Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T01:54:31.355Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological variation in the Indian gooseberries (Phyllanthus emblica and Phyllanthus indofischeri) and the chloroplast trnL (UAA) intron as candidate gene for their identification

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2010

N. Sangeetha ,
S. Mercy ,
M. Kavitha ,
Divya Selvaraj ,
R. Sathishkumar  and
D. Ganesh
N. Sangeetha
Affiliation:
Plant Genetic Improvement Laboratory, Department of Biotechnology, Sri Paramakalyani Centre for Environmental Sciences, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Alwarkurichi 627 412, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India
S. Mercy
Affiliation:
Plant Genetic Improvement Laboratory, Department of Biotechnology, Sri Paramakalyani Centre for Environmental Sciences, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Alwarkurichi 627 412, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India
M. Kavitha
Affiliation:
Plant Genetic Improvement Laboratory, Department of Biotechnology, Sri Paramakalyani Centre for Environmental Sciences, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Alwarkurichi 627 412, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India
Divya Selvaraj
Affiliation:
School of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore 641 046, Tamil Nadu, India
R. Sathishkumar
Affiliation:
School of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore 641 046, Tamil Nadu, India
D. Ganesh*
Affiliation:
Plant Genetic Improvement Laboratory, Department of Biotechnology, Sri Paramakalyani Centre for Environmental Sciences, Manonmaniam Sundaranar University, Alwarkurichi 627 412, Tirunelveli district, Tamil Nadu, India
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Indian gooseberry, popularly known as amla, is harvested from two species of Phyllanthus, namely Phyllanthus emblica and Phyllanthus indofischeri. Although these two species are characterized on vegetative and reproductive features, development of reliable and authentic identification based on molecular approaches is necessary for precise identification. Most of the commercial orchards of Indian gooseberry are established with mixture of the two species. Introduction of unauthentic clones and seedlings in the establishment of orchards and differences in the growth of these two species under different elevations are the major constrains in identification. The present work aims to study the changes in vegetative and reproductive features under different elevations and to develop a simple molecular tool for precise identification of these two species based on single nucleotide polymorphisms in trnL (UAA) intron sequences of chloroplast DNA. Genomic DNA of leaf tissues of P. emblica and P. indofischeri, collected from the authentic source, was subjected to polymerase chain reaction amplification using trnL (UAA) intron gene-specific primers. The amplified product with the molecular weight of 540 bp was sequenced and used as reference for identification of these two species. The trnL (UAA) introns sequenced from 60 individual trees in three different orchards were compared with trnL (UAA) intron of authentic samples, and confirmed that these orchards have 76% population of P. indofischeri and remaining 24% is occupied by P. emblica. Thus, trnL (UAA) intron is a potential DNA marker for precise identification of these two species. The importance of the present study and its practical application in genetic improvement of Indian gooseberry are discussed.

Keywords

chloroplast DNAPhyllanthus emblicaPhyllanthus indofischerisingle nucleotide polymorphismtrnL (UAA) intron
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , December 2010 , pp. 191 - 197
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2010

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

Al-Rehaily, AJ, Al-Howiriny, TA, Al-Sohaibani, MO and Rafatullah, S (2002) Gastroprotective effects of Amla, Emblica officinalis, on in vitro test models in rats. Phytomedicine 9(6): 515–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aravindh, K, Ravikanth, G, Uma Shanker, R, Chandrashekara, K, Kumar, ARV and Ganeshaiah, KN (2007) DNA barcoding: an exercise in futility or utility. Current Science 92(9): 1213–1216.Google Scholar
Bhattacharya, A, Ghosal, S and Bhattacharya, SK (2000) Antioxidants activity of tannoid. Indian Journal of Experimental Biology 38: 877–880.Google ScholarPubMed
Dhivya, S, Sarma, RK and Sathish Kumar, R (2008) Phylogentic analysis of chloroplast matK gene from Zingberaceae for plant DNA barcoding. Bioinformation 3(1): 24–27.Google Scholar
Freeman, CE and Scogin, R (1999) Potential utility of chloroplast trnL (UAA) gene intron sequences for inferring phylogeny in Scrophulariaceae. Aliso 18(2): 141–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganeshan, R (2003) Identification, distribution and conservation of Phyllanthus indofischeri, another source of Indian gooseberry. Current Science 84(2): 1515–1518.Google Scholar
Ganju, L, Karan, D, Chanda, S, Srivastava, KK, Sawhney, RC and Selvamurthy, W (2003) Immunomodulatory effects of agents of plants origin. Biomedical Pharmacotheraphy 57: 296–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jose, JK, Kuttan, G and Kuttan, R (2001) Antitumor activity of Emblica officinalis. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 75: 65–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khopde, SM, Indira Priyadarsini, K, Mohan, H, Gawandi, VB, Satav, JG, Yakhmi, JV, Banavaliker, MM, Biyani, MK and Mittal, JP (2001) Characterization the antioxidant actively of amla (Phyllanthus emblica) extract. Current Science 81(2): 185–190.Google Scholar
Kress, JW, Wurdack, KJ, Zimmer, EA, Weigt, LA and Janzen, DH (2005) Use of DNA to identify flowering plants. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences 102(23): 8369–8374.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lal, MN, Joshi, GC and Singh, SS (1996) Studies on incidence of Inderbala spp. Cerciaphis indica on aonla in eastern Uttar Pradesh. Progress in Horticulture 28(1–2): 66–75.Google Scholar
Logacheva, MD, Samigullin, TH, Dhingra, A and Penin, AA (2008) Comparative chloroplast genomics and phylogenetics of Fagopyrum esculentum ssp. ancestrale – a wild ancestor of cultivated buckwheat. BMC Plant Biology 8(59): 1–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maurin, O, Davis, AP, Chester, M, Mvungi, EF, Fakim, YJ and Fay, MF (2007) Towards a phylogeny for Coffea (Rubiaceae): identifying well-supported lineages based on nuclear and plastid DNA sequences. Annals of Botany 100: 1565–1583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pathak, RK (2003) Status Report on Genetic Resources of Indian Gooseberry - Aonla (Emblica officinals Gaertn.) in South and Southeast Asia. New Delhi, India: IPGRI.Google Scholar
Pathak, RK, Srivastava, AK, Dwivedi, R and Singh, HK (1993) Aonla Descriptor Research Bulletin of Directory of Research. Faizabad: NDUAT.Google Scholar
Rai, M, Gupta, PN, Pathak, RK and Rana, RS (1993) Collecting genetic diversity of aonla (Phyllanthus emblica L.) germplasm from Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources 6(2): 117–123.Google Scholar
Samuel, R, Kathriarachchi, H, Hoffmann, P, Barfuss, MHJ, Wurdack, KJ, Davis, CC and Chase, MW (2005) Molecular phylogenetics of phyllanthaceae: evidence from plastid matK and nuclear PHYC Sequences. American Journal of Botany 92(1): 132–141.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Singh, S (2003) Genetic diversity in aonla (Emblica officinalis Gaertn.). Indian Horticulture 42(1): 7–10.Google Scholar
Supe, VS, Shate, M, Chaukvaa, B and Kaulgud, SM (1997) Physio-chemical analysis of different aonla cultivars under Maharashtra condition. Journal of Maharashtra Agricultural University 22(3): 310–312.Google Scholar
Taberlet, P, Coissac, E, Pomponon, F, Gielly, L, Miquel, C, Valentini, A, Vermat, T, Corthier, G, Brochmann, C and Willerslev, E (2007) Power and limitations of the chloroplast trnL (UAA) intron for plant DNA barcoding. Nucleic Acids Research 35(3): e14. DOI:10.1093/nar/gkl938.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taberlet, P, Gielly, L, Pautou, G and Bouvet, J (1991) Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Molecular Biology 17: 1105–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verbylaitė, R, Ford-Lloyd, B and Newbury, J (2006) The phylogeny of woody Maloideae (Rosaceae) using chloroplast trnL–trnF sequence data. Biologija 1: 60–63.Google Scholar
Warude, D, Preeti, C, Joshi, K and Patwardhan, B (2006) Development and application of RAPD-SCAR marker for identification of Phyllanthus emblica Linn. Biological and Pharmaceutical Bulletin 29(11): 2313–2316.Google Scholar
Zhang, WH, Chen, ZD, Li, JH, Chen, HB and Tang, YC (2003) Phylogeny of the Dipsacales s.l. based on chloroplast trnL–F and ndhF sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 26: 176–189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed