HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cox, T. S. Articles by Rodgers, D. M. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Cox, T. S. Articles by Rodgers, D. M. Agricola Articles by Cox, T. S. Articles by Rodgers, D. M.

Genetic Relationships Among Hard Red Winter Wheat Cultivars as Evaluated by Pedigree Analysis and Gliadin Polyacrylamide Gel Electrophoretic Patterns¹

Genetic relationships for all 903 pairwise combinations of 43 hard red winter wheat cultivars were evaluated using two indices: coefficient of parentage (r), computed from pedigree analysis, and a similarity coefficient (s), based on gliadin polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (PAGE) patterns. Each index may vary from 0 for two unrelated cultivars to 1 for two identical cultivars. Mean r and s over all cultivars were 0.24 and 0.55, respectively. Cluster analyses based on the r and s matrices revealed dissimilar patterns of relationship in the hard red winter wheat gene pool. When cultivars were separated into two clusters based on the r matrix, mean r within and between clusters was 0.29 and 0.17, respectively. Separation of cultivars into two clusters based on s gave a mean s within and between clusters of 0.60 and 0.49, respectively. The rank correlation coefficient between r and s for all pairs of cultivars was 0.27 (significant at 0.01). Genetic drift and selection probably reduced the correlation between r and s. There was no relationship between ancestor-cultivar r and s values because of the heterogeneous nature of the ancestors. Efficiency of breeding programs could be improved by computing r values and emphasizing crosses between diverse parents.

Key Words: Electrophoresis • Pedigree • Genetic diversity • Genetic distance

² TSC and LGH, research geneticist and agricultural research technician, respectively, USDA-ARS, Dep. of Agronomy, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506; GLL, DEW, and LDA, research chemist, electronics engineer, and research assistant, respectively, USDA-ARS, U.S. Grain Marketing Research Laboratory, Manhattan, KS 66502; DMR, formerly assistant professor, Kansas State Univ. (deceased).

Received for publication January 15, 1985.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. Perumal, R. Krishnaramanujam, M. A. Menz, S. Katile, J. Dahlberg, C. W. Magill, and W. L. Rooney Genetic Diversity among Sorghum Races and Working Groups Based on AFLPs and SSRs Crop Sci., July 30, 2007; 47(4): 1375 - 1383. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. S. C. Smith, D. N. Duvick, O. S. Smith, M. Cooper, and L. Feng Changes in Pedigree Backgrounds of Pioneer Brand Maize Hybrids Widely Grown from 1930 to 1999 Crop Sci., November 1, 2004; 44(6): 1935 - 1946. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				X. Zhou, T. E. Carter Jr., Z. Cui, S. Miyazaki, and J. W. Burton Genetic Base of Japanese Soybean Cultivars Released during 1950 to 1988 Crop Sci., November 1, 2000; 40(6): 1794 - 1802. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]