TurkJBot 27(2003)249-254 ©TÜB‹TAK ResearchArticle IsoenzymeVariationofEsteraseandAcidPhosphataseandGenetic AffinitiesamongDasypyrumvillosum (L.)P.Candargy, Elytrigiarepens (L.)NevskiandElymuscaninus (L.)L.

GeorgiBorisovANGELOV DepartmentofAppliedBotany,InstituteofBotany,1113Sofia-BULGARIA

Received:28.07.2002 Accepted:13.01.2003

Abstract: Polyacrylamidegelelectrophoresiswasemployedtostudytheisoenzymevariationofesteraseandacidphosphatasein naturalpopulationsofDasypyrumvillosum (L.)P.Candargy,Elytrigiarepens(L.)NevskiandElymuscaninus (L.)L.Foursimilarity

indices(SI,S,D,I h)werecalculatedinanattempttoevaluatequantitativelygeneticaffinitiesamongthespeciesexamined. ConsideringindexD,thespecies D.villosumprovedtobeequallydistant(D=0.17inbothcases)fromthespeciespair Et.repens and El.caninus.ThenearlytwicelowervalueofDforthecomparisonbetween Et.repensandEl.caninus isanindicationoftheir

strongergeneticrelationship.MeanvaluesofindicesI h,SIandSalsoindicatedthat D.villosum isthemostdistinctspecieswithin thegroupstudied.TheresultswerediscussedinthelightofchloroplastDNAsequencedata,suggestingacloseaffinityamong the generaDasypyrum (Coss.&L.Durieu)T.Durand,Elytrigia Desv.andElymusL.Theresultsofthepresentisoenzymestudyarenot incongruencewithcpDNAanalysis.BothisoenzymeandDNAdatasuggestthatthephylogeneticpositionofthe Dasypyrum withinthetriberemainsunresolved.

KeyWords: Dasypyrumvillosum,Elytrigiarepens,Elymuscaninus,esterase,acidphosphatase,isoenzymevariation,geneticaffinities

Introduction exhibitedrelativelylittledivergenceattheisoenzyme Dasypyrum (Coss.&L.Durieu)T.Durandisasmall level.Thepresentpaperextendsthestudyofisoenzyme genuswhichbelongstothesubtribeTriticinae ofthetribe variationinnaturalpopulationsofD.villosum,Et.repens Triticeae (Tzvelev,1976).TwospeciesofDasypyrum are and El.caninus byincludingtwoadditionalenzymes.The distributedinEurope:theperennial Dasypyrum purposewastocontributefurtherunderstandingofthe hordeaceum (Coss.&L.Durieu)P.Candargyandthe geneticaffinitiesamongthesespeciesandtherespective widespreadannual D.villosum (L.)P.Candargy generabymeansofisoenzymes. (Humphries,1978).Bothspeciesarediploids. Morphologically, Dasypirum isconsideredtobeclosely MaterialsandMethods relatedtoTriticumL.,AgropyronGaertn. and L. Theisoformsofenzymeesteraseandacid ChloroplastDNA(cpDNA)restrictionsitediversityhas phosphatasewereanalysedin94individualfrom beenusedtoaddressawiderangeofevolutionary threepopulationsof Et.repens, 72plantsfromtwo problems.Recentstudiesof Triticeaebasedonmolecular populationsof El.caninus and150plantsfromfour data(Kellogg,1992a;Kellogg,1992b;Mason-Gamer& populationsof D.villosum (Table1).Vouchersare Kellogg,1996) suggestedthataclosephylogenetic depositedattheherbariumofInstituteofBotany(SOM). relationshipexistedamong Dasypyrum,Elytrigia Desv. ElymusL.attheDNAlevel. Leavesweregroundin0.01MTris,0.08M.glycine, 0.005Mcysteine,and20%sucroseatpH8.3.Ion- Inapreviousanalysisofseveralenzymes(unpubl. exchangeresinDowex1x8(0.4g/1gfreshtissue)was res.)itwasdemonstratedthatthespeciesD.villosum was addedtotheextractionbuffertoeliminatepolyphenols. clearlydistantfromboth Elytrigiarepens (L.)Nevskiand Homogenateswerecentrifugedat10,000rpmfor10 Elymuscaninus (L.)L., , whilethelattertwospecies min.Thesupernatantwasusedasasourceofenzymes.

249 IsoenzymeVariationofEsteraseandAcidPhosphataseandGeneticAffinitiesamong Dasypyrumvillosum (L.) P.Candargy,Elytrigiarepens (L.)NevskiandElymuscaninus (L.)L.

Table1.Speciesandpopulationsexamined.

Species Numberof Locality Voucher individuals number

Et.repens 33 VitoshaMt.,aroundthevillageofMarchaevo Co-597 28 SrednagoraMt.,nearthevillageofDushantsi Co-598 30 SrednagoraMt.,inthesurroundingsofPirdop Co-599

El.caninus 35 RilaMt.,thevalleyofRilskariver Co-591 11 Estonia,Laelatu,EE2003 Co-421

D.villosum 40 ChepanMt.,aroundDragoman Co-225 35 Stroumavalleyregion,Kozuhhills Co-226 24 Stroumavalleyregion,nearthevillageofMarikostinovo Co-600 41 Thracianregion,aroundthevillageofLevka Co-228

Anodallymigratingisoformsofesteraseandacid N phosphatasewereresolvedon7.5%polyacrylamideslabs PI=∑ Ri(1-Ri) i=l asseparatinggelwith3%stackinggelbythe electrophoreticsystemofDavis(1964).Cathodal whereRi isthefrequencyoftheithisoforminagiven isoformsofESTwererunon7.5%separatinggeland speciesandNisthenumberofisoformsobservedinthe 3%stackinggelaccordingtoReisfeldetal.(1961).The samespecies. lengthoftheseparatinggelwas6cmandstackinggels 3)SpecificpolymorphicindexPI =PI/Nwasalso were1.5cmlong.Electrophoresiswasconductedat200 s calculated(Marshall&Jain,1969). V/25mAforthebasicgelsandat150V/45mAforthe acidicgelsystem.Electrophoresisofcathodalesterase Basedonpresence/absencedata,theaveragevaluesof wascarriedoutuntiltheindicatordye,pyroninG, twomeasuresofpheneticaffinitywerecalculatedas reachedthegelend(1front).Thedurationofanodal follows: electrophoresiswas1.25frontsofindicatorbromphenol 1)Similarityindex(SI)ofJaccard(see Chungetal., blueforESTand1.5frontsforacidphosphatase. 1991) Stainingprotocolswereperformedasmentionedin SI= M Angelov(2000). M+N Knowledgeofthesubunitstructureoftheenzymes examinedandthepatternsoftheirsegregationwithin whereMisthenumberofisoformscommontobothtaxa naturalpopulationsdidnotfacilitategenetic andNisthesumofspecies-specificisoforms. interpretationofenzymephenotypes.Thecomplex 2)Coefficientofsimilarity(S)ofSneath&Socal(after phenotypesobservedmadeimpossiblethegenetic Kalinowskietal.,1979) determinationofenzymephenotypes.Forthisreason, S= a+d twopheneticparameterswereemployed:1)isoform a+b+c+d (band)presence/absenceand2)isoformfrequency.Each isoformwasassignedanumberreflectingitsgel whereaisthenumberofisoformscommonforbothtaxa, migrationinmmfromtheorigin(PerezdelaVega& bandcarethenumberofisoformsspecificforeachtaxa, anddisthenumberofisoformsabsentfrombothtaxa. Allard,1984). Averagephenotypicidentitiesamongspecies Thephenotypicdiversityofeachspecieswas examinedwerecalculatedbyHedrick’s(1971)measure measuredinseveralways:1)thenumberofisoforms ofphenotypicidentity detectedand2)thepolymorphicindex(PI),whichwas calculatedaccordingtoSinghandJain(1971): Ih =2Ixy /Lx +Iy

250 G.B.ANGELOV

where, occurredin Et.repens and El.caninus only.Similarity n n n indicesSIandSrangedfrom0.68to0.75.CoefficientD 2 2 Ixy= ∑ PjxPjy;Ix= ∑ Pjxand Iy= ∑ Pjy, variedintherangefrom0.09forthecomparison j=l j=l j=l between El.caninus and Et.repens to0.13whenthe latterwascomparedwithD.villosum. Pjx andPjy arethefrequenciesofjthisoforminspecies xandyandnisthenumberofisoformsateachenzyme. Sixteenisoformsofacidphosphataseweredetected (Table4).Isoforms6and18wereinvariantand Additionally,thecoefficientofdifferentiation(D)was calculatedaccordingtothefollowingformula: diagnosticfor D.villosum. Isoforms30and42were specificfor Et.repens. IndexSIrangedfrom0.35( D. N 1 villosumvs.Et.repens)to0.60whenthelatterand El. 1 2 2 D= (x∑ ij–xik) caninus werecompared.ThecalculationofcoefficientD N i=l resultedinvaluesof0.19and0.17whenD.villosumwas comparedtoEt.repensandEl.caninus. whereNisthenumberofisoformsforeachenzyme,and xij andxik arethefrequencyoftheithisoformintaxajand Thespecies Et.repens andEl.caninus hadagreater k. numberofisoforms(30and31),andahigheraveragePI perenzyme(1.73and1.39)andPi s (0.14and0.13), ResultsandDiscussion respectively.Therewere28isoformsobservedin D. villosum. IthadthelowestaveragePI(0.77)andPi Totallynineisoformsofcathodalesterasewere s (0.07)values. detectedinthespeciesstudied(Table2).Isoforms13and 18werespecificforD.villosum.Isoforms34,38and40 TheaveragevaluesofsimilarityindexSIforthe occurredinspeciespair Et.repens and El.caninusonly. comparisonof D.villosum withspeciespair Et.repens IndicesSIandSvariedinawiderange–from0.33( D. andEl.caninus were0.46.and0.57,respectively.The villosum vs. Et.repens )to0.83inthecomparison correspondingvalueforthecomparisonbetween Et. betweenthelatterspeciesandEl.caninus.Thecalculation repens andEl.caninuswas0.71.Similarthoughslightly ofcoefficientDresultedinvaluesof0.18and0.20when highervaluesofindexSwereobtained.Thecomparison comparing D.villosum with Et.repens and El.caninus , ofD.villosumwith Et.repensand El.caninusresultedin respectively. averagevaluesofcoefficientDequalto0.17inboth Theisoformfrequenciesofanodalesteraseareshown cases,whereasanaveragevalueof0.10wascalculated inTable3.Sixteenisoformswereelectrophoretically whenthelattertwospecieswerecompared.Thevalues detected.Fourofthem(isoforms18,23,41and45) ofpheneticidentitymeasureIhwere0.33and0.42when wereinvariantin D.villosum. Mostoftheisoformswere D.villosum wascontrastedwith Et.repens and El. sharedbyallthespeciesstudied,butisoform14was caninus, whereasthecomparisonbetweenthelattertwo diagnosticfor D.villosum andisoforms35and43 speciesresultedinavalueof0.50.

Table2. Averageisoformfrequenciesofcathodalesteraseinthestudiedpopulationsof Et. repens,El.caninus andD.villosum.

Isoforms Species 13 18 25 30 34 38 40 42

Et.repens 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.28 0.22 0.22 0.17 0.00 El.caninus 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.08 0.15 0.55 0.09 D.villosum 0.06 0.56 0.56 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00

251 IsoenzymeVariationofEsteraseandAcidPhosphataseandGeneticAffinitiesamong Dasypyrumvillosum (L.) P.Candargy,Elytrigiarepens (L.)NevskiandElymuscaninus (L.)L.

Table3.Averageisoformfrequenciesofanodalesteraseinthestudiedpopulationsof Et.repens,El.caninus andD.villosum.

Isoforms Species 14 16 18 21 23 26 28 30 33 35 37 41 43 45 48 50

Et.repens 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.48 0.04 0.24 0.35 0.41 0.11 0.41 0.04 0.30 0.11 0.48 0.30 0.20 El.caninus 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.52 0.22 0.13 0.32 0.42 0.19 0.13 0.42 0.97 1.00 0.42 0.71 0.58 D.villosum 0.06 0.11 1.00 0.11 1.00 0.66 0.94 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.39 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.11 0.11

Table4.Averageisoformfrequenciesofacidphosphataseinthestudiedpopulationsof Et.repens,El.caninus andD.villosum.

Isoforms Species 6111416182022232426283032363842

Et.repens 0.00 0.25 0.57 1.00 0.00 0.28 0.43 0.43 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.57 0.28 1.00 0.00 0.57 El.caninus 0.00 0.75 0.90 1.00 0.00 0.63 0.33 0.16 0.53 0.10 0.95 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.79 0.00 D.villosum 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.39 0.89 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.94 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.89 0.00

Allpheneticparametersforenzymesesteraseandacid foundin D.villosum,Pseudoroegnerialibanotica (Hackel) phosphataserevealedsimilarpatternsofgenetic Dewey (Elytrigialibanotica (Hackel)Holub ) and Ps. relationshipsamongthespecies. stipifolia(Chern.exNevski)A.Löve (Et.stipifolia (Chern. ConsideringcoefficientD,thespecies D.villosum exNevski)Nevski).Thedeletionwasfirstdetectedin Et. provedtobeequallydistant(D=0.17inbothcases) repens (Kellogg,1992a).Later,Mason-GamerandKellogg fromthespeciespair Et.repens and El.caninus .This (1996)demonstratedthatpolyploidsof Elymus L.and valueofDindicatesthatasubstantialgenetic ElytrigiaDesv.formedamoderatelywellsupportedclade differentiationexistsbetween D.villosum andthelatter with Dasypyrum (Coss.&Durieu) and Pseudoroegneria twospecies.ThenearlytwicelowervalueofcoefficientD (Nevski)A.Löve.Thelattergenus,aswellas Elytrigiaand forthecomparisonbetween Et.repensand El.caninus is Elymus, containstheSgenome.Thus,thedeletionmaybe anindicationoftheirstrongergeneticrelationship.The ausefulmarkerfortheSgenomebutitwillnotdistinguish theSgenomefromtheVgenomeofD.villosum. Although meanvaluesofI h alsoindicated,althoughnotso definitely,that D.villosum isthemostdistinctspecies cpDNAdataindicatedastrongaffinitybetweenDasypyrum withinthegroupstudied.SimilarityindicesSIandSalso and Pseudoroegneriachloroplastgenomes,thetwogroups supportedtheobservationthataclosergeneticaffinity appearedtobedistantonthebasisofmorphologicaldata existsbetweenthelattertwospecies,whereas D. (Kellogg,1989). villosum isthemostdistantlypositionedwithinthe Somephylogeneticreconstructionsbasedon studiedgroupof Triticeae.Consideringtogetherall morphologygrouped D.villosum with Crithodium pheneticparameters,itcouldbeconcludedthat Et. monococcum(L.)A.Löve (Triticummonococcum L.) and repensand El.caninusaregeneticallymorecloselyrelated Secalecereale L.(Seberg&Frederiksen,2001),but thaneitheristoD.villosum. Thelatterspeciesprovedto morphologicaltreesareveryunstableandexhibitagreat beclearlydifferentiatedatthegenescodingforthesetof dealofhomoplasy(Kellogg,1992a;Frederiksen& solubleenzymessurveyed. Seberg,1992).Hence,itseemsdifficulttodeterminethe ChloroplastDNA(cpDNA)restrictionsitevariationhas phylogeneticpositionof Dasypyrum onthebasisof beenusedtogeneratephylogenetictreesofmonogenomic morphology.Moreover,ithasbeendemonstratedthat generawithinthetribe Triticeae (Kellogg,1992b).The thespecies D.villosum differsfrombothwheatandrye mostdistinctivemolecularmarkerwasauniquedeletion foranumberofisoenzymeloci(Jaaska,1975,1982).

252 G.B.ANGELOV

GenomicrelationshipsinthetribeTriticeaehavebeen phosphatase.BothisoenzymeandDNAdata(Kellogget investigatedinaseriesofstudies(McIntyre,1988; al.,1996,Kellogg,1998;Kellogg,pers.comm.)suggest McIntyreetal.,1988a,1988b;Scolesetal.,1988)by thatthephylogeneticpositionofthegenus Dasypyrum meansofmorphology,chromosomepairing,isoenzymes, withinthetribe Triticeae remainsunresolved.Mason- DNAhybridizationandsequencing.Therelativeposition GamerandKellogg(1996)comparedstatisticallyfour oftheVgenomevariedbetweenanalysesdependingon setsofmoleculardatatodeterminewhethertheywere theparametersemployed.Ingeneral,itexhibitedaffinity significantlydifferent.ItwasconcludedthatthecpDNA totheS,EandJgenomes(McIntyre,1988).These datasetreflectsanevolutionaryhistorysubstantially findingscorrespondpartiallytocpDNArestrictionsite differentfromthatofanynuclearDNAdatasets.The variationstudies.Bothapproachesindicatethatan causeofthisdiscrepancybetweenchloroplastandnuclear affinitybetweentheVgenomespeciesD.villosumandthe genomesremainsunknown. Sgenomespeciespair Et.repens and El.caninus exists, atleast,foraportionoftheirgenomes. Acknowledgements Theresultsofthepresentstudyof D.vilosum,Et. repens and El.caninus arenotincongruencewithcpDNA IamindebtedtoDr.T.Ojaforhelpingtocollect analysis.Itwasdemonstratedthattheformerspeciesis Estoniansamplesof Et.repens .Partofthisstudywas geneticallydistinctfromboth Et.repensand El.caninus, supportedbygrantsB-410andB-702fromtheNational asrevealedbytheisoenzymesofesteraseandacid ScienceFund.

References AngelovG(2000). Festucopsissancta (Janka)Meld.anditsrelations KelloggE(1992b).Toolsforstudyingthechloroplastgenomesinthe with Agropyroncristatum (L.)Gaertn.and Brachypodium Triticeae(Graminae): AnEcoRImap,adiagnosticdeletionand sylvaticum (Huds.)Beauv.–anelectrophoreticsurvey.Phytologia supportforBromus asanoutgroup. AmerJBot 79:186-197. Balcanica 6:217-222. KelloggE(1998).Who’srelatedtowhom?Recentresultsfrom ChungM,HamrickJ,JonesS&DerdaG (1991).Isoenzymevariation molecularsystematicsstudies.CurrentOpinioninBiology 1: withinandamongpopulationsof Hosta(Liliaceae) inKorea. Syst 149-158. Bot 16:667-684. KelloggE,AppelsR&Mason-GamerR(1996).Whengenestell DavisB(1964).Discelectrophoresis.I.Methodandapplicationto differentstories:thediploidgeneraof Triticeae(Graminae).Syst humanserumproteins.AnnNewYorkAcad.Sci 121:404-427. Bot 21:321-347. FrederiksenS&SebergO(1992).PhylogeneticanalysisoftheTriticeae MarshallD&Jain S (1969).Geneticpolymorphismin Avenafatua and (). Hereditas 116:15-19. A.barbata.Nature 221:276-283. HumphriesC(1978).Dasypyrum(Coss.&Dur.)Durand.BotJLinnSoc Mason-GamerR&KelloggE(1996).ChloroplastDNAanalysisofthe 76:361-362. monogenomic Triticeae:Phylogeneticimplicationsandgenome- specificmarkersIn:JauharP.(ed.) Methodsofgenomeanalysis JaaskaV(1975).Evolutionaryvariationandphylogeneticrelationships ofplants, pp.301-325.BocaRaton,Florida:CRSPress inthegenus Secale L. EeestiNSVTAToimetised,Biologia 25: 132-145(inRussian). Mason-GamerR&KelloggE(1996).Testingforphylogeneticconflict amongmoleculardatasetsinthetribeTriticeae(Graminae).Syst JaaskaV(1982).Isoenzymesofsuperoxidedismutaseinwheatsand Biol 45:524-545. theirrelatives:alloenzymevariation. BiochemPhysiolPflanzen 177:747-755. McIntyreC(1988).Variationatisozymelociin Triticeae.PlSystEvol 160:123-142. KalinowskiA,KaczmarekZ&Bartkowiak S (1979).Variabilityofthe enzymaticsystemsinnaturalpopulationsof Anthyllisvulneraria McIntyreC,ClarkeB&AppelsR(1988a).Amplificationanddispersion s.l.fromthreegeographicregionsofPoland.II.Geographic ofrepeatedDNAsequencesintheTriticeae.PlSystEvol 160:39- variabilityofenzymaticsystemsinsixwoundwortpopulations. 59. ActaSocBotPoloniae 48:575-583. McIntyreC,ClarkeB&AppelsR(1988b).DNAsequenceanalysesofthe KelloggE(1989).Commentsonthegenomicgenerainthe Triticeae ribosomalspacerregionsinthe Triticeae.PlSystEvol 160:91- (Poaceae). AmerJBot 76:796-805. 104. KelloggE(1992a).Restrictionsitevariationinthechloroplastgenomes ofthemonogenomicTriticeae.Hereditas 116:43-47.

253 IsoenzymeVariationofEsteraseandAcidPhosphataseandGeneticAffinitiesamong Dasypyrumvillosum (L.) P.Candargy,Elytrigiarepens (L.)NevskiandElymuscaninus (L.)L.

PerezdelaVegaM&AllardR(1984).Matingsystemandgenetic SebergO&FrederiksenS(2001).Aphylogeneticanalysisofthe polymorphisminpopulationsof Secalecereale and S.vavilovii . monogenomic Triticeae(Poaceae) basedonmorphology. BotJ CanJGenetCytol 26:306-317. LinnSoc 136:75-97. ReisfeldR,LewisU&WilliamsD(1962).Discelectrophoresisofbasic SinghR&JainS (1971).Populationbiologyof Avena II.Isoenzyme proteinsandpeptidesonpolyacrylamidegels. Nature 195:281- polymorphismofthepopulationsoftheMediterraneanregionand 283. centralCalifornia.TheorApplGenet 41:79-84. ScolesG,GillB,XinZ,ClarkeB,McIntyreC,ChapmanC&AppelsR TzvelevN(1976). GrassesofSSSR.Leningrad:Nauka,(inRussian). (1988).Frequentduplicationanddeletioneventsinthe5SRNA genesandtheassociatedspacerregionsofthe Triticeae. PlSyst Evol 160:105-122.

254