Skip to main content
Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences
Download PDF

Evaluation of the growth, yield traits and the genetic diversity of some Brassica napus genotypes under Egyptian conditions

Beni-Suef University Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences volume 12, Article number: 48 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Canola (Brassica napus L.) is considered an alternate oilseed plant. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate some growth parameters, yield, chemical parameters and genetic diversity among thirteen canola genotypes including a collection of Chinese, German, French, and local genotypes under Egyptian conditions.

Result

Trapper genotype recorded the highest values of plant height (47.12 and 89.75 cm) and dry weight/plant (8.54 and 28.19 dry weight/plant) at 60 and 90 days from sowing, respectively. Data from the field experiments showed that significant differences were recorded among tested genotypes for all yield and its component parameters (i.e., plant height (cm), branches/no. plant, siliquas and seed weight (g/plant) and seed oil %. The genetic diversity and the relationships among the thirteen canola genotypes were evaluated utilizing sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) and simple-sequence repeats (SSRs) markers. The allelic frequency of the different SRAP and SSR markers tested has differed among the thirteen canola genotypes. The SRAP and SSR analyses showed 659 out of 742 and 15 out of 45 markers, respectively, were detected as polymorphic markers (88.8% and 33.33%) among the tested wheat cultivars In addition, the polymorphism information content (PIC), marker index (MI) and resolving power (RP) parameters were computed to assess the effectiveness of the markers. The results indicated the occurrence of a considerable genetic variation between Chinese, European and Egyptian genotypes.

Conclusion

These markers are of considerable value and can be utilized to screen large canola populations. The results of the comparison between the two molecular markers showed that the most effective marker that showed the genetic diversity between canola genotypes was SRAP (88.8%) polymorphism. It could be concluded that the tested canola genotypes could be cultivated under the Egyptian condition with high performance especially Trapper, Agamax and Topas genotypes. Therefore, it could be suggested that these three genotypes seem to be promising for oil gap reduction and need further evaluation for the expansion under new reclaimed regions.

1 Background

There is a large gap between edible oil production and consumption in Egypt; therefore, high amount are imported from abroad. For that, the government policy is to rely on B. napus L crops. The Brassica genus contains about 100 species, including B. napus L. that known as canola or rapeseed [1]. Canola is an amphidiploid (2n = 4 X = 38) generated by hybridization between B. rapa and B. oleracea [2]. Recently, there are agricultural expansions to increase canola production in Egypt. Canola considers the third most substantial source of edible oil after soybean and palm in the world. Canola seeds contain 42% oil and 25% protein [3]. Although B. napus oil is considered an important source of vegetable oil, the level of erucic acid and glucosinolate in the seed may limit its usage [4].

The knowledge of the genetic relationship and diversity between genotypes is important [5]. Canola genotypes were classified into spring, winter and semi-winter genotypes [6]. Hybridization between these genotypes is an important approach to developing the genetic base of canola genotypes [7]. The morphological parameters, protein content, isozymes and DNA markers were utilized to assess the genetic relationship between plant genotypes. The positive relationship between number of pods, seeds/pod and 1000—seed weight with seeds/plant and quality of some canola genotypes were reported by other studies [8, 9]. The positive relationship between number of pods, seeds/pod and 1000—seed weight with seeds/plant and quality of some canola genotypes were reported [9, 10]. Isozymes have been utilized as markers in many genetic studies including genetic variation in B. juncea [11]. However, morphological and chemical parameters are affected by the plant developmental stage and surrounding environmental conditions. Among several markers used for genetic analysis, DNA markers are more effective, specific and reliable in discriminating closely related genotypes [12,13,14]. Several molecular markers, including restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP), random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), sequence characterized amplified regions (SACR), single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP), SRAP and SSR, have been utilized to map genes and study the genetic diversity among different canola genotypes [15, 16]. SRAP DNA marker was mentioned first time by Li and Quiros [17]. SRAP combines two primers, each containing a random sequence with CCGG sequence in the forward primer and AATT in the reverse one, and amplifies the polymorphism related to the open reading frames (ORFs) [18]. SRAP and SSR markers are reliable, simple, highly polymorphic, easily detected and generally utilized in genomic applications [19, 20]. In comparison with other marker types, SSR markers are codominant, reproducible and relatively inexpensive when the primer sequence is known. Moreover, SSR often occurs in gene-rich genome sequences, increasing their possible relevance for quantitative trait loci studies. SSR markers have been widely utilized in genetic diversity studies in wheat, maize, rice and tomatoes [13, 21, 22]. Cunmin et al., [24] and Ahmad et al., [25] displayed that the SSR marker was efficient for genetic variation evaluation among different canola genotypes. Therefore, this study aims to evaluate the growth parameters, yield and yield attributes and some chemical constituents among thirteen canola genotypes collected from different regions under Egyptian conditions. In addition, to study the genetic diversity of these canola genotypes utilizing SRAP and SSR markers.

2 Methods

2.1 Plant material

Thirteen canola genotypes were collected from German, China and France to cultivate with two local genotypes under the Egyptian condition (Table 1). The experiment was cultivated in the Agricultural production and research station, National research center (NRC), El Nubaria, El Behira governorate, Egypt during two seasons (2019–2020 and 2020–2021). The experimental soil texture was sand. Soil chemical and physical properties were evaluated utilizing Chapman and Pratt [26] method (Table 2). Irrigation water was analyzed (Table 3).

Table 1 Canola genotype name and origin
Full size table
Table 2 Chemical and physical analysis of the experimental soil (average of both seasons)
Full size table
Table 3 Chemical analysis of irrigation water (average of both seasons)
Full size table

2.2 Sowing

The soil was plowed two times and divided into plots. 200 kg/ha calcium superphosphate and 100 kg/ha potassium sulfate were added during seed preparation, while four equal doses from ammonium sulfate (160 kg/ha) were applied weekly. Each plot contains fifteen rows (about 20 cm spacing) of 3.5-m length, i.e., 10.5 m2, with a seed rate of 8 kg/ha. The planting date for the first and second season was the 20th and 25th of November, respectively. Sprinkler irrigation took place immediately after sowing, then every seven days at intervals according to agronomic practices in the district.

2.3 Growth characters

After sowing five plants were randomly selected at 60 and 90 days from each plot to assess the plant height (cm), the number of leaves/plants, and the number of branches/plants, the fresh and dry weight/plant (g).

2.4 Yield and yield attributes

Ten plants were collected randomly at the harvest to assess, plant height, number of siliqua/plant, 1000-seed weight (g), and seed yield/plant (g), while seed, straw and biological yield/ha (kg/ha) were determined by harvest all area of the plot.

2.5 Chemical analysis

Potassium, phosphate, iron, manganese and zinc contents were measured in the digested samples utilizing a Jenway flame photometer [32]. The dried plants were then completely ground to a fine powder and total N, P, K, Fe, Mn and Zn were measured according to A.O.A.C. [33]. Seed protein content was calculated by multiplying N (%) by 5.75. Seed oil content was assessed by utilizing Soxhlet apparatus and petroleum ether 60–80 °C as a solvent as described by A.O.A.C. [33]. The photosynthetic pigments (chlorophyll a, b and total carotenoids) were determined in representative fresh leaves samples after 60 and 90 days from sowing using spectrophotometer (Jasco, serial No.C317961148, Japan) at the wavelength of 663 nm for chlorophyll a, 647 nm for chlorophyll b and 470 nm for total carotenoids. The chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b were measured according to Moran and Porath [34] as follows: ten ml N,N-Dimethylformamide (DMF) was added to 1 g of fresh leaves in dark tubes; then, they were left for overnight at 5 °C. The obtained extracts from previous materials were measured spectrophotometrically while the DMF was used as a blank. The total carotenoids were determined by the method of Yang et al. [35]. 1 g of fresh leaves was mixed with 10 mL of an acetone–hexane mixture (2:3) for 2 min. The absorbance maxima were read at 470 nm for carotenoids.

The concentrations of these pigments were calculated employing formula [34, 35]:

$$\begin{gathered} {\text{Chlorophyll}}\;{\text{a}} = {12}.{76}\;{\text{A}}_{{{663}}} {-}{2}.{79}\;{\text{A}}_{{{647}}} \left( {{\text{mg}}/{\text{l}}} \right) \hfill \\ {\text{Chlorophyll}}\;{\text{b}} = {2}0.{76}\;{\text{A}}_{{{647}}} {-}{4}.{62}\;{\text{A}}_{{{663}}} \left( {{\text{mg}}/{\text{l}}} \right) \hfill \\ {\text{Total}}\;{\text{chlorophyll}} = {17}.{9}0\;{\text{A}}_{{{647}}} {-}{8}.0{8}\;{\text{A}}_{{{663}}} \left( {{\text{mg}}/{\text{l}}} \right) \hfill \\ {\text{Total}}\;{\text{carotenoids}} = \left( {{1}000 \times {\text{A}}_{{{47}0}} - { 2}.{72} \times {\text{chlorophyll}}\;{\text{a}}{-}{81}.{4} \times {\text{chlorophyll}}\;{\text{b}}} \right)/{227}\left( {{\text{mg}}/{\text{l}}} \right) \hfill \\ \end{gathered}$$

All the above were calculated on the fresh weight basis as mg/g fresh leaves.

2.6 DNA extraction

In the second experimental season, chromosomal DNA was extracted from the thirteen canola genotypes utilizing the cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) method [36].

2.7 SRAP analysis

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) of SRAP was carried out in a 25 μL reaction volume including 2 μL DNA (50 ng/μL), 12.5 master mix (GeneDireX® One PCR™, Cat. No. SM213-0250, Taiwan), 1 μL (2 μM/μL), from forward and reverse primers and 8.5 μL of nuclease-free water. Fifteen SRAP primers were utilized in this investigation (Table 4). PCR conditions were  programed with a denaturation step at 94 °C for 5 min, followed by 5 cycles at 94 °C for 1 min, then annealing at 35 °C for 1 min, and extension at 72 °C for 1 min, followed by 35 cycles of denaturation at 94 °C for 1 min, and annealing step at 50 °C for 1 min, then extension step at 72 °C for 1 min. Finally, the amplification was completed with one cycle of a final extension at 72 °C for 7 min.

Table 4 The nucleotide sequences of SRAP primers
Full size table

2.8 SSR analysis

Twenty SSR primers were utilized to study the genetic variation among canola genotypes (Table 5). PCR analysis was performed in a 10 μl reaction mixture containing 1 μl DNA (50 ng/μL), 5 μL master mix (GeneDireX® One PCR™, Cat. No. SM213-0250, Taiwan), 0.5 μL (2 μM/μL) from each primer and 3 μL of dH2O. The PCR program started with a denaturation step at 94 °C for 5 min, followed by 35 cycles at 94 °C/1 min, for denaturation, and annealing changed according to each primer (Table 5), then elongation step at 72 °C/1 min and, finally, a terminal extension step at 72 °C/5 min.

Table 5 The nucleotide sequences and the annealing temperature of the SSR primers
Full size table

For both SRAP and SSR, the amplification conditions were performed in a thermocycler UNO II, Biometra, Germany. The products were resolved by 2% agarose gel in 1 × TAE buffer, DNA bands visualized with ethidium bromide staining (0.5 μg/mL), and photographed under UV light using the gel documentation system (Bio-Rad® Gel Doc-2000). Fifty bp DNA ladder (GeneDireX®, Cat. No. G DM012-R500, Taiwan) was used as a molecular weight size marker.

2.9 Statistical analyses

The analysis of the collected data was carried out utilizing the least significant difference (LSD) test at 0.05 levels. For data obtained each season, the results were analyzed utilizing the analysis of variance of significance according to Gomez and Gomez [37]. The SRAP and SSR products were scored based on the presence (1) or absence (0) of the bands. The data obtained SRAP and SSR analyses were collected together to determine the genetic similarity coefficient between samples utilizing the Dice coefficient [38]. PIC, MI, and RP parameters were obtained for each primer following Chesnokov and Artemyeva [39] to calculate the in formativeness of the tested primers.

3 Results

3.1 Growth characters

The evaluation of thirteen canola genotypes grown under Egyptian conditions and study their growth characteristics, i.e., plant height, number of leaves/plants, number of branches/plants, fresh weight/plant, dry weight/plant, chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and total carotene after 60 and 90 days from sowing were displayed in Table 6. The results displayed that all studied characters showed significant differences in both seasons except for chlorophyll b and total carotene after 90 days from sowing.

Table 6 Growth characters of 13 canola genotypes after 60 and 90 days (D) from sowing
Full size table

Data presented in Table 6 illustrated the growth characteristics of canola genotypes cultivated under the Egyptian condition. The results displayed that Trapper genotype surpassed in plant height and dry weight/plant; however, it recorded 47.12, 89.75 cm and 8.54, 28.19 g for plant height and dry weight/plant at 60 and 90 days after sowing, respectively. While the Agamax genotype surpassed it in both sampling times in the number of leaves/plant, fresh weight/plant and chlorophyll b where it recorded 17.65, 21.64, 45.12, 112.15 g and 1.01, 1.57 for the number of leaves/plant, fresh weight/plant and chlorophyll b at 60 and 90 days after sowing, respectively. Topas genotype surpassed in the number of branches/plants in both sampling times where it records 5.84 and 9.81 for 60 and 90 days after sowing, respectively. Pactol genotype surpassed in chlorophyll a, carotene and total pigment in both sampling times where it recorded 1.80 and 1.53, 1.24 and 1.30, 3.81 and 3.5 for chlorophyll a, carotene and total pigment at 60 and 90 days after sowing, respectively (Table 7). While the HE you 46 genotype recorded the lowest value of plant height, Semu DNK 65/84 genotype recorded the lowest values of the number of leaves/plant, number of branches/plant, fresh weight/plant, dry weight/plant and chlorophyll b and Serw 6 genotype recorded the lowest values of chlorophyll b, carotene and total pigments at 60 and 90 days after sowing, respectively.

Table 7 Total pigment of 13 canola genotypes after 60 and 90 days (D) from sowing
Full size table

3.2 Yield and yield attributes

Data in Table 8 illustrated that yield and yield attributes, i.e., pod number/m2, 1000 seed weight, straw yield/faddan, pod yield/faddan, seed yield/faddan and biological yield/faddan of 13 canola genotypes cultivated under the Egyptian conditions, where the recorded characters differed significantly between the tested genotypes except 1000 seed weight. Trapper genotype surpassed the other genotypes in the recorded parameters except biological yield/faddan, where it recorded 783.59, 3.52, 4850.20, 3946.61, 1972.21 and 7087.06 for pod number/m2, 1000 seed weight, straw yield/faddan, pod yield/faddan, seed yield/faddan and biological yield/faddan, respectively. Serw 6 recorded the second order after Trapper in most of the studied characters except pod yield/faddan and biological yield/faddan, while AD 201 genotype recorded the lowest values of the studied characters.

Table 8 Yield and yield attributes of 13 canola genotypes
Full size table

3.3 Chemical characters

Data in Table 9 illustrated that some chemical constituents, i.e., protein %, oil %, N %, P %, K %, Fe ppm, Mn ppm and Zn ppm of 13 canola genotypes cultivated under the Egyptian conditions, where Trapper genotype surpassed the other genotypes in protein %, N % and K %, while Semu DNK 65/84 genotype surpassed in oil %. Pactol genotype surpassed P% while the HE you 46 genotypes surpassed in Fe and Mn and Wang you 25 genotypes surpassed in Zn content.

Table 9 Chemical characters of 13 canola genotypes seed
Full size table

3.4 The genetic diversity among canola genotypes using SRAP marker

From 56 SRAP primer combinations, only 36 combinations generated suitable polymorphism in the 13 tested canola genotypes (Fig. 1). SRAP analysis resulted in a total of 742 bands detected among the thirteen canola genotypes. Only 659 of them were polymorphic bands (88.8%) (Table 10). The highest number of bands (34 bands) was generated by using both (EM4-ME7and EM9-ME2) primers, while the lowest one was 10 bands that were generated with EM1-ME7.The (EM3-ME9, EM3-ME7, EM3-ME8, EM6-ME1, EM6-ME2, EM1-ME7, EM3-ME3, EM4-ME1, EM9-ME8, EM4-ME7, EM9-ME2, EM9-ME3 and EM9-ME7) markers recorded the highest polymorphism percentages (100%) while the lowest one was 6 bands that were generated with percentage (23.07%) was recorded by EM6-ME3 marker. The unique band of SRAP marker for some genotypes of canola was determined (Table 11). Furthermore, the parameters of the genetic varieties for the investigated primers were determined. The polymorphism information content (PIC) values ranged from (0.107) obtained with primer EM6-ME4 and (0.390) by EM9-ME4. In addition, the marker index (MI) values indicated range from (0.197) by primers EM3-ME8 and (4.195) by EM6-ME4. Also, the calculated resolving power (RP) values were ranged between (5.17) by EM3-ME8 and (26.83) by EM6-ME4.

Fig. 1
figure 1

SRAP profile demonstrating polymorphism among the canola genotypes. M refers to 50 bp DNA ladder marker. Lanes 1–13 represent all the canola genotypes

Full size image
Table 10 PCR amplicons obtained from SRAP markers
Full size table
Table 11 Canola genotypes unique band of SRAP marker
Full size table

3.5 The genetics similarity based on SRAP analysis

The result of genetic similarity based on SRAP analysis indicated the highest number was (0.70) between cultivar (AD 201 and Topas) while the lowest number was (0.34) between cultivar (Serw 6 and Serw 4) and (Serw 6 and HE you 46) (Additional file 1: Table S1). The dice similarity index classified the canola genotypes into two main clusters. The first one included only Serw 6 genotype while the second cluster has divided into 2 subclusters; the first included Serw 4 (1) genotypes and HE you 46 (2) genotype and the second has divided into another 2 subclusters. One of them included Trapper and Agamax and the other one also divided into two subclusters (Additional file 1: Fig. S1). The dendrogram showed that genotypes Topas and AD201 were in the same cluster.

3.6 SSR analysis

SSR analysis resulted in a total of 45 bands detected among the thirteen canola species (Fig. 2). Only 15 of them were polymorphic bands (33.33%). The highest number of bands (3 bands) was amplified by using (A049627743, A0415440685, A05 20,242,013, A01-21,437,996, BG 103, BJ 95, IM 4 and SR 37) primers while the lowest one was one band that was generated with primers (BRMS02 (CT) 22, SR1 and BJ 96). The highest polymorphism percentages (66.67%) were recorded by primers (A0415440685, A05 20,242,013, BG 103, BJ 96 and SR 37) while the lowest polymorphism percentages (0%) was recorded by primer (BRMS02 (CT)22, 3 BRMS03 (CT)19, BG 1, BRMS56 (GA)13, BRMS17 (CA) 33, SR1 and BJ 95) (Table 12). Further, the PIC values were range from (0.00) by 9 primers (BRMS56(GA)13, BRMS17(CA)33, BRMS02(CA)22, BG1, 3BRMS03(CA)19F, SR1, BJ95, IM8 and BRMS27(GA)17) to (0.310) by primer BG103. Moreover, the highest MI value (0.502) was gained by primer BG103, while the lowest value (0.00) was obtained with the same 9 primers for the PIC. Further, the calculated RP values were about (6.00) by primer BJ95 to (2.00) by three primers (BRMS27(GA)17, SR1 and BRMS02(CT)22). The unique band of SSR marker for some genotypes of canola was determined (Table 13).

Fig. 2
figure 2

SSR profile demonstrating polymorphism among the canola genotypes. M refers to 50 bp DNA ladder marker. Lanes 1–13 represent all the canola genotypes

Full size image
Table 12 PCR amplicons obtained from SSR markers
Full size table
Table 13 Canola genotypes unique band of SRR marker
Full size table

3.7 The genetics similarity based on SSR analysis

The highest number of genetic similarity based on SSR analysis was (1.00) between genotype (Pactol and Semu DNK 65/84) and (Semu DNK 234/84 and Semu DNK 65/84) while the lowest number was (0.88) between genotype (Pactol and Serw 6), (Semu DNK 234/84 and Serw 6), (Serw 6 and Semu DNK 65/84) and (Serw 6 and Agamax) (Additional file 1: Table S2). Dice’s similarity index classified the canola genotypes into two main clusters. One included only Serw 6 genotype, while the second cluster, which contained 12 genotypes, was subdivided into two subclusters. The first subcluster comprised the Trapper genotype, whereas the second subcluster contained the other 11 genotypes which also were divided into two subclusters (Additional file 1: Fig. S2). From the dendrogram based on SSR analysis, the genotypes Pactol, SemuDNK 234/84 and SemuDNK 65/84 were in the same cluster.

3.8 Cluster analysis based on SSR and SRAP combined data

After the data obtained by SRAP and SSR have been analyzed individually, the binary data amplified by all the primers were combined and analyzed to evaluate the genetic relationship and similarity among the 13 canola genotypes. The genetic similarity measured utilizing the SRAP and SSR combined data analysis ranged from 0.70 between AD 201 genotype and Topas genotype while the lowest number was 0.36 between Serw 6 genotype and Serw 4 genotype (Table 14). The cluster analysis dendrogram constructed based on the total number of alleles generated by SRAP and SSR primers divided into 2 main clusters; the first cluster included Serw 6 genotype alone, while the second cluster has divided into 2 subclusters; the first included Serw 4 genotypes and HE you 46 genotype, while the second has divided into 2 subclusters (Fig. 3).

Table 14 The genetics similarity based on combined data
Full size table
Fig. 3
figure 3

Cluster analysis based on Dice similarity index derived from the combined data of the two markers

Full size image

4 Discussions

Different factors affect the growth parameters and seed yield in plants including genotypes, location, season, planting date, soil nutrients and growing conditions [40, 41]. Zhang et al. [41] displayed that the seed yield was significantly different among different canola genotypes. In addition, El Habbasha and Abd El salam [42] pointed out there were important differences among canola genotypes in the seed yield. The results shown in Tables 6 and 7 displayed that there were significant differences among tested genotypes in all of the studied traits under Egyptian conditions. The results showed that some canola genotypes were surpassed in their plant height, plant dry weight/plant, leaves/plant, fresh weight/plant and branches/plant such as Trapper, Agamax and Topas. This was certainly due to the genetic buildup of the genotypes under study. Different responses of other Chinese genotypes under Egyptian conditions were reported by many authors [34]. The differences among genotypes also may be attributed to their genetic constitution [10, 43, 44]. Similar results were observed by Mekki and El-Kholy [45], Singh et al. [46], Sana et al., [47], Zhang et al., [41] and Mekki [44].

In the present investigation, 36 SRAP combinations and 20 SSR markers were utilized to investigate the genetic diversity among 13 genotypes of canola. SRAP analysis resulted in a total of 742 bands detected among the canola genotypes. Only 659 of them were polymorphic bands (88.8%) (Table 4). The SRAP markers targeting ORFs as functional sequences of the canola genome displayed sufficient polymorphism. All the SSR markers were amplified generating 44 bands. Out of 20 markers, only 12 markers were polymorphic. These findings confirm the effectiveness of SSR markers when utilized to assess genetic diversity. SSR markers are the most recommended markers to evaluate the genetic variation among different canola genotypes. Ahmad et al. [48] reported that the SRAP and SSR markers were highly beneficial and revealed considerable genetic difference among 77 canola genotypes. The study of the genetic diversity between different species and genotypes of plants is very important for crop preservation and improvement [11]. Recently, several researches on genetic diversity in canola have been performed throughout the world utilizing several molecular markers [48, 49]. However, the ultimate aim of the evaluation of the genetic diversity in available canola genotypes is to effectively use them in the breeding programs. The results of the present study could be used in breeding programs to obtain canola hybrids between the tested genotypes and the local genotypes or to cultivate the Trapper, Agamax and Topas genotypes under Egyptian conditions.

5 Conclusion

The all canola genotypes used were grown successfully under Egyptian conditions, but some genotypes surpassed in yield production such as Trapper, Agamax and Topas genotypes.

Availability of data and material

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

SRAP:

Sequence-related amplified polymorphism

SSR:

Simple-sequence repeats

Brassica napus :

B. napus L.

cm:

Centimeter

g:

Gram

Brassica rapa :

B. rapa

Brassica oleracea :

B. oleracea

RFLP:

Restriction fragment length polymorphism

AFLP:

Amplified fragment length polymorphism

RAPD:

Random amplified polymorphic DNA

SACR:

Sequence characterized amplified regions

SNP:

Single nucleotide polymorphisms

ORFs:

Open reading frames

NRC:

National research center

DMF:

N,N-Dimethylformamide

CTAB:

Cetyltrimethylammonium bromide

PCR:

Polymerase chain reaction

LSD:

Least significant difference

PIC:

Polymorphism information content

MI:

Marker index

RP:

Resolving power

References

  1. Saeidnia S, Gohari AR (2012) Importance of Brassica napus as a medicinal food plant. J Med Plants Res 6:2700–2703. https://doi.org/10.5897/JMPR11.1103

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Iniguez-Luy FL, Federico ML (2011) The Genetics of Brassica napus. In: Schmidt R, Bancroft I (eds) Genetics and genomics of the Brassicaceae, vol 9. Springer, New York, pp 291–322

  3. Hu X, Sullivan-Gilbert M, Gupta M, Thompson SA (2006) Mapping of the loci controlling oleic and linolenic acid contents and development of fad2 and fad3 allele-specific markers in canola (Brassica napus L.). Theor Appl Genet 113:497–507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-006-0315-1

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Rajcan I, Kasha KJ, Kott LS, Beversdorf WD (1999) Detection of molecular markers associated with linolenic and erucic acid levels in spring rapeseed (Brassica napus L.). Euphytica 105:173–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1003494217074

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Kresovich SJ, Williams JG, McFerson JR, Routman EJ, Schaal BA (1992) Characterization of genetic identities and relationships of Brassica oleracea L. via a random amplified polymorphic DNA. Theoret Appl Genetics 85(2–3):190–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00222859

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Channa SA, Tian H, Wu HQ, Hu SW (2016) Analysis of genetic diversity among rapeseed cultivars and breeding lines by SRAP and SSR molecular markers. Pak J Bot 48:2409–2422

    Google Scholar 

  7. Kebede B, Thiagarajah M, Zimmerli C, Rahman MH (2010) Improvement of open-pollinated spring rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) through introgression of genetic diversity from winter rapeseed. Crop Sci 50:1236–1243. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2009.06.0352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Özer H, Oral E, Dogru Ǔ (1999) Relationships between yield and yield components on currently improved spring rapeseed cultivars. Tr J Agric Forestry 23:603–607

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mekki BB (2003) Yield and chemical composition of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) varieties in response to nitrogen fertilization. In: 11th international rapeseed congress, Copenhagen, Denmark vol 3, pp 915–917

  10. Gormus O, Harun R, El Sabagh A (2017) Impact of defoliation timings and leaf pubescence on yield and fiber quality of cotton. J Agric Sci Technol 19(4):903–915

    Google Scholar 

  11. Arunachalam V, Prabhu KV, Sujata V (1996) Efficiency of isozyme markers in genetic differentiation of Brassica. In: 2nd international rapeseed congress. New Delhi, India. Assay. Theo App Gene vol 85, pp 190–196

  12. Mishra M, Suresh N, Bhat A, Suryaprakash N, Kumar S, Kumar A, Jayarama A (2011) Genetic molecular analysis of Coffea arabica (Rubiaceae) hybrids using SRAP markers. Rev Biol Trop 59:607–617

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Fouda MS, Hendawey MH, Hegazi GA, Sharada HM, El-Arabi NI, Attia ME, Soliman ERS (2021) Nanoparticles induce genetic, biochemical, and ultrastructure variations in Salvadora persica callus. J Genetic Eng Biotechnol 19:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43141-021-00124-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Abulela HA, El Shafee E, Farag HM, Yacoub IH, Elarabi NI (2022) Evaluation of the morpho-physiological traits and the genetic diversity of some Egyptian bread wheat cultivars under salt stress conditions. Cereal Res Commun 1–21(50):733–753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42976-022-00263-4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Somers DJ, Rakow G, Prabhu VK, Friesen KRD (2001) Identification of a major gene and RAPD markers for yellow seed coat colour in Brassica napus. Genome 44:1077–1082

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Moghaieb REA, Abdelhadi AA, Talaat NB (2011) Molecular markers associated with salt tolerance in Egyptian wheat. Afric J Biotech 10(79):18092–18103. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB11.2576

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Li G, Quiros CF (2001) Sequence- related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) a new marker system based on a simple PCR reaction its application to mapping and gene tagging in Brassica. Theo Appl Gene 103:45561. https://doi.org/10.1007/s001220100570

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Farias-da-Silva EF, de Sousa SB, da Silva GF, Sousa NR, do NascimentoFilho FJ, Hanada RE, (2016) TRAP and SRAP markers to find genetic variability in complex polyploidy Paullinia cupana var sorbilis. Plant Gene 6:43–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plgene.2016.03.005

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Li QF, Mei JQ, Zhang YJ, Li JN, Ge XH, Li ZY, Qian W (2013) A large-scale introgression of genomic components of Brassica rapa into B. napus by the bridge of hexaploid derived from hybridization between B. napus and B. oleracea. Theor Appl Genet 126:2073–2080. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-013-2119-4

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Yousefi S, Saeidi H, Assadi M (2018) Genetic diversity analysis of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.) in Iran using sequence related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) markers. J Agric Sci Tech 20:373–386

    Google Scholar 

  21. Reif JC, Warburton ML, Xia XC, Hoisington DA, Crossa J, Taba S, Muminovic J, Bohn M, Frisch M, Melchinger AE (2006) Grouping of accessions of Mexican races of maize revisited with SSR markers. Theor Appl Genet 113:177–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-006-0283-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Olsen KM, Caicedo AL, Polato N, Mcclung A, Mccouch S, Purugganan MD (2006) Selection under domestication: evidence for a sweep in the rice Waxy genomic region. Genetics 173:975–983

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Caicedo AS, Williamson RD, Hernandez A, Boyko A, Fledel-Alon A, York TL, Polato NR, Olsen KM, Nielsen R, McCouch SR, Bustamante CD, Purugganan MD (2007) Genome-wide patterns of nucleotide polymorphism in domesticated rice. PLoS Genet 3:1745–1756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0030163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cunmin Q, Maen H, Kun L, Liezhao L, Xiaolan L, Jingmei X, Min W, Junxing L, Nidal O, Rui W, Li C, Zhanglin T, Jiana L (2012) Genetic diversity and relationship analysis of the Brassica napus germplasm using simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers. Afr J Biotech 11(27):6923–6933. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB11.3475

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Ahmad J, Baber M, Nazeer W, Hamdullah S, Somroo AA, Ali S, Fatima R, Aslam S (2021) Estimation of genetic diversity among canola accessions using simple sequence repeat markers. J Bioresour Manage. https://doi.org/10.35691/JBM.1202.0205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Chapman HD, Pratt PF (1978) Methods of analysis for soils, plants and water University of California. Prical Publ 4030:12–19

    Google Scholar 

  27. El-Nenny EMM, Ibrahim HEA, Shawky AM, Abd El-Rahman RHA (2022) Graphic analysis of trait relations of canola genotypes using the biplot method. Egypt J Appl Sci 37(9–10):17–29. https://doi.org/10.21608/EJAS.2022.275071

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Elewa TA, Mekki BB, Bakry BA, El-Kramany MF (2014) Evaluation of some introduced canola (Brassica napus L.) varieties under different nitrogen fertilizer levels in newly reclaimed sandy soil. Middle-East J Sci Res 21:746–755. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.21.05.21577

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Ebaid M, Abd El-Hady MA, El-Temsah ME, El-Gabry YA, Abd-Elkrem YM, Hussein H, Abdelkader MA, Eliwa TA, Salama E, Saad AM (2022) Response of Canola productivity to integration between mineral nitrogen with yeast extract under poor fertility sandy soil condition. Sci Rep 12:20216. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-24645-0

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. El-Sharawy AZA, Abdallaand MM, Gaballah ASB (2021) Technological studies of some agricultural practices on the yield and it’s quality of canola (Brassica napus L.). J Product Dev 26(4):807–824. https://doi.org/10.21608/JPD.2021.203802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. El Habbasha SF, Fieke T, ElMetwaly I, Ibrahim FM, El-Awdi ME, Dawood MG, Sabboura D (2020) Impact of salinity levels and varietal differences on some growth characters, yield and yield attributes of canola genotypes. Middle East J Agric Res 9(4):1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.36632/mejar/2020.9.4.85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Eppendrof N, Hing G (1970) Interaction manual of flame photometer B 700-E. Measuring method, Description of apparatus and Instructions for use.

  33. Association of Official Analytical Chemists (2012) Official mathods of analysis.12th edn, Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC

  34. Moran R, Porath D (1982) Chlorophyll determination in intact tissues using N,N dimethyl formamide. Plant Physiol 69:1370–1381. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.65.3.478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Yang CM, Chang KW, Yin MH, Huang HM (1998) Methods for the determination of the chlorophylls and their derivatives. Taiwania 43(2):116–122

    Google Scholar 

  36. Doyle JJ, Doyle JL (1990) Isolation of plant DNA from fresh tissue. Focus 12:13–15

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research, 2nd edn. Wiley, New York, p 680

    Google Scholar 

  38. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR (1973) Numerical taxonomy: the principles and practice of numerical classification, 1st edn. Freeman, San Francisco, p 573

    Google Scholar 

  39. Chesnokov YUV, Artemyeva AM (2015) Evaluation of the measure of polymorphism information of genetic diversity. Agric Biol 50(5):571–578. https://doi.org/10.15389/agrobiology.2015.5.571eng

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Abdelaal AAK, Hafez YM, El Sabagh A (2017) Ameliorative effects of abscisic acid and yeast on morpho-physiological and yield characters of maize (Zeamays L.) plants under water deficit conditions. Fresenius Environ Bull 26(12):7372–7383

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang HP, Berger JD, Milroy S (2011) Genotype x environment interaction of canola (Brassica napus L) in multi-environment trials. 17th Australian Research Assembly on Brassicas, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia.

  42. El-Habbasha SF, Abd El-Salam MS (2010) Response of two canola varieties (Brassica napus L) to nitrogen fertilizer levels and zinc foliar application. Int J Acad Res 2(2):60–66

    Google Scholar 

  43. Mekki BB (2007) The potential of canola quality (Brassica napus L.) as a new winter oil crop in Egypt. In Proceedings of 12th international conference rapeseed congress Wuhan, China; March, pp. 26–30

  44. Mekki BB (2013) Yield and quality traits of some canola varieties grown in newly reclaimed sandy soils in Egypt. World Appl Sci J 25(2):258–263

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Mekki BB, El-Kholy MA (1999) Response of yield, oil and fatty acids contents in some oilseed rape varieties to mepiquat chloride. Bull NRC 24(3):287–299

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Singh AK, Prasad SM, Singh SB (2002) Effect of nitrogen levels and varieties on production potential of yellow sarson (Brassica campestris L. var. yellow sarson). Indian J Agron 47(1):105–108

    Google Scholar 

  47. Sana M, Ali A, Malik AA, Saleem MF, Rafik M (2003) Comparative yield potential and oil contents of different canola cultivars (Brassica napus L.). Pak J Agron 2(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.3923/ja.2003.1.7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Ahmad R, Farhatullah CF, Quiros H, Rahman SZA (2014) Genetic diversity analyses of Brassica napus accessions using SRAP molecular markers. Plant Genet Resour C 12(1):14–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/S147926211300021X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Framarzpour M, Abdoli-Nasab E, Rezvan N, Baghizadeh A (2021) Evaluation of genetic diversity of Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) cultivars using SRAP markers. J Agric Sci Tech 23(2):447–456

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Science, Technology and Innovation Funding Authority (STDF), Egypt, for funding the bilateral GERF project number (23149) which gave us the opportunity for performing this research. In addition, special appreciation extends to the Genetics Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University and National Research Center (NRC), Egypt, for offering the facilities during this research.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Genetics Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo University, Giza, 12613, Egypt

    Sanaa Shafey, Shereen Abu El-Maaty & Nagwa I. Elarabi

  2. Field Crops Research Department, National Research Centre, Dokky, Giza, 12622, Egypt

    S. F. El Habbasha

Authors
  1. Sanaa Shafey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shereen Abu El-Maaty
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. F. El Habbasha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nagwa I. Elarabi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

E.S.F., S.A. and N.I.E. contributed to conceptualization; S.S., E.S.F., S.A. and N.I.E. contributed to methodology; S.S., E.S.F., S.A. and N.I.E. contributed to investigation; S.S., E.S.F., S.A. and N.I.E. contributed to formal analysis; E.S.F., S.A. and N.I.E. contributed to resources; E. S.F., S. A. and N.I.E. contributed to validation; S.S., E.S.F., S.A. and N.I.E. contributed to visualization; S.S., E.S.F., S.A. and N.I.E contributed to writing-original draft preparation. All authors have read and agreed to the published the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nagwa I. Elarabi.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

No any animal or human were used during this experimental study.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

. Supplementary file.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Shafey, S., El-Maaty, S.A., El Habbasha, S.F. et al. Evaluation of the growth, yield traits and the genetic diversity of some Brassica napus genotypes under Egyptian conditions. Beni-Suef Univ J Basic Appl Sci 12, 48 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43088-023-00388-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s43088-023-00388-3

Keywords