Abstract
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum) is among the most widely grown grain legumes, with the major growing area concentrated in the Indian subcontinent. The species is diploid (2n = 2x = 16) and is the only domesticated species in a genus, which includes over 40 annual and perennial species. The progenitor of the cultivated form is the annual species C. reticulatum, but both annual and perennial relatives have been considered as donors of useful genetic variation. Recent advances in genomic analysis have expanded the results of earlier cytogenetic research in the species, which established base information with respect to the karyotype (chromosome number, length, and morphology; and some limited descriptions based on banding) and an estimate of nuclear genome size. Chromosome behavior at meiosis has been characterized in a few Cicer species and some wide hybrids. To date, only a small number of DNA sequences have been chromosomally localized using in situ hybridization. No detailed cytogenetic map has been elaborated, and the level of knowledge regarding the long-range molecular chromosomal organization of the genome is rudimentary. A recently developed method for sorting chickpea chromosome using flow cytometry now offers a more effective means of exploring the genome.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
4.1 Introduction
The genus Cicer, which belongs to the Fabaceae family, is the sole genus in the tribe Cicereae. Considerations of life cycle, morphology, and geographical distribution have allowed the 43 Cicer species to be classified into the four groups Monocicer, Chamaecicer, Polycicer, and Acanthocicer. Eight of the nine annual species (the exception is C. chorassanicum), which include the cultivated form C. arietinum, belong to the section Monocicer (van der Maesen 1987). Chickpea is the only cultivated Cicer species and, in terms of production and consumption, is among the most important grain legumes. It is important as a source of protein in the vegetarian diet, particularly in the Indian subcontinent, where the bulk of production (72% in quantity terms in 2014, according to FAOSTAT (http://faostat.fao.org/)); a further 6% of the cropping area is in western Asia. The crop is adapted to low rainfall conditions, but drought has been identified as one of the most important constraints to productivity.
The origin of chickpea has been traced to Turkey, in an area harboring most of the wild Cicer species, including the annual C. reticulatum, identified as the likely progenitor of the cultivated type (Ladizinski and Adler 1976b). Two distinct market classes are produced: The seed of kabuli types is large, non-pigmented, and smooth, while desi-type seed is rough, angular-shaped, and dark-colored. Kabuli plants lack anthocyanin pigmentation on their stem, while desi plants form pigmented stems and its flowers are pink (Pundir et al. 1985). Despite the importance of cultivated chickpea, little effort has been made to date to explore its genome at the chromosomal level, and even less with respect to that of its close relatives. Karyotypic descriptions and an estimate of the nuclear DNA amount date back at least 20 years (Ohri and Pal 1991; Ocampo et al. 1992; Galasso and Pignone 1992).
While most Cicer species are perennial, the cultivated form is an annual plant. The species has been described as preadapted to domestication (Ladizinsky 1979). The domestication process itself required the loss of pod shatter, a change in growth habit from a prostrate stem to a semierect to erect stem, the loss of vernalization requirement, a reduction in seed dormancy, and changes to seed size, shape, and color (Abbo et al. 2014; Gupta and Bahl 1983). The negligible economic importance of the perennial Cicer spp. has left these at best only superficially described, with the consequence that almost nothing is known regarding their evolution and phylogenetic relationships. At the same time, a number of both annual and perennial relatives have been exploited as donors of useful genetic variation with a view to chickpea improvement (Haware and McDonald 1992; Collard et al. 2001; Sharma et al. 2006; Singh et al. 2005).
4.2 Ploidy and Chromosome Number
The Cicer species are uniformly diploid, all showing a somatic chromosome number of 16 (Ladizinski and Adler 1976a; Ocampo et al. 1992). While there is no available evidence for any recent polyploidization event(s), gene copy number variation in the Fabaceae has suggested that such events have influenced the form of the chickpea genome, in particular, the legume-wide whole genome duplication predicted to have occurred about 58 million years ago (Jain et al. 2013). The rate of synonymous substitution per site per year has been estimated to be 6.05 × 10−9 (Jain et al. 2013), a frequency some 12% more rapid than is the case in Medicago (Young et al. 2011). The absence of any recent whole genome duplication affecting the genera Medicago, Cicer, and Lotus (Young et al. 2011; Sato et al. 2008; Jain et al. 2013) implies that speciation within the Fabaceae has not been driven by abrupt changes in chromosome number, but rather by chromosomal rearrangements and/or lineage-specific gene gains/losses. The diploid status of the Cicer species is mirrored in the genera Lens, Pisum, and Vicia, which belong to the related tribe Fabeae: each have a similar somatic chromosome number to that of the Cicer spp: in both Lens and Pisum, this is 14 (Mishra et al. 2007), while in Vicia, diploid species have basic chromosome numbers x = 5, 6 and 7 (Kaur and Singhal 2010). Species belonging to a fourth-related genus (Lathyrus) harbor many more chromosomes: Two Lathyrus species are tetraploid (2n = 28) and one is hexaploid (2n = 48) (Campbell and Clayton 1997).
4.3 Chromosome Morphology
The chickpea chromosomes are small (Fig. 4.1): The mean length of the mitotic metaphase chromosomes is around 2.2 µm (Ahmad 2000), which translates to a nucleotide content of slightly over 100 Mbp, equivalent to an eighth of the size of the average wheat chromosome (Šafář et al. 2010), but twice that of those of banana (Doležel et al. 1994). Although the somatic chromosome number of the annual Cicer species is invariant, there is plenty of karyological variation, and the same probably holds for the perennial species. Ahmad (2000), in a study of all nine annual Cicer species, recorded differences with respect to both chromosome length and the position of primary and secondary constrictions; these differences were significant enough to rule out proposing a unified karyotype across the annual Cicer species. Such variation supports the notion that structural alterations to the chromosomes likely have driven evolution and speciation within Cicer. There is even some evidence for intraspecific karyotypic variation (Ohri and Pal 1991; Ocampo et al. 1992; Tayyar et al. 1994; Ahmad 2000; Ahmad and Hymowitz 1993; Kordi et al. 2006), since these various authors are in disagreement regarding chromosome length, arm ratio, and the position of the secondary constriction. According to Ahmad (2000), however, these discrepancies may well be artifacts arising from inconsistencies in the cytological protocols.
Chromosomes associated with the nucleolus organizing region (NOR) are readily recognized as they form a secondary constriction. Typically, only one chromosome pair in Cicer species shows this structure (Ohri and Pal 1991; Tayyar et al. 1994; Kordi et al. 2006). The sole exception is C. reticulatum, which harbors two pairs of satellited chromosomes (Ohri and Pal 1991; Ocampo et al. 1992). The silver stain assay was used by Galasso et al. (1996) to demonstrate that both NOR loci are active, albeit not equally. The conclusion was that during the evolution of C. echinospermum and C. arietinum from C. reticulatum, one of the two NOR loci was lost. However, Ahmad (2000) was unable to confirm the presence of two satellited chromosome pairs in C. reticulatum and suggested the possibility that two cytotypes of C. reticulatum exist, one with a single NOR locus and the other with two. Cultivated types bearing two NOR chromosome pairs have been reported in the early literature (Iyengar 1939; Kutarekar and Wanjari 1983) but have not been confirmed in more recent work. Some C. arietinum accessions reportedly display a tandemly arranged pair of satellites on the largest chromosome of the complement, but these only appear during late prophase/early metaphase (Meenakshi and Subramaniam 1960; Ahmad 1989, 2000; Tayyar et al. 1994; Kordi et al. 2006). The various explanations for this phenomenon have included staining artifacts (Ohri and Pal 1991; Ocampo et al. 1992; Galasso and Pignone 1992), NOR movement (Schubert 1984; Schubert and Wobus 1985), and evolutionary rearrangements (Ladizinski and Adler 1976b; Galasso et al. 1996; Kordi et al. 2006), but none of these are totally satisfactory. The location of the secondary constriction varies among the Cicer species: In the annuals C. arietinum, C. reticulatum, and C. echinospermum, it is present on the longest chromosome pair, while in the others, it is associated with a medium- or a small-sized chromosome (Ahmad 2000).
With the exception of secondary constriction, chickpea chromosomes do not show marked features, which could ease their classification. Chromosome length at mitotic metaphase lies in the range from 1.32 to 3.69 µm (Ahmad 2000); three of the chromosomes are submetacentric and the others metacentric (Fig. 4.2). There is a suggestion of differences in relative chromosome length between the chromosomes of the kabuli and desi types; in the former, three of the chromosomes appear longer than their equivalents in the latter type, while the other five appear to be longer in desi types, but these differences are small, ranging from 0.2 to 0.8% of the overall relative chromosome length (Ruperao et al. 2014) (Table 4.1). Although this variability in chromosome length is consistent with the observations of Kordi et al. (2006), it is less substantial than was claimed by Ohri and Pal (1991). Only two of the eight C. arietinum chromosomes can be unambiguously identified based on their morphology: These are the longest submetacentric chromosome which bears the NOR, and the shortest metacentric one (Kordi et al. 2006). Except for the longest and shortest chromosomes, which are always classified as being, respectively, submetacentric and metacentric, according to Kordi et al. (2006), at least one of the six remaining chromosomes departs from the mean length and/or arm ratio assigned to the reference accession by Ahmad (2000). Moreover, it is evident that the karyotype of cultivated chickpea is more distinctive and the differences in the length of individual chromosomes are bigger as compared to other annual species (Ahmad 2000).
Karyotype symmetry, as defined by Stebbins (1971), has some value as a descriptive parameter. The concept defines four levels of asymmetry in the placement of the centromere and three in the length of individual chromosomes. According to this system, there exist two types of asymmetry among the annual Cicer species (Ahmad 2000): One group clusters C. arietinum, C. reticulatum, and C. echinospermum and supports conclusions based on crossability, phylogenetic and genotypic (molecular marker-based) diversity analyses (Buhariwalla et al. 2005; Iruela et al. 2002; Sudupak et al. 2004).
Two chromosome naming systems have been used in Cicer, one based on numbers from 1 (longest chromosome) to 8 (shortest) (Ocampo et al. 1992), and the other on letters (A–H), where A = 1, B = 2, etc. (Galasso et al. 1996; Staginnus et al. 1999; Vláčilová et al. 2002; Zatloukalová et al. 2011). Both systems were in use until the first linkage maps were assembled, after which they were replaced by linkage group (LG) numbers. A system based on pseudomolecules has recently been proposed by Ruperao et al. (2014) (Table 4.1).
Little attempt has been made to cytogenetically characterize the perennial Cicer species. In 1972, van der Maesen estimated their chromosome number to be either 2n = 14 or 2n = 16 (van der Maesen 1972). The first description of the karyotype of a perennial Cicer species involved C. anatolicum (Ahmad 1989), establishing 2n = 16 as the chromosome number, as is the case for the annuals. Subsequent analysis showed that the karyotype of C. songaricum was even more similar to that of C. arietinum, C. reticulatum, and C. echinospermum, at least in central and distal parts of the chromosomes.
4.4 Nuclear Genome Size
Similarly to the shortage of systematic studies on karyotype within Cicer, there are only a few reports on estimation of nuclear DNA content. Despite the stable chromosome number in genus Cicer, there seem to be remarkable differences in nuclear DNA content among its species. The first estimation of nuclear DNA amount in chickpea was reported by Bennett and Smith (1976), who gave nuclear DNA amount of 1.9 pg/2C for C. arietinium. In a more recent study, Ruperao et al. (2014) verified DNA amounts in chickpea using flow cytometry and estimated 2C DNA amounts of kabuli and desi types to be 1.80 and 1.77 pg, respectively. The differences in 2C amounts between four accessions of desi type were negligible. Using these values, mean nuclear 1C genome sizes of kabuli and desi types were determined as 882 and 866 Mbp, respectively. In the largest study performed so far, Ohri and Pal (1991) determined DNA content in six annual Cicer species and five accessions of cultivated chickpea. Surprisingly, C-values of C. arietinum were much higher than those estimated by Bennett and Smith (1976) and Ruperao et al. (2014) (Table 4.2). Cultivated chickpea had the highest DNA amounts (2C = 3.3–3.57 pg) of all analyzed accessions. Estimates of 2C DNA content in all analyzed species ranged from 1.83 pg in C. judaicum to 3.57 pg in one of the cultivated chickpea accessions. DNA amount of perennial C. songaricum (2C = 2.72 pg) was comparable to that of C. reticulatum (2C = 2.66 pg) and C. echinospermum (2C = 2.6 pg). Some of the C value estimates were confirmed later by Galasso et al. (1996). It should be noted that both groups estimated DNA amounts using Feulgen microdensitometry and used Vicia faba and Alium cepa, respectively, as reference standards.
Clearly, there seem to be large inconsistencies in the estimates of nuclear DNA amount in Cicer. The reason for this is not clear, and a caution is warranted when using published data. For example, the karyotype of cultivated chickpea is similar to its wild progenitor, C. reticulatum (Ahmad et al. 1992; Iruela et al. 2002). Yet, the published data on 2C amounts in both species differ significantly (Table 4.2). It appears unlikely that a large change in DNA amount would occur during the process of domestication and cultivation of C. arietinum without marked changes in chromosome length and morphology. With this limitation in mind, when the available DNA content estimates are compared to recent phylogenetic data, there seems to be a positive correlation between the difference in genome size and genetic distance (Ohri and Pal 1991; Buhariwalla et al. 2005).
4.5 Longitudinal Differentiation of Chromosomes
Similarities in chromosome size and morphology do not permit identification of individual chromosomes in chickpea. However, this can be achieved after a procedure called Giemsa C-banding, which stains preferentially heterochromatin regions. When applying this method to chickpea, Galasso and Pignone (1992) and Galasso et al. (1996) observed differences in the distribution of heterochromatin along individual chromosomes. C-banding pattern included strong bands around centromeres and occasional weak banding patterns in middle and distal parts of chromosome arms (Fig. 4.2). Except for C. judaicum and C. pinnatifidum, C-banding polymorphisms have provided the means to identify each individual chromosome pair (Tayyar et al. 1994). The use of fluorochromes differing in DNA base affinity (DAPI, Hoechst 33258, and Chromomycin A3) has revealed significant variability in heterochromatin content among the annual Cicer species. Tayyar et al. (1994) used these stains to arrive at an estimated heterochromatin content of 40% in most of the annual species, although the ratio rose to 60% in C. cuneatum and C. bijungum. The difference was thought to reflect a correlation between evolutionary advancement and heterochromatin reduction (Tayyar et al. 1994). However, attempts to group the species based on their heterochromatin content proved to be inconsistent with their grouping based on either crossability (Ladizinski and Adler 1976b) or alleles at isozyme (Kazan and Muehlbauer 1991) or seed storage protein (Ahmad and Slinkard 1992) loci.
The recent acquisition of the genome sequence of both the desi and kabuli types (Jain et al. 2013; Varshney et al. 2013; Parween et al. 2015) has facilitated the use of sequence-based markers to characterize the genetic diversity present both between and within wild and cultivated Cicer species. For example, Bajaj et al. (2015) exploited variation at >27,000 SNP loci distinguishes the cultivated type (both desi and kabuli) from accessions of C. reticulatum and C. echinospermun, and also from the more distant taxa C. judaicus, C. bijugum, C. pinnatifidun, and C. microphyllum (Fig. 4.3). Meanwhile, Kujur et al. (2015) showed that single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)-based genotyping was able to divide a collection of cultivated germplasm into the two recognized major groups, kabuli and desi, and a detailed analysis of the SNP-based genetic diversity within these two groups has been presented by Upadhyaya et al. (2008), Roorkiwal et al. (2014), and Kujur et al. (2015).
4.6 Meiosis
Since the chromatin in a meiotic chromosome is less condensed than in a mitotic one, the former is more informative with respect to chromosome morphology and structure. As yet, however, meiotic chromosomes in the genus Cicer have not been systematically studied. Although Kabir and Singh (1991) observed some abnormalities, in general meiosis in cultivated chickpea was regular with eight bivalents formed in metaphase I. The character of the bivalents was more open (rod) than closed (ring), and chiasma frequency per pollen mother cell (PMC) was variable among the nine analyzed Cicer species (Ahmad and Chen 2000, Fig. 4.4). An analysis of pachytene chromosomes provided by Ahmad and Hymowitz (1993) exposed the distribution of heterochromatin along the chromosomes and confirmed that only one chromosome pair in C. arietinum was associated with the nucleolus; the chromosome arm carrying the NOR was highly heterochromatic, just as is the case in soybean (Singh and Hymowitz 1988), pigeon pea (Reddy 1981), and maize (McClintock 1929). The study also indicated that in the pachytene chromosome, the distinction between heterochromatin and euchromatin was clearer than in either barley (Singh and Tsuchiya 1975) or rice (Kush et al. 1984).
4.7 Molecular Cytogenetics
The elaboration of the fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) technique to localize specific DNA sequences on a mitotic or meiotic chromosome has generated important insights into chromosome organization in many organisms, including Cicer spp. The bulk of these experiments in Cicer has focused on the cultivated form, leaving the level of understanding of the chromosome organization in other Cicer species at best only limited. The ribosomal RNA genes were the first sequences to be localized in this way (Abbo et al. 1994; Staginnus et al. 1999). While only one chromosome pair carries a visible satellite, two sites hybridize with a 45S rDNA sequence, which was interesting in light of the presence of two satellited chromosome pairs in C. reticulatum (Ohri and Pal 1991; Abbo et al. 1994). Two sites harboring 5S rRNA sequences have been identified, one of which lies on the same chromosome as one of the 45S rDNA sites (chromosome B) (Vláčilová et al. 2002).
About 50% of the chickpea genome comprises repetitive DNA (Jain et al. 2013; Varshney et al. 2013). Some of the sequences within this fraction can be highly informative as cytogenetic markers, especially where their chromosomal distribution is non-random (Schwarzacher 2003; Jiang and Bikram 2006). FISH based on probe sequences detecting five distinct microsatellite motifs ((A)16, (CA)8, (TA)9, (AAC)5, and (GATA)4), which were selected based on results of previous study (Sharma et al. 1995), unfortunately failed to produce a chromosome-specific karyotype: The distribution and intensity of the signal varied from repeat motif to repeat motif, but all five were dispersed within each chromosome (Gortner et al. 1998). As anticipated, a telomeric sequence hybridized to each of the chromosome ends, but a weaker site in the pericentromeric region of chromosome A and a major cluster on the short arm of chromosome B were also evident (Zatloukalová et al. 2011; Staginnus et al. 1999). Nevertheless, the potential of repetitive DNA sequences has demonstrated in several studies. For example, the two tandemly organized chickpea-specific repeats (CaSat 1 and CaSat 2) isolated from a genomic library by Staginnus et al. (1999) were both informative: The former defined a large cluster of sites in the subtelomeric region of both chromosomes A and B, while the latter proved to be present at each of the eight centromeres. The retrotransposon-like sequences, CaRep 1, CaRep 2, and CaRep 3, derived from different parts of a Ty3/Gypsy-like element, are dispersed throughout the genome and produce a strong FISH signal concentrated in the intercalary heterochromatin on each chromosome, but not in the pericentromeric region (Staginnus et al. 1999, 2010). A similar distribution has been reported for the CaTy sequence, which shares homology with members of the Ty1/Copia-like element family (Staginnus et al. 2010). Only weak signal was obtained using a probe based on a chickpea LINE-like element (Staginnus et al. 2010).
FISH probes based on low or single copy sequences have been deployed in a number of plant species (Jiang et al. 1995; Lapitan et al. 1997; Zhang et al. 2004; Idziak et al. 2014). Zatloukalová et al. (2011) prepared a partial bacterial artificial chromosome library from desi chickpea genomic DNA and recovered five clones which hybridized to a single locus. One of the loci mapped to a subtelomeric region on the short arm of chromosome A, two to a subtelomeric region on each arm of chromosome B, one to one of the telomeres of chromosome E, and the last to a telomeric region on chromosome H (Fig. 4.5).
Although the number of informative FISH probes is not extensive, they are sufficient to identify five chromosomes in the karyotype. While this can provide opportunities to follow chromosome behavior during meiosis and to compare the karyotypes of cultivated and wild chickpea accessions, there is a need to elaborate additional cytogenetic markers. A possible option is to use cDNAs, since these have been successfully deployed in both barley (Karafitátová et al. 2013) and wheat (Danilova et al. 2014). The acquisition of the genome sequence means that, as has been pioneered in barley (Aliyeva-Schorr et al. 2015), it is now possible to identify in silico sequences suitable as FISH probes.
4.8 Chromosomal Organization at the Molecular Level
Thanks to the development of high-throughput sequencing, partial genome sequences of both desi (38.48%) and kabuli (39.37%) chickpea have been acquired (Jain et al. 2013; Varshney et al. 2013; Parween et al. 2015). The assembly of a whole genome sequence is highly revealing of chromosomal organization at the molecular level and allows for comparisons to be made of chromosome structure both within and between species (Paterson et al. 2009; Schatz et al. 2014; Schnable et al. 2009; Thiel et al. 2009). As in other plant species, the chickpea genome harbors a significant proportion of repetitive DNA, some of which is present in the form of an extended region of tandemly arranged repeats. As also suggested by the cytogenetic detection of heterochromatin (Staginnus et al. 1999, 2010; Zatloukalová et al. 2011), the centromeric and pericentromeric regions are particularly repeat-rich (especially with respect to the CaSat 2 element) and gene-poor. Parween et al. (2015) showed that the mean frequency of recombination in the pericentromeric region of desi is some ninefold lower than in more euchromatin-rich regions. Gene density across the desi pseudomolecules averaged 7.07 per 100 Kbp, about double the density (3.73 per 100 Kbp) present in unanchored scaffolds, implying that the latter sequences harbor a high proportion of repetitive DNA. The current desi and kabuli assemblies represent only 24–55% of each of the eight chromosomes, and the most distal and subtelomeric regions are mostly absent (Parween et al. 2015). Thus, it is not possible as yet to draw conclusions regarding gene density and repetitive DNA content along the full length of any of the chickpea chromosomes in the way that has been achieved in rice (Goff et al. 2002) and Arabidopsis thalianan (Schneeberger et al. 2011), for example, and even for one of the large chromosomes of wheat (Choulet et al. 2014). Nevertheless, the indications are that the desi and kabuli genomes are highly similar to one another. Ruperao et al. (2014) have suggested that apparent differences between the two assemblies are an artifact arising from the gappiness of the sequences. Clearly, a higher quality reference genome assembly will be needed to elaborate a more precise picture of chromosome organization at the molecular level.
4.9 Flow Cytogenetics
Flow cytometry can be highly informative with respect to chromosome size and structure (Kubaláková et al. 2003; Molnár et al. 2011; Ma et al. 2013). It supports physical mapping and whole genome sequencing, especially in the context of large genome species (Cviková et al. 2015; Raats et al. 2013; Ruperao et al. 2014; Mayer et al. 2014). Vláčilová et al. (2002) have described a protocol to synchronize cell cycle and thereby to accumulate chromosomes at mitotic metaphase in chickpea root tips and have exploited it to prepare liquid suspensions of intact chromosomes suitable for flow cytometry. The resulting flow karyotype of kabuli type comprised eight peaks, five of which were assignable using FISH to chromosomes A–C, G, and H. The other three peaks represented chromosomes D, E, and F. The purity of the single chromosome flow-sorted fractions ranged from 68% (chromosome C) to 100% (chromosomes B and H). Applying PCR assays targeting microsatellite loci confirmed that chromosome H was equivalent to linkage group LG8, marking the first step toward integrating the chickpea cytogenetic and genetic maps. When Zatloukalová et al. (2011) flow karyotyped the desi type, both the number and positions of the peaks differed from those forming the kabuli-type flow karyotype (Vláčilová et al. 2002): Here, only six peaks were observed. This difference implied that the two genomes were distinct from one another, at least with respect to their AT/GC content, in contradiction to the conclusion reached from an analysis of the partial genome assemblies that the two genomes are highly similar (see previous section). However, the difference is in line with the suggestions of Ohri and Pal (1991) and Kordi et al. (2006), which was based on DNA amount. The lack of agreement between the kabuli- and desi-type flow karyotypes has recently been confirmed by Ruperao et al. (2014) and is illustrated in Fig. 4.6. Of the six peaks forming the desi-type flow karyotype, four were assigned using FISH to chromosomes A, B, E, and H, and each of the other two peaks was a mixture (one of chromosomes C and D, and the other of chromosomes F and G). The purity of the flow-sorted fractions involving a single chromosome varied from 88% (chromosome A) to 98% (chromosome H). PCR-based microsatellite assays confirmed that chromosome A is equivalent to LG5, B to LG3, E to LG4, and H to LG8. Similarly, it was concluded that chromosome F is equivalent to one of LG1 and LG2, and chromosome G to the other; while chromosomes is equivalent to one of LG6 or LG7, and chromosome D to the other (Table 4.1).
Flow-sorted chromosomes are also useful as a means of validating genome sequence assemblies. Purified preparations of desi-type chromosomes A, B, and H, as well as A–C and F–H of the kabuli-type chromosomes were used by Ruperao et al. (2014) as a template for Illumina-based sequencing. When compared to the desi assembled pseudomolecules (Jain et al. 2013), some large-scale misassignations became apparent, while in the kabuli assembly (Varshney et al. 2013), a number of short defined regions were shown to have been misplaced. Thanks to the recent development of a procedure for sequencing an individual flow-sorted chromosome (Cápal et al. 2015), it has now become possible to obtain sequence from a unique chromosome, although the identity of the sequenced chromosome cannot be known a priori. A further application of flow-sorted chickpea chromosomes has been as a target for FISH. When mounted on a microscope slide, a flow-sorted preparation typically comprises thousands of chromosomes at a high level of purity and free of cell and tissue debris, which improves the robustness of the FISH assay (Vláčilová et al. 2002; Zatloukalová et al. 2011).
4.10 Induced Polyploidy
Many crop species are polyploid (Zeven 1979; Li et al. 2015); although most are allopolyploid (e.g., wheat and cotton), a few are autopolyploid (potato and alfalfa). As increasing the ploidy level can be accompanied by improved plant performance (Ramsey and Ramsey 2014; Renny-Byfield and Wendel 2014), numerous attempts have been made to artificially induce autopolyploidy in a diploid crop species (Kinoshita and Takahashi 1969; Armstrong 1981). Sohoo et al. (1970) generated autotetraploid C. arietinum by treating the seedling apical meristem of both kabuli and desi types with colchicine. Although chromosome pairing at meiotic metaphase was dominated by bivalents, seed set in the autotetraploids was only about 30% that achieved in the diploids. Nevertheless, compared to their diploid progenitor, the autotetraploids did develop stronger and deeper roots, tougher stems, thicker pods, and bigger seeds. On the other hand, their germination was slow, and because of their reduced fertility, their grain yield was compromised (Sohoo et al. 1970; Pundir et al. 1983). In some induced autotetraploids, selection in subsequent generations has been able to restore fertility (Stebbins 1950), but the literature does not report any attempt to pursue this strategy in chickpea. The ability to reduce the ploidy level from diploid to haploid has been exploited as a means to rapidly fix a genotype via subsequent chromosome doubling, an approach which has been commercially exploited in a number of crop breeding programs, notably in barley (Forster et al. 2007), rice (Jiang et al. 2014) and eggplant (Rotino 2016). Haploids can be induced from either the microspore (androgenesis) or the megaspore (gynogenesis). The former approach typically relies on the in vitro culture of immature anthers. A first attempt to develop in vitro anther culture in chickpea was reported by Khan and Gosh (1983), which was followed by improvements in procedures to promote somatic embryogenesis and regeneration (Altaf and Ahmad 1986; Bajal and Gosal 1987; Huda et al. 2001; Vessal et al. 2002). Full protocols for the production of doubled haploid lines via androgenesis have been documented by Grewal et al. (2009) and Panchangam et al. (2014).
4.11 Wide Hybridization
There has been continued interest in the potential of wide hybridization as a means to improve chickpea. Targets for introgression have included disease resistance, stress tolerance, yield potential, and end-use quality. Post-fertilization incompatibility barriers are responsible for the relatively poor rate of success in producing wide hybrids. These include the presence of translocation differences between the parental genomes, leading to meiotic irregularities and a subsequent loss of fertility; cytoplasmic incompatibility; chromosome elimination and loss; excessive seed dormancy; and hybrid breakdown (Bassiri et al. 1987; Stamigna et al. 2000; Ahmad and Slinkard 2004). Although the fertilization process itself is relatively unhindered, the hybrid embryo often aborts within a few days. Attempts to deploy embryo rescue to circumvent this problem have not met with a great deal of success, and levels of efficiency are low (Verma et al. 1995; van Dorrestain et al. 1998; Mallikarjuna 1999).
While no published examples of a successful hybrid between chickpea and one of the perennial Cicer species exist, hybrids with several of the annual ones have been attempted (Croser et al. 2003). Hybrids are formable between C. arietinum and either C. reticulatum or C. echinospernum (the two species most closely related to the cultivated type), but their fertility is variable (Ladizinski and Adler 1976b; Singh and Ocampo 1993). If C. arietinum × C. echinospernum are highly sterile, C. arietinum × C. reticulatum F1s are fertile and their meiosis is relatively regular, what tends to support the notion that C. reticulatum is the progenitor of the cultivated form (Ladizinski and Adler 1976b). The occasional meiotic irregularities observed in F1 pollen mother cells comprise univalents and quadrivalents. According to Jaiswal et al. (1987), these hybrids flower early, have a high yield potential, and are better able to tolerate low temperatures than C. arietinum. The level of crossability between C. arietinum and C. echinospernum is low; the plants develop normally, form six bivalents and two quadrivalents at meiosis, and are only partially fertile (Ladizinski and Adler 1976b). The presence of a quadrivalent suggests that the chromosomes involved have suffered a reciprocal translocation. A few interesting introgression events have been identified among the offspring of these two wide hybrids (Jaiswal et al. 1987; Singh and Ocampo 1993). A number of attempts to use either C. bijungum or C. pinnatifidum as a parent have failed (Singh et al. 1994, 1999; Verma 1990). However, the C. arietinum × C. judaicum hybrid was feasible (Verna et al. 1995); the resulting plants formed a high number of branches and pods and yielded well (Singh et al. 1994; Verma et al. 1995). In contrast, Ladizinski and Adler (1976b) did succeed in crossing C. arietinum with each of C. judaicum, C. pinnatifidum, and C. bijungum; meiotic pairing in each of these hybrids comprised mostly bivalents, with rare univalents, but the plants were all sterile. Recently, Abbo et al. (2011) described successful cross between annual C. cuneatum and perennial C. canariense with 50% pollen fertility and intermediate look of hybrid plants.
The outcomes of wide hybridization experiments led Ladizinski and Adler (1976b) to assign each of the annual Cicer species as a member of either the crop’s primary genepool (C. reticulatum), its secondary genepool (C. echinospernum), or its tertiary genepool (C. judaicum, C. pinnatifidum, C. bijungum). The updated scheme suggested by Croser et al. (2003) matches the set of phylogenetic relationships derived by Buhariwalla et al. (2005) from a SNP-based analysis of genotypic diversity. Based on hybridization, Ladizinski and Adler (1976a, b) assigned all annual Cicer species to three crossability groups according to the classical definition as proposed by Harlan and de Wet (1971). More recently, this system was revised by Croser et al. (2003) Newly, primary genepool comprises C. arietinum and C. reticulatum, secondary genepool C. echinospernum only, and its tertiary genepool all remaining annual (and probably all perennial) Cicer species. This grouping correlates with genetic diversity of wild annual Cicer species (Buhariwalla et al. 2005).
4.12 Conclusion
Progress in chickpea cytogenetics has been slower than in many of the agriculturally important crops. There remain major knowledge gaps regarding chromosome structure both in the cultivated form and in its near relatives within the genus Cicer, and whether chromosome organization differs between the various Cicer species is quite unknown. Meiotic chromosome behavior in wide hybrids and their offspring are at best sketchily described. A major advance in filling these gaps should follow from the acquisition of the chickpea genomic sequence, the development of molecular cytogenetics technology, and the use of flow cytometry to apportion the nuclear genome into its component chromosomes. The probability is that in the near future, the chickpea community will be in a position to better utilize the full range of genetic diversity present in the genepool and thereby to support the breeding of improved cultivars of chickpea.
References
Abbo S, Miller TE, Reader SM et al (1994) Detection of ribosomal DNA sites in lentil and chickpea by fluorescent in situ hybridization. Genome 37:713–716
Abbo S, Mesghenna YT, van Oss H (2011) Interspecific hybridization in wild Cicer sp. Plant Breed 130:150–155
Abbo S, van-Oss Pinhasi R, Gopher A et al (2014) Plant domestication versus crop evolution: a conceptual framework for cereals and grain legumes. Trends in Plant Science 19(6):351–360
Ahmad F (1989) The chromosomal architecture of Cicer arietinum Alef. A wild relative of chickpea. Cytologia 54:753–757
Ahmad F (2000) A comparative study of chromosome morphology among the nine annual species of Cicer L. Cytobios 101:37–53
Ahmad F, Chen Q (2000) Meiosis in Cicer L. species. The relationship between chiasma frequency and genome length. Cytology 65:161–166
Ahmad F, Hymowitz T (1993) The fine structure of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) chromosomes as revealed by pachytene analysis. TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 86:637–641
Ahmad F, Slinkard AE (1992) Genetic relationship in the genus Cicer L. as revealed by polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis of seed storage protein. TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 84:688–692
Ahmad F, Slinkard AE (2004) The extent of embryo and endosperm growth following interspecific hybridization between Cicer arietinum L. and related annual wild species. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 51:765–772
Ahmad F, Gaur PM, Slinkard AE (1992) Isozyme polymorphic and phylogenetic interpretations in the genus Cicer L. TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 83:620
Aliyeva-Schorr L, Beier S, Karafiátová M et al (2015) Cytogenetic mapping with centromeric bacterial artificial chromosomes contigs shows that this recombination-poor region comprises more than half of barley chromosome 3. The Plant J 84:385–394
Altaf N, Ahmad MS (1986) Plant regeneration and propagation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) through tissue-culture techniques, pp 407–417. In: Proceeding of the symposium on nuclear techniques and in vitro culture for plant improvement, August 1985. International Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, pp 19–23
Armstrong CS (1981) ‘Grasslands Moata’ tetraploid Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.). New Zeal J Exp Agr 9:337–341
Bajaj D, Das S, Badoni S et al (2015) Genome-wide high-throughput SNP discovery and genotyping for understanding natural (functional) allelic diversity and domestication patterns in wild chickpea. Sci Rep 5:12468
Bajal YPS, Gosal SS (1987) Pollen embryogenesis and chromosomal variation in cultured anthers of chickpea. Int Chikpea Newls 17:12–13
Bassiri A, Ahmad F, Sinkard AE (1987) Pollen grain germination and pollen tube growth following in vivo and in vitro self and interspecific pollinations in annual Cicer species. Euphytica 36:667–675
Bennett MD, Smith JB (1976) Nuclear DNA amounts in angiosperms. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B-Biol Sci 274:227–274
Buhariwalla HK, Jayashree B, Eshwar K et al (2005) Development of ESTs from chickpea roots and their use in diversity analysis of the Cicer genus. BMC Plant Biology 5:16. doi:10.1186/1471-2229-5-16
Campbell, Clayton G (1997) Grass pea. Lathyrus sativus L. Promoting the conservation and use of underutilized and neglected crops. 18. Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research, Gatersleben/International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy
Cápal P, Blavet N, Vrána J et al (2015) Multiple displacement amplification of the DNA from single flow-sorted plant chromosome. Plant J 84:838–844
Choulet F, Alberti A, Theil S et al (2014) Structural and functional partitioning of bread wheat chromosome 3B. Science 345(6194):1249721. doi:10.1126/science.1249721
Collard BCY, Ades PK, Pang ECK et al (2001) Prospecting for sources of resistance to ascochyta blight in wild Cicer species. Aust J Plant Pathol 30:271–276
Croser JS, Ahmad F, Clarke HJ et al (2003) Utilisation of wild Cicer in chickpea improvement—progress, constrains and prospects. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54:429–444
Cviková K, Cattonaro F, Alaux M et al (2015) High-throughput physical map anchoring via BAC-pool sequencing. BMC Plant Biology 11(15):99. doi:10.1186/s12870-015-0429-1
Danilova TV, Friebe B, Gill BS (2014) Development of a wheat single gene FISH map for analyzing homoeologous relationship and chromosomal rearrangements within the Triticeae. TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 127(3):715–730. doi:10.1007/s00122-013-2253-z
Doležel J, Doleželová M, Novák FJ (1994) Flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA amount in diploid banana (Musa acuminata and Musa balbisiana). Biologia Plantarum 3:351–357
Forster BP, Heberle-Bors E, Kasha KJ et al (2007) The resurgence of haploids in higher plants. Trends Plant Sco 12:368–375
Galasso I, Pignone D (1992) Characterization of chickpea chromosomes by banding techniques. Genet Resour Evol 39:115–119
Galasso I, Frediani M, Maggiani M et al (1996) Chromatin characterization by banding techniques, in situ hybridization and nuclear DNA content in Cicer L (Leguminosae). Genome 39:258–265
Goff SA, Ricke D, Lan TH et al (2002) A draft sequence of the rice genome (Oryza sativa L. ssp. Japonica). Science 296:92–100
Gortner G, Nenno M, Weising K et al (1998) Chromosomal localization and distribution of simple sequence repeat and the Arabidopsis-type telomere sequence in the genome of Cicer arietinum L. Chromosome Research 6:97–104
Grewal RK, Lulsdorf M, Croser J et al (2009) Double-haploid production in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): role of stress treatment. Plant Cell Reports 28:1289–1299
Gupta PK, Bahl JR (1983) Cytogenetics and origin of some pulse crops. In: Swaminathan MS, Gupta PK, Sinha U (eds) Cytogenetics of crop plants. Macmillan India, New Dehli, pp 405–440
Harlan JR, de Wet JMJ (1971) Towards a rational classification of cultivated plants. Taxonomy 20:509–517
Haware MP, McDonald D (1992) Integrated management of botrytis gray mold of chickpea. In: Haware MP, Faris DG, Gowda CLL (ed) Botrytis gray mold of chickpea: summary proceedings of the BARI/ICRISAT working group meeting to discuss collaborative research on botrytis gray mold of chickpea. ICRISAT, Patacheru, India 1
Huda S, Islam R, Bari MA et al (2001) Anther culture of chickpea. Int Chickpea Pigeonpea Newsl 8:24–26
Idziak D, Hazuka I, Poliwczak B et al (2014) Insight into the karyotype of brachypodium species using comparative chromosomes barcoding. PLoS ONE 9(3):e93503
Iruela M, Rubio J, Cubero JI, Gil J et al (2002) Phylogenetic analysis in the genus Cicer and cultivated chickpea using RAPD and ISSR markers. TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 104:643–651
Iyengar NK (1939) Cytological investigation on the genus Cicer. Ann Bot New Series 3:271–305
Jain M, Misra G, Patel RK et al (2013) A draft genome sequence of the pulse crop chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Plant J 74(5):715–729
Jaiswal HK, Singh BD, Singh RM (1987) Improvement of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) through introgression of genes from Cicer reticulatum. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 57:880–883
Jiang J, Bikram SG (2006) Current status and the future of fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) in plant genome research. Genome 49:1057–1068
Jiang JM, Gill BS, Wang GL et al (1995) Metaphase and interphase fluorescence in-situ hybridization mapping of the rice genome with bacterial artificial chromosomes. PNAS 92:4487–4491
Jiang G, Zeng J, He Y (2014) Analysis of QTL affecting chlorophyll content of rice leaves in a double haploid population and two BC populations. Gene 536(2):287–295
Kabir G, Singh RM (1991) Meiotic studies in two species of Cicer and their hybrids. Cytologia 56:577–585
Karafitátová M, Bartoš J, Kopecký D et al (2013) Mapping nonrecombining region in barley using multicolor FISH. Chromosome Research 8:739–751
Kaur Dalvir, Singhal Vijay Kumar (2010) Chromosome number, meiosis and pollen fertility in Vicia rigidula Royle and V. tenera Grah. from cold desert regions of India. CYTOLOGIA 75(1):9–14
Kazan K, Muehlbauer FJ (1991) Allozyme variation and phylogeny in annual species of Cicer (Leguminosae). Plant Systematics and Evolution 175:11–21
Khan SK, Gosh PD (1983) In vitro induction of androgenesis and organogenesis in Cicer arietinum L. Current Science 52:891–893
Kinoshita T, Takahashi M (1969) Studies in polyploid varieties of sugar beets. XIV. Use of cytoplasmic male sterility in the production of triploid hybrids, and their performance in trials. J Fac Agric, Hokkaido Univ 56:171–186
Kordi M, Majd A, Valizadeh M et al (2006) A comparative study of chromosome morphology among some genotypes of Cicer arietinum L. Pakistan J Biol Sci 9:1225–1230
Kubaláková M, Valárik M, Bartoš J et al (2003) Analysis and sorting of rye (Secale cereale L.) chromosomes using flow cytometry. Genome 46:893–905
Kujur A, Bajaj D, Upadhyaya HD et al (2015) Employing genome-wide SNP discovery and genotyping strategy to extrapolate the natural allelic diversity and domestication patterns in chickpea. Front Plant Sci 6:162. doi:10.3389/fpls.2015.00162
Kush GS, Singh RJ, Sur SC et al (1984) Primary trisomics of rice: origin, morphology, cytology and use in linkage mapping. Genetics 107:141–163
Kutarekar DR, Wanjari KB (1983) Karyomorphological studies in some of varieties of Bengal gram (Cicer aretinum Linn.). Cytologia 48:699–705
Ladizinski G, Adler A (1976a) The origin of the chickpea Cicer arietinum L. Euphytica 25:211–217
Ladizinski G, Adler A (1976b) Genetic relationship among the annual species of Cicer L. TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 48:197–203
Ladizinsky G (1979) Seed dispersal in relation to the domestication of Middle East legumes. Economic Botany 33:284–289
Lapitan NLV, Brown SE, Kennard W et al (1997) FISH physical mapping with barley BAC clones. Plant J 11:149–156
Li F, Fan G, Lu C et al (2015) Genome sequence of cultivated Upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum TM-1) provides insights into genome evolution. Nature Biotechnology 33:524–530
Ma J, Stiller J, Berkman PJ et al (2013) Sequence-based analysis of translocations and inversions in bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). PLoS One. 15; 8(11):e79329
Mallikarjuna N (1999) Ovule and ebryo culture to obtain hybrids from interspecific incompatible pollinations in chickpea. Euphytica 110:1–6
Mayer KFX, Rogers J, Doležel J et al (2014) A chromosome-based draft sequence of the hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum) genome. Science 345 (6194)
McClintock B (1929) Chromosome morphology in Zea mays. Science 69:629
Meenakshi G, Subramaniam MK (1960) Tandem satellites in Cicer arietinum Lin. CurrSci 29:438–439
Mishra SK, Sharma B, Sharma SK (2007) Genetic and cytogenetic of lentil. In: Yadav SS, McNeil DK, Stevenson PC (eds) Lentil—an ancient crop for modern times. Springer, Dordrecht, p 189
Molnár I, Kubaláková M, Šimková H et al (2011) Chromosome isolation by flow sorting in Aegilops umbellulata and Ae. comosa and their allotetraploid hybrids Ae. biuncialis and Ae. geniculata. PLoS ONE 6(11):e27708
Ocampo B, Venora G, Errico A et al (1992) Karyotype analysis in the genus Cicer. J Genet Breed 46:229–240
Ohri D (1999) Cytology of Cicer songaricum Steph. Ex DC., a wild relative of chickpea. Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution 46:111–113
Ohri D, Pal M (1991) The origin of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.): karyotype and nuclear DNA amount. Heredity 66:367–372
Panchangam SS, Mallikarjuna N, Gaur PM (2014) Androgenesis in chickpea: Anther culture and expressed sequence tags derived annotation. Indian J Exp Biol 52:181–188
Parween S, Nawaz K, Roy R et al (2015) An advanced draft genome assembly of a desi type chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Sci Rep 11; 5:12806
Paterson AH, Bowers JE, Bruggmann R et al (2009) The Sorghum bicolor genome and the diversification of grasses. Nature 457(7229):551–556. doi:10.1038/nature07723
Pundir RPS, Rao NK, van der Maesen LJG (1983) Induced autotetraploidy in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 65(2):119–122
Pundir RPS, Rao NK, van der Maesen LJG (1985) Distribution of qualitative traits in the world germplasm of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica 34:697–703
Raats D, Frenkel Z, Krugman T et al (2013) The physical map of wheat chromosome 1BS provides insights into its gene space organization and evolution. Genome Biol. 20; 14(12):138. doi:10.1186/gb-2013-14-12-r138
Ramsey J, Ramsey TS (2014) Ecological studies of polyploidy in the 100 years following its discovery. Phil Trans R Soc B 369:20130352
Reddy LJ (1981) Pachytene analysis in Cajanus cajam, Atylosia lineata and their hybrids. Cytologia 46:397–412
Renny-Byfield S, Wendel JF (2014) Doubling down on genomes: polyploidy and crop plants. American Journal of Botany 101(10):1711–1725
Roorkiwal M, von Wettberg EJ, Upadhyaya HD et al (2014) Exploring germplasm diversity to understand the domestication process in Cicer spp. using SNP and DArT markers. PLoS ONE 9(7):e102016
Rotino GL (2016) Anther culture in eggplant (Solanum melongena L.). Methods in Molecular Biology 1359:453–466
Ruperao P, Chan C-KK, Azam S et al (2014) A chromosomal genomics approach to assess and validate the desi and kabuli draft chickpea genome assemblies. Plant Biotechnology Journal 6:778–786
Šafář J, Šimková H, Kubaláková M et al (2010) Development of chromosome-specific BAC resources for genomics of bread wheat. Cytogenet Genome Res 129:211–223
Sato S, Nakamura Y, Kaneko T et al (2008) Genome structure of the legume. Lotus japonicus. DNA Research 15(4):227–239
Schatz MC, Maron LG, Stein JC et al (2014) Whole genome de novo assemblies of three divergent strains of rice, oryza sativa, document novel gene space of aus and indica. Genome Biology 15(11):506
Schnable PS, Ware D, Fulton RS et al (2009) The B73 maize genome: complexity, diversity, and dynamics. Science 326(5956):1112–1115
Schneeberger K, Ossowski S, Ott F et al (2011) Reference-guided assembly of four diverse Arabidopsis thaliana genomes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 108:10249–10254
Schubert I (1984) Mobile Nucleolus Organizing Regions (NORs) in Allium (Liliaceae s. lat.)?—Interferences from the specificity of silver staining. Pl Syst Evol 144:291–305
Schubert I, Wobus U (1985) In situ hybridization confirms jumping nucleolus organizing regions in Allium. Chromosoma 92:143–148
Schwarzacher T (2003) DNA, chromosomes, and in situ hybridization. Genome 46:953–962
Sharma PC, Winter P, Bünger T et al (1995) Abundance and polymorphism of di-, tri- and tetra-nucleotide tandem repeats in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) Theor Appl Genet 90:90–96
Sharma HC, Bhagwat MP, Pampapathy G et al (2006) Perennial wild relatives of chickpea as potential sources of resistance to Helicoverpa armigera. Genet Re Crop Evol 53:131–138
Singh RJ, Hymowitz T (1988) The genomic relationship between Glycine max (L.) Merr. And G. soja Sieb and Zucc. As revealed by pachytene chromosome analysis. TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 76:705–711
Singh KB, Ocampo B (1993) Interspecific hybridization in annual Cicer species. J Genet Breed 47:199
Singh RJ, Tsuchiya T (1975) Pachytene chromosomes of barley. Journal of Heredity 66:165–167
Singh KB, Malhotra RS, Halila MH et al (1994) Current status and future strategy in breeding chickpea for resistance to botic and abiotic stresses. Euphytica 73:137–149
Singh A, Singh NP, Asthana AN (1999) Genetic potential of wide crosses in chickpea. Legume Res 22:19
Singh S, Gumber RK, Joshi N et al (2005) Introgression from wild Cicer reticulatum to cultivated chickpea for productivity and disease resistance. Plant Breed 124(5):477–480
Sohoo MS, Athwal DS, Chandra S (1970) Colchicine Induced polyploidy in chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.). TAG. Theoretical and Applied Genetics. 40:163–169
Staginnus C, Winter P, Desel C et al (1999) Molecular structure and chromosomal localization of major repetitive DNA families in the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genome. Plant Molecular Biology 39:1037–1050
Staginnus C, Desel C, Schmidt T et al (2010) Assembling a puzzle of dispersed retrotransposable sequences in the genome of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Genome 53:1090–1102
Stamigna C, Crino P, Saccardo F (2000) Wild relatives of chickpea: multiple disease resistance and problems to introgression in the cultigen. J Genet Breed 54:213–219
Stebbins GL (1950) Variation and evolution in plants. Columbia University Press, Columbia
Stebbins GL (1971) Chromosomal evolution in higher plants. Edward Arnold (Publ). Ltd. p 216
Sudupak MA, Akkaya MS, Kence A (2004) Genetic relationship among perennial and annual Cicer species growing in Turkey assessed by AFLP fingerprinting. Theor Apple Genet 108:937–944
Tayyar RI, Lukaszewski AJ, Waines JG (1994) Chromosome banding pattern in the annual species of Cicer. Genome 37:656–663
Thiel T, Graner A, Waugh R et al (2009) Evidence and evolutionary analysis of ancient whole-genome duplications in barley predating the divergence from rice. BMC Evolutionary Biology 22(9):209. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-9-20
Upadhyaya HD, Dwivedi SL, Baum M et al (2008) Genetic structure, diversity, and allelic richness in composite collection and reference set in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). BMC Plant Biology 8:106–118
van der Maesen LJG (ed) (1972) Cicer L., A monograf of the genus with the special reference to the chickpea (Cicerarietinum L.) its ecology and cultivation. Veenman and Zonene. Wagenigen, Netherland. p 342
van der Maesen LJG (1987) Origin, history and taxonomy of chickpea. In: Saxena MC, Singh KB (eds) The Chickpea, CAB International, Cambridge, UK, 11
van Dorrestain B, Baum M, Malhotra RS (1998) Interspecific hybridization between cultivated chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and the wild annual species C. judaicum Boiss, C. pinnafidum Jaub & Sp and C. bijungum. In: Rech KH (ed) Opportunities for high quality, healthy and added value crops to meet European demands: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Grain Legumes. Valladoli, Spain, p 362
Varshney RK, Song C, Saxena RK et al (2013) Draft genome sequence of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) provides a resource for improvement. Nature Biotechnology 31(3):240–246
Venora G, Ocampo B, Singh KB, Saccardo F (1995) Karyotype of kabuli-type chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) by imaging analysis system. Caryologia 48:147–155
Verma MM (1990) Crossability studies in different species of Cicer (L.). Crop Improv 17:179–181
Verma MM, Ravim M, Sandhu JS (1995) Characterization of the interspecific cross Cicer arietinum L. x Cicer judaicum (Boiss). Plant Breed 114:549–551
Vessal SR, Bagheri A, Safarnejad A (2002) The possibility of in vitro haploid production in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) J Sci Technol Agric Nat Resour 6:67–76
Vláčilová K, Ohri D, Vrána J et al (2002) Development of flow cytogenetics and physical mapping in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Chromosome Research 10:695–706
Young ND, Debellé F, Oldroyd GE et al (2011) The Medicago genome provides insight into the evolution of rhizobial symbioses. Nature 480(7378):520–524
Zatloukalová P, Hřibová E, Kubaláková M et al (2011) Integration of genetic and physical maps of the chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) genome using flow-sorted chromosomes. Chromosome Research 19:729–739
Zeven AC (1979) Polyploidy and domestication: the origin and survival of polyploids in cytotype mixtures. Basic Life Sciences 13:385–407
Zhang P, Li WL, Fellers J, Friebe B et al (2004) BAC-FISH in wheat identifies chromosome landmarks consisting of different types of transposable elements. Chromosoma 112:288–299
Acknowledgements
This article is dedicated to the memory of our late colleague Professor Günter Kahl, who influenced us in many positive ways to work on chickpea. This research was supported by a National Program of Sustainability I (grant number LO1204).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Karafiátová, M., Hřibová, E., Doležel, J. (2017). Cytogenetics of Cicer . In: Varshney, R., Thudi, M., Muehlbauer, F. (eds) The Chickpea Genome. Compendium of Plant Genomes. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66117-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66117-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66115-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66117-9
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)