Discrimination among Three Species of Medicinal Scutellaria Plants using RAPD Markers

Abstract

An analysis of random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) was performed using nine accessions of three species of medicinal plants in the genus Scutellaria (S. galericulata, S. lateriflora and S. baicalensis; known collectively as skullcap) in an effort to distinguish between members of these three species. Dried aerial parts of the two species S. galericulata and S. lateriflora are difficult to distinguish morphologically. Ten arbitrary primers produced 92 fragments, and eight of the primers yielded 23 species-specific fragments among the three species. Six fragments were specific for S. galericulata, seven for S. lateriflora and ten for S. baicalensis. When primers A02 and A06 were used in the polymerase chain reaction, RAPD fragments that were specific for each of the three species were generated simultaneously. Primer A02 produced five species-specific fragments: one was specific for S. galericulata; two for S. lateriflora; and two for S. baicalensis. Primer A06 produced three species-specific fragments: one for S. galericulata; one for S. lateriflora; and one for S. baicalensis. The RAPD markers that were generated with these two primers should rapidly identify members of the three species of Scutellaria. The consistency of the identifications made with these species-specific RAPD markers was demonstrated by the observation that each respective marker was generated from three accessions of each species, all with different origins. Furthermore, cluster analysis using the 92 RAPD fragments produced a dendrogram of genetic relatedness that was in good agreement with the taxonomic designations of the three species. Thus, the RAPD markers should be useful for the future identification of members of the three species of medicinal Scutellaria plants.

RAPD - RAPD marker - Scutellaria spec. - Lamiaceae - skullcap - species identification

References

• 1 Clapham  A R,, Tutin  T G,, Moore  D M.. Flora of the British Isles, Third Edition,. pp. 417-418, Cambridge University Press, London, New York, New Rochelle, Melbourne, Sydney; 1987
• 2 Cole  M D,, Anderson  J C,, Blaney  W M,, Fellows  L E,, Ley  S V,, Sheppard  R N,, Simmonds  M SJ.. Phytochemistry. 1990;;  29 1793-1796
• 3 Rodriguez  B,, de la Torre  M C,, Rodriguez  B,, Bruno  M,, Piozzi  F,, Savona  G,, Simmonds  M SJ,, Blaney  W M,, Perales  A.. Phytochemistry. 1993;;  33 309-315
• 4 Rodriguez  B,, de la Torre  M C,, Rodriguez  B,, Gomez-Serranillos  P.. Phytochemistry. 1996;;  41 247-253
• 5 Buruno  M,, Cruciata  M,, Bondi  M L,, Piozzi  F,, de la Torre  M C,, Rodriguez  B,, Servattaz  O.. Phytochemistry. 1998;;  48 687-691
• 6 Takido  M.. Gendaitoyoigaku. 1987;;  8 50-56 (in Japanese)
• 7 Williams  J GK,, Kubelik  A R,, Livak  K J,, Rafalski  J A,, Tingey  S V.. Nucleic Acids Res.. 1990;;  18 6531-6535
• 8 Cheng  K T,, Fu  L C,, Wang  C S,, Hus  F L,, Tsay  H S.. Plant Med.. 1998;;  64 46-49
• 9 Cheng  K T,, Su  C H,, Chang  H C,, Huang  J Y.. Plant Med.. 1998;;  64 451-453
• 10 Perron  M,, Gordon  A G,, Bousquet  J.. Theor. Appl. Genet.. 1995;;  91 142-149
• 11 Khasa  P D,, Dancik  B P.. Theor. Appl. Genet.. 1996;;  92 46-52
• 12 Edwards  K,, Johnstone  C,, Thompson  C.. Nucleic Acid Res.. 1991;;  19 1349
• 13 Nei  M,, Li  W H.. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.. 1979;;  76 5269-5273
• 14 Ellsworth  D L,, Rittenhouse  D,, Honeycutt  R L.. BioTechniques. 1993;;  14 214-217
• 15 Park  Y H,, Kohel  R J.. BioTechniques . 1994;;  16 652-655
• 16 Meunier  J R,, Grimont  P AD.. Res. Microbiol.. 1993;;  144 373-379
• 17 Penner  G A,, Bush  A,, Wise  R,, Kim  W,, Domier  L,, Kasha  K,, Laroche  A,, Scoles  G,, Molnar  S J,, Fedak  G.. PCR Methods and Appl.. 1993;;  2 341-345
• 18 Muralidharan  K,, Wakeland  E K.. BioTechniques. 1993;;  14 362-364