Skip Navigation


AOBPreview originally published online on March 24, 2005
Annals of Botany 2005 95(7):1163-1170; doi:10.1093/aob/mci127
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
95/7/1163    most recent
mci127v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PHARMAWATI, M.
Right arrow Articles by FINNEGAN, P. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by PHARMAWATI, M.
Right arrow Articles by FINNEGAN, P. M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by PHARMAWATI, M.
Right arrow Articles by FINNEGAN, P. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Annals of Botany Company. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org

Molecular Variation and Fingerprinting of Leucadendron Cultivars (Proteaceae) by ISSR Markers

MADE PHARMAWATI*, GUIJUN YAN and PATRICK M. FINNEGAN

School of Plant Biology, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, 6009 WA, Australia

* For correspondence. E-mail pharmawati{at}hotmail.com

Received: 28 July 2004    Returned for revision: 22 November 2004    Accepted: 9 February 2005    Published electronically: 24 March 2005


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 

• Background and Aims There are more than 80 species of Leucadendron and most are used as cut flowers. Currently, more than 100 cultivars are used by industry and many of them are interspecific hybrids. The origin of most cultivars is unclear and their genetic diversity and relationships have not been studied. This investigation was carried out to evaluate the genetic variation and relationships among 30 Leucadendron cultivars.

• Methods ISSR markers were applied to determine the genetic variation and to discriminate Leucadendron cultivars. Sixty-four ISSR primers were screened and 25 primers were selected for their ability to produce clear and reproducible patterns of multiple bands.

• Key Results A total of 584 bands of 305–2400 bp were amplified, of which 97 % were polymorphic. A dendrogram generated using the Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Average based on a distance measure of total character difference showed that the Leucadendron cultivars clustered into two main groups. Twenty-four of the 30 cultivars can be unequivocally differentiated, but identical profiles were observed for three cultivar pairs, ‘Katie's Blush’ and ‘Silvan Red’, ‘Highlights’ and ‘Maui Sunset’, and ‘Yellow Crest’ and ‘Yellow Devil’.

• Conclusions ISSR profiling is a powerful method for the identification and molecular classification of Leucadendron cultivars. A fingerprinting key was generated based on the banding patterns produced using two ISSR primers (UBC856 and UBC857). In addition cultivar-specific ISSR bands were obtained for 17 of the 30 Leucadendron cultivars tested.

Key words: Fingerprinting key, genetic variation, ISSR, Leucadendron, molecular relationships, Proteaceae


   INTRODUCTION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Leucadendron are Proteaceae that produce male and female flowers on separate plants. The flowers have distinct and colourful petal-like bracts (Vogts, 1982Go; Matthews, 2002Go) that, along with long stems and long-lasting foliage, make many Leucodendron species highly desirable cut flowers. There are 80 species of Leucadendron. Based on fruit characteristics, the species have been divided into two sections, Alatosperma and Leucadendron, with each section having several subsections (Williams, 1972Go).

There are more than 100 Leucadendron cultivars (International Proteaceae Register, 2002Go). The most widely grown cultivar, ‘Safari Sunset’, is grown in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Hawaii and Israel (Littlejohn and Robyn, 2000Go). Several commercial cultivars (Littlejohn et al., 1998Go; Sedgley and Yan, 2003Go) are the result of interspecific hybridization (Van den Berg and Brits, 1990Go; Littlejohn et al., 1995Go; Yan et al., 2001aGo, bGo).

There is limited knowledge regarding the genetic diversity and interspecies relationships in Leucadendron, limiting the efficiency of breeding programmes. Moreover, the parentage of Leucadendron cultivars is not always certain due to inadequate documentation. Some cultivars may have arisen from selection of seed populations, while others have arisen from hybridization of undocumented parents (Littlejohn and Robyn, 2000Go). Therefore, methods for the fast and accurate identification of Leucadendron species and cultivars would be of substantial benefit to the Leucadendron cut-flower and breeding industry.

Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) markers (Williams et al., 1990Go) and ISSR markers (Zietkiewicz et al., 1994Go) are two molecular typing approaches that have been used to detect variation among plants. Each method has been used extensively to identify and determine relationships at the species and cultivar levels (Rajaseger et al., 1997Go; Raina et al., 2001Go; Martins et al., 2003Go). These methods are widely applicable because they are rapid, inexpensive, simple to perform, do not require prior knowledge of DNA sequence and require very little starting DNA template (Esselman et al., 1999Go).

The ISSR method has been reported to produce more complex marker patterns than the RAPD approach (Parsons et al., 1997Go; Chowdhury et al., 2002Go), which is advantageous when differentiating closely related cultivars. In addition, ISSR markers are more reproducible than RAPD markers (Goulão and Oliveira, 2001Go), because ISSR primers, designed to anneal to a microsatellite sequence, are longer than RAPD primers, allowing higher annealing temperatures to be used. ISSR analysis has been used for cultivar identification in numerous plant species, including rice (Joshi et al., 2000Go), apple (Goulão and Oliveira, 2001Go) and strawberry (Arnau et al., 2003Go).

This paper reports on the use of ISSR markers to differentiate Leucadendron cultivars, to determine the molecular relationships among the cultivars tested and to develop a fingerprinting key for Leucadendron.


   MATERIALS AND METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Plant materials
Leaf tissue for DNA extraction was collected from the 30 Leucadendron cultivars listed in Table 1.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1. Leucadendron cultivars used in this study

 
DNA extraction and electrophoresis
Genomic DNA was extracted using a DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Clifton Hill, Victoria, Australia). Approximately 0·1 g of leaf material from one individual plant for each cultivar was ground to a fine powder in liquid nitrogen with a mortar and pestle before isolation of DNA according to the manufacturer's instructions. DNA was visualized by agarose gel electrophoresis followed by staining with ethidium bromide (Sambrook et al., 1989Go). Known amounts of lambda DNA (MBI, Fermentas, Hanover, MD, USA) were included on the gel to quantify the DNA.

ISSR amplification
ISSR primers (UBC set 9) were from the Biotechnology Laboratory, The University of British Columbia, Canada (Table 2). Optimal conditions for DNA amplification were empirically determined by testing different concentrations of genomic DNA (10, 15, 25 and 40 ng), MgCl2 (1·5, 2, 2·5, 3·0 mM) and primers (0·15, 0·2, 0·3 and 0·4 µM). The optimal annealing temperature was found to vary according to the base composition of the primers (Table 2). PCR amplifications were performed in 25-µL reaction mixtures containing 10 ng DNA, 1·5 mM MgCl2, 1x PCR buffer (10 mM KCl, 10 mM (NH4)2SO4, 20 mM Tris–HCl, 2 mm MgSO4, 0·1 % Triton X-100 pH 8·8), 0·3 µM primer, 200 µM of each dNTP (Promega, Annandale, NSW, Australia) and 1 unit of Taq DNA polymerase (New England BioLabs, Baverly, MA, USA). To reduce background amplification, 2 % (v/v) formamide was added to the reactions (Fang and Roose, 1997Go; Raina et al., 2001Go). Amplifications were carried out using a thermocycler (iCycler, Biorad, Regents Park, NSW, Australia) with an initial denaturation/activation step of 4 min at 95°C, followed by 45 cycles of 30 s at 94°C, 45 s at annealing temperature (Table 2) and 2 min extension at 72°C. A final extension for 10 min at 72°C was included. Optimal conditions were determined based on the resolvable PCR products generated by each primer. A negative control which contained all PCR components except DNA (replaced by water) was included in every experiment to test for DNA contamination of the reagents. PCR products were visualized using agarose gel electrophoresis stained with ethidium bromide (Sambrook et al., 1989Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2. ISSR primers used in this study and summary of ISSR markers from 30 Leucadendron cultivars

 
Data analysis
Gels were photographed (Kodak Digital Science1DTM, Eastman Kodak Co., Rochester, NY, USA) and the sizes of the fragments estimated (Digital Science 1D Image Analysis Software, Eastman Kodak Company, Rochester, USA). Each ISSR band was considered as a character and the presence or absence of the band was scored in binary code (present = 1, absent = 0). A data matrix was assembled and analysed using Phylogenetic Analysis Using Parsimony (PAUP; Swofford, 1998Go) and a pairwise distance matrix was generated based on total character differences. The genetic relatedness among the Leucadendron cultivars was analysed using Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Average (UPGMA) based on distance measure of total character difference. Bootstrap analysis using UPGMA search with 1000 replicates was performed to obtain the confidence of branches of the tree.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 
Selection of primers and reproducibility
Initially, 64 ISSR primers were screened against genomic DNA from three Leucadendron cultivars (‘Katie's Blush’, ‘Gem’ and ‘Red Centre’) for their ability to amplify DNA fragments. Of the 64 primers, eight produced no distinct bands on a smeary background and 31 resulted in very faint bands upon a highly smeared background. The remaining 25 primers (Table 2) produced robust amplification patterns. As an example, the pattern obtained for each cultivar with primer UBC857 is shown in Fig. 1. Within the set of 25 primers giving robust patterns, there were 23 di-nucleotide repeat primers, 20 primers with 3' anchors and 3 primers with 5' anchors (Table 2). The single tri- and tetra-nucleotide repeat primers were both unanchored.



View larger version (66K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 1. ISSR marker profiles obtained from Leucadendron cultivars. ISSR amplification products were produced using primer UBC857 and separated on 1·8 % agarose gel. The cultivars (Table 1) are shown across the top of the figure. The lanes containing 1-kb and 100-bp marker ladders (Promega, Annandale, NSW, Australia) are indicated, as are the sizes of selected marker bands. The bands marked with arrows are the cultivar-specific bands amplified (Table 3).

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3. Cultivar-specific bands revealed by ISSR fingerprinting for 17 Leucadendron cultivars (other cultivars listed in Table 1 cannot be characterized by the presence and/or absence of specific bands)

 
The reproducibility of the ISSR amplifications was assessed using selected primers (UBC820, UBC826, UBC834, UBC860, UBC868, UBC890 and UBC891) with different DNA samples isolated independently from the same cultivar and amplified at different times. Under the optimized PCR conditions, the banding profiles were consistent among PCR experiments (data not shown).

ISSR diversity
The set of 25 ISSR primers showed multiband patterns in each cultivar and no band was detected in any negative control amplification. This primer set amplified a total of 584 bands from the 30 Leucadendron cultivars tested. Primer UBC813 resulted in the smallest number of bands (12) and primer UBC890 generated the largest number of bands (37). The average number of bands per primer was 23·4. Band size ranged from 305 bp (UBC845) to 2·4 kb (UBC860). Among the 30 Leucadendron cultivars, 570 (97·6 %) of the ISSR bands were polymorphic. The percentage of polymorphic fragments per primer was 76–100 % (Table 2). Identical ISSR profiles were obtained for three cultivar pairs: ‘Katie's Blush’ and ‘Silvan Red’, ‘Highlight’ and ‘Maui Sunset’, and ‘Yellow Crest’ and ‘Yellow Devil’.

Molecular relationship and fingerprinting of Leucadendron cultivars
UPGMA analysis based on total ISSR character difference was carried out to group the 30 Leucadendron cultivars. A dendrogram resulting from a cluster analysis of the distance matrix showed two main groups, designated A and B (Fig. 2). The UPGMA dendrogram showed a high confidence level. Bootstrap analysis using 1000 replicates showed that seven forks had 100 % bootstrap support and 21 of the 28 forks had greater than 50 % bootstrap support.



View larger version (19K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 2. Dendrogram of 30 Leucadendron cultivars based on UPGMA analysis of ISSR polymorphisms. The Leucadendron cultivars (Table 1) clustered into groups (A and B) and subgroups (numbers on left). Numbers below the lines indicate bootstrap values (percentage of 1000 replicates). Bootstrap values greater than 50 % are shown.

 
Cultivar-specific ISSR bands were obtained for 17 of the 30 Leucadendron cultivars tested (Table 3). Using the ISSR data from primers UBC856 and UBC857, a fingerprinting key was generated (Fig. 3) that is able to distinguish 27 cultivars out of 30 cultivars.



View larger version (42K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIG. 3. ISSR marker fingerprinting key for Leucadendron cultivars generated from amplification products of primers UBC856 and UBC857. ISSR bands are designated by the primer name (i.e. UBC856) followed by the fragment size, in bp. The presence (P) or absence (A) of bands allows 24 of the Leucadendron cultivars (Table 1) tested to be uniquely identified (bold text).

 


   DISCUSSION
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 
ISSR markers
The 64 primers, including di-, tri- and tetra-nucleotide repeat primers, tested in this study amplified DNA fragments from Leucadendron genomic DNA with different efficiencies. Several studies have reported that 5'-anchored ISSR primers generated informative bands (Charters et al., 1996Go; Matthews et al., 1999Go). However, in the present study, primers with 3'-anchors were more successful in amplifying specific bands than primers with 5'-anchors. Most non-anchored or 5'-anchored primers produced smeared patterns, with or without faint bands. Since primer specificity determinants are located within the first eight nucleotides at the 3' end (Caetano-Anollés, 1994Go), anchoring primers at their 3' ends will lower the number of sequences which have homology to the primers, thus producing distinct bands (Parsons et al., 1997Go). The success in amplifying specific bands also depends on the anchoring motif. For example, while primers (AG)8T, (AG)8C and (AG)8G produced smeared profiles, the AG repeat primers anchored with YT or YA produced clear and distinct products.

The failure of several primers to give clear banding patterns may be because those primers require special amplification conditions, such as alternative chemical stabilizers or different annealing temperatures. The type of gel electrophoresis and staining method used can also influence the number of scorable bands and the level of polymorphism observed (Godwin et al., 1997Go, Wiesner and Wiesnerová, 2003Go). Both Charters et al. (1996)Go and Matthews et al. (1999)Go used polyacrylamide gels as a resolving medium and silver staining for visualization. Compared with agarose gels, polyacrylamide gels visualized by autoradiography of radiolabelled samples, or to some extent visualized by silver staining, were reported to give higher resolution (Godwin et al., 1997Go).

Fingerprinting of Leucadendron cultivars and cultivar-specific markers
Until now, identification of Leucadendron species has relied on morphological characters, especially of the fruit and seed. A fingerprinting key, based on the banding patterns of ISSR markers that can be used to identify Leucadendron cultivars, has now been generated (Fig. 3). The high level of polymorphism of the ISSR markers detected in Leucadendron facilitated the development of the DNA fingerprinting key. In fact, the fingerprinting key for Leucadendron cultivars could be developed using only two primers, UBC856 and UBC857 (Fig. 3). The use of a small number of primers is advantageous for reducing the time and cost of analysis. The ideal of using a single ISSR primer has been achieved for the differentiation of 30 strawberry cultivars (Arnau et al., 2003Go). The ISSR assay also identified cultivar-specific markers (Table 3) that have the potential of being used as diagnostic tools for cultivar identification, or that could be developed into cultivar-specific Sequence Characterized Amplified Region (SCAR) markers.

The Leucadendron fingerprinting key cannot differentiate the cultivar pairs ‘Highlights’ and ‘Maui Sunset’, ‘Katie's Blush’ and ‘Silvan Red’, and ‘Yellow Devil' and ’Yellow Crest’. The International Proteaceae Register (2002)Go lists ‘Highlight’ and ‘Maui Sunset’ as the same cultivar. The present findings certainly indicate that these two cultivars are closely related, but a more extensive analysis is required to assert with statistical certainty that they are identical. The International Proteaceae Register (2002)Go lists ‘Yellow Crest’ and ‘Yellow Devil’ as separate cultivars released by different companies, while some horticulturalists believe that ‘Yellow Crest’ is a former name of ‘Yellow Devil’ (P. Armitage, pers. comm.). The present results support the view that these cultivar names are synonyms. The ISSR analysis also failed to differentiate ‘Katie's Blush’ and ‘Silvan Red’. ‘Katie's Blush’ is a stable sport of ‘Silvan Red’ with variegated foliage (Matthews, 2002Go).

Relationships among Leucadendron cultivars
The dendrogram displaying the molecular relationships among the 30 Leucadendron cultivars tested separates them into two main groups. Cultivars in group A are either selections of L. salignum or L. salignum x L. laureolum hybrids (Matthews, 2002Go). Group B contains of a heterogeneous group of cultivars, but clustering is based on parental lineage. For example, the L. discolor cultivars ‘Red Centre’ and ‘Pom Pom’ group together with ‘436’ which has L. discolor as the male parent (Fig. 2).

Group A can be divided into three clear subgroups (A1, A2 and A3), with ‘Maui Sunset’ and ‘Highlights’ being distantly separated from the other members of group A (Fig. 2). Cultivars of L. salignum (subgroup A1) formed a sister group to the hybrid progeny of a L. salignum x L. laureolum cross (subgroup A2). ‘Tall Red’ which clustered with the L. salignum cultivars, is recorded as a L. salignum x L. eucalyptifolium hybrid (Proteaflora, 2004Go). The ISSR analysis showed that ‘Tall Red’ is the most distantly related cultivar in the L. salignum branch, supporting the view that this cultivar is a hybrid.

‘Maui Sunset’ is recorded as the result of a cross between L. laureolum x L. salignum (International Proteaceae Register, 2002Go; Matthews, 2002Go). However, plant morphology suggests that ‘Maui Sunset’ is actually a trihybrid of (L. laureolum x L. discolor) x L. salignum (B. Croxford, The University of Western Australia, pers. comm.). ‘Maui Sunset’ is morphologically very similar to hybrids between L. discolor and L. salignum, but has slightly longer bracts. In addition, at one growth stage, ‘Maui Sunset’/‘Highlights’ shows colour which is not displayed by L. discolor x L. salignum hybrids. The placement of ‘Maui Sunset’ on a separate branch from L. salignum and from the progeny of crosses between L. salignum and L. laureolum (Fig. 2) supports the view that ‘Maui Sunset’ is genetically dissimilar to L. laureolum x L. salignum hybrids and may be a trihybrid. Crossing L. laureolum x L. discolor results in plants that are morphologically similar to L. laureolum, which may explain the confusion in the parentage of ‘Maui Sunset’ (B. Croxford, University of Western Australia, pers. comm.).

In general, Leucadendron cultivars in group B cluster according to their reported pedigrees (Fig. 2 and Table 1). An exception is subgroup B5, where the reported parentage of the cultivars is broad. However, there is at least some uncertainty in the parentage of several of these cultivars. For example, ‘Pisa’ is only reported to be a L. floridum hybrid (Matthews, 2002Go), ‘Jubilee Crown’ has been only noted as a L. laxum hybrid (Littlejohn and Robyn 2000Go) and there is no clear information on the origin of ‘Buttercup’ (International Proteaceae Register, 2002Go).

This study further demonstrates that ISSR markers are a powerful tool for generating fingerprinting keys and have the potential to identify cultivar-specific markers for Leucadendron. The elucidation of the relationships among the 30 Leucadendron cultivars, the identification of species-specific ISSR markers and the generation of a fingerprinting key are important resources for the breeding and management of Leucadendron germplasm.


   ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
LITERATURE CITED
 
M.P. thanks AUSAID for providing a PhD scholarship. Thanks are due to Proteaflora Nursery, Victoria, Australia and Amarillo Protea, Western Australia for supplying leaf material of Leucadendron cultivars, Mr Paul Armitage from Proteaflora Nursery, Dr Ralph Sedgley from Amarilo Protea for helpful information and Mr Ben Croxford (UWA) for assistance in plant material collection and for helpful discussions.


   LITERATURE CITED
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 INTRODUCTION
 MATERIALS AND METHODS
 RESULTS
 DISCUSSION
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
 LITERATURE CITED
 

    Arnau G, Lallemand J, Bourgoin M. 2003. Fast and reliable strawberry cultivar identification using inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) amplification. Euphytica 129: 69–79.[CrossRef]

    Caetano-Anollés G. 1994. DNA fingerprinting: MAAP: a versatile and universal tool for genome analysis. Plant Molecular Biology 25: 1011–1026.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Charters YM, Robetson A, Wilkinson MJ, Ramsay G. 1996. PCR analysis of oilseed rape cultivars (Brassica oleracea L. spp. oleifera) using 5'-anchored simple sequence repeat (SSR) primers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 87: 264–270.

    Chowdhury MA, Vandenberg B, Warkentin T. 2002. Cultivar identification and genetic relationship among selected breeding lines and cultivars in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 127: 317–325.[CrossRef]

    Esselman EJ, Jianqiang L, Crawford DJ, Windus JL, Wolfe AD. 1999. Clonal diversity in the rare Calamagrostis porteri ssp. Insperata (Poaceae): comparative results for allozymes and random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers. Molecular Ecology 8: 443–451.[CrossRef]

    Fang DQ, Roose ML. 1997. Identification of closely related citrus cultivars with inter-simple sequence repeat markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 95: 408–417.[CrossRef]

    Godwin ID, Aitken EAB, Smith LW. 1997. Application of inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) markers to plant genetics. Electrophoresis 18: 1524–1528.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Goulão L, Oliveira CM. 2001. Molecular characterization of cultivars of apple (Malus x domestica Borkh.) using microsatellite (SSR and ISSR) markers. Euphytica 122: 81–89.[CrossRef]

    International Proteaceae Register. 2002. The International Proteaceae Register. http://www.nda.agric.za/docs/Protea2002/proteaceae_register.htm (28 July 2004).

    Joshi SP, Gupta VS, Aggarwal RK, Ranjekar PK. 2000. Genetic diversity and phylogenetic relationship as revealed by inter simple sequence repeat (ISSR) polymorphism in the genus Oryza. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 100: 1311–1320.[CrossRef]

    Littlejohn GM, Robyn A. 2000. Leucadendron: a multi-purpose crop. Acta Horticulturae 541: 171–174.

    Littlejohn GM, Van den Berg GC, Brits GJ. 1998. A yellow, single stem Leucadendron ‘Rosette’. HortScience 33: 861–862.

    Littlejohn GM, Van der Walt ID, Van den Berg GC, de Waal WG, Brits G. 1995. ‘Marketable Product’ approach to breeding Proteaceae in South Africa. Acta Horticulturae 387: 171–175.

    Martins M, Tenreiro R, Oliveira MM. 2003. Genetic relatedness of Portuguese almond cultivars assessed by RAPD and ISSR markers. Plant Cell Reports 22: 71–78.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]

    Matthews D, McNicoll J, Harding K, Millam S. 1999. 5'-Anchored simple sequence repeat primers are useful for analyzing potato somatic hybrids. Plant Cell Reports 19: 210–212.[CrossRef]

    Matthews LJ. 2002. The Protea book: a guide to cultivated Proteaceae. New Zealand: Canterbury University Press.

    Parsons BJ, Newbury HJ, Jackson MT, Ford-Lloyd BV. 1997. Contrasting genetic diversity relationships are revealed in rice (Oryza sativa L.) using different marker types. Molecular Breeding 3: 115–125.

    Proteaflora. 2004. Proteaflora. http://www.proteaflora.com/ (28 July 2004).

    Raina SN, Rani V, Kojima T, Ogihara Y, Singh KP, Devarumath RM. 2001. RAPD and ISSR fingerprints as useful genetic markers for analysis of genetic diversity, varietals identification, and phylogenetic relationships in peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars and wild species. Genome 44: 763–772.[Medline]

    Rajaseger G, Tan HTW, Turner IM, Kumar PP. 1997. Analysis of genetic diversity among Ixora cultivars (Rubiaceae) using random amplified polymorphic DNA. Annals of Botany 80: 355–361.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T. 1989. Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor, USA: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press.

    Sedgley R, Yan G. 2003. Leucadendron salicifolium x Leucadendron procerum: Pixie Red. Plant Varieties Journal 16: 44–45.

    Swofford DL. 1998. PAUP: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 4.0b2. Illinois: Computer program distributed by the Illinois Natural History Survey Champaign.

    Van den Berg GC, Brits GJ. 1990. Development of Leucadendron single-stem cut flowers. Acta Horticulturae 387: 191–198.

    Vogts M. 1982. South Africa's Proteaceae: know them and grow them. Victoria: Proteaflora Enterprises Pty Ltd.

    Wiesner I, Wiesnerová D. 2003. Effect of resolving medium and staining procedure on inter-simple-sequence-repeat (ISSR) patterns in cultivated flax germplasm. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 50: 849–853.[CrossRef]

    Williams IJM. 1972. A revision of the genus Leucadendron (Proteaceae). Contribution from the Bolus Herbarium No. 3. The Bolus Herbarium University of Cape Town, South Africa.

    Williams JGK, Kubelic AR, Livak KJ, Rafalski JA, Tingey SV. 1990. DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Research 18: 6531–6535.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

    Yan G, Croxford B, Sedgley R. 2001a. New hybrid Leucadendrons: a report to Rural Industry Research Corporation. Canberra: RIRDC.

    Yan G, Croxford B, Sedgley R. 2001b. Interspecific hybridisation of Leucadendron. Acta Horticulturae 522: 55–63.

    Zeitkiewicz E, Rafalski A, Labuda D. 1994. Genome fingerprinting by simple sequence repeat (SSR)-anchored polymerase chain reaction amplification. Genomic 20: 176–183.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
95/7/1163    most recent
mci127v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by PHARMAWATI, M.
Right arrow Articles by FINNEGAN, P. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by PHARMAWATI, M.
Right arrow Articles by FINNEGAN, P. M.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by PHARMAWATI, M.
Right arrow Articles by FINNEGAN, P. M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?