title: Karyotype analysis and genetic variation of a mutant in Siraitia grosvenorii.
abstract: This study analyzed the differences in karyotype and genetic variation between a mutant and wild-type Siraitia grosvenorii. Genetic variation included changes in genome and gene expression by SRAP molecular markers. Results showed that wild-type S. grosvenorii was diploid, with a chromosome number of 2n = 2x = 28, whereas the mutant was tetraploid with a chromosome number of 2n = 4x = 56. 4573 DNA bands were obtained using 189 different primer combinations, 577 of which were polymorphic, averaging 3.1 bands for each primer pair, while 1998 pairs were identical. There were no apparent differences on bands amplified by most primer pairs. After comparing the diploid and tetraploid strains, the data generally indicated that the polymorphism would be quite low. 2917 cDNA bands were generated using 133 primer combinations, and stable and clearly differential fragments were sorted out, cloned and sequenced. Ninety-two differentially expressed fragments were successfully sequenced. Sequence analysis showed that most fragments had significant homologous nucleotide sequences with resistant to stress and photosynthesis genes, including ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase, phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase, pyruvate kinase, peroxisomal membrane transporter, NBS-LRR type resistance protein, protein phosphatase and others. The results revealed that the tetraploid strain has more resistant and photosynthesis ability than its diploid relatives, which providing reference information and resources for molecular breeding and seedless Luohanguo.
authors: Institute of Medicinal Plant Development, China Academy Medicinal Science, Chinese Peking Union Medical College, 100193 Beijing, People's Republic of China.
authors: Wei
authors: W
authors: Fu
authors: Xiaojun
authors: X
authors: Ma
authors: Qi
authors: Q
authors: Tang
authors: Changming
authors: C
authors: Mo
references: Genetics. 2007 Aug;176(4):2055-67
references: 17565939
references: Proteomics. 2005 May;5(8):2131-9
references: 15852348
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001 Jun 5;98(12):6753-8
references: 11371624
references: Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2007;58:377-406
references: 17280525
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Dec 28;101(52):18240-5
references: 15604143
references: Hereditas. 2000;133(3):255-61
references: 11433970
references: Food Chem Toxicol. 2006 Dec;44(12):2106-9
references: 17011100
references: Nature. 2006 Oct 5;443(7111):541-7
references: 17024086
references: Plant Mol Biol. 2003 May;52(2):401-14
references: 12856945
references: PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4760
references: 19274085
references: Plant Cell. 2007 Nov;19(11):3403-17
references: 18024568
references: Genetics. 2002 Apr;160(4):1651-9
references: 11973318
references: Plant Cell. 2000 Sep;12(9):1551-68
references: 11006331
references: Mol Ecol. 2005 Apr;14(4):1163-75
references: 15773943
references: Science. 1999 Jul 9;285(5425):251-4
references: 10398601
references: Plant Cell. 2001 Aug;13(8):1749-59
references: 11487690
references: Biotechniques. 1993 May;14(5):748-50
references: 8512694
references: Mol Biol Rep. 2011 Mar;38(3):2211-7
references: 20857203
references: Genetics. 1996 Apr;142(4):1349-55
references: 8846910
references: Genome. 2006 Aug;49(8):950-8
references: 17036070
references: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Apr 15;100(8):4649-54
references: 12665616
references: Theor Appl Genet. 2006 Dec;114(1):101-11
references: 17053922
references: Plant Cell. 2001 Aug;13(8):1735-47
references: 11487689
references: Mol Biol Rep. 2010 Feb;37(2):987-94
references: 19728150
references: New Phytol. 2010 Apr;186(1):194-206
references: 20409178
references: Mol Biol Rep. 2009 Sep;36(7):1725-31
references: 18839334
references: Genetics. 2006 Jul;173(3):1599-611
references: 16648586
references: J Hered. 2009 Jul-Aug;100(4):491-5
references: 19321631
references: Mol Biol Rep. 2008 Jun;35(2):195-200
references: 17380426