Agro-morphological and Genotypic Diversity of some Local Egyptian Teosinte (Zea mexicana) Genotypes
Asian Journal of Agriculture and Allied Sciences, Volume 6, Issue 1,
Page 1-19
Abstract
Assessment of genotypic and phenotypic diversity is one of the principal and essential steps in plant breeding programs to assess variability among available teosinte genotypes along with Sequence-Related Amplified Polymorphism (SRAP) marker analysis as tools for future improvement and use in future maize teosinte hybrids The present study was carried out at Sakha Agricultural Research Station in the summer 2019 and 2020 seasons. Four summer forage crops of teosinte genotypes namely, Teosinte Sakha, T. Gemmiza 4, T. Baladey and T.Early, were evaluated for fresh and dry forage yield and some traits. Three cuts were taken from four genotypes. Mean values of forage crops genotypes revealed highly significant differences. T. Early had the highest fresh and dry forage yields at the three cuts and total over the two seasons which had 41.50, 78.56, 52.50 and 172.56 kg/plot for fresh and 5.03, 9.79, 8.40 and 32.22 for dry yield, respectively followed by T. Gemmiza 4 and Teosinte Sakha. Also, the highest mean values for plant height cm was T. Early which had 110.13, 155.25 and 107.38 cm followed by T. Gemmiza 4 which had 102.88, 146.63 and 99.38 cm for first, second and third cut ,respectively. The same trend for stem diameter cm where, the highest mean values were T. Early and T. Gemmiza 4. Meanwhile, the highest means for crude protein% was T. Baladey which had 13.35%, 11.89% and10.88% followed by T. Sakha which had 12.84%,12.49 %and 11.08% for first ,second and third cut, respectively. While, the highest means for crude fiber % was T. Early which had 32.89%, 33.63% and 34.44% followed by T. Gemmiza which had 32.23%, 32.33% and 34.05% for first, second and third cut, respectively. Ten SRAP combination primers were used, highest polymorphism (80 %) was found by primer (me5+em3), and lowest polymorphism (33.3%) was found by primer me1+ em3. Polymorphic information content (PIC) values were evaluated to assess the genetic diversity of ten selected primers were ranged from 0.28 % related to primer combination me2+em6 to highest PIC was 0.39%, which was related to primer combination me1+em4 indicating that this primer is highly informative. The dendrogram of SRAP markers had clustered all available teosinte genotypes into two major clusters include the closest genotypes together. SRAP markers confirm that there were highly genetic information differences among all the four teosinte genotypes which are useful for their utilization in further breeding programs for maize teosinte hybrids.
Keywords:
- Teosinte genotypes
- fresh forage
- crude protein%
- crude fiber %
- genetic parameters
- correlation
- SRAP markers
How to Cite
El-Nahrawy, S. M., El-Gaafarey, T. G., Mariey, S. A., & Rady, A. M. S. (2023). Agro-morphological and Genotypic Diversity of some Local Egyptian Teosinte (Zea mexicana) Genotypes. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Allied Sciences, 6(1), 1–19. Retrieved from https://ikppress.org/index.php/AJAAS/article/view/8124
References
Matsuoka Y, Vigouroux Y, Goodman MM, Sanchez GJ, Buckler E, Doebly J. A single domestication for maize shown bz multilocus micro stellite genotyping Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA. 2002;99:6000-6084.
Seadh TSE, Abido1 WAE, Aboelgoud SA, Kamel MM. The effects of planting date and cutting time on teosinte productivity under soil salinity. J. of Plant Production Mansoura Univ. 2022;12:219-223.
Ducroeq S, Madur D, veyrieras JB, Camus- Kulandivelu L, Kloibermaitz M, Presterl T, Ouzunova M, Manicacci D, Charcosset A. Key impact of Vgtl on flowering time adaptation in maize: evidence from association mapping and ecogeographical information. Genetics. 2008;178:2433-2437.
Yamasaki M, Tenaillon Bi MI., Vroch L, Schroeder SG, Sanchez - Villeda H, Doebly JF, Gaut BS, Mc. Mullen MD. Alarge scale screen for artificial selection in maize identifieds candidate agronomic loci for domestication and crop improvement. Plant Cell. 2005;17:2859-2872.
Devkota NR, Pokharel P, Paudel LN. Perfo rmance of teosinte (Euchlaena mexicana) as a promising summer-forage crop with respect to location and sowing dates considering the scenario of possible climate change in Nepal. Nepal J Agric Sci. 2015;13:131–141.
Doebley J, Stec A, Gustus C. Teosinte branched 1 and origin of maize: evidence for epistasis and the evolution of dominance. Genetics. 1995;141:333-346.
Doebley J. The genetics of maize evolution. Ammu. Rev. Genet. 2004;38: 37-59.
Radwan MS, Taha RS, Rammah AM, Ibrahim H.L. Astudz of variation and combining abilitz among exotic and lical teosinte accessions. Egyp J. Plant Breed. 2000;4:189-200.
Radwan K, Zayed EM. Genetic variations in some Egyptian zea maxicana genotypes based on RAPD and AFLP markers Journal of Bio Science and Applied RESEARCH. 2021;7:77-92.
Sharawy WM, Ibrahim HEM, EL- Fiky ZA. Phy 10genetic relationships among teosinte maize and its hybrids. Egy. J. of Gen. and Cyt. 2011;40 :129-144.
Hyten DL, Song Q, Zhu Y, Choi IY, Nelson RL, Costa JM, Specht JE, Shoemaker RC, Cregan PB. Impact of genetic bottlenecks on soybean genome diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006;103: 16666-16671.
Tang T, Lu J, Hung J, He J, Mc- Couch SR, Shen Y, Ka Z, Purugganan MD, Shi S, Wu CI. Genomic variation in rice: genesis of highlypolymorphic linkage blocksduring domestication. PloS Gene. 2006;2: 199.
Ismail NA, Rafii MY, Mahmud TMM, Hanafi MM, Miah G. Molecular markers: a potential resource for ginger genetic diversity studies. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2016;43:1347–1358.
Li G, Quiros CF. Sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) a new marker system based on a simple PCR reaction its application to mapping and gene tagging in Brassica. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2001; 103:455–461.
Wang X, Liu G, Chang R, Han J, Guo E. Optimization of annealing temperature of SRAP-PCR in 5 temperate fruits. Genom. Appli. Biol. 2009;28:525-528.
Yang P, Liu X, Liu X, Yang W, Feng Z. Diversity analysis of the developed qingke (hull-less barley) cultivars representing different growing regions of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau in China using sequence related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) markers. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2010;9:8530-8538.
Mareiy A, Samah Mona AM, El-Mansoury, Maha A El-Bialy. Genetic diversity study of egyptian barley cultivars using sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) analysis for water stress tolerance. J. Sus. Agric .Sci. 2018;44:21 – 37.
Mariey A. Samah, Ahmed KR, Agwa AME, Farid MA, Serag AM. Biochemical and molecular genetic markers associated with salt stress tolerance in Egyptian Barley cultivars. Egypt. J. Plant Breed. 2019;23:183-19 .
Mariey A. Samah 1 Mohamed N Eman Ghareeb E. Zeinab, Abo Zaher S. Engy. Genetic diversity of egyptian barley using agro–physiological traits grain quality and molecular markers. Current Science International. 2021;10 :58-60.
Diyar AA, Nawroz AT, Sirwan HS, Reza T. Genome diversity and population structure analysis of Iranian landrace and improved barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes using arbitrary functional gene-based molecular markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2021;68:1045–1060.
El-Sherbeny GAR, Bahaa A, Z, Abdelsabour GAK, Hovny MRA. Morphological – SRAP Molecular markers association in grain sorghum genotypes. International Journal of Agriculture and Agribusiness. 2019;2: 7 – 18.
Jinwang Li, Chen QL, Chen P, Li OJ, Lv JP, Duan XF, Luo F, Gao JM, Sun SJ, Pei ZY. SRAP molecular marker of sugar content and juice yield in sweet sorghum Molecular Plant Breeding. 2018;9:1-7.
Doyle JJ, Doyle JL. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Focus. 1990;12: 13-15.
Bartlett MS. Properties of sufficiency and statistical test. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 1937;160: 268-282.
Al-Jibauri HA, Millar A, Robinson HF. Genetic and environmental variance in upland cotton crosses of interspecific origin. Agron. J. 1958;50: 633-637.
Burton GW. Quantitative inheritance in grasses. Proceedings of 6th International Grassland Congress. 1952;1: 277-283.
Hanson GH, Robinson HF, Comstock RE. Biometrical studies on yield in segregating population of Korean lespedeza. Agro. J. 1956;48:268-274.
Yan W, Rajcan I. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci. 2002; 42: 11-20.
Metsalu T, Vilo J. Clust Vis. A web tool for visualizing clustering of multivariate data using Principal Component Analysis and heat map. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:566.
Nei M, Li WH. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 1979;76:5269–5273.
Anderson JA, Churchill GA, Autrique GA, Tanksley JE, M. E. Optimizing parental selection for genetic linkage maps. Genome. 1993;36:181–186.
Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. PAST Paleontological statistics software package for education and results analysis Palaeontologia Electronica. 2001;4: 1-9.
Eman A. Fayed, Sh. A. Abo El-Goud, El-Shimaa EI. Mostafa. Agromorphologic characterization and molecular markers of some teosinte (Zea mexicana) genotypes. J. of Plant Production Mansoura Univ. 2020;11:755-760.
Abd El-Maksoud MM, El-AdI AM, Rammah A, Sakr HO. Diallal analysis over Two Locations for fodder yield components in teosinte. Proceeding of the 26th annual meeting of GeneticAlex. 1998;29-30 Spt:317-329.
Wright SI, Vroh BI, Schroeder SG. Yamasaki M, Doebley SJF, Mc Mulleu MD, Gaust BS. The effects of artificial selection on the maize genome. Science. 2005;3.8:1310- 1314.
EL-Gaafarey TG, Shereen M. EL – Nahrawy Hend E. Habeba, Rady HY. Genotypic and environmental interaction effect on forage yield and its related traits of some teosinte genotypes. Proceedings The 11 th International Plant Breeding Conference17-18 October Egypt. J. Plant Breed; 2017.
Amarjeet Kumar N. K. Singh Sneha Adhikari, Anjali Joshi. Morphological and molecular characterization of teosinte derived maize population. Indian J. Genet. 2019;79(4):670-677.
Ebrahim ME. Studies on some summer forage crops. M. Sc. Thesis Fac. Agric, Menoufia Univ; 1982.
Abd ElAziz T. Bondok; Walaa M.E. Mousa; Asmaa M.S. Rady, Khalil M. Saad-Allah. Phenotypical physiological and molecular assessment of drought tolerance of five Egyptian teosinte genotypes. Journal of Plant Interactions. 2022;17:656–673.
Ibrahim HIM, Sharawy WM, Helmy AA. Heterosis correlation and path coefficient analysis for forage yield and its contributing traits of maize x teosinte hybrids in two seasons. J. Plant Production Mansoura Univ. 2011;2:837 – 849.
Allison L, Weber William H, Briggs Jesse Rucker Baltazar M, Baltazar José de Jesús Sánchez-Gonzalez Ping Feng Edward S, Buckler, John -Doebley. The genetic architecture of complex traits in teosinte (Zea mays ssp. parviglumis): New evidence from association mapping. 2008;180: 1221–1232.
Allard RW, Bradshaw AD. Implications of genotype x environment interactions in applied plant breeding. Crop Sci. 1964;4:503-507.
Stephanie E, Silva-Fernández Silverio García-Lara Sergio O. Serna-Saldívar. Physicochemical characterization of the anatomical structures of teosinte (Zea mays subsp. mexicana) covered caryopses. Journal of Cereal Science. 2022;103.
Varalakshmi S, Narendra Kumar Singh, Navneet Pareek, Senthilkumar V. Augmenting protein biofortification in maize using teosinte (Zea mays ssp. parviglumis); 2022.
Gill AS, Sundberg BD. Forage production potential of maiz enetc teosinte and maize. Agric . Sci. Digest. 1985;5:44-45.
Shich GJ, Hungshung LLU. Studies on the tillering ratooning ability and some agronomic characteristics in maize teosinte and their hybrids. J. Agric. Res. of China. 1995;44: 93-100.
Abd EL- Maksoud MM, AM. EL- Adl A. Rammah, Sakr HO. Diallel analysis over two locations for fodder yield components in teosinte. Proceeding of the 26th annual meeting of genetics Alex. 1998;29-30 sept:317-329.
Abd EL- Maksoud MM, Abd El- Haliem AZ, Sakr HO. Evaluation of some promising teosinte hybrids and their genetic behavior for fodder yield. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 2004;29:97-111.
Habiba H, Abd El Aziz. T. Bondok, Abdel-Aal MS. Evaluation of some promising teosinte genotypes for morphological and genetic parameters under Egyptian conditions. Alex. Science Exchange J. 2018;39: 307-332.
Aulicino MB, Magoja. Variability and heterosis of maize Balsas teosinte and maize –Guatemala teosinte hybrids maize.Genetics cooperation News Letter. 1991;65: 43-44.
Samuel JL, Ziki EMI, Zeidan AYA, El-Banna, Omar AEA. growth and forage yield of pearl millet as influenced by cutting date and nitrogen fertilization. Zagazig J. Agric. Res. 2019;46 :1351- 1361.
Annamalai R, Aananthi N, Arumugam Pillai M, Leninraja D. Assessment of Variability and Character Association in Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.,. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2020;9: 3247-3259.
Sathya MN, Kumari Vinodhana, Sumathi P. Hierarchial clustering of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br) inbreds for morpho-physiological traits. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2013;2:647-652.
Assaeed AM. Evaluation of some forage sorghum varieties under the condition of central region Saudi Arabia. Annal agric Sci, Ain shams Univ, Cairo. 1994;39 (2) 649-654.
Abdel-Twab FM, Rashed. Esterase peroxidase and Catalase Isozyme Polymorohism in zeateosinte and sorghum form different origins. Egypt. Genet Cytol. 1985;14:274-281.
Anne Lorant Sarah, Pedersen Irene, Holst Matthew B. Hufford, Klaus Winter Dolores Piperno, Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra. The Potential Role of Genetic Assimilation during Maize Domestication; 2017.
Johanson HW, Robinson HF, Comstock RE. Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans. Agron. J. 1955;47:314- 318.
Bakheit BR. Genetic variability genotypic and phenotypic correlations and path –coefficient analysis in Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.). Crops Sci. 1986;15758-63.
Chaudhuri AP, Prasad. Maize teosinte hybrid for fodder. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 1969;39(6):467-472.
Tarrad MM, Rizkr RM, Aly SH, Zayed EM. Evalution of some teosinte Genotypes under Egyptian conditions. Egypt. J. Agric. Res. 2010;88(1):265- 281.
Rady HY. Genotypic and environmental interaction effects on forage yield and its related traits of some summer forage crops. J. Plant Production Mansoura Univ. 2018;9 :815 – 820.
Smith JSC, Goodman MM, Stuber CW. Variation within teosinte III-Numerical analysis of allozyme data Economic Botany. 1984;38:97-113.
Iyanar K, Vijaykumar G, Khan AKF. Correlation and path analysis in multicut fodder sorghum. Elect. J. Plant Breed. 2010;1:1006-1009.
Singh NK, Kumar A, Chandra H, Pal K, Verma SS. Enhancement of maize allelie diversity using wild relative teosint (Zea mays spp parviglumis). Indian J. Plant genatic. Resour. 2017;30(3):253-257.
Geary J, Bubela T. Governance of a global genetic resource commons for non-commercial research: A case-study of the DNA barcode commons. International Journal of the Commons. 2019;13:205–243..
Kate M, Evans Kate M, Evans Brutcher, Lisa Konishi Bonnie. Implementation of bar-code technology in a tree fruit breeding program. American Society for Horticultural Science. 2012;47:149.
Khatab Ismael A, El-Mouhamady AA, Abdel-Rahman HM, Mona A, Farid, El Demardash IS. Agro-morphological and molecular characterization of sorghum (Sorghum vulgare L.) for water stress tolerance. Int. J. Curr. Res. Biosci. Plant Biol. 2017;4(1):37-55.
Kress WJ. Plant DNA barcodes: Applications today and in the future. Jnl of Sytematics Evolution. 2017;55:291-307.
Liang S, Lin F, Qian Y. A cost-effective barcode system for maize genetic discrimination based on bi-allelic InDel markers. Plant Methods. 2020;16:101.
Ude G, Igwe D, McCormick J, Ozokonkwo-Alor O, Harper J, Ballah D, Aninweze C, Chosen O, Okoro M, Ene C, Chieze V, Unachukwu M, Onyia C, Acquaah G, Ogbonna J, Das A. Genetic diversity and dna barcoding of yam accessions from Southern Nigeria. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2019; 10:179-207.
Zeinalabedini M, Khoshkholgh Sima NA, Ghaffari MR, Ebadi A, Farsi M. Application of DNA barcodes and spatial analysis in conservation genetics and modeling of Iranian Salicornia genetic resources. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):0241162.
Ampatzidis YG, Vougioukas SG. Field experiments for evaluating the incorporation of RFID and barcode registration and digital weighing technologies in manual fruit harvesting Comput. Electron. Agr. 2009;66:166- 172.
Angers-Loustau A, Petrillo M, Paracchini V, Kagkli DM, Rischitor PE, Puertas Gallardo A et al. Towards plant species identification in complex samples: a bioinformatics pipeline for the identification of novel nuclear barcode candidates. PLoS ONE.2016;11(1).
Prasanna BM. Diversity in global maize germplasm: Characterization and utilization. J. Biosci. 2012;37: 843-855
Sanchez GJJLL, Cruz MVA, Dala vidal PJ, Ron S, Taba RF, Santacruz S, Sood JB, Holland CJA, Ruiz S, Carvajal CF, Aragon TVH, Charez RMM, Morales G, Alez R. Barbra. Three new teosinte (Zea spp, poaceae) from Mexico. Am. J. Of Bot. 2011;89(9):1537.
Selvaraj D, Park JI, Chung MY, Cho YG, Ramalingam S, Nou IS. Utility of DNA barcoding for plant biodiversity conservation. Plant Breed. Biotech. 2013;1:320-332.
Annor B, Badu-Apraku B, Nyadanu D, Akromah R, Fakorede MAB. Identifying heterotic groups and testers for hybrid development in early maturing yellow maize (Zea mays) for sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Breed. 2020;139:708– 716.
Bracaccia G, Margherita L, Martino C. DNA barcoding as a mokcular tool to track down mislabeling and food piracy. Div. 2016;8: 1-16.
Cheng Mingjun TANG QILIN, Muhammad Zafar Iqbal. DNA barcodes screening and phyletic classification of genus zea. Authorea. 2020;Februa 27. DOI:http://doi.org/10.22541/au.158282381.17369744
Mariey SA, Ghareeb ZE, Shahein AMEA, Meleha AMI, Gomaa HA, Rady AMS, Khatab IA. Genetic Diversity analysis among some Barley genotypes using Multivariable and Molecular Markers under different levels of soil salinity stress. Asian Journal of Plant and Soil Sciences. 2022;7(1):219-236.
Seadh TSE, Abido1 WAE, Aboelgoud SA, Kamel MM. The effects of planting date and cutting time on teosinte productivity under soil salinity. J. of Plant Production Mansoura Univ. 2022;12:219-223.
Ducroeq S, Madur D, veyrieras JB, Camus- Kulandivelu L, Kloibermaitz M, Presterl T, Ouzunova M, Manicacci D, Charcosset A. Key impact of Vgtl on flowering time adaptation in maize: evidence from association mapping and ecogeographical information. Genetics. 2008;178:2433-2437.
Yamasaki M, Tenaillon Bi MI., Vroch L, Schroeder SG, Sanchez - Villeda H, Doebly JF, Gaut BS, Mc. Mullen MD. Alarge scale screen for artificial selection in maize identifieds candidate agronomic loci for domestication and crop improvement. Plant Cell. 2005;17:2859-2872.
Devkota NR, Pokharel P, Paudel LN. Perfo rmance of teosinte (Euchlaena mexicana) as a promising summer-forage crop with respect to location and sowing dates considering the scenario of possible climate change in Nepal. Nepal J Agric Sci. 2015;13:131–141.
Doebley J, Stec A, Gustus C. Teosinte branched 1 and origin of maize: evidence for epistasis and the evolution of dominance. Genetics. 1995;141:333-346.
Doebley J. The genetics of maize evolution. Ammu. Rev. Genet. 2004;38: 37-59.
Radwan MS, Taha RS, Rammah AM, Ibrahim H.L. Astudz of variation and combining abilitz among exotic and lical teosinte accessions. Egyp J. Plant Breed. 2000;4:189-200.
Radwan K, Zayed EM. Genetic variations in some Egyptian zea maxicana genotypes based on RAPD and AFLP markers Journal of Bio Science and Applied RESEARCH. 2021;7:77-92.
Sharawy WM, Ibrahim HEM, EL- Fiky ZA. Phy 10genetic relationships among teosinte maize and its hybrids. Egy. J. of Gen. and Cyt. 2011;40 :129-144.
Hyten DL, Song Q, Zhu Y, Choi IY, Nelson RL, Costa JM, Specht JE, Shoemaker RC, Cregan PB. Impact of genetic bottlenecks on soybean genome diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2006;103: 16666-16671.
Tang T, Lu J, Hung J, He J, Mc- Couch SR, Shen Y, Ka Z, Purugganan MD, Shi S, Wu CI. Genomic variation in rice: genesis of highlypolymorphic linkage blocksduring domestication. PloS Gene. 2006;2: 199.
Ismail NA, Rafii MY, Mahmud TMM, Hanafi MM, Miah G. Molecular markers: a potential resource for ginger genetic diversity studies. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2016;43:1347–1358.
Li G, Quiros CF. Sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) a new marker system based on a simple PCR reaction its application to mapping and gene tagging in Brassica. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2001; 103:455–461.
Wang X, Liu G, Chang R, Han J, Guo E. Optimization of annealing temperature of SRAP-PCR in 5 temperate fruits. Genom. Appli. Biol. 2009;28:525-528.
Yang P, Liu X, Liu X, Yang W, Feng Z. Diversity analysis of the developed qingke (hull-less barley) cultivars representing different growing regions of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau in China using sequence related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) markers. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2010;9:8530-8538.
Mareiy A, Samah Mona AM, El-Mansoury, Maha A El-Bialy. Genetic diversity study of egyptian barley cultivars using sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) analysis for water stress tolerance. J. Sus. Agric .Sci. 2018;44:21 – 37.
Mariey A. Samah, Ahmed KR, Agwa AME, Farid MA, Serag AM. Biochemical and molecular genetic markers associated with salt stress tolerance in Egyptian Barley cultivars. Egypt. J. Plant Breed. 2019;23:183-19 .
Mariey A. Samah 1 Mohamed N Eman Ghareeb E. Zeinab, Abo Zaher S. Engy. Genetic diversity of egyptian barley using agro–physiological traits grain quality and molecular markers. Current Science International. 2021;10 :58-60.
Diyar AA, Nawroz AT, Sirwan HS, Reza T. Genome diversity and population structure analysis of Iranian landrace and improved barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes using arbitrary functional gene-based molecular markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol. 2021;68:1045–1060.
El-Sherbeny GAR, Bahaa A, Z, Abdelsabour GAK, Hovny MRA. Morphological – SRAP Molecular markers association in grain sorghum genotypes. International Journal of Agriculture and Agribusiness. 2019;2: 7 – 18.
Jinwang Li, Chen QL, Chen P, Li OJ, Lv JP, Duan XF, Luo F, Gao JM, Sun SJ, Pei ZY. SRAP molecular marker of sugar content and juice yield in sweet sorghum Molecular Plant Breeding. 2018;9:1-7.
Doyle JJ, Doyle JL. A rapid DNA isolation procedure for small quantities of fresh leaf tissue. Focus. 1990;12: 13-15.
Bartlett MS. Properties of sufficiency and statistical test. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. 1937;160: 268-282.
Al-Jibauri HA, Millar A, Robinson HF. Genetic and environmental variance in upland cotton crosses of interspecific origin. Agron. J. 1958;50: 633-637.
Burton GW. Quantitative inheritance in grasses. Proceedings of 6th International Grassland Congress. 1952;1: 277-283.
Hanson GH, Robinson HF, Comstock RE. Biometrical studies on yield in segregating population of Korean lespedeza. Agro. J. 1956;48:268-274.
Yan W, Rajcan I. Biplot analysis of test sites and trait relations of soybean in Ontario. Crop Sci. 2002; 42: 11-20.
Metsalu T, Vilo J. Clust Vis. A web tool for visualizing clustering of multivariate data using Principal Component Analysis and heat map. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015;43:566.
Nei M, Li WH. Mathematical model for studying genetic variation in terms of restriction endonucleases. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 1979;76:5269–5273.
Anderson JA, Churchill GA, Autrique GA, Tanksley JE, M. E. Optimizing parental selection for genetic linkage maps. Genome. 1993;36:181–186.
Hammer Ø, Harper DAT, Ryan PD. PAST Paleontological statistics software package for education and results analysis Palaeontologia Electronica. 2001;4: 1-9.
Eman A. Fayed, Sh. A. Abo El-Goud, El-Shimaa EI. Mostafa. Agromorphologic characterization and molecular markers of some teosinte (Zea mexicana) genotypes. J. of Plant Production Mansoura Univ. 2020;11:755-760.
Abd El-Maksoud MM, El-AdI AM, Rammah A, Sakr HO. Diallal analysis over Two Locations for fodder yield components in teosinte. Proceeding of the 26th annual meeting of GeneticAlex. 1998;29-30 Spt:317-329.
Wright SI, Vroh BI, Schroeder SG. Yamasaki M, Doebley SJF, Mc Mulleu MD, Gaust BS. The effects of artificial selection on the maize genome. Science. 2005;3.8:1310- 1314.
EL-Gaafarey TG, Shereen M. EL – Nahrawy Hend E. Habeba, Rady HY. Genotypic and environmental interaction effect on forage yield and its related traits of some teosinte genotypes. Proceedings The 11 th International Plant Breeding Conference17-18 October Egypt. J. Plant Breed; 2017.
Amarjeet Kumar N. K. Singh Sneha Adhikari, Anjali Joshi. Morphological and molecular characterization of teosinte derived maize population. Indian J. Genet. 2019;79(4):670-677.
Ebrahim ME. Studies on some summer forage crops. M. Sc. Thesis Fac. Agric, Menoufia Univ; 1982.
Abd ElAziz T. Bondok; Walaa M.E. Mousa; Asmaa M.S. Rady, Khalil M. Saad-Allah. Phenotypical physiological and molecular assessment of drought tolerance of five Egyptian teosinte genotypes. Journal of Plant Interactions. 2022;17:656–673.
Ibrahim HIM, Sharawy WM, Helmy AA. Heterosis correlation and path coefficient analysis for forage yield and its contributing traits of maize x teosinte hybrids in two seasons. J. Plant Production Mansoura Univ. 2011;2:837 – 849.
Allison L, Weber William H, Briggs Jesse Rucker Baltazar M, Baltazar José de Jesús Sánchez-Gonzalez Ping Feng Edward S, Buckler, John -Doebley. The genetic architecture of complex traits in teosinte (Zea mays ssp. parviglumis): New evidence from association mapping. 2008;180: 1221–1232.
Allard RW, Bradshaw AD. Implications of genotype x environment interactions in applied plant breeding. Crop Sci. 1964;4:503-507.
Stephanie E, Silva-Fernández Silverio García-Lara Sergio O. Serna-Saldívar. Physicochemical characterization of the anatomical structures of teosinte (Zea mays subsp. mexicana) covered caryopses. Journal of Cereal Science. 2022;103.
Varalakshmi S, Narendra Kumar Singh, Navneet Pareek, Senthilkumar V. Augmenting protein biofortification in maize using teosinte (Zea mays ssp. parviglumis); 2022.
Gill AS, Sundberg BD. Forage production potential of maiz enetc teosinte and maize. Agric . Sci. Digest. 1985;5:44-45.
Shich GJ, Hungshung LLU. Studies on the tillering ratooning ability and some agronomic characteristics in maize teosinte and their hybrids. J. Agric. Res. of China. 1995;44: 93-100.
Abd EL- Maksoud MM, AM. EL- Adl A. Rammah, Sakr HO. Diallel analysis over two locations for fodder yield components in teosinte. Proceeding of the 26th annual meeting of genetics Alex. 1998;29-30 sept:317-329.
Abd EL- Maksoud MM, Abd El- Haliem AZ, Sakr HO. Evaluation of some promising teosinte hybrids and their genetic behavior for fodder yield. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ. 2004;29:97-111.
Habiba H, Abd El Aziz. T. Bondok, Abdel-Aal MS. Evaluation of some promising teosinte genotypes for morphological and genetic parameters under Egyptian conditions. Alex. Science Exchange J. 2018;39: 307-332.
Aulicino MB, Magoja. Variability and heterosis of maize Balsas teosinte and maize –Guatemala teosinte hybrids maize.Genetics cooperation News Letter. 1991;65: 43-44.
Samuel JL, Ziki EMI, Zeidan AYA, El-Banna, Omar AEA. growth and forage yield of pearl millet as influenced by cutting date and nitrogen fertilization. Zagazig J. Agric. Res. 2019;46 :1351- 1361.
Annamalai R, Aananthi N, Arumugam Pillai M, Leninraja D. Assessment of Variability and Character Association in Pearl Millet [Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.,. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2020;9: 3247-3259.
Sathya MN, Kumari Vinodhana, Sumathi P. Hierarchial clustering of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br) inbreds for morpho-physiological traits. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2013;2:647-652.
Assaeed AM. Evaluation of some forage sorghum varieties under the condition of central region Saudi Arabia. Annal agric Sci, Ain shams Univ, Cairo. 1994;39 (2) 649-654.
Abdel-Twab FM, Rashed. Esterase peroxidase and Catalase Isozyme Polymorohism in zeateosinte and sorghum form different origins. Egypt. Genet Cytol. 1985;14:274-281.
Anne Lorant Sarah, Pedersen Irene, Holst Matthew B. Hufford, Klaus Winter Dolores Piperno, Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra. The Potential Role of Genetic Assimilation during Maize Domestication; 2017.
Johanson HW, Robinson HF, Comstock RE. Estimates of genetic and environmental variability in soybeans. Agron. J. 1955;47:314- 318.
Bakheit BR. Genetic variability genotypic and phenotypic correlations and path –coefficient analysis in Egyptian clover (Trifolium alexandrinum L.). Crops Sci. 1986;15758-63.
Chaudhuri AP, Prasad. Maize teosinte hybrid for fodder. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 1969;39(6):467-472.
Tarrad MM, Rizkr RM, Aly SH, Zayed EM. Evalution of some teosinte Genotypes under Egyptian conditions. Egypt. J. Agric. Res. 2010;88(1):265- 281.
Rady HY. Genotypic and environmental interaction effects on forage yield and its related traits of some summer forage crops. J. Plant Production Mansoura Univ. 2018;9 :815 – 820.
Smith JSC, Goodman MM, Stuber CW. Variation within teosinte III-Numerical analysis of allozyme data Economic Botany. 1984;38:97-113.
Iyanar K, Vijaykumar G, Khan AKF. Correlation and path analysis in multicut fodder sorghum. Elect. J. Plant Breed. 2010;1:1006-1009.
Singh NK, Kumar A, Chandra H, Pal K, Verma SS. Enhancement of maize allelie diversity using wild relative teosint (Zea mays spp parviglumis). Indian J. Plant genatic. Resour. 2017;30(3):253-257.
Geary J, Bubela T. Governance of a global genetic resource commons for non-commercial research: A case-study of the DNA barcode commons. International Journal of the Commons. 2019;13:205–243..
Kate M, Evans Kate M, Evans Brutcher, Lisa Konishi Bonnie. Implementation of bar-code technology in a tree fruit breeding program. American Society for Horticultural Science. 2012;47:149.
Khatab Ismael A, El-Mouhamady AA, Abdel-Rahman HM, Mona A, Farid, El Demardash IS. Agro-morphological and molecular characterization of sorghum (Sorghum vulgare L.) for water stress tolerance. Int. J. Curr. Res. Biosci. Plant Biol. 2017;4(1):37-55.
Kress WJ. Plant DNA barcodes: Applications today and in the future. Jnl of Sytematics Evolution. 2017;55:291-307.
Liang S, Lin F, Qian Y. A cost-effective barcode system for maize genetic discrimination based on bi-allelic InDel markers. Plant Methods. 2020;16:101.
Ude G, Igwe D, McCormick J, Ozokonkwo-Alor O, Harper J, Ballah D, Aninweze C, Chosen O, Okoro M, Ene C, Chieze V, Unachukwu M, Onyia C, Acquaah G, Ogbonna J, Das A. Genetic diversity and dna barcoding of yam accessions from Southern Nigeria. American Journal of Plant Sciences. 2019; 10:179-207.
Zeinalabedini M, Khoshkholgh Sima NA, Ghaffari MR, Ebadi A, Farsi M. Application of DNA barcodes and spatial analysis in conservation genetics and modeling of Iranian Salicornia genetic resources. PLoS ONE. 2021;16(4):0241162.
Ampatzidis YG, Vougioukas SG. Field experiments for evaluating the incorporation of RFID and barcode registration and digital weighing technologies in manual fruit harvesting Comput. Electron. Agr. 2009;66:166- 172.
Angers-Loustau A, Petrillo M, Paracchini V, Kagkli DM, Rischitor PE, Puertas Gallardo A et al. Towards plant species identification in complex samples: a bioinformatics pipeline for the identification of novel nuclear barcode candidates. PLoS ONE.2016;11(1).
Prasanna BM. Diversity in global maize germplasm: Characterization and utilization. J. Biosci. 2012;37: 843-855
Sanchez GJJLL, Cruz MVA, Dala vidal PJ, Ron S, Taba RF, Santacruz S, Sood JB, Holland CJA, Ruiz S, Carvajal CF, Aragon TVH, Charez RMM, Morales G, Alez R. Barbra. Three new teosinte (Zea spp, poaceae) from Mexico. Am. J. Of Bot. 2011;89(9):1537.
Selvaraj D, Park JI, Chung MY, Cho YG, Ramalingam S, Nou IS. Utility of DNA barcoding for plant biodiversity conservation. Plant Breed. Biotech. 2013;1:320-332.
Annor B, Badu-Apraku B, Nyadanu D, Akromah R, Fakorede MAB. Identifying heterotic groups and testers for hybrid development in early maturing yellow maize (Zea mays) for sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Breed. 2020;139:708– 716.
Bracaccia G, Margherita L, Martino C. DNA barcoding as a mokcular tool to track down mislabeling and food piracy. Div. 2016;8: 1-16.
Cheng Mingjun TANG QILIN, Muhammad Zafar Iqbal. DNA barcodes screening and phyletic classification of genus zea. Authorea. 2020;Februa 27. DOI:http://doi.org/10.22541/au.158282381.17369744
Mariey SA, Ghareeb ZE, Shahein AMEA, Meleha AMI, Gomaa HA, Rady AMS, Khatab IA. Genetic Diversity analysis among some Barley genotypes using Multivariable and Molecular Markers under different levels of soil salinity stress. Asian Journal of Plant and Soil Sciences. 2022;7(1):219-236.
-
Abstract View: 50 times
PDF Download: 3 times
Download Statistics
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Current Issue
Subscription
Login to access subscriber-only resources.