DIVERSITY ASSESSMENT OF PARENTAL LINES THROUGH BIOCHEMICAL AND MOLECULAR MARKERS IN UPLAND COTTON (Gossypium hirsutum L.)

V.V. UJJAINKAR¹*, V.D. PATIL², M.P. MOHARIL^3
1College of Agriculture, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyappeth, Akola, 444 104, Maharashtra, India
²Ex. Dean, Faculty of Agriculture, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyappeth, Akola, 444 104, Maharashtra, India
³Biotechnology Center, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyappeth, Akola, 444 104, Maharashtra, India
* Corresponding Author : vvujjainkar@gmail.com

Received : 01-06-2020     Accepted : 22-06-2020     Published : 30-06-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 6       Pages : 740 - 744
Genetics 12.6 (2020):740-744

Keywords : Cotton, RAPD, Marker Assisted Selection, Isozyme markers and Diversity
Academic Editor : Dr S V Sai Prasad
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to the research facilities and support provided by the Senior Research Scientist, AICRP on Cotton and In-charge, Biotechnology Center, Department of Agricultural Botany, Dr Panjabrao Deshmukh Krishi Vidyappeth, Akola, 444 104, Maharashtra, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

The genetic diversity and similarity were investigated in thirty-four elite parental lines of tetraploid cotton using biochemical and molecular marker techniques using seed and seedling extracts. In present investigation, the cotton lines exhibited the polymorphism for Protein (SDS-PAGE), Esterase, Peroxidase and Polyphenol oxidaes. The Relative Mobility (Rm) values ranged from 0.083 to 0.883 (protein), 0.100 to 0.971 (esterase), 0.033 to 0.283 (peroxidase) and 0.048 to 0.206 (polyphenol oxidase), whereas in molecular investigation using RAPD, among the well amplified primers, the primer number 5 (GGAGGGTGTT) exhibited cent per cent polymorphism followed by primer number 9 (CCGCATGTAC) 77.78 per cent, primer number 11 (CTCACCGTCC) 75.00 per cent, primer number 15 (ACCCGGTCAC) 66.67 per cent and lowest by primer number 14 (GGACCCAACC) 58.34 per cent, with an average polymorphism of 72.50 per cent. It can be concluded that the biochemical and molecular marker techniques are found to be quicker for screening of large gene pool. These advanced biochemical and molecular techniques can now supplement to speed up the conventional breeding programmes along with improvement in precision as these biochemical and molecular markers are adequate to judge the dissimilarity among the genotypes for speeding up the selection of parents with assumption that the banding profile is a measure of discrimination among the parental lines which will help the MAS.

1. AICCIP (2020) Project Co-ordinator’s Report-2019-20., Coimbatore (TN).
2. Bilwal B.B., Vadodariya K.V., Rajkumar B.K., Upadhyay A.K. and Lahane G.R. (2017) Bull.Env. Pharmacol Life Sci., 6(8), 51-57.
3. Saunders J.H. (1961) The wild species of Gossypium-and their Evolutionary History. Oxford Univ., Press, London.
4. Nijenhuis B.T. (1971) Euphytica., 20, 498-507
5. Cherry J.P., Katterman F.R.H. and Endrizzi J.E. (1970) Evolution, 24, 431-447.
6. Markert C.L. and Moller F. (1959) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci., USA., 45, 756-763.
7. Varier A. and Dadlani M. (1992) Indian J. Plant Physiology, 35(2), 145-157.
8. Dadlani M. and Varier A. (1993) Electrophoresis for variety identification. Tech. Bulletin, IARI., New Delhi.,3-4.
9. Krishna T.G.and Jawali N. (1997) Analytical Biochemistry, 250, 125-127.
10. Nerkar Y.S. and Rao T.N. (1993) Seed Res., 21, 375-393.
11. Nei M. And Li W.H. (1979) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 76(10), 5269-5273.
12. Kulkarni M.M. and Patil R.A. (2003) J.Indian Soc.Cotton Improv., 145, 150.
13. Muthusamy Annamalai and Narayanasamy Jayabalan (2013) J. Environ. Biol., 34(1), 6 -11.
14. Namrata Idnani (2002) J. Cotton. Res. Dev.,16(1), 69-77.
15. Prasad R., Prasad D., Taneja A.D. and Kudesia V.P. (2001) J. Indian. Soc. Cotton. Improv., 26(2), 89-91.
16. Ramani H.R., Singh S., Solanki B.D., Patel D.H. and Solanki B.G.(2017) Bull. Env. Pharmacol. Life Sci., 6(6), 06-13.
17. Singh A. and Kaur A. (2019) Journal of Cotton Research, 2(6), 2-12.
18. Roy M., Mandal N. and Das P.K. (2001) Indian J. Genet., 61(3) , 246-249.
19. Saha S. and Zipf A. (2008) J. Crop Production, 1(1), 79-93
20. Allah Ditta, Zhongli Zhou, Xiaoyan Cai, Xingxing Wang, Kiflom Weldu Okubazghi, Muhammad Shehzad, Yanchao Xu, Yuqing Hou, Muhammad Sajid Iqbal, Muhammad Kashif Riaz Khan, Kunbo Wang and Fang Liu. (2018) Int. J. Mol. Sci., 19, 2401.
21. Misagi I.J. (1982) Physiology and Biochemistry of plant pathogen interactions. Plenurn Press., New York and London., 110-163.
22. Doumbia Patricia-Irene ep M.L., Lamine Doumbia M., Assi Laurent N., Koffi Bertin Y., Tanoh Hilaire K. (2017) J. Nat. Prod. Plant Resources., 7 (2), 44-50.
23. Waqas Malik, Javaria Ashraf, Muhammad Zaffar Iqbal, Asif Ali Khan, Abdul Qayyum, Muhammad Ali Abid, Etrat Noor, Muhammad Qadir Ahmad and Ghulam Hasan Abbasi (2014) The Scientific World Journal, 1-15.
24. El-Sherbeny G.A.R., Khaled A.G.A., Eissa A.E.M. and El-Samman El-A. Y. (2018) Int. J. Modern Agriculture, 7(2), 16-26.
25. Jehan Bakht, Marina Iqbal and Shafi M. (2017) Adv. Life Sci., 5 (1), 25-29.
26. Nath A., Maloo S.R., Jain D., Nath S., Chakma A. and Verma R. (2018) International J. Genetics, 10(3), 365-369.
27. Chaudhary L., Sindhu A., Kumar M., Kumar R. and Saini M. (2010) Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 2(3), 39-43.
28. Kahodariya J., Sabara P. and Vakharia D. (2015) Indian Journal of Biotechnolog, 14, 511 - 517.
29. Kumar S.E. (2015) International J. of Pharmacy and Biological Sciences, 5(4), 201-207.
30. Shiva B., Nagaraja A., Singh R. and Srivastav M. (2017) International J. Genetics, 9(5) 271-274.
31. Shrivastava R., Mishra U.S.and Sharma J.K. (2005) J. Cotton Res. Dev., 19(1), 7-11.
32. Sultana S.S. and Alam S. S. (2016) Cytologia, 81(3), 257-262.
33. Upadhayay S.N., Patel D.H. and Patel H.R. (2019). J. Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 8 (4), 1112-1115.
34. Vafale-Tabar M., Chandrashekaran S., Rana M.K. (2004) J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol., 13, 81-84.