Biosystematic Study on Some Egyptian Species of Astragalus L. (Fabaceae)
by
,
Monier M. Abd El-Ghani
1, 
Ashraf S. A. El-Sayed
2,
Ahmed Moubarak
3,
Rabab Rashad
3,
Hala Nosier
4 and
Adel Khattab
1,* 1
Department of Botany and Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Giza 12613, Egypt
2
Department of Botany and Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Zagazig University, Al Sharqiya Governorate 44519, Egypt
3
Department of Botany and Microbiology, Faculty of Science, Benha University, Benha 13518, Egypt
4
Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, Ain Shams University, Cairo 11566, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2021, 11(2), 125; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020125
Submission received: 31 December 2020
/
Revised: 14 January 2021
/
Accepted: 22 January 2021
/
Published: 4 February 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Conservation and Characterization of Vegetable Crop Biodiversity)
Abstract
:Astragalus L. is one of the largest angiosperm complex genera that belongs to the family Fabaceae, subfamily Papilionoideae or Faboideae under the subtribe Astragalinae of the tribe Galegeae. The current study includes the whole plant morphology, DNA barcode (ITS2), and molecular marker (SCoT). Ten taxa representing four species of Astragalus were collected from different localities in Egypt during the period from February 2018 to May 2019. Morphologically, identification and classification of collected Astragalus plants occurred by utilizing the light microscope, regarding the taxonomic revisions of the reference collected Astragalus specimens in other Egyptian Herbaria. For molecular validation, ten SCoT primers were used in this study, producing a unique banding pattern to differentiate between ten samples of Astragalus taxa which generated 212 DNA fragments with an average of 12.2 bands per 10 Astragalus samples, with 8 to 37 fragments per primer. The 212 fragments amplified were distributed as 2 monomorphic bands, 27 polymorphic without unique bands, 183 unique bands (210 Polymorphic with unique bands), and ITS2 gene sequence was showed as the optimal barcode for identifying Astragalus L. using BLAST searched on NCBI database, and afterward, analyzing the chromatogram for ITS region, 10 samples have been identified as two samples representing A. hauarensis, four samples representing A. sieberi, three samples representing A. spinosus and one sample representing A. vogelii. Based on the ITS barcode, A. hauarensis RMG1, A. hauarensis RMG2, A. sieberi RMG1, A. sieberi RMG2, A. sieberi RMG3, A. sieberi RMG4, A. spinosus RMG1, A. spinosus RMG2, A. spinosus RMG3, A. vogelii RMG were deposited into GenBank with accession # MT367587.1, MT367591.1, MT367593.1, MT367585.1, MT367586.1, MT367588.1, MT160347.1, MT367590.1, MT367589.1, MT367592.1, respectively. These results indicated the efficiency of SCoT markers and ITS2 region in identifying and determining genetic relationships between Astragalus species.
1. Introduction
The family Leguminosae (Fabaceae) is the third-largest family of angiosperms (flowering plants) after the Orchidaceae and the Asteraceae or Compositae, with 727 genera and 19,325 species [1,2], comprising annual and perennial herbs, shrubs, and trees [3]. This family distributed in cold mountainous regions in Europe, Asia, and North America, also has very economic importance [4] which is the main sources of gums, dyes, fuel, timber, medicinals, and pulses [5]. It includes the five largest genera: Astragalus (over 2400 species), Acacia (over 950 species), Indigofera (about 700 species), Crotalaria (about 700 species), and Mimosa (about 500 species), that comprise around a quarter of all legume species and radiated extensively in disturbed habitats. About 19,000 known bean species reach 7% of flowering plant species [6,7]. Fabaceae contains three subfamilies Caesalpinioideae DC, Mimosoideae DC and Faboideae Rudd (Papilionoideae). The Papilionoideae divided into 10 tribes involving Galegeae that includes Astragalus L. [8,9].
This family is the most common family widespread in tropical rainforests and dry forests in the Americas and Africa [10]. Fabaceae shows spectacular morphological characters and life history diversity, from giant rain forest trees and woody to desert shrubs, ephemeral herbs, herbaceous twining climbers, aquatics, and fire-adapted savanna species [11].
Astragalus L. (“Gævæn” in Persian language) is probably the largest and most abundant genus of vascular plants on Earth, comprising nearly 2500–3000 annual and perennial species and more than 250 taxonomic sections in the world [12,13,14,15] distributed in all continents, mainly around the Northern Hemisphere, Western North America, South America, Central Asia, tropical East Africa and not found in Australia [16]. The giant genus is extensively founded in the temperate and arid continental regions of the world and is chiefly located in south western Asia (ca. 1000–1500 spp.), the Sino-Himalayan regions (ca. 500 spp.), western North America (ca. 400–450 spp.), found along the Andes in South America (ca. 100 spp.), and also in Africa found on mountains [17,18]. It is also in the territory of Iran, with more than 60% endemism [19]. However, Astragalus L., presumed the center of origin and biodiversity is Eurasia, particularly in the drier mountainous parts of south western (SW) and south central (SC) Asia, there may be contained more than 800 species (belongs to more than 60 sections) and the Himalaya plateau [12,20]. Its species are situated in many sections. These sections are established depending on morphological characters such as stem length, stipule connection, leaf stipules shape, pod texture, flower color, and seed characters. Species of Astragalus growing in North Africa are Mediterranean or Arabian Saharan plants. They are represented by over 50 species determined in several sections, and 15 species which are found in the Sahara of Algeria. It is also diverse in southern Europe and Mediterranean climatic regions along the Pacific coasts of North and South America [12].
In Egypt, Astragalus L. is represented by 37 species [21], about 32 species [22]. The genus Astragalus is represented by eight species in Qatar [23] and in Saudi Arabia about 25–26 species [24]. Alshammari and Sharawy [25] registered 6 species in the Hema Faid region. Recently, Llewellyn et al. [26] registered 7 species of Astragalus in the Aja Mountains. The number of known (published and valid) Astragalus species in Iran is around 840 up to today [27].
The traditional identification of organisms depended on several common morphological characters that primarily required collecting the whole plant in vegetative, flowering, and fruiting stages at the same season of the study, and the experienced taxonomists only can identify these plants. On the other hand, these characters are often evolved from the same ancestor’s species, and also these features are strongly affected by factors either environmental or developmental during the plant growth [28], and these procedures are challenging, consume a long time, and might not identify these organisms at species level. Moreover, if the taxa have the same phenotyping or are collected in the immature stage, even an experienced taxonomist can cause misidentification [29]. Because of the problems faced in taxonomy between the species of genus Astragalus complex and to establish our morphological observations, these problems must be investigated at the molecular level to confirm their taxonomic identity, the relationship among them, showed an obvious separation among them in the phylogenetic tree and used for analyzed the genetic variability. The DNA based markers could serve as the best taxonomic tools in such cases to control the limitations of morphological markers. There are unlimited numbers of molecular markers which are devoid of any environmental or developmental effects and show a high level of polymorphism [30]. DNA barcoding is an extensively applicable molecular method utilized to identify Astragalus plants [31]. The ITS2 sequence has been utilized for identification to the species level [32]. Hebert et al., [33,34] who stated that DNA barcoding is an extensively used molecular marker technology.
In recent years, several molecular markers such as RFLP, RAPD, rpoC1, and rpoC2 have been used in Astragalus L. for phylogenetic studies as mentioned by Kazempour Osaloo et al., [35,36] and Wojciechowski, [20]. Among all the different marker systems, a new marker type appeared namely Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) polymorphism, used because it is a novel DNA marker, technically simple, highly polymorphic, requiring very little and not necessarily high-quality DNA; it is a simple interpretation of results and new gene-targeted marker technique based on the translation start codon [37,38].
The objectives of the current work were to study morphological characters of collecting Astragalus plants, the numerical taxonomy utilized to explain genetic relationships between these species, reconfirming the identification of Astragalus plants on molecular characterization by using DNA barcode ITS2 and determining variation among taxa by using SCoT polymorphism.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Taxonomy Study
2.1.1. Taxon Sampling and Collection of Plant Specimens
A total of 10 fresh and healthy samples of Astragalus were collected from different locations in Egypt during the period from February 2018 to May 2019. Detailed information of each sample is showed in Table 1.
2.1.2. Taxonomical Studies
The identification and taxonomy of all samples were carried out by the aid following relevant literature in floras of Egypt [21,22,38,39]. Moreover, the identification of plant materials was confirmed by matching them with images of type and non-type material on various websites (e.g., www.aluka.org; www.tropicos.org, http://coldb.mnhn.fr).
2.1.3. Morphological Studies
According to Täckholm, [21], and Boulos, [22,40,41], the Morphological Characters descriptions as habit, stem, rachis, leaves, pod, and seed were recorded in Table 2. For construction, a data matrix of computation that required recorded morphological characters for each specimen was coded as a double matrix expresses as absent (0) and present (1). The matrix was analyzed by PAST, version 3.18 software [42]. Distance estimates were performed by unweighted pair-group method analysis using arithmetic averages (UPGMA).
2.2. Molecular Study
2.2.1. Genomic DNA Extraction, PCR and Sequencing
The total genomic DNA of Astragalus L. was extracted from fresh young leaves of plants with CTAB (Cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide) lysis buffer [43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52]. Brief description to CTAB method (three-five sentences). The quality of extracted genomic DNA was checked by 1.5% agarose gel with ethidium bromide. The isolated DNA was stored at −20 °C for further analyses. Universal ITS2 and SCoT primers used are presented in Table 3. General PCR reaction, the total volume of ITS2 amplification was 20 µL, made up 10 µL of 2× PCR master mixture, 1 µL forward ITS2 primer, 1 µL reverse ITS2 primer (10 pmol), 1 µL genomic DNA, and 7 µL sterile distilled water, while the total volume of SCoT amplification was 20 µL, made up 10 µL 2× PCR master mixture, 0.5 µL for each primer separately, 2 µL genomic DNA, and 7.5 µl sterile distilled water. The PCR program consisted of 3 min at 94 °C for Initial denaturation followed by 37 cycles of 1 min at 94 °C for Denaturation, 30 s at 56 °C for Annealing ITS2 primers, 30 s at 50 °C for Annealing SCoT primers and 1 min at 72 °C for each extension step, followed by a final extension of 10 min at 72 °C. Amplicons were visualized by electrophoresis on 1.5% agarose gels. For ITS2 purified PCR products were sequenced in one direction using an Applied Biosystems 3130 automated DNA Sequencer (ABI, 3130, Foster City, CA, USA).
2.2.2. Clustering Analysis for SCoT Analysis
The obtained visual PCR products with all the primers were scored. To minimize errors only clear, reproducible, and intense bands were scored. The marker bands were delimited by their molecular weights based on size standard. Amplified bands were recorded as (1) to signify presence and absence of a band was recorded as (0) to form a binary matrix for all the samples. Data analysis was performed using the NTSYS-pc software version 2.1 [55]. Jaccard’s similarity coefficients were used to generate a dendrogram using Unweighted Pair Group Method with Arithmetic Average (UPGMA) [56] and relationships between the samples were represented in the dendrogram.
3. Results
3.1. Morphological Data Analysis
Description of Morphological Characters is the first basic tool, and classified Astragalus species are shown in Table 4.
The UPGMA dendrogram clustering algorithm generated from 35 morphological characters (Figure 1) displays that all studied taxa are divided into two major clusters and have an average taxonomic distance of about 4.9.
At the 4.6 level, the first cluster (I) of two species is also delimited as two different taxa but appears to form one group. The first cluster (I) divided into two sub-clusters: sub-cluster 1 included the four samples representing A. sieberi, which separated at a distance level of about 4.21; while sub-cluster 2 comprised the three samples representing A. spinosus and separated at a distance close to 4.22 level.
At the 4.8 level, the second cluster (II) of two species is also delimited as two different taxa. The second cluster (II) divided into two sub-clusters: sub-cluster 1 included one sample representing A. vogelii and separated at a distance level of about 4.8; while sub-cluster 2 comprised the two samples representing A. hauarensis which separated at a distance level of about 2.4.
3.2. Molecular Data Analysis
3.2.1. DNA Extraction
The genomic DNA of plant samples was extracted by CTAB reagent and electrophoresed on agarose gel electrophoresis (Figure 2) of the tested 10 samples of 4 Astragalus species for PCR reaction in two regions both in the nucleus.
3.2.2. Amplification of SCoT Region
DNA fragments were amplified by utilizing ten primers that were selected to assess the difference among the samples. Under the same amplification conditions, all amplifications were found to be reproducible when repeated at different times. SCoT results were distinguished among each of the ten species of Astragalus. All primers which gave reproducible, clear, and intense bands were selected for analyzing all the ten samples. From 1 to 10 reproducible amplified fragments were observed; size varied in the range from 100 bp to 2000 bp as shown in Figure 3a–h and Figure 4a,b.
3.2.3. Amplification of ITS Region Using Universal ITS2 Primers
The PCR conditions were optimized for ITS2 primers. The amplification reaction was done utilizing the universal primers of ITS region (ITS2) on 10 extracted DNA samples (Figure 5), the PCR amplicons of ITS2 regions for all samples given band size (500 bp–600 bp) on agarose gel.
3.2.4. SCoT Polymorphism in Astragalus
All primers amplified clear and reproducible bands as dictated in Table 5. A total of 10 SCoT primers used in this investigation could produce specific bands to differentiate between 10 samples of Astragalus taxa and chosen for shown diversity studies which generated 212 DNA fragments with an average of 12.2 bands from 10 Astragalus samples, with 8 to 37 fragments per primer. The 212 fragments amplified were distributed as 2 monomorphic bands, 27 polymorphic without unique bands, and 183 unique bands (210 Polymorphic with unique bands). The primer SCoT 7 produced the highest number of 34 unique bands, SCoT 9, 11, 28, 35, 32, 46, 10, 14 produced 26, 21, 20, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13 bands respectively, whereas the primer SCoT 11 generated the lowest number of 7 unique bands.
The primers SCoT 7, 9, 11, and 28 gave the highest amplified number of DNA fragments of 37, 28, 26, and 26, respectively. The least number of DNA fragments showed in the primer SCoT 24 and 14 with 13 and 8 per primer. The values of the polymorphism ratio of each primer ranged from 87% to 100%. Eight primers, including SCoT 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 28, 32, 35 had produced the same polymorphism ratio value 100%. The primer SCoT 46 and 24 had amplified 94.7% and 87.5% polymorphism respectively.
Generally, the MBF values of these 10 SCoT primers ranged from 0.10 to 0.21. SCoT 24 had the highest MBF value of 0.21, while SCoT 14 was the lowest MBF value of 0.10. A total of 10 SCoT primers had the ability to effectively differentiate between 10 Astragalus samples.
3.2.5. Clustering Analysis
The UPGMA dendrogram clustering algorithm was produced from 10 SCoT primers; at the genetic similarity coefficient of 2.7, the dendrograms of 10 samples were divided into two major clusters I, II (Figure 6) among the Astragalus species, with short index length of 0.9 to 9.6, and some clusters divided further into sub-clusters; additionally, some sub-clusters subdivided into groups. Two samples A. hauarensis, four samples A. sieberi, three samples A. spinosus, and one sample A. vogelii were assigned into cluster II and cluster I, respectively.
The SCoT analysis proposed that there was a clear genetic similarity between species. For example, the smallest similarity value (0.9) proposed the heigh variance among A. sieberi, A. spinosus, and A. hauarensis, and the maximum similarity value (9.6) was found between A. sieberi, A. spinosus, A. hauarensis, and A. vogelii. This showed that all four species of Astragalus (A. sieberi, A. spinosus, and A. hauarensis) were distinguished depending on a dendrogram constructed by using Jaccard’s UPGMA. These results determined the efficiency of SCoT markers in identifying polymorphism between A. vogelii, A. sieberi, A. spinosus, and A. hauarensis and successfully determined genetic relationships between species.
3.2.6. Molecular Identification of Specimens by Using ITS2 Gene Sequence
ITS2 gene sequence was used to identify plants by using BLAST searched on NCBI database. Afterwards, analyzing the chromatogram for ITS region, 10 samples have been identified as two samples representing A. hauarensis, four samples representing A. sieberi, three samples representing A. spinosus, and one sample representing A. vogelii.
3.2.7. Sequences Submission
Based on the ITS barcode, A. hauarensis RMG1, A. hauarensis RMG2, A. sieberi RMG1, A. sieberi RMG2, A. sieberi RMG3, A. sieberi RMG4, A. spinosus RMG1, A. spinosus RMG2, A. spinosus RMG3, A. vogelii RMG were deposited into GenBank with accession # MT367587.1, MT367591.1, MT367593.1, MT367585.1, MT367586.1, MT367588.1, MT160347.1, MT367590.1, MT367589.1, MT367592.1, respectively (Table 6).
3.2.8. Comparison between Results of Morphological Identification and ITS2 Identification
From Table 7, it is clear the BLAST results of ITS2 sequence were near to the morphological identification of chosen genus Astragalus. Finally, results from sequences and constructed phylogenetic of the sequence ensure the morphological identification.
4. Discussion
Traditional identification methods, such as morphological characters and microscopic methods, are restricted by the deficiency of clear criteria for character selection, lacking the uniform standard and credible data or coding and thus, mainly based on subjective assessments that these methods easily caused misidentification [29].
Therefore, this study aimed to use DNA barcode and molecular marker with fresh health specimens to identify and find the phylogenetic relationships between closely related taxa and their effect on their morphological established identification. In total, 4 species (10 samples) of Astragalus were collected from different localities in Egypt. They comprised 2 annual herbaceous species and 2 perennial spiny species, and this classification is in agreement with Täckholm, [21], and Boulos, [22,40,41]. Morphological characters, numerical taxonomy, and genetic diversity are of great significance for taxonomic studies.
This study explains the output of the UPGMA dendrogram clustering algorithm using 35 morphological characters that indicated a strong relationship between ten samples and categorized the ten samples in two clusters. Astragalus sieberi of section Chronopus Bge. and A. spinosus of section Poterium Bge. separated together in one cluster I and appeared to form one group. The delimitation of these taxa was characterized by perennial, erect stem, and shrubly habit with persistent spines. A. sieberi and A. spinosus were grouped as described by Ahmed and Mohamed, [57], and Sharawy, [58], depending on the morphological and anatomical characters. A. sieberi and A. spinosus were separated into two sub-clusters. This result is in agreement with Badr and Sharawy, [59]. A. vogelii and A. hauarensis were separated together in a distinct cluster II. The delimitation of these taxa were characterized by present and free leaf stipules, prostrate, smooth, and not winged stem. A. vogelii separated in one sub-cluster 1 lonely and A. hauarensis separated in one sub-cluster 2 depended on vegetative morphological and anatomical characters in agreement with Sharawy, [58]. A. vogelii and A. hauarensis were delimited as two entities (sub-cluster 1 and sub-cluster 2, respectively), being featured from all other taxa. The assignment of these taxa to different sections is in agreement with their delimitation according to Podlech, [39]. Moreover, A. vogelii is clearly distinguished from all other species as confirmed by all the analyses.
The Plant Working Group (CBOL), [60] pointed out that ideal plant DNA barcode must have enough conserved regions for universal primer design, high efficiency of PCR amplification and sufficient variability to be utilized for identification of species as mentioned by Hebert et al., [33], and Cowan et al., [61]. All sequences from ITS2 are blasted on NCBI website BLAST nucleotide tool to ascertain that the species belong to Astragalus can be summarized as follows: Astragalus hauarensis 1 was 97.51% identical to Astragalus hauarensis, Astragalus hauarensis 2 was 96.60% identical to Astragalus hauarensis, Astragalus sieberi 1 was 96.76% identical to Astragalus sieberi, Astragalus sieberi 2 was 96.76% identical to Astragalus sieberi, Astragalus sieberi 3 was 97.70% identical to Astragalus sieberi, Astragalus sieberi 4 was 99.31% identical to Astragalus sieberi, Astragalus spinosus 1 was 89.28% identical to Astragalus spinosus, Astragalus spinosus 2 was 94.66% identical to Astragalus spinosus, Astragalus spinosus 3 was 96.70% identical to Astragalus spinosus, and Astragalus vogelii was 95.30% identical to Astragalus vogelii. The phylogenetic trees proved Astragalus species are monophyletic genera and also indicated by previous studies Wojciechowski et al., [62] and Kazempour Osaloo et al., [35,36].
SCoT markers are highly reproducible due to the use of longer primers and indicated the powerful nature of these SCoT markers. SCoT is a novel marker system and preferentially reveals polymorphisms because the primers were designed to amplify from the short-conserved region surrounding the ATG translation start codon as reported by Xiong et al., [38], Collard and Mackill, [37], and Mulpuri et al., [63].
In the current study, ten SCoT primers generated 212 DNA fragments with an average of 12.2 bands from ten Astragalus samples, with 8 to 37 fragments per primer. The 212 fragments amplified were distributed as 2 monomorphic bands, 27 polymorphic without unique bands, and 183 unique bands (210 Polymorphic with unique bands). Besides, the results of SCoT analysis proposed that there was a clear genetic similarity between species. For example, the smallest similarity value (0.9) proposed the heigh variance among A. sieberi, A. spinosus, and A. hauarensis, and the maximum similarity value (9.6) was found between A. sieberi, A. spinosus, A. hauarensis, and A. vogelii. These results showed a certain connection with the geographical origin and genetically related species between four species of Astragalus (A. sieberi, A. spinosus, and A. hauarensis) and were distinguished depending on a dendrogram constructed through using Jaccard’s UPGMA. SCoT markers successfully evaluated the genetic relationships and revealed a high percentage of polymorphism between the Astragalus species included in this study.
5. Conclusions
(I) To do morphological studies, taxa should be collected in flowering seasons; (II) awareness of the degree of ITS2 region and SCoT primers sequence divergence between Astragalus species was useful to demonstrate the phylogenetic relationship, especially at the generic level; (III) sequence divergence was higher within the species Astragalus that resulted when the ITS2 region was analyzed; (IV) phylogenetic analysis using MEGA 0.7 separation at the section level is very clear for the genus Astragalus; (V) SCoT markers were efficient in identifying polymorphism and successfully determined genetic relationships between Astragalus species.
Author Contributions
M.M.A.E.-G. designed and proposed the work, A.S.A.E.-S., A.M., H.N., and A.K. supervised this work, R.R. did the actual experimental work. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
All datasets generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript.
Acknowledgments
Our great appreciations to Marwa M. El-Demerdash, for checking the bioinformatic analyses of the plants ITS sequences at the Enzymology and Fungal Biotechnology Lab, Botany and Microbiology Department, Faculty of Science, Zagazig University.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare there are no conflict of interest.
Ethics Statement
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
References
- Mabberley, D.J. The Plant-Book: A Potable Dictionary of the Vascular Plants, 2nd ed.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997; p. 858. [Google Scholar]
- Haerinasab, M.; Rahiminejad, M. A taxonomic revision of the genus Trifolium L. sect. Fragifera Koch (Fabaceae) in Iran. Iran. J. Bot. 2012, 18, 22–30. [Google Scholar]
- Ceter, T.; Karaman, S.; Aytac, Z.; Baser, B. Pollen morphology of the genus Oxytropis in Turkey. Bangladesh J. Bot. 2013, 42, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sheikh, N.; Desai, T.; Patel, R. Pharmacognostic Evaluation of Melilotus officinalis Linn. Pharmacognjournal 2016, 8, 239–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Wang, L.; Grusak, M. Structure and development of Medicago truncatula pod wall and seed coat. Ann. Bot. 2005, 95, 737–747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Magallón, S.A.; Sanderson, M.J. Absolute diversification rates in angiosperm clades. Evolution 2001, 55, 1762–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Judd, W.S.; Campbell, C.S.; Kellogg, E.A.; Stevens, P.F.; Donoghue, M.J. Plant systematics: A phylogenetic approach. Sinauer Axxoc. 2002, 2, 287–292. [Google Scholar]
- Rendle, A.B. Classification of Flowering Plants, 2nd ed.; Institute of Terrestrial Ecology: Cambridge, UK, 1952; pp. 348–370. [Google Scholar]
- Willis, J.C. A Dictionary of the Flowering Plants and Ferns, 7th ed.; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 1967; pp. 371–375. [Google Scholar]
- Burnham, R.J.; Johnson, K.R. South American paleobotany and the origins of neotropical rainforests. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2004, 359, 1595–1610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lewis, G.P.; Schrire, B.D.; Mackinder, B.A.; Lock, M. Legumes of the World; Royal Botanic Gardens: Kew, India, 2005; pp. 475–481. [Google Scholar]
- Maassoumi, A.A. Astragalus L. in the Old World, Check-List; Research Institute of Forests and Rangeland: Tehran, Iran, 1998; p. 618. [Google Scholar]
- Maassoumi, A.A. The genus Astragalus in Iran. Tehran 2005, 5, 785. [Google Scholar]
- Taeb, F.; Zarre, S.; Podlech, D.; Tillich, H.; Kazempour Osaloo, S.; Maassoumai, A.A. A contribution to the phylogeny of annual species of Astragalus (Fabaceae) in the Old-World using hair micromorphology and other morphological characters. Feddes Repert. 2007, 118, 206–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IPNI. The International Plant Names Index; Royal Botanic Gardens: Kew, India, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Lock, M.; Schrire, B.D. Galegeae. In Legumes of the World; Lewis, G.P., Schrire, B.D., Mackinder, B.A., Lock, M., Eds.; Royal Botanic Gardens: Kew, India, 2005; pp. 475–481. [Google Scholar]
- Sanderson, M.J.; Wojciechowski, M.F. Improved bootstrap confidence limits in large-scale phylogenies with an example from Neo-Astragalus (Leguminosae). Syst. Biol. 2000, 49, 671–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Podlech, D. The genus Astragalus L. (Fabaceae) in Europe with exclusion of the former Soviet Union. Feddes Repert. 2008, 119, 310–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bidarlord, M.; Ghahremaninejad, F.; Maassoumi, A.A. A new species of the genus Astragalus (Leguminosae) from Northwest Iran. Phytotaxa 2016, 252, 280–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojciechowski, M.F. Astragalus (Fabaceae): A molecular phylogenetic perspective. Brittonia 2005, 57, 382–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taeckholm, V. Students’ flora of Egypt, 2nd ed.; Cairo University: Cairo, Egypt, 1974; pp. 261–271. [Google Scholar]
- Boulos, L. Flora of Egypt. In Azollacae-Oxalidacae; Al-Hadara Publishing: Cairo, Egypt, 1999; Volume 1, pp. 320–336. [Google Scholar]
- Norton, J.; Abdul Majid, S.; Allan, D.G.; Alsafran, M.; Boer, B.; Richer, R. An Illustrated Checklist of the Flora of Qatar; Browndown Publications: Gosport, UK, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Chaudhary, S.A. Flora of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Ministry of Agriculture: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, 2000.
- Alshammari, A.M.; Sharawy, S.M. Wild plants diversity of the Hema Faid Region (Ha’il Province, Saudi Arabia). Asian J. Plant Sci. 2010, 9, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Llewellyn, O.A.; Hall, M.; Miller, A.G.; Al-Abbasi, T.M.; Al-Wetaid, A.H.; Al-Harbi, R.J.; Al-Shammari, K.F. Important plant areas in the Arabian Peninsula: 4. Jabal Aja. Edinb. J. Bot. 2011, 68, 199–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghahremaninejad, F.; Joharchi, M.R. 840th species of genus Astragalus (Fabaceae) for the flora of Iran from Khorassan Province as a new record: A. globiceps Bunge. J. Plant Res. 2020, 32, 906–910. [Google Scholar]
- Cai, Z.H.; Li, P.; Dong, T.T.X.; Tsim, K.W.K. Molecular diversity of 5S-rRNA spacer domain in Fritillaria species revealed by PCR analysis. Planta Medica 1999, 65, 360–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rindi, F.; Guiry, M.D.; López-Bautista, J.M. Distribution, morphology, and phylogeny of Klebsormidium (Klebsormidiales, Charophyceae) in urban environments in Europe. J. Phycol. 2008, 44, 1529–1540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dangi, R.S.; Lagu, M.D.; Chaudhary, L.B.; Ranjekar, P.K.; Gupta, V.S. Assessment of genetic diversity in Trigonella foenum-graecum and Trigonella caerulea using ISSR and RAPD marker. BMC Plant Biol. 2004, 4, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yip, P.Y.; Kwan, H.S. Molecular identification of Astragalus membranaceus at the species and locality levels. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2004, 106, 222–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Paul, B. ITS1 region of the rDNA of Pythium megacarpum sp. Nov., its taxonomy, and its comparison with related species. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2000, 186, 229–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hebert, P.D.; Cywinska, A.; Ball, S.L. Biological identifications through DNA barcodes. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 2003, 270, 313–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Hebert, P.D.; Penton, E.H.; Burns, J.M.; Janzen, D.H.; Hallwachs, W. Ten species in one: DNA barcoding reveals cryptic species in the neotropical skipper butterfly Astraptes fulgerator. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 101, 14812–14817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Kazempour Osaloo, S.; Maassoumi, A.A.; Murakani, N. Molecular systematics of the genus Astragalus L. (Fabaceae): Phylogenetic analysis of nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacers and chloroplast gene ndhF sequences. Plant Syst. Evol. 2003, 242, 1–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kazempour Osaloo, S.; Maassoumi, A.A.; Murakami, N. Molecular systematics of the old world Astragalus (Fabaceae) as inferred from nrDNA ITS sequence data. Brittonia 2005, 57, 367–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Collard, B.C.Y.; Mackill, D.J. Start Codon Targeted (SCoT) polymorphism: A simple, novel DNA marker technique for generating gene-targeted markers in plants. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2009, 27, 86–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xiong, F.Q.; Tang, R.H.; Chen, Z.L.; Pan, L.H.; Zhuang, W.J. SCoT: A novel gene-targeted marker technique based on the translation start codon. Mol. Plant Breed 2009, 7, 635–638. [Google Scholar]
- Podlech, D. The systematics of annual species of the genus Astragalus L. (Leguminosae). Flora et. Veg. Mundi 1991, 9, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Boulos, L. Flora of Egypt. In Geraniaceae-Boraginaceae; Al-Hadara Publishing: Cairo, Egypt, 2000; Volume 2, p. 352. [Google Scholar]
- Boulos, L. Flora of Egypt. In Verbenaceae Compositae; Al Hadara Publishing: Cairo, Egypt, 2002; Volume 3, p. 373. [Google Scholar]
- Hammer, Ø.; Harper, D.A.T.; Ryan, P.D. PAST: Paleontological statistics. Cessadoem 2001, 25, 2009. Available online: www.uv.es/~pardomv/pe/2001_1/past/pastprog/past.pdf (accessed on 20 June 2001).
- Padmalatha, K.; Prasad, M.N.V. Optimization of DNA isolation and PCR protocol for RAPD analysis of selected medicinal and aromatic plants of conservation concern from Peninsular India. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2006, 5, 230–234. [Google Scholar]
- El-Sayed, A.S.A.; Mohamed, N.M.; Safan, S.; Yassin, M.A.; Shaban, L.; Shindia, A.; Ali, G.S.; Sitohy, M. Restoring the biosynthetic machinery of taxol of Aspergillus terreus via cocultivation with the endophytic microbiome of Podocarpus gracilior Pilger. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 11534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- El-Sayed, A.S.A.; Ali, G.A. Aspergillus flavipes is a novel efficient biocontrol agent of Phytophthora parasitica. Biol. Control 2020, 140, 104072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Sayed, A.S.A.; Yassin, M.A.; Ali, G.S. Transcriptional and proteomic profiling of Aspergillus flavipes in response to sulfur starvation. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0144304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- El-Sayed, A.S.A.; Safan, S.; Mohamed, N.Z.; Shaban, L.; Ali, G.S.; Sitohy, M.Z. Induction of Taxol biosynthesis by Aspergillus terreus, endophyte of Podocarpus gracilior Pilger, upon intimate interaction with the plant endogenous microbes. Process Biochem. 2018, 71, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Sayed, A.S.A.; Akbar, A.; Iqrar, I.; Ali, R.; Norman, D.; Brennan, M.; Ali, G.S. A Glucanolytic Pseudomonas sp. associated with Smilax bona-nox L. displays strong activity against Phytophthora parasitica. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 207, 140–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- El-Sayed, A.S.A.; Ruff, L.E.; Ghany, S.E.A.; Ali, G.S.; Esener, S. Molecular and Spectroscopic Characterization of Aspergillus flavipes and Pseudomonas putida L-Methionine γ-Lyase in Vitro. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2017, 181, 1513–1532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Sayed, M.T.; El-Sayed, A.S.A. Biocidal Activity of Metal Nanoparticles Synthesized by Fusarium solani against Multidrug-Resistant Bacteria and Mycotoxigenic Fungi. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2020, 30, 226–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Sayed, A.S.A.; Shindia, A.A.; Zeid, A.A.A.; Yassin, A.M.; Sitohy, M.Z.; Sitohy, B. Aspergillus nidulans thermostable arginine deiminase-Dextran conjugates with enhanced molecular stability, proteolytic resistance, pharmacokinetic properties and anticancer activity. Enzym. Microbiol. Technol. 2019, 131, 109432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- El-Sayed, A.S.A.; George, N.M.; Bolbol, A.A.; Mohamed, M.S. Purification and biochemical characterization of Aspergillus terreus ornithine decarboxylase: Curcumin is a potent enzyme inhibitor. Molecules 2019, 24, 2756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chen, S.; Yao, H.; Han, J.; Liu, C.; Song, J.; Shi, L.; Zhu, Y.; Ma, X.; Gao, T.; Pang, X.; et al. Validation of the ITS2 region as a novel DNA barcode for identifying medicinal plant species. PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e8613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, T.; Yao, H.; Ma, X.Y.; Zhu, Y.J.; Song, J.Y. Identification of Astragalus plants in China using the region ITS2. World Sci. Technol. Mod. Tradit. Chin. Med. Mater. Med. 2010, 12, 222–227. [Google Scholar]
- Rohlf, F.J. NTSYS-pc. In Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System, Version 2.10; Exeter Software: New York, NY, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Sneath, P.H.A.; Sokal, R.R. Numerical Taxonomy; W. H. Freeman and Company: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1973. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmed, K.; Mohamed, A. Comparative anatomical studies on some species of Astragalus growing in Egypt. Ann. Agric. Sci. 1988, 33, 745–760. [Google Scholar]
- Sharawy, S.M. Taxonomic Studies on Interspecific and Intraspecific Relationships in the Genus Astragalus in Egypt. Ph.D. Thesis, Ain Shams University Cairo, Cairo, Egypt, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Badr, A.; Sharawy, S.M. Karyotype analysis and systematic relationships in the Egyptian Astragalus L. (Fabaceae). Int. J. Bot. 2007, 3, 147–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CBOL (Consortium of Barcode of Life). A DNA barcode for land plants. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 12794–12797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cowan, R.S.; Chase, M.W.; Kress, W.J.; Savolainen, V. 300,000 species to identify problems, progress, and prospects in DNA barcoding of land plants. Taxon 2006, 55, 611–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wojciechowski, M.F.; Sanderson, M.J.; Baldwin, B.G.; Donoghue, M.J. Monophyly of aneuploid Astragalus (Fabaceae): Evidence from nuclear ribosomal DNA internal transcribed spacer sequences. Am. J. Bot. 1993, 80, 711–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mulpuri, S.; Muddanuru, T.; Francis, G. Start codon targeted (SCoT) polymorphism in toxic and non-toxic accessions of Jatropha curcas L. and development of a codominant SCAR marker. Plant Sci. 2013, 207, 117–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
UPGMA dendrogram matrix illustrating the relationships and average taxonomic distance between Astragalus species based on 35 morphological characters.
Figure 1.
UPGMA dendrogram matrix illustrating the relationships and average taxonomic distance between Astragalus species based on 35 morphological characters.
Figure 2.
Agarose gel electrophoresis showing DNA extraction for 10 samples.
Figure 3.
(a–h) Gel amplification profiles obtained typically with primers SCoT 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 24, 28, and 32, respectively.
Figure 3.
(a–h) Gel amplification profiles obtained typically with primers SCoT 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 24, 28, and 32, respectively.
Figure 4.
(a,b) Gel amplification profiles obtained typically with primers SCoT 35, 46, respectively.
Figure 4.
(a,b) Gel amplification profiles obtained typically with primers SCoT 35, 46, respectively.
Figure 5.
Agarose gel electrophoresis using ITS2 primers of the PCR product.
Figure 6.
UPGMA dendrogram matrix illustrating the relationship between Astragalus specimens based on SCoT marker.
Figure 6.
UPGMA dendrogram matrix illustrating the relationship between Astragalus specimens based on SCoT marker.
Table 1.
The studied taxa, collection details, and their sectional delimitation according to Podlech [39]. (Astragalus species arranged alphabetically).
Table 1.
The studied taxa, collection details, and their sectional delimitation according to Podlech [39]. (Astragalus species arranged alphabetically).
| No. | Studied Taxa | Abb. | Section | Sites of Collection | Collection Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Astragalus hauarensis Boiss. | A.hau.1 | Harpilobus Bge. | The Red Sea road, Kafer Homodyne (a distance 40 km from Safage to El-Quseir or before 20 km from El-Quseir). | May 2019 |
| 2 | Astragalus hauarensis Boiss. | A.hau.2 | The Red Sea road, El-Quseir before 60 km from Marsa-Alam. | May 2019 | |
| 3 | Astragalus sieberi DC. | A.sie.1 | Chronopus Bge. | Matrouh road (before about 8 Km from El-Alamein or before about 52km from El-Dabaa Gate. | May 2018 |
| 4 | Astragalus sieberi DC. | A.sie.2 | Alexandria El-Alamein desert road, courage village at a distance 25 km after El-Alamein Gate. | March 2019 | |
| 5 | Astragalus sieberi DC. | A.sie.3 | Wadi El-Natron El-Alamein desert before 65 km from the entrance to the El-Alamein. | March 2019 | |
| 6 | Astragalus sieberi DC. | A.sie.4 | Matrouh road, North Coast, Aleamid direction. | March 2019 | |
| 7 | Astragalus spinosus (Forssk.) Muschl. | A.spi.1 | Poterium Bge. | Matrouh road, North Coast, El-Alamein before El-Dabaa axis or after 40 km from El-Hammam. | May 2018 |
| 8 | Astragalus spinosus (Forssk.) Muschl. | A.spi.2 | Alexandria El-Alamein desert road, courage village at a distance 25 km after El-Alamein Gate. | March 2019 | |
| 9 | Astragalus spinosus (Forssk.) Muschl. | A.spi.3 | Matrouh road, North Coast, El-Omeid direction. | March 2019 | |
| 10 | Astragalus vogelii (Webb) Bornm. | A.vog.1 | Herpocaulos Bge. | The Red Sea road, Kafr Homodyne (a distance 40 km from safaga to El-Quseir or before 20 km from El-Quseir). | May 2019 |
Table 2.
The qualitative and quantitative investigations of the 35 Morphological characters and their codes for numerical analysis of all studied taxa.
Table 2.
The qualitative and quantitative investigations of the 35 Morphological characters and their codes for numerical analysis of all studied taxa.
| Morphological Characters | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Organ | Serial Number | Characters | State | Code |
| Whole plant | 1 | Lifespan | Annual | 0 |
| Perennial | 1 | |||
| 2 | Life form | Herb | 0 | |
| Spiny shrub | 1 | |||
| 3 | Succulence | Succulent | 0 | |
| Non-succulent | 1 | |||
| 4 | Habit | Climbing | 0 | |
| Not climbing | 1 | |||
| 5 | Conservation | Threatened | 0 | |
| Not threatened | 1 | |||
| 6 | Spines | Absent | 0 | |
| Present | 1 | |||
| 7 | Height (cm) | 5–30 | 0 | |
| 40–60 | 1 | |||
| stem | 8 | Habit | Erect | 0 |
| Prostrate | 1 | |||
| 9 | Surface | Smooth | 0 | |
| Rough | 1 | |||
| 10 | Status | Winged | 0 | |
| Not winged | 1 | |||
| 11 | Spines on internodes | Absent | 0 | |
| Present | 1 | |||
| 12 | Tipped of lateral branches | Spiny | 0 | |
| Not spiny | 1 | |||
| Rachis | 13 | Detection | Absent | 0 |
| Present | 1 | |||
| 14 | Spines | Turned | 0 | |
| Not turned | 1 | |||
| Leaf stipules | 15 | Detection | Absent | 0 |
| Present | 1 | |||
| 16 | Adnation | Free | 0 | |
| Adnate | 1 | |||
| 17 | Length (mm) | 3 or less | 0 | |
| 7 or less | 1 | |||
| 18 | Shape | Triangle | 0 | |
| Lanceolate | 1 | |||
| 19 | Apex | Acute | 0 | |
| Acuminate | 1 | |||
| leaf | 20 | Leaf midrib | Turned spines | 0 |
| Not turned spines | 1 | |||
| 21 | Length (cm) | 6 or less | 0 | |
| 10 or less | 1 | |||
| 22 | Width (cm) | 1 or more | 0 | |
| 2 or more | 1 | |||
| Petal | 23 | Color | White | 0 |
| Not white | 1 | |||
| Leaf or leaflet | 24 | shape | Elliptical-oblong | 0 |
| Ovate-oblong | 1 | |||
| 25 | Margin | Entire | 0 | |
| Not entire | 1 | |||
| 26 | Status | Evergreen | 0 | |
| Deciduous | 1 | |||
| 27 | Upper surface | Hairy | 0 | |
| Glabrous | 1 | |||
| 28 | Lower surface | Hairy | 0 | |
| Glabrous | 1 | |||
| Pod | 29 | Texture | Hairy | 0 |
| Glabrous | 1 | |||
| 30 | Curvature | Curved | 0 | |
| Not curved | 1 | |||
| 31 | Pedicle | Absent | 0 | |
| Stipitate | 1 | |||
| Long | 2 | |||
| Seed | 32 | Length (cm) | 0.4 or less | 0 |
| 0.5 or more | 1 | |||
| 33 | Shape | Reniform | 0 | |
| Quadrate | 1 | |||
| 34 | Surface | Smooth | 0 | |
| Irregular | 1 | |||
| 35 | Color | Brown | 0 | |
| Yellow | 1 | |||
Table 3.
The universal primers of SCoT, ITS2 and their sequencing region.
| Region. | Primer Name | Base Pair Primers (bp) | Primer Sequence (5′-3′) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCOT | SCOT 7 | 18 bp | ACAATGGCTACCACTGAC | Collard and Mackill, [37], Xiong et al., [38] |
| SCOT 9 | 18 bp | ACAATGGCTACCACTGCC | ||
| SCOT 10 | 18 bp | ACAATGGCTACCACCAGC | ||
| SCOT 11 | 18 bp | ACAATGGCTACCACTACC | ||
| SCOT 14 | 18 bp | ACCATGGCTACCAGCGCG | ||
| SCOT 24 | 18 bp | CCATGGCTACCACCGCAG | ||
| SCOT 28 | 18 bp | CAACAATGGCTACCACCA | ||
| SCOT 32 | 18 bp | CAACAATGGCTACCACGC | ||
| SCOT 35 | 18 bp | AACCATGGCTACCACCAC | ||
| SCOT 46 | 18 bp | ACCATGGCTACCACCGCC | ||
| ITS2 | ITS2 2F | 20 bp | ATGCGATACTTGGTGTGAAT | Chen et al., [53] |
| ITS2 3R | 21 bp | GACGCTTCTCCAGACTACAAT | Gao et al., [54] |
Table 4.
Description of morphological characters of all studied taxa after revision.
| No. | Studied Taxa | Lifespan | Life Form | Succulence | Habit | Conservation | Spines | Height (cm) |
| 1 | A.hau.1 | Annual | Herb | Succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Absent | 8–30 |
| 2 | A.hau.2 | Annual | Herb | Succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Absent | 9–30 |
| 3 | A.sie.1 | Perennial | Spiny shrub | Non-succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Present | 18–40 |
| 4 | A.sie.2 | Perennial | Spiny shrub | Non-succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Present | 19–40 |
| 5 | A.sie.3 | Perennial | Spiny shrub | Non-succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Present | 22–40 |
| 6 | A.sie.4 | Perennial | Spiny shrub | Non-succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Present | 20–40 |
| 7 | A.spi.1 | Perennial | Spiny shrub | Non-succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Present | 20–60 |
| 8 | A.spi.2 | Perennial | Spiny shrub | Non-succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Present | 22–60 |
| 9 | A.spi.3 | Perennial | Spiny shrub | Non-succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Present | 24–60 |
| 10 | A.vog.1 | Annual | Herb | Succulent | Not climbing | Not threatened | Absent | 10–40 |
| No. | Studied Taxa | Stem Characters | Leaf Stipule Characters | |||||
| Habit | Surface | Status | Spines on Internodes | Tipped of Lateral Branches | Detection | Adnation | ||
| 1 | A.hau.1 | Prostrate | Smooth | Not winged | Absent | Not winged | Present | Free |
| 2 | A.hau.2 | Prostrate | Smooth | Not winged | Absent | Not winged | Present | Free |
| 3 | A.sie.1 | Erect | Smooth | Not winged | Absent | Not winged | Present | Adnate |
| 4 | A.sie.2 | Erect | Smooth | Not winged | Absent | Not winged | Present | Adnate |
| 5 | A.sie.3 | Erect | Smooth | Not winged | Absent | Not winged | Present | Adnate |
| 6 | A.sie.4 | Erect | Smooth | Not winged | Absent | Not winged | Present | Adnate |
| 7 | A.spi.1 | Erect | Smooth | Not winged | Present | Not winged | Present | Adnate |
| 8 | A.spi.2 | Erect | Smooth | Not winged | Present | Not winged | Present | Adnate |
| 9 | A.spi.3 | Erect | Smooth | Not winged | Present | Not winged | Present | Adnate |
| 10 | A.vog.1 | Prostrate | Smooth | Not winged | Absent | Not winged | Present | Free |
| No. | Studied Taxa | Leaf Stipules Characters | Rachis | Leaf Characters | ||||
| Shape | Apex | Length (mm) | Detection | Spines | Length (cm) | width (cm) | ||
| 1 | A.hau.1 | Triangle | Acute | 3 or less | Present | Not turned | 10 or less | 1 or more |
| 2 | A.hau.2 | Triangle | Acute | 3 or less | Present | Not turned | 10 or less | 1 or more |
| 3 | A.sie.1 | Lanceolate | Acuminate | 7 or less | Present | Turned | 10 or less | 2 or more |
| 4 | A.sie.2 | Lanceolate | Acuminate | 7 or less | Present | Turned | 10 or less | 2 or more |
| 5 | A.sie.3 | Lanceolate | Acuminate | 7 or less | Present | Turned | 10 or less | 2 or more |
| 6 | A.sie.4 | Lanceolate | Acuminate | 7 or less | Present | Turned | 10 or less | 2 or more |
| 7 | A.spi.1 | Triangle | Acute | 5 or less | Present | Turned | 5 or less | 2 or more |
| 8 | A.spi.2 | Triangle | Acute | 5 or less | Present | Turned | 5 or less | 2 or more |
| 9 | A.spi.3 | Triangle | Acute | 5 or less | Present | Turned | 5 or less | 2 or more |
| 10 | A.vog.1 | Triangle | Acuminate | 3 or less | Present | Not turned | 5 or less | 1 or more |
| No. | Studied Taxa | Petal Color | Leaf Midrib Spines | Leaf or Leaflet Characters | ||||
| Shape | Upper Surface | Lower Surface | Margin | Status | ||||
| 1 | A.hau.1 | White | Not turned | Elliptical | Hairy | Hairy | Entire | Evergreen |
| 2 | A.hau.2 | White | Not turned | Elliptical | Hairy | Hairy | Entire | Evergreen |
| 3 | A.sie.1 | Not white | Turned | Ovate | Glabrous | Hairy | Entire | Deciduous |
| 4 | A.sie.2 | Not white | Turned | Ovate | Glabrous | Hairy | Entire | Deciduous |
| 5 | A.sie.3 | Not white | Turned | Ovate | Glabrous | Hairy | Entire | Deciduous |
| 6 | A.sie.4 | White | Turned | Ovate | Glabrous | Hairy | Entire | Deciduous |
| 7 | A.spi.1 | White | Not turned | Ovate | Glabrous | Hairy | Entire | Deciduous |
| 8 | A.spi.2 | White | Not turned | Ovate | Glabrous | Hairy | Entire | Deciduous |
| 9 | A.spi.3 | White | Not turned | Ovate | Hairy | Hairy | Entire | Deciduous |
| 10 | A.vog.1 | Not white | Not turned | Ovate | Hairy | Hairy | Entire | Deciduous |
| No. | Studied Taxa | Pod Characters | Seed Characters | |||||
| Texture | Curvature | Pedicle | Length (cm) | Shape | Surface | Color | ||
| 1 | A.hau.1 | Hairy | Curved | Absent | 0.5 or less | Quadrate | Smooth | Brown |
| 2 | A.hau.2 | Hairy | Curved | Absent | 0.5 or less | Quadrate | Smooth | Brown |
| 3 | A.sie.1 | Glabrous | Curved | Long | 0.4 or less | Quadrate | Irregular | Brown |
| 4 | A.sie.2 | Glabrous | Curved | Long | 0.4 or less | Quadrate | Irregular | Brown |
| 5 | A.sie.3 | Glabrous | Curved | Long | 0.4 or less | Quadrate | Irregular | Brown |
| 6 | A.sie.4 | Glabrous | Curved | Long | 0.4 or less | Quadrate | Irregular | Brown |
| 7 | A.spi.1 | Hairy | Not curved | Stipitate | 0.4 or less | Reniform | Smooth | Brown |
| 8 | A.spi.2 | Hairy | Not curved | Stipitate | 0.4 or less | Reniform | Smooth | Brown |
| 9 | A.spi.3 | Hairy | Not curved | Stipitate | 0.4 or less | Reniform | Smooth | Brown |
| 10 | A.vog.1 | Hairy | Not curved | Long | 0.5 or less | Reniform | Irregular | Brown |
Table 5.
Data of SCoT primers and the extent of polymorphism. It included Monomorphic bands (M. morph.), Polymorphic (without unique bands) (P. morph. Without unique bands), Polymorphic (with unique bands) (P. morph. With unique bands), Total number of bands (TNB), Polymorphism ratio (%) (P. morphism ratio (%)), Mean of band frequency (MBF).
Table 5.
Data of SCoT primers and the extent of polymorphism. It included Monomorphic bands (M. morph.), Polymorphic (without unique bands) (P. morph. Without unique bands), Polymorphic (with unique bands) (P. morph. With unique bands), Total number of bands (TNB), Polymorphism ratio (%) (P. morphism ratio (%)), Mean of band frequency (MBF).
| SI No. | Primer ID. | M. Morph. Bands | P. Morph. (without Unique Bands) | Unique Bands | P. Morph. (with Unique Bands) | TNB | P. Morphism Ratio (%) | MBF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Scot 7 | 0 | 3 | 34 | 37 | 37 | 100 | 0.11 |
| 2 | Scot 9 | 0 | 2 | 26 | 28 | 28 | 100 | 0.11 |
| 3 | Scot 10 | 0 | 3 | 14 | 17 | 17 | 100 | 0.12 |
| 4 | Scot 11 | 0 | 5 | 21 | 26 | 26 | 100 | 0.13 |
| 5 | Scot 14 | 0 | 0 | 13 | 13 | 13 | 100 | 0.10 |
| 6 | Scot 24 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 87.5 | 0.21 |
| 7 | Scot 28 | 0 | 6 | 20 | 26 | 26 | 100 | 0.12 |
| 8 | Scot 32 | 0 | 3 | 16 | 19 | 19 | 100 | 0.12 |
| 9 | Scot 35 | 0 | 2 | 17 | 19 | 19 | 100 | 0.11 |
| 10 | Scot 46 | 1 | 3 | 15 | 18 | 19 | 94.7 | 0.17 |
| Total | 2 | 27 | 183 | 210 | 212 | - | - | |
Table 6.
The GenBank accession number of the submitted ITS2 region.
| NO. | Studied Taxa | Region | Length/b | Accession Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Astragalus hauarensis RMG1 | ITS2 | 434 | MT367587.1 |
| 2 | Astragalus hauarensis RMG2 | 431 | MT367591.1 | |
| 3 | Astragalus sieberi RMG1 | 426 | MT367593.1 | |
| 4 | Astragalus sieberi RMG2 | 433 | MT367585.1 | |
| 5 | Astragalus sieberi RMG3 | 427 | MT367586.1 | |
| 6 | Astragalus sieberi RMG4 | 445 | MT367588.1 | |
| 7 | Astragalus spinosus RMG1 | 421 | MT160347.1 | |
| 8 | Astragalus spinosus RMG2 | 428 | MT367590.1 | |
| 9 | Astragalus spinosus RMG3 | 443 | MT367589.1 | |
| 10 | Astragalus vogelii RMG | 420 | MT367592.1 |
Table 7.
BLAST Database search match for similarities using ITS2 gene sequence.
| NO. | Morphologically Identification after Reinvestigation | BLAST Search Match Identified as | BLAST Similarity (%) | Sequence Submission |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Astragalus hauarensis 1 | Astragalus hauarensis | 97.51 | Astragalus hauarensis RMG1 |
| 2 | Astragalus hauarensis 2 | Astragalus hauarensis | 96.60 | Astragalus hauarensis RMG2 |
| 3 | Astragalus sieberi 1 | Astragalus sieberi | 96.76 | Astragalus sieberi RMG1 |
| 4 | Astragalus sieberi 2 | Astragalus sieberi | 96.76 | Astragalus sieberi RMG2 |
| 5 | Astragalus sieberi 3 | Astragalus sieberi | 97.70 | Astragalus sieberi RMG3 |
| 6 | Astragalus sieberi 4 | Astragalus sieberi | 99.31 | Astragalus sieberi RMG4 |
| 7 | Astragalus spinosus 1 | Astragalus spinosus | 89.28 | Astragalus spinosus RMG1 |
| 8 | Astragalus spinosus 2 | Astragalus spinosus | 94.66 | Astragalus spinosus RMG2 |
| 9 | Astragalus spinosus 3 | Astragalus spinosus | 96.70 | Astragalus spinosus RMG3 |
| 10 | Astragalus vogelii | Astragalus vogelii | 95.30 | Astragalus vogelii RMG |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Abd El-Ghani, M.M.; El-Sayed, A.S.A.; Moubarak, A.; Rashad, R.; Nosier, H.; Khattab, A. Biosystematic Study on Some Egyptian Species of Astragalus L. (Fabaceae). Agriculture 2021, 11, 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020125
AMA Style
Abd El-Ghani MM, El-Sayed ASA, Moubarak A, Rashad R, Nosier H, Khattab A. Biosystematic Study on Some Egyptian Species of Astragalus L. (Fabaceae). Agriculture. 2021; 11(2):125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020125
Chicago/Turabian StyleAbd El-Ghani, Monier M., Ashraf S. A. El-Sayed, Ahmed Moubarak, Rabab Rashad, Hala Nosier, and Adel Khattab. 2021. "Biosystematic Study on Some Egyptian Species of Astragalus L. (Fabaceae)" Agriculture 11, no. 2: 125. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11020125
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
