Record Details

Molecular markers for plant breeding: comparisons of RFLP and RAPD genotyping costs

OAR@ICRISAT

View Archive Info
 
 
Field Value
 
Relation http://oar.icrisat.org/5767/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00211050
 
Title Molecular markers for plant breeding: comparisons of RFLP and RAPD genotyping costs
 
Creator Ragot, M
Hoisington, D A
 
Subject Maize
 
Description Three molecular marker protocols, chemiluminescent restriction fragment length polymorphisms (c-RFLPs), radioactivity-based restriction fragment length polymorphisms (r-RFLPs), and randomly amplified DNA polymorphisms (RAPDs) were compared in terms of cost and time efficiency. Estimates of cost of supplies and time requirements were obtained from simulations of maize (Zea mays L.) genotyping experiments utilizing protocols currently in use. The increase in total cost with increasing numbers of individuals genotyped and markers analyzed is higher for RAPDs than for RFLPs. RAPDs were generally found to be more cost and time efficient for studies involving small sample sizes, while RFLPs have the advantage for larger sample sizes. Because of the shorter exposure times involved, c-RFLPs require less time than r-RFLPs to obtain a given amount of information. Variations in the protocols, such as number of re-uses of Southern blots or cost of Taq DNA polymerase per reaction of amplification, also affect the relative merits of RAPDs and RFLPs. Two examples were analyzed where molecular markers are used: a germ plasm survey and quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping in a segregating population. No protocol was found to be the most cost and time efficient over the entire range of sample sizes and number of marker loci studied.
 
Publisher Springer Verlag
 
Date 1993
 
Type Article
PeerReviewed
 
Format application/pdf
 
Language en
 
Rights —
 
Identifier http://oar.icrisat.org/5767/1/Theor%20Appl%20Genet_86_975-984_1993.pdf
Ragot, M and Hoisington, D A (1993) Molecular markers for plant breeding: comparisons of RFLP and RAPD genotyping costs. TAG Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 86 (8). pp. 975-984. ISSN 1432-2242