Abstract
Pineapple (Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.) cultivars, often derived from somatic mutations, are propagated vegetatively. It has been suggested by isozyme data that there is little genetic variation among Smooth Cayenne cultivars. A thorough investigation of the genetic variation within the cultivated speciesAnanas comosus, particularly among commercial cultivars, will provide critical information needed for crop improvement and cultivar protection. One-hundred and forty-eight accessions ofA. comosus and 14 accessions of related species were evaluated with AFLP markers. The average genetic similarity ofA. comosus was 0.735 ranging from 0.549 to 0.972, suggesting a high degree of genetic variation within this species. With AFLP markers, discrete DNA fingerprints were detected for each commercial cultivar, breeding line, and intra-specific hybrid. Self-incompatibility, high levels of somatic mutation, and intraspecific hybridization may account for this high degree of variation. However, major cultivar groups of pineapple, such as Cayenne, Spanish, and Queen, could not be distinctively separated. These cultivar groups are based on morphological similarity, and the similar appearance can be caused by a few mutations that occurred on different genetic background. Our results suggest that there is abundant genetic variation within existing pineapple germplasm for selection, and discrete DNA fingerprinting patterns for commercial cultivars can be detected for cultivar protection. The genetic diversity and relationships of fourAnanas species are also discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aradhya M.K., Zee F. and Manshardt R.M. 1994. Isozyme variation in cultivated and wild pineapple. Euphytica 79: 87–99.
Brewbaker J.L. and Gorrez D.D. 1967. Genetics of self-incompatibility in the monocot genera,Ananas (pineapple) andGasteria. Am. J. Bot. 54: 611–616.
Breyne P., Rombaut D., van Gysel A., van Montagu M. and Gerats T. 1999. AFLP analysis of genetic diversity within and betweenArabidopsis thaliana ecotypes. Mol. Gen. Genet. 261: 627–636.
Cervera M.T., Cabezas J.A. and Sancha J.C. 1998. Application of AFLPs to the characterization of grapevineVitis vinifera L. genetic resources. A case study with accessions from Rioja (Spain). Theor. Appl. Genet. 97: 51–59.
Chittenden L.M., Schertz K.F., Lin Y.R., Wing R.A. and Paterson A.H. 1994. A detainled RFLP map ofSorghum bicolor ×S. propinquum, suitable for high-density mapping, suggests ancestral duplication forSorghum chromosomes of chromosomal segments. Theor. Appl. Genet. 87: 925–933.
Collins J.L. 1949. History, taxonomy and culture of the pineapple. Econ. Bot. 3: 335–359.
Collins J.L. 1960. The Pineapple. Interscience Publishers Inc., New York, USA.
DeWald M.G., Moore G.A. and Sherman W.B. 1988. Identification of pineapple cultivars by isozyme genotypes. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113: 935–938.
DeWald M.G., Moore G.A. and Sherman W.B. 1992. Isozyme inAnanas (Pineapple): genetics and usefulness in taxonomy. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 117: 491–496.
Duval M.F. and d’Eeckenbrugge G. 1993. Genetic variability in the genus Ananas. Acta Hort. 334: 27–32.
Duval M.F., Noyer J.L., Perrier X., d’Eeckenbrugge G. and Hamon P. 2001. Molecular diversity in pineapple assessed by RFLP markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 102: 83–90.
Han T., DeJeu M., VanEck H. and Jacobsen E. 2000. Genetic diversity of Chilean and BrazilianAlstroemeria species assessed by AFLP analysis. Heredity 84: 564–569.
Kaeppler S.M., Kaeppler H.F. and Rhee Y. 2000. Epigenetic aspects of somaclonal variation in plants. Plant Mol. Biol. 43: 179–188.
Kim M.S., Moore P.H., Zee F., Fitch M.M.M., Steiger D.L., Manshardt R.M., Paull R.E., Drew R.A., Sekioka T. and Ming R. 2003. Genetic diversity ofCarica papaya L. as revealed by AFLP markers. Genome 45: 503–512.
Kinjo K. 1993. Inheritance of leaf margin spine in pineapple. Acta Hort. 334: 59–66.
Noyer J.L. 1991. Etude preliminaire de la diversite genetique du genreAnanas par les RFLPs. Fruits (numero specialAnanas): 372–375.
Noyer J.L., Lanaud C., d’Eeckenbrugge D. and Duval M.F. 1995. RFLP study on rDNA variability inAnanas genus. Acta Hort. 425: 153–159.
Powell W., Morgante M., Andre C., Hanafey M., Vogel J., Tingey S. and Rafalski A. 1996. The comparison of RFLP, RAPD, AFLP, and SSR (microsatellite) markers for germplasm analysis. Mol. Breed. 2: 225–238.
Ray I.M. and Bingham E.T. 1990. Inheritance of a mutable phenotype that is activated in alfalfa tissue culture. Genome 34: 35–40.
Robinson J.P. and Harris S.A. 1999. Amplified fragment length polymorphisms and microsatellites: a phylogenetic perspective. In: Gillet E.M. (ed.), Molecular Tools for Biodiversity. http://webdoc.sub.gwdg.de/ebook/y/1999/whichmarker/index.htm
Samuels G. 1970. Pineapple cultivars. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. Proc. 14: 13–24.
Sneath P.H.A. and Sokal R.R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. Freeman, San Francisco, USA.
Sokal R.R. and Michener C.D. 1958. A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships. Univ. Kansas Sci. Bull. 38: 1409–1438.
Steiger D.L., Nagai C., Moore P.H., Morden C.W., Osgood R.V. and Ming R. 2003. AFLP analysis of genetic diversity within and amongCoffea arabica cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 105: 209–215.
Vos P., Hogers R., Bleeker M., Reijans M., van de Lee T., Hornes M., Frijters A., Pot J., Peleman J., Kuiper M. and Zabeau M. 1995. AFLP: a new technique for DNA finger-printing. Nucleic Acids Res. 23: 4407–4414.
Wakasa K. 1979. Variation in the plants differentiated from the tissue culture of pineapple. Jpn. J. Breed. 29: 13–22.
Williams D.D.F. and Fleisch H. 1993. Historical review of pineapple breeding in Hawaii. Acta Hort. 334: 67–76.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kato, C.Y., Nagai, C., Moore, P.H. et al. Intra-specific DNA polymorphism in pineapple (Ananas comosus (L.) Merr.) assessed by AFLP markers. Genet Resour Crop Evol 51, 815–825 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-0005-x
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-005-0005-x