Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First Articles
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First Articles
Legume Research
Print ISSN: 0250-5371
Online ISSN: 0976-0571
NASS Rating
6.80
SJR
0.32
CiteScore
0.906

Chief Editor:
J. S. Sandhu
Vice Chancellor, SKN Agriculture, University, Jobner, VC, NDUAT, Faizabad, Deputy Director General (Crop Science), Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi
Frequency:Monthly
Indexing:
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Go...

Legume Research, volume 30 issue 3 (september 2007) : 235 - 242

IN SITU 4C DNA CONTENT STUDY OF TWENTY-NINE HYBRID VARIETIES OF SOME SELECTED TAXA OF TRIBE PHASEOLAE (FABACEAE)

B. Bandyopadhyay, S. C. Santra
1Department of Environmental Science, University of Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal 741235, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Bandyopadhyay B., Santra C. S. (2025). IN SITU 4C DNA CONTENT STUDY OF TWENTY-NINE HYBRID VARIETIES OF SOME SELECTED TAXA OF TRIBE PHASEOLAE (FABACEAE). Legume Research. 30(3): 235 - 242. doi: .

ABSTRACT

A quantitative study of in situ estimation of 4C nuclear DNA amount and chromosome counts were carried out on different genera, species and varieties of economically important legumes (twenty nine hybrid varieties of Glycine max, Erythrina variegata, Lablab purpureus, Vigna unguiculata, Canavalia ensiformis, Canavalia gladiata and Cajanuscajan) of the tribe Phaseolae (family Fabaceae). The 4C nuclear DNA amount was estimated through in situ Feulgen micro spectrophotometry expressed in arbitrary units of relative absorbance. Somatic chromosome number is studied which is constant at intra-specific level, but not at inter-specific level. There were significant variations in 4C DNA amount at the inter-specific but not at the intra-specific level. To considering nuclear DNA amount in relation to total chromosome length, the diversity in DNA amount was also associated with structural differences of chromosomes among the different species. The variation in 4C DNA content was non significant at the varietal level, though in most of the cases the variations were significant at species and generic level.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Altamura, M.M, . (1991). Cytobios (Cambridge) 67 (269) : 85-93.
    2. Bandyopadhyay, B. (1992). In : Perspectives in Cytology and Genetics (Manna, G.K. and Roy, S.C. eds.) 7:465-473.
    3. Banerjee, N. and Sharma, A.K. (1985).. Proc. Indian natn. Sci. Acad. 51(4) : 505-510.
    4. Bennett, M.D. and Leitch, I.J. (1997 )Ann Bot. 80: 169-196.
    5. Bentham, G. (1865)., “Genera Plantarum”. In Bentham and J.D. Hooker . Vol. 1. Reeve, London.
    6. Cavallini, A et al (1993). Heredity 70 : 561-565.
    7. Cubas, P. et al(1998). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 128:423-434.
    8. Cubas, P. and Pardo, C. (1997). Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 125: 229-243.
    9. Freckman, R.W. and Wemple, D.K. (1963). The chromosome number of the palilioniod legumes. Unpublished
    10. graduate student special report Botany Department, Iowa State University, Ames. U.S.A.
    11. Galasso, et al (1997) Ann Bot. 79: 311-317.
    12. Goldblatt, P. (1981”Advances in Legume Systematics”. Ann. Missouri Bot. Gard. 6823.
    13. Graham, A. and Tomb, A.S. (1977). Lloydia 40:413-435..
    14. Hutichinson, J. ( 1964). “The genera of Flowering Plants” Vol I, Oxford University Press.
    15. Ignacimuthu, S. and Babu, C.R. (1988).. Cytologia (Tokyo) 53 (3) : 535-542.
    16. Jones, W.E., et al (1998). Ann. Bt. 82 (2): 189-194.
    17. Lackey, J.A. (1977).. Bot . J. Linn. Soc. 74 : 163-178.
    18. Lanerayburn, A., et al (1997). Ann. Bot. 80 (3): 321-325.
    19. Le Coq et al (1992). Genome (Ottawa) 35 (4) : 706-708.
    20. Lewis, W.H. (1974).Lloyds 37: 460-464.
    21. Mukherjee, S. and Sharma, A.K. (1986). Perspectives in Cytology and Genetics. (Manna, G. K. and Sinha, U. eds.) 5:735-740.
    22. Mukherjee, S. and Sharma. A.K.(1990) Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. ( Plant Sci ) 100 (1) : 1-6.
    23. Mukhopadhyay, S. and Sharma, A.K. (1987). Cytologia, 52 : 821-831.
    24. Nandini, A.V. et al (1997). Bot. J. Linn.Soc. 125 (4): 359-386.
    25. Naranjo, C. A., et al .(1998). Ann. Bot. 82: 757-764..
    26. Narayan, R. K. J. and Rees,H. Chromosoma (1976) 54:141-154.
    27. Narayan, R.K.J. (1982) Evolution 36: 877-891.
    28. Narayan, R.K.J. (1985) In. Kew Chromosome Conference- 2. P.E.Brandham and M..D.Bennet (eds) George Allen
    29. and Unwin(Lond.).pp 243-250.
    30. Narayan,R.K.J.(1987) Pl.Syst.Evol.157:161-180.
    31. Narayan,R.KJ.(1988) Evol. Trends in Plants 2:121-130
    32. Palomino, G., Sousa, M.S. (2000). Ann. Bot. 85 (1): 69-76.
    33. Parida, A. et al.(1990). Genetica 82 (2) : 125-134.
    34. Phillips, L.L and Strickland, M.A. (1966) Can. J. Genet. and Cytol. 891-895.
    35. Polhill R.M.N. and Raven P.H. (1981). In “Advances in Legume Systematics,” (ed. R.M Polhill and P.H.Raven). Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.
    36. Price,H.J and Bachmann.K (1975) Amer. J. Bot. 62:262-267.
    37. Raven, P.H. (1977). Lloydia, 40:401-406.
    38. Rees,H. and Hazarika,M,H.(1967) Chromosome Today 2:159-165.
    39. Rees,H and Jones,R,N (1967) Nature(Lond) 216:825-826
    40. Sharma, A.K. and Mukhopadhyay, S. (1984). Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Plant Sci.) 93: 337-347.
    41. Taubert, P. (1894). Leguminosae. In ‘Die Naturlichen Pflanzen- familien.” (A Engler and K. Pranti, eds.) vol III, 3: 70- 308.Wilhelm Engelmann, Leipzig.
    42. Van’t Hof., J. (1965).. Exp. Cell. Res. 39 : 48 – 58.
    43. Watson, E.M. (1987). Genome 29 (2) : 225 – 235.
    Reviewed By

    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)