Cross-Species Amplification within the Genus Viola

  • Jong-Soo Kang
  • Xianchun Zhang
  • Myounghai Kwak
Original Paper


We isolated and characterized microsatellite loci in Viola websteri (Violaceae), an endangered species from Korea and endemic to Northeast Asia. A total of 27 microsatellite loci were developed and tested in Korean and Chinese populations. The number of alleles per locus varied from two to eight. The observed and expected heterozygosities within two populations were 0.000 to 1.000 and 0.080 to 0.816, respectively. Korean and Chinese populations were clearly distinguished by the private alleles from 16 loci. A total of 21 loci out of the 27 developed loci were successfully cross-amplified in 39 other Viola species. We believe that these microsatellite loci will be useful for future studies on genetic diversity and population structure of V. websteri, as well as other Viola species.


Viola websteri Viola Microsatellites Cross-amplification Transferability 



This work was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Biological Resources (NIBR), funded by the Ministry of Environment (MOE) of the Republic of Korea (NIBR201503102) under a memorandum of understanding on cooperation for biological research between NIBR and Institute of Botany of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, People’s Republic of China. The authors thank Changgun Lim, Hyosig Won, and Jina Lim for their help collecting the samples and the two anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.

Supplementary material

11105_2016_1011_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (12 kb)
ESM 1 The fragment sizes of the distinguishable loci in both populations. (XLSX 12 kb)


  1. Allendorf FW, Luikart G, Aitken SN (2013) Conservation and the genetics of populations. Willey-Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Barbara T, Palma-Silva C, Paggi GM, Bered F, Fay MF, Lexer C (2007) Cross-species transfer of nuclear microsatellite markers: potential and limitations. Mol Ecol 16:3759–3767CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bhawna M, Abdin Z, Arya L, Verma M (2015) Transferability of cucumber microsatellite markers used for phylogenetic analysis and population structure study in bottle gourd (Lagenaria siceraria (Mol.) Standl.). Appl Biochem Biotechnol 175:2206–2223CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Celik M, Wegnez J, Griveau C, Lambourdière J, Utge J, Noël F, Abdelkrim J, Machon N (2015) Development of microsatellite primers in the protected species Viola elatior (Violaceae) using next-generation sequencing. Appl Plant Sci 3(5):1500011Google Scholar
  5. Chen YS, Yang QN, Ohba H, Nikitin VV (2007) Violaceae. In: Wu ZY, Raven PH, Hong DY (eds) Flora of China, vol 13Google Scholar
  6. Cota LG, Moreira PA, Menezes EV, Gomes AS, Ericsson AR, Oliveira DA, Melo AF (2012) Transferability and characterization of simple sequence repeat markers from Anacardium occidentale to A. humile (Anacardiaceae). Genet Mol Res 11:4609–4616CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Csencsics D, Brodbeck S, Holderegger R (2010) Cost-effective, species-specific microsatellite development for the endangered dwarf bulrush (Typha minima) using next-generation sequencing technology. J Hered 101:789–793CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cui XM, Dong YX, Hou XL, Cheng Y, Jing JY, Jin MF (2008) Development and characterization of microsatellite markers in Brassica rapa ssp. chinensis and transferability among related species. Agric Sci China 7:19–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Culley TM (2005) Characterization of newly developed microsatellite loci in the stemmed yellow violet, Viola pubescens (Violaceae). Mol Ecol Notes 5:882–884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dewoody J, Nason JD, Hipkins VD (2006) Mitigating scoring errors in microsatellite data from wild populations. Mol Ecol Notes 6:951–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Echt CS, Vendramin GG, Nelson CD, Marquardt P (1999) Microsatellite DNA as shared genetic markers among conifer species. Can J For Res 29:365–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ellstrand NC, Elam DR (1993) Population genetic consequences of small population size; Implication for plant conservation. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 24:217–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fan L, Zhang MY, Liu QZ, Li LT, Song Y, Wang LF, Zhang SL, Wu J (2013) Transferability of newly developed pear SSR markers to other Rosaceae species. Plant Mol Biol Report 31(6):1271–1282CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Finger A, Charlotte K (2010) Molecular methods: blessing or curse? In: Habel JC, Assmann T (eds) Relic species: phylogeography and conservation biology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 309–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gaudeul M, Taberlet P, Till-Bottraud I (2000) Genetic diversity in an endangered alpine plant, Eryngium alpinum L. (Apiaceae), inferred from amplified fragment length polymorphism markers. Mol Ecol 9:1627–1637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Godt MJW, Caplow F, Hamrick JL (2005) Allozyme diversity in the federally threatened golden paintbrush, Castilleja levisecta (Scrophulariaceae). Conserv Genet 6:87–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall T (1999) BioEdit: a user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symp Ser 41:95–98Google Scholar
  18. Hama E (2002) The wild violets of Japan in color. Sungmoondang, TokyoGoogle Scholar
  19. Hansen OK, Vendramin GG, Sebastiani F, Edwards J (2005) Development of microsatellite markers in Abies nordmanniana (Stev.) Spach and cross-species amplification in the Abies genus. Mol Ecol Notes 5:784–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hashimoto T (1967) The violets of Japan. Sungmoondang, Tokyo, p 153Google Scholar
  21. Huang Y, Zhang CQ, Li DZ (2009) Low genetic diversity and high genetic differentiation in the critically endangered Omphalogramma souliei (Primulaceae): implications for its conservation. J Syst Evol 47:103–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jang SK, Cheon KS, Kim KA, Jang JH, Yoo KO (2010) Ecological characteristics of Viola websteri Hemsley habitats. Korean J Plant Res 23:261–273 (in Korean)Google Scholar
  23. Komarov VL (1905) Flora Manshuriae. vol III. Petropoli, Russia, pp 69–70Google Scholar
  24. Lee WT, Yoo KO (2007) Violaceae. In: Park CW (ed) The genera of vascular plants of Korea. Academy Publishing Company, Seoul, pp 393–402Google Scholar
  25. Liu SR, Li WY, Long D, Hu CG, Zhang JZ (2013) Development and characterization of genomic and expressed SSRs in Citrus by genome-wide analysis. PLoS One 8(10):e75149CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. Mantello CC, Suzuki FI, Souza LM, Goncalves PS, Souza AP (2012) Microsatellite marker development for the rubber tree (Hevea brasiliensis): characterization and cross-amplification in wild Hevea species. BMC Res Notes 5:329CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Mathithumilan B, Kadam NN, Biradar J, Reddy SH, Ankaiah M, Narayanan MJ, Makarla U, Khurana P, Sreeman SM (2013) Development and characterization of microsatellite markers for Morus spp. and assessment of their transferability to other closely related species. BMC Plant Biol 13:194CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Meirmans PG, Hedrick PW (2011) Assessing population structure: F st and related measures. Mol Ecol Resour 11:5–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ministry of Environment (2012) Red Data Book 5 Vascular Plant, National Institute of Biological Resources, Incheon (in Korean)Google Scholar
  30. Palibin J (1899) Acta Horti Petropolitani. Petropoli, Russia. 17:36Google Scholar
  31. Palsbøll PJ, Bérubé M, Allendort FW (2007) Identification of management units using population genetic data. Trends Ecol Evol 22:11–16CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Park YJ (2004) Genetic variation of four Viola species in Korea. Korea University, Seoul, Master Dissertation (in Korean)Google Scholar
  33. Parker PG, Snow AA, Schug MD, Booton GC, Fuerst PA (1998) What molecules can tell us about populations: choosing and using a molecular marker. Ecology 79:361–382Google Scholar
  34. Pekall R, Smouse PE (2012) GenAlEx 6.5: genetic analysis in Excel. Population genetic software for teaching and research—an update. Bioinformatics 28:2537–2539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Primack RB (2004) A primer of conservation biology, 3rd edn. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MassachusettsGoogle Scholar
  36. Rai MK, Phulwaria M, Shekhawat NS (2013) Transferability of simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers developed in guava (Psidium guajava L.) to four Myrtaceae species. Mol Bio Rep 40:5067–5071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rasmussen KK, Kollmann J (2008) Low genetic diversity in small peripheral population of a rare European tree (Sorbus torminalis) dominated by clonal reproduction. Conserv Genet 9:1533–1539CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roa AC, Chavarriaga-Aguirre P, Duque MC, Maya MM, Bonierbale MW, Iglesias C, Tohme J (2000) Cross-species amplification of cassava (Manihot esculenta) (Euphorbiaceae) microsatellites: allelic polymorphism and degree of relationship. Am J Bot 87:1647–1655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Schwartz MK, Luikart G, Waples S (2007) Genetic monitoring as a promising tool for conservation and management. Trends Ecol Evol 22:25–33CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Song JM, Lee GY, Kim NY, Yi JS (2010) Vegetation structure and site environment of natural habitat of an endangered plant, Viola websteri. J Korean For Soc 99:267–276 (in Korean)Google Scholar
  41. Tero N, Aspi J, Siikamäki P, Jäkäläniemi A, Tuomi J (2003) Genetic structure and gene flow in a metapopulation of an endangered plant species, Silene tatarica. Mol Ecol 12:2073–2085CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Untergrasser A, Cutcutache I, Koressaar T, Ye J, Faircloth B, Remm M, Rozen S (2012) Primer3 – new capabilities and interfaces. Nucleic Acids Res 40:e115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Ooosterhout C, Hutchinson WF, Wills DPM, Shipley P (2004) MICRO-CHECKER: software for identifying and correcting genotyping errors in microsatellite data. Mol Ecol Notes 4:535–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Xiao LQ, Ge XJ, Gong X, Hao G, Zheng SX (2004) ISSR variation in the endemic and endangered plant Cycas guizhouensis (Cycadaceae). Ann Bot 94:133–138CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. Yoo KO, Jang SK (2010) Infrageneric relationships of Korean Viola based on eight chloroplast markers. J Syst Evol 48:474–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Yoo KO, Kim JH (2006) Analysis of taxonomic relationships of Korean Viola based on trnL-trnF region sequences of chloroplast DNA. Flower Res J 14(3):232–240 (in Korean)Google Scholar
  47. Yoo KO, Jang SK, Lee WT (2005) Phylogeny of Korean Viola based on ITS sequences. Korean J Plant Taxon 35:7–23 (in Korean)Google Scholar
  48. Yoo KO, Jang SK, Lee WT (2007) Phylogenetic relationships of Korean Viola (Violaceae) based on matK and atpB-rbcL sequence data of chloroplast DNA. Korean J Plant Taxon 37:1–15 (in Korean)Google Scholar
  49. Young A, Boyle T, Brown T (1996) The population genetic consequences of habitat fragmentation for plants. Trends Ecol Evol 11:413–418CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Yu JN, Won C, Jun J, Lim YW, Kwak M (2011) Fast and cost-effective mining of microsatellite markers using NGS technology: an example of a Korean water hydropotes inermis argyropus. PLoS One 6:e26933CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Zalapa JE, Cuevas H, Zhu H, Steffan S, Senalik D, Zeldin E, McCown B, Harbut R, Simon P (2012) Using next-generation sequencing approaches to isolate simple sequence repeat (SSR) loci in the plant sciences. Am J Bot 99:193–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhang ZY, Han JW, Jin Q, Wang Y, Pang XM, Li YY (2013) Development and characterization of new microsatellites for walnut (Juglans regia). Genet Mol Res 12(4):4723–4734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plant Resources Division, National Institute of Biological ResourcesIncheonKorea
  2. 2.State Key Laboratory of Systematic and Evolutionary Botany, Institute of Botany, Chinese Academy of SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations