Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T16:12:08.377Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DNA content analysis of smooth pigweed (Amaranthus hybridus) and tall waterhemp (A. tuberculatus): implications for hybrid detection

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Mark R. Jeschke ,
Patrick J. Tranel  and
A. Lane Rayburn
Mark R. Jeschke
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
A. Lane Rayburn
Affiliation:
Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois, Urbana, IL 61801
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Prior research indicated that analysis of nuclear DNA content by flow cytometry could be used to distinguish smooth pigweed × tall waterhemp hybrids when the parent lines are known. Flow cytometry was performed on nuclei isolated from several Illinois populations of smooth pigweed and tall waterhemp. The smooth pigweed and tall waterhemp analyzed had nonoverlapping 2C nuclear DNA content values, with mean values of 1.04 and 1.34 pg, respectively. The consistent difference in DNA content observed between the two species indicates that DNA content analysis can be used to distinguish their hybrid progeny in natural populations.

Keywords

Smooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHtall waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer AMATUDNA contentflow cytometryhybridizationintraspecific variation
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 1 , February 2003 , pp. 1 - 3
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ahrens, W. H., Wax, L. M., and Stoller, E. W. 1981. Identification of triazine-resistant Amaranthus spp. Weed Sci. 29:345–348.Google Scholar
Franssen, A. S., Skinner, D. Z., Al-Khatib, K., Horak, M. J., and Kulakow, P. A. 2001. Interspecific hybridization and gene flow of ALS resistance in Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 49:598–606.Google Scholar
Murray, M. J. 1940. The genetics of sex determination in the family Amaranthaceae. Genetics 25:409–431.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pratt, D. B. and Clark, L. G. 2001. Amaranthus rudis and A. tuberculatus—one species or two? J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 128:282–296.Google Scholar
Rayburn, A. L., Biradar, D. P., Bullock, D. G., and McMurphy, L. M. 1993. Nuclear DNA content in F1 hybrids of maize. Heredity 70:294–300.Google Scholar
Sauer, J. D. 1972. The dioecious amaranths: a new species name and major range extensions. Madrono 21:425–434.Google Scholar
Tranel, P. J., Wassom, J. J., Jeschke, M. R., and Rayburn, A. L. 2002. Transmission of herbicide resistance from a monoecious to a dioecious weedy Amaranthus species. Theor. Appl. Genet. In press.Google Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., and Skinner, D. Z. 1999a. Use of PCR-based molecular markers to identify weedy Amaranthus species. Weed Sci. 47:518–523.Google Scholar
Wetzel, D. K., Horak, M. J., Skinner, D. Z., and Kulakow, P. A. 1999b. Transferal of herbicide resistance traits from Amaranthus palmeri to Amaranthus rudis. Weed Sci. 47:538–543.Google Scholar
Wetzel, J. B., Aref, S., Baligar, V. C., and Rayburn, A. L. 1999c. A lack of nuclear DNA content variability among wheat near isolines differing in aluminum response. Ann. Bot. 83:725–728.Google Scholar