# Presentation: 093362

## Pure Lining Breeder Seed for Molecular Variety ID in OatAOWC, July 23, 2006, Fargo

**Pure Lining Breeder Seed for Molecular Variety ID in Oat*****AOWC, July 23, 2006, Fargo***

**Brian Rossnagel, Peter Eckstein, Tom Zatorski & Graham Scoles**
**Crop Development Centre, University of Saskatchewan**

**Crop Development Centre - Plant Sciences Department**

## Different ID Objectives

**PBR**
**Variety registration**
**Pedigreed Seed**
**Commercial Grain**

## PBR

**Simple question - ****“Are you growing my variety?”**
**If not - obvious question of “What is it?” is **_**NOT relevant**_
**Rarely needed**
**DUS issues - later**

## Variety Registration 	- Pedigreed Seed

**Must have botanical phenotype (description) for Pedigreed Seed**
**Makes sense to have same for Variety Registration**
**DUS - not at issue - OK for 70 years**
**Molecular characterization could be useful, but has not been necessary to date & should remain optional**
**CSGA system critical in Canada**

## Commercial Grain

**Different ball game**
**Need to know what it is**
**Mixtures - what & quantified**
**Botanical phenotype useless**
**IP systems effective**
**Molecular characterization helpful - not ready yet**

## CDC Breeder Seed Purification

**Bulk Inc. & 200 Panicle selection - *****2004***
**200 Breeder Hills – *****2005 ******– discard phenotypic outliers – visual, disease, quality, ******molecular***
**Breeder Long Rows/Breeder Seed - *****2006***
***Each Row traces to single panicle***

## CDC Weaver Breeder Long Rows

## Slide 8

## Molecular Purification

**No different than botanical - lab not field but OBJECTIVE!**
**Less expensive & risky**
**No environmental variability**
**DUS - yes, yes & yes**

## DUS

**D**** - Canadian Hulless Barley Pilot project **
**U**** - Breeder’s molecular purification**
**superior to botanical**
**S**** - Non issue **
**extremely low probability of change in band pattern in so few generations from Breeder Seed**

## CDC Weaver - Oat

**200 Breeder lines**
**20 botanical discards**
**12 molecular discards**
**6 in common **
**Two had 4 & three had 2 non-conforming bands & were most different by visual phenotype**

## CDC WeaverLong Rows

_**Bulked DNA Samples**_
**1  AC Assiniboia**
**2  CDC Boyer**
**3  CDC Pacer**
**4  CDC Orrin**
**5  CDC Dancer**
**6  CDC Weaver**

## CDC WeaverLong Rows

## CDC WeaverLong Rows

## Canadian Hulless Barley Pilot Project

**23 currently registered varieties**
**4 breeding programs**
**2 row & 6 row**
**AFLP**
**3 primer combinations tried - each able to separate all 23 **

## HullessbarleyE3M3

**23 Varieties**

## HullessbarleyE5M8

**1**

**2**

**3**

**4**

**5**

**6**

**7**

**8**

**9**

**10**

**11**

**12**

**23 Varieties**

## Hulless barley    E5M8

## Canadian Hulless Barley Pilot Project

**every primer set won’t work as well**
**multitudes of primer sets to try**
**microsats = alternate choice**

## Botanical Vs Molecular Characterization for PBR

**Subjective vs Objective**
**Don’t hold to different standards**
**Don’t hold to higher standard**
**Not for all crops**
**Not for all breeders**
**OPTION **_***NOT***_** Addition**

## Mol. Vs Bot. Changes

**Changes to Breeder Purification**
**Breeder’s call = botanical description and variety name**
**Keeper of the Key - CFIA**
**Option **_***NOT***_** Addition**
**Costs**

## Do we need a centralized approach?

**If a breeder feels that a particular technique is reproducible and can establish DUS of their cultivar satisfactorily and is willing to take that risk – why not – who else loses?**
**Let’s keep in mind how often this information may be needed.**