Molecular study of Pigeonpea

reactions are usually monogenic or oligogenic in nature

Greilhuber J. and Obermayer R. 1998. Genome size

the molecular differences may be associated with even

variation in Cajanuscajan (Fabaceae ) : A reconsideration.

differences in a single nucleotide. Higher resolution in

Plant Syst. Evol ., 212 : 135-141.

such clusters may be possible if large number of markers

Karp A, Edwards K, Bruford M, Vosman B, Mogante M,

or SNPs are used for such type of study. The second

Seberg O, Kremer A, Boursot P, Arctander P, Tautz D

minor cluster of B2 included resistant genotypes viz .,

and Hewitt G, 1997. Newer molecular technologies for

BSMR-853 and WRGE-119. The third sub-cluster B2

biodiversity evaluation: opportunities and challenges.

consist genotypes viz. , ICPL-87119, ICPL-84060 and

Nature Biotechnology 15 : 625-628.

ICP-8863.

Malviya N. and Yadav D. 2010. RAPD analysis among

Conclusion

pigeonpea ( Cajanuscajan (L.) Mill sp.) cultivars for their

RAPD analysis of seventeen pigeonpea genotypes with

genetic diversity. Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology

20 random primers revealed that this dominant marker

Journal 1: 1-9.

can efficiently distinguish susceptible genotypes from

Murray M. G. and Thompson W. F. 1980. Rapid isolation

resistant ones. RAPD markers can very well serve the

of high molecular weight plant DNA. Nucleic Acids Res.

purpose of identifying resistancy from susceptibility.

8 : 4321-4325.

Moreover, conversion of distinct molecular bands to

more efficient SCAR markers should to be the next logic

Nene Y. L., Sheila V. K., and Sharroa S. B. 1989. A

step to characterize resistant genotypes. The study also

world list of chickpea ( Cicerarietinum L.) and pigeonpea

revealed that from the tendency of resistant and susceptible

( Cajanuscajan L. Millsp.) pathogens. Legumes Pathology

genotypes to cluster together, it can be inferred that these

Progress Report-7, Patancheru, India: International Crops

genotypes share a common phylogenetic pathway and the

Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, pp 490.

resistancy and susceptibility to fusarium wilt may be due

Odeny A. D., Jayshree B., Ferguson M., Hoisinton

to mono or oligogenes which can in turn to be targeted

D., Crouch J., and Gebhardt C. 2007. Development,

using more efficient marker (molecular) systems.

characterization and utilization of microsatellite markers

in pigeonpea. Plant Breeding, 126 : 130-136.

Acknowledgements

Rohlf F.J. 1994. NTSYS-PC Numerical Taxonomy and

We thank Retd. Head and Professor Dr. J. C. Jadeja, for

Multivariate Analysis System, 2.02. State University of

the helpand encouragement during these study and also

New York, Stony brook, New York.

thank to Plant Biotechnology Laboratory, Department

of Genetics and Plant Breeding, B. A. College of

Van der Maesen L .J. G. 1980. India is the native home

Agriculture.

of pigeonpea. (In) Libergratulatorius in honorem .

(HCD de Wit, Arends JC, Boelema G, de Groot CT

References

and Leeuwenberg AJM, eds.). Miscellaneous Paper,19.

Wageningen, the Netherlands: Agricultural University.

Choudhury P. R., Singh I. P., George B., Verma A.

Pages 257-262

K. and Singh N. P. 2008. Assessment of genetic

diversity of pigeonpea cultivars using RAPD analysis.

Varshney R. K., Hoisington D. A. and Tyagi A. K. 2006.

BiologiaPlantarum, 52 (4): 648-653.

Advance in cereal genomics and applications in crop

breeding. Trends Biotechnology , 24 : 490-499.

465