Next Article in Journal
Chronic Granulomatous Disease and Myelodysplastic Syndrome in a Patient with a Novel Mutation in CYBB
Previous Article in Journal
Home and Away: The Role of Non-Coding RNA in Intracellular and Intercellular DNA Damage Response
Previous Article in Special Issue
Olive (Olea europaea L.) Genetic Transformation: Current Status and Future Prospects
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

How to Choose a Good Marker to Analyze the Olive Germplasm (Olea europaea L.) and Derived Products

1
Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences, University of Bari “Aldo Moro”, 70126 Bari, Italy
2
Spin Off dell’Università degli Studi Aldo Moro/SINAGRI S.r.l., 70126 Bari, Italy
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Genes 2021, 12(10), 1474; https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12101474
Submission received: 28 July 2021 / Revised: 8 September 2021 / Accepted: 16 September 2021 / Published: 23 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Oleaceae Genetics)

Abstract

:
The olive tree (Olea europaea L.) is one of the most cultivated crops in the Mediterranean basin. Its economic importance is mainly due to the intense production of table olives and oil. Cultivated varieties are characterized by high morphological and genetic variability and present a large number of synonyms and homonyms. This necessitates the introduction of a rapid and accurate system for varietal identification. In the past, the recognition of olive cultivars was based solely on analysis of the morphological traits, however, these are highly influenced by environmental conditions. Therefore, over the years, several methods based on DNA analysis were developed, allowing a more accurate and reliable varietal identification. This review aims to investigate the evolving history of olive tree characterization approaches, starting from the earlier morphological methods to the latest technologies based on molecular markers, focusing on the main applications of each approach. Furthermore, we discuss the impact of the advent of next generation sequencing and the recent sequencing of the olive genome on the strategies used for the development of new molecular markers.

1. Introduction

Genetic diversity is a key resource for plant breeders aiming to develop cultivars with desirable characteristics such as yield enhancement and disease resistance. Over the centuries, plant diversity has been widely exploited, however, the expansion of intensive agriculture has led to the use of few productive genotypes and a progressive loss of genetic diversity. Recently, a growing awareness of the consequences of extreme climatic phenomena and the spread of new dangerous diseases has prompted efforts to save plant genetic resources as a reservoir of adaptive genes for future needs.
In the Mediterranean Basin, the olive tree (Olea europaea ssp. europaea var. europaea) is a fundamental crop, grown on 12 million hectares (95% of the world’s cultivated olive area) [1] with Spain and Italy as the major producers [2]. Extra virgin oil and table olives integrate the pillars of the Mediterranean diet and contribute to the success of this nutritional model. The worldwide appreciation of the Mediterranean diet is due to its valuable nutritional components, in particular antioxidants beneficial in reducing the risks of cardiovascular diseases [3].
The olive species (2n = 2x = 46) [4] belongs to the Oleaceae family, composed of 25 genera and 600 species growing both in the temperate and tropical regions of the world [5]. The species includes the subspecies cuspidata, guanchica, cerasiformis, laperrinei, maroccana and europaea, this last divided into the botanical varieties europaea and sylvestris, which correspond to the cultivated and wild olive (oleaster), respectively [6]. The two varieties are very similar, fully compatible via cross pollination, but the wild type oleaster, which grows spontaneously in the Mediterranean scrub, is characterized by thorny shrubs, smaller leaves and fruits with a lower oil content than the domesticated one [6]. The evolution of this plant probably started about six thousand years ago in the eastern coast of the Mediterranean, where it would have spread east to North Africa by Phoenicians, and through the Mediterranean Basin by the Greeks and Romans [7,8]. In accordance with this hypothesis, three main genetic pools were identified in the areas of the Eastern (Q1), Central (Q2) and Western (Q3) Mediterranean Basin, which would correspond to the crop’s centre of origin and diversification, following the introgression of local oleasters alleles [9,10,11,12].
Nowadays, about 2600 olive varieties are numbered worldwide, most concentrated in southern European countries Italy, Spain, France Tunisia, Algeria and Greece [13], but new local varieties and ecotypes are continuously detected in all the Mediterranean countries through the implementation of olive biodiversity recovery programs [14,15,16,17]. This germplasm is the result of long processes of adaptation to local needs and environmental conditions, and it preserves variability for many traits, such as low vigour, tolerance to extreme temperatures, salinity, diseases etc., that could be useful to face the challenges posed by the incumbent climatic changes and new pathogens spread. The last decades have seen the implementation of over 100 olive germplasm collections in all the Mediterranean countries, aiming to preserve the genetic diversity of the crop in a certain territory [18,19,20,21,22]. The correct identification of olive cultivars is the first step for their safeguarding, but in the olive, it is quite challenging due to the crop’s high degree of kinship, clonal variation, mixtures with international cultivars, exchange of plant material over the centuries [23,24,25,26]. The approaches used to study diversity in olive trees range from the accurate description of the bio-morphological and biochemical characters to the use of molecular biology techniques. In this review, we provide a global view on the strategies used for olive genotyping and diversity studies focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of each method, discussing also the impact of recent sequencing of the olive genome on the strategies used for studying olive diversity.

2. Morphological Markers

Morphological characterization of genetic resources refers to the process by which accessions are univocally identified through a systematic description of morphological characters. Traits must have high heritability and discriminating power at both the taxonomic and agronomic level, and they must be clearly distinguishable, easily recordable and expressed exactly and uniformly [27]. Species like Vitis vinifera take several advantages from ampelographic characterization [28], where the descriptors are well codified and recognized at the international level by the Organisation Internationale de la vigne et du vin: (OIV). The approaches used for the discrimination of olive cultivars based on morphological traits are shown in Table 1. The first attempt to characterize the olive tree is attributed, in the early 1940s of the 20th century, to Ciferri and Breviglieri [29] who used a standardized method for the morphological description of drupes, leaves, inflorescences, endocarps and other organs. The list of characters was further extended by Baldini and Scaramuzzi [30] and Damigella [31], but only in the 1980s, following the important development of the olive industry in Spain and Portugal, the olive germplasm description became decisive. Rallo et al. [32] extended the “Ciferri” list for the elaiographic description of olive varieties, leaving out the characters difficult to measure and more influenced by the environment, and including pictures of plant organs. In 1985, the International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV) [33] provided a reliable reference list of markers for a standardized data collection methodology which, together with that set up by the International Olive Oil Council (IOOC, Madrid, Spain, 1997), [34] is, today, the most used for primary characterization of olive varieties. In 2000, Barranco et al. [35] published the ‘World Catalogue of Olive Varieties’ including the plant passport data, and in 2004 Terral et al. [36] proposed an innovative approach based on the multidimensional morphometry of plant organs. More recently, Blazakis et al. [37] introduced a semi-automatic methodology for olive phenotyping, using image processing, and Gómez-Gálvez et al. [38] exploited high-resolution imagery for high-throughput analysis of olive canopy traits.
Morphological descriptors remain the basis for a first varietal identification, but their dependence on plant development stages, cultivation techniques and other environmental factors has led to their progressive use in combination with DNA analysis techniques, which have become essential in the evaluation of distribution and extension of genetic diversity in olive crops. Recently, thanks to the advantages of modern technologies, is possible to re-evaluate morphological charactersby phenomics approaches, which allow a more reliable scoring, a reduced influence of human observation with less time and money consumed [43,44]. Today, morphological markers resolved through automatic platforms have become particularly important in mapping population analyses, association studies and functional genetics approaches.

3. Molecular Markers

A molecular marker is a region of DNA associated with a specific location in the genome showing polymorphism of the nucleotide sequence in different individuals, due to insertion, deletion, point mutations, duplication and translocation [45]. Their use expanded enormously in the 1980s with the discovery of the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR), providing a rapid, highly informative and cost-effective tool for exploring plant genetic diversity. Over the years, different types of molecular markers were developed, such as Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD), Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP), Amplified Fragment Length Polymorphism (AFLP), Simple Sequence Repeats (SSRs), Single-Nucleotide Polymorphism (SNP), each having peculiar advantages. In the olive, the applications of all these markers address different aspects of genetic studies, from cultivars identification to genetic maps construction, phylogenetic studies and food traceability [46,47,48]. Below, an extensive and comprehensive description of the main genetic markers used in olive genetic studies is presented.

3.1. RFLP Markers

Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism was the first molecular marker developed and the only one based on hybridization. In this technique, DNA is cut by restriction enzymes in specific loci (recognition sites) resulting in a large number of fragments of various lengths due to the differences in DNA sequence in different individuals [49]. In the olive, RFLP markers were used in studies of phylogeny, taxonomy and analysis of variability of wild germplasm compared to the cultivated one [50,51,52,53], but they were the tool of choice also for linkage mapping, often in association with RAPD and AFLP markers [54,55,56,57,58]. After years of undisputed use, the RFLP technique suffered a decline following the introduction of markers based on the PCR, which is today at the base of most genetic diversity studies.

3.2. RAPD Markers

In Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA, the amplification of genomic DNA is achieved by PCR using a single, short random primer (10 nucleotides) which hybridizes similar sites at the opposite direction, producing amplicons dependent on the length and size of both the target genome and the primer [59]. They are characterized by simplicity and applicability, also to species little known at a genetic level, and for these reasons, they found wide application in the olive. RAPD markers were largely used alone or in association with other markers, for varieties characterization [18,60,61,62] and phylogenetic studies [7,63].
Unfortunately, the dark side of RAPD markers is a scarce reproducibility due to the low temperature of PCR annealing step and, consequently, a nonspecific amplification. These conditions favourited the predominance of other molecular markers.

3.3. AFLP Markers

The AFLP technique combines the digestion of target DNA with appropriate restriction enzymes with PCR. Matching the discriminating action of restriction enzymes and that of the polymerase amplification, they assure a good reproducibility and a high degree of polymorphism, allowing the simultaneous screening of a large number of loci, without any preliminary sequence knowledge [64]. In the olive, AFLPs have been used to study the variability and genetic relationships between cultivated varieties and wild forms [65,66], but also to solve identification problems in intra- and inter-varietal genetic diversity [67,68]. Used also in combination with other markers, such as inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR), RAPD, sequence-characterized amplified region (SCAR) and SSR markers, they allowed the development of the first high-density linkage maps in the olive [55,69,70], paving the way to the identification of quantitative trait loci (QTLs) associated with important agronomic traits [71,72].

3.4. SCAR and CAPS Markers

Besides some above-mentioned PCR-based markers that have been frequently used in olive fingerprinting, other markers, derived from AFLP or RAPD markers, can be used. The Sequence-Tagged Sites (STS) is a short DNA sequence that has a single occurrence in the genome and whose base sequence and location are known. According to the detection method, it can be distinguished in Sequence Characterized Amplified Region (SCAR) or Cleaved Amplified Polymorphic Sequences (CAPS). The SCAR markers require the use of two locus-specific oligonucleotide primers derived from the nucleotide sequence, obtained by sequencing, of an amplified RAPD or AFLP fragment corresponding to a trait of interest. If the fragment of interest is amplified and treated with restriction enzymes revealing a polymorphism in the difference in length of restriction fragments, caused by SNPs or INDELs, these are called CAPS markers.
SCAR markers were successfully used to discriminated unequivocally varieties of the olive [73,74], but were also applied to oil analysis. In particular, SCARs developed from leaf DNA have proven not to be detectable in oil DNA, because they were too long or not abundant enough [75], for this reason, SCAR marker of chloroplast origin (CP-rpl16T) were isolated directly from a monovarietal oil AFLP profile [76].

3.5. ISSRs

ISSRs are DNA fragments between 100–3000 bp located between adjacent, oppositely oriented microsatellite regions, which can be amplified by using microsatellite core sequences as primers for PCR [77]. They are easy to handle, highly informative and repeatable, more reproducible than RAPDs due to the use of longer primers and higher annealing temperatures, and more manageable than AFLPs [78]. In olive, these markers were used in particular for phylogenetic analyses within the O. europaea subspecies [79] and olive germplasm characterization [80,81,82,83], also coupled with retrotransposon-based marker systems [84].

3.6. SSR Marker

SSRs or microsatellites are hypervariable short tandem repeat motifs of 1–6 nucleotides. The variation in the number of repetitions produces polymorphisms detectable by amplification with oligonucleotides complementary to the microsatellites flanking conserved regions [85]. Although their development requires a laborious procedure including the construction of a genomic library, cloning, sequencing and primer design, the use of SSRs, introduced in plant genetics in the early 90s [86], found immediately great application due to the advantages of being codominant, highly distributed throughout the genome, and highly reproducible with low quantity/quality DNA [87]. In the olive, microsatellite regions were sequenced in the early 2000s, and since the publication of specific primers [57,88,89], they have been increasingly used to dissect all aspects of a crop’s genetic diversity [90]. More polymorphic than RAPD and AFLP [91], they have often been used in combination with other molecular markers for synergistic enhancement, in particular, to discriminate related olive genotypes [92,93,94].
SSRs were used to investigate the origin of the crop [9,95] and the relationships between wild and domesticated olive. While different gene pools in the two varieties were found in southern Spain [96] and Sardinia [97], tight relationships between wild and domesticated olive were highlighted in olive germplasm from Northern Spain [98,99], Tunisia [100], Algeria [101,102], Israel [103], Morocco [104].
Microsatellites are also widely used for discriminating among different olive subspecies. In 2003, Rallo et al. [105] tested four microsatellites on cultivated olive along with different subspecies of Olea genus (subsp. laperrinei, cuspidate and maroccana) and other Olive taxa. Besnard et al. [10] analyzed a large population of cultivated olives, oleasters and Saharan olive forms (subsp. Laperrinei), evidencing a clear genetic differentiation between the two subspecies, but showing also, in the meantime, the presence of a few cases of admixture (two wild and three cultivated olives, namely “Dhokar”, “Ifri” and “Belluti”). The genetic variability between subsp. europaea and subsp. cuspidate was also studied through SSR markers. Hannachi et al. [106] analyzed genetic diversity among subsp. europaea (cultivated olive and oleaster) and subsp. cuspidata, identifying some hybrid plants. Hosseini-Mazinani et al. [21] compared microsatellite profiles of Mediterranean and Iranian cultivars with ecotypes and accessions of subsp. cuspidata underling a sharing of some alleles between Iranian and cuspidata samples.
In the last decades, the growing need to preserve the existing germplasm from genetic erosion resulted in the building of the large world germplasm collections, such as the World Olive Germplasm Banks (WOGB) at IFAPA (Cordoba, Spain) and Marrakech (Morocco), besides many small collections created in Europe [54,107,108,109], Northern America [110,111], Southern America [112], Australia [113], Northern Africa [114,115,116,117], the Middle East [118,119], the Balkan area [24,120,121], Iberia [122,123]. SSRs have been the marker of choice for genotyping these genetic resources.
In Italy, they allowed the unveiling of a vast and fragmented olive heritage, in accordance with Italy’s strong geographical and cultural articulation [15,124,125,126].
The advent of Next Generation Sequencing (NGS) strategies has, nowadays, led to the circumvention of the difficulties in isolating sequences from microsatellites [121,127]. The recent sequencing of the olive genome [128,129,130] has favoured the development of several new highly polymorphic SSRs distributed across the genome [131]. Therefore, the SSR markers currently available for the study of genetic characteristics and relationships of olive accessions are very high.
The increasing use of SSRs over the time highlighted limits linked to discrepancies between laboratories in the allele sizes assignment [132,133,134]. To overcome the drawback, a “consensus list” of alleles for a validated standard set of SSR markers with high power of discrimination, reproducibility (low peak stuttering), strong peak signal and absence of null alleles, was set up and became routine for olive genotyping [135,136]. Their application led to the implementation of public SSR-marker databases, such as the Italian “OLEA db” [137], the Olive Genetic Diversity Database (OGDD) relative to the Mediterranean germplasm [138], the Mendoza Argentina database [139] and the Algerian National Olive Germplasm Repository (ITAFV) [140].
Despite their many advantages, SSR markers efficiency could suffer from extremely degradated DNA and do not allow to distinguish clonal varieties of olive [141]. For this reason, the use of SNP markers is a valid aid in the study of traceability and authenticity of commercial olive oils. In fact, as shown in Chedid et al. [142], SNPs show a higher discriminatory capacity compared to SSR markers.
The combined use of SSR and SNP markers became widespread, in particular, in HRM (High Resolution Melting) analysis (SSR-HRM). This technique, based on differences in the melting temperature of PCR products, can magnify the polymorphism degree of microsatellites, and proved to be particularly effective in monovarietal oils authentication [142,143,144,145].

3.7. EST-SSR

Due to their high polymorphism, abundance and transferability, SSRs are the most used molecular markers for the characterization of the olive germplasm [27]. However, most published SSRs, consisting of dinucleotide repeats, showed several drawbacks due to the difficult discrimination between alleles [136]. For this reason, EST-SSR markers have been developed and used alone or in combination with SSR to dissect the genetic variability present in olive collections.
EST-SSRs, derived from expressed regions of the genome, have greater transferability between species than SSR markers and are localized within genes [22]. In addition, their variability may be related to phenotype [146]. However, EST-SSR may have less variability and polymorphism than standard SSRs, though sufficient for genetic population analysis and genotyping purposes [147].
EST-SSRs have been widely used in olive genetic evaluation [22,121,127]. The application of highly effective and informative markers, such as EST-SSR, allows the correct identification and diversity evaluation of olive accessions, making possible the adoption of the best conservation plan. The correct evaluation of genetic diversity is a crucial step to avoid redundancy in germplasm collections, decrease management costs and provide effective sources for genetic studies and breeding programs [22].

3.8. SNP Markers

A Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms is a small variation in the DNA sequence of different individuals, due to the substitution of a single nucleotide. These markers are codominant, abundant and uniformly distributed in genome, and their detection is highly reproducible among laboratories [125]. Since the first discovery of SNPs in olive, they found vast application worldwide in olive cultivars identification [107,148], genome mapping [149], phylogenetic studies [150,151]. Their use has undergone a huge increase thanks to the advances of next generation sequencing (NGS) technologies and the release to the public domain of the O. europaea whole-genome sequence by [128,129,130], making them very attractive for rapid processing of large collections and data management [152,153]. SNPs obtained by NGS technologies found an effective use in developing a high coverage saturated genetic linkage map as a prerequisite for a more efficient molecular breeding [154]. This aspect has seen the affirmation, in particular, of the genotyping by sequencing (GBS) technique [155] over other techniques, such as the more laborious and expensive Restriction site-associated DNA sequencing (RAD-seq) [156,157]. GBS consists of genome reduction through restriction enzymes, followed by fragments sequencing. The technique allows obtaining thousands of sequence-characterized SNP markers, providing a rapid, high-throughput and cost-effective tool to investigate plant genetic variability. Using GBS, Marchese et al. [158] and Ipek et al. [152] developed the first SNP-based high-density linkage maps in olive, while Belaj et al. [153], Taranto et al. [159] and D’Agostino et al. [12] shed light on the diversity of Italian olive cultivars and their geographical relationships, and Zhu et al. [160] focused on the close genetic relationships between Chinese and Mediterranean olive germplasm. More recently, Mariotti et al. [161] genotyped an F1 progeny derived from the cross between Leccino and Dolce Agogia cultivars by Restriction site associated DNA (RAD) markers sequencing, allowing the development of a high-density genetic map useful for trait mapping.
SNP markers proved to be an excellent tool also for table olive and oil authenticity testing, being used in all the Mediterranean countries where these products have a substantial economic value [162].
Figure 1 shows a comparative use of SSR and SNP markers for olive diversity studies over the past 20 years, highlighting how the use of SSR has increased in 2002 and how these markers are still the most widely used.

3.9. Molecular Markers Based on Transcriptome Analysis

Transcriptome analysis focuses on the variability of gene expression through a qualitative and quantitative description of the RNA transcripts differentially expressed by different individuals exposed to the same conditions [163], representing a powerful tool for studying the diversity in individuals. Through the years, transcriptomics has progressed from Northern blotting to RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) techniques, through real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) [164] and microarrays (from Affimetrix or Illumina) [165]. In the olive, the first transcriptomics studies addressed the identification of genes associated with important agronomic traits, such as drupes and reproductive organs development, fruit metabolism and phenolic content during ripening, through strategies such as suppression subtractive hybridization (SSH) and expressed sequence tags (ESTs) analysis [166,167,168,169,170]. SNP variations in EST were used to investigate the functional role of SNPs in specific agronomical performances [152], to uncover functional polymorphism in cultivated and wild olives [171], to infer phylogenies on the Oleae tribe [172] and for genetic identification of wild genotypes [173,174].
Again, the advent of next-generation sequencing (NGS) greatly enhanced transcriptome analysis, making it, in just a few years, a powerful method for rapidly identifying molecular markers associated with trait variation, leveraging both variations of the gene sequence and the variation of gene expression [175]. In particular, the use of RNA-seq was further consolidated by the lower cost per base pair, short time requirement and lack of subcloning process [176], becoming the preferred approach for transcriptomic studies in olive tree organs development [166,177,178,179], but especially for studying olive responses to biotic and abiotic stresses. Differential gene expression in relation to fruit total fatty acid content variations (palmitic, oleic and linoleic acid) was studied under adverse environmental conditions such as cold [180], salt stress [181,182], drought [183]. Gros-Balthazard et al. [184] used RNA seq to study the evolutionary story of the olive, comparing the differentially expressed genes in wild and cultivated accessions and individuating signatures of selection that support a major domestication event in the eastern part of the Mediterranean basin, followed by dispersion towards the west and subsequent admixture with western wild olives.
The transcriptomic approach, comparing the transcriptome profiles in the susceptible and tolerant olive cultivars, has been a huge help in identifying characters involved in the resistance to several biotic agents, helping marked assisted strategies for olive breeding. Grasso et al. [185] elucidated the mechanism of the inducible resistance to the olive fruit fly Bactrocera oleae, involving many metabolic pathways of oxidative stress responses, cellular structure, hormone signalling and primary and secondary metabolism. Leyva-Pérez et al. [186] and Serrano et al. [187] studied the olive’s mechanism of resistance to the soilborne fungus Verticillium dahlia, which still represents one of the most serious olive diseases due to the lack of effective disease control strategies. The analysis of differential transcriptomic root profiles in the tolerant and susceptible cultivars Frantoio and Picual, allowed the recognition of pathogenesis-related proteins involved in the lignification processes as possible markers for tolerant genotypes selection. A similar approach was used to study the fatal olive disease OQDS caused by the bacterium Xylella fastidiosa ssp. pauca. Comparisons between basal and infected transcriptomes in the xylem of the tolerant cultivar Leccino and susceptible varieties showed the involvement, in cv. Leccino tolerance, of the families of the leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase genes [188], ROS accumulation [189] and Lignin and Cinnamoyl-CoA Reductase genes [190].

3.10. Organelle Based and Ribosomal Markers

The use of mitochondrial and chloroplast DNA (mtDNA and cpDNA), due to their lack of introns, their haploid and uniparental inheritance, and their limited recombination, became popular in phylogenetics and population genetic studies. Nowadays, the availability of complete organelle genome sequences in many genera makes them suitable to access the variability of genomes at low taxonomic levels.
Variation in ribosomal and cytoplasmic non-coding DNA, like the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) and intergenic spacer (IGS), is largely used for phylogenetic studies. The high nucleotide variability, due to the lack of strict mechanisms of conservation of these sequences, promotes the availability of these markers for evolutionary purposes. Variations in these regions can be detected through direct sequencing or digestion of amplified sequences with restriction enzymes [191].
These organelle-based markers have been used in the olive for different purposes. Specific chloroplast and mitochondrial RFLP polymorphisms have been used to detect male sterility in several olive cultivars [192]. Chloroplast markers were analyzed in oleasters and cultivated forms of the Mediterranean basin, highlighting the chlorotype-specific marker ofthe Eastern basin in several cultivated forms [193]. In addition, mitochondrial RFLP analysis confirmed a clear genetic distinction between wild olives from the Eastern and Western parts of the Mediterranean basin [53,194]. An intergenic spacer of the mitochondrial genome was also used to test the effect of prolonged vegetative multiplication in the maintenance of mitochondrial homoplasmy. This study allowed confirming the role of sexual reproduction in the maintenance of mitochondrial homoplasmy [195]. Intrieri et al. [196] suggested an identification protocol for olive cultivars based on the amplification and subsequent sequencing of the chloroplast trnT-trnD intergenic spacer, revealing the usefulness of chloroplastic markers for cultivar identification and oil traceability.
Even ribosomal RNA markers have been proven to be useful markers for studying phylogenetic relationships because of their universal nature and the presence of conserved and variable domains. O. europaea genus has been described by analyzing polymorphisms in the internal transcribed spacers (ITS1 and ITS2) of the nuclear ribosomal genes 18S, 5.8S and 26S. The use of these markers allowed the reconstruction of the colonisation history of O. europea L. in the Macaronesian islands [63] and to study the genetic differentiation of cultivated olive from its wild relatives [55]. Moreover, ribosomal DNA markers were used to analyse the structure of olive tree populations belonging to subspp. europaea and cuspidata from Australia and Hawaii [197], and using both ribosomal and cytoplasmic sequences, Besnard et al. [198] revised the correlations within the Oleaceae family. More recently, other authors have analyzed chloroplast genome variation to perform O. europaea L. evolutionary analysis [199,200], confirming the wide potential of these markers.

3.11. The Molecular Markers Used for Olive Oil Traceability Purposes

The use of molecular markers for traceability has become of considerable importance following the increased economic value of olive oil, and the introduction of the European product certification “PDO” (Protected Designation of Origin). This trademark, certifying the place of origin and processing of the raw material, provides a guarantee to all the players in the oil supply chain, protecting the products from abuse and imitations (Community Regulation 2081/92). Moreover, the increase in the economic value of extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) and the appreciation of its organoleptic properties and health benefits by consumers lead fraudsters to blend low-cost poor-quality oil with EVOO to get economic benefits. Therefore, fast, precise, accurate and up-to-date analytical methods are required to detect adulteration of EVOO. Olive oil authentication, traditionally assessed by chemical approaches, analyzing the content of metabolites such as fatty acids, volatile compounds and tocopherols, in recent years has seen prevailing DNA-based methods [201]. Different molecular markers have been used to trace olive oil products.
The AFLP technique was optimised for fragmented DNA for oils traceability studies, overcoming the PCR’s inhibition problems due to the presence of high amounts of phenolic compounds [94]. Nevertheless, the most used molecular marker in olive oil traceability is SSR [202]. SSRs were efficiently used to authenticate and trace olive varieties in monovarietal and polyvarietal oils [201]. Besides, SNP was also revealed to be highly reliable in EVO oil traceability [48]. Recently, a (CAPS) assay set up for SNP analysis that alters the restriction enzyme recognition motifs was also developed. This method was used for detecting olive oil admixtures in a binary blend of oils prepared at a laboratory scale at different ratios. The restriction digestion-based SNP genotyping was found to produce highly reproducible results thanks to the fact that genotyping is based on the observation of the digestion patterns and does not involve any fluorescence signal measurements or fragment size comparisons [203].
Like many food matrices, DNA in olive oil can be highly degraded and present in very low quantities [201]. For this reason, the identification of the varieties present in commercial olive oils requires adequate DNA extraction protocols. Over the years, many DNA extraction protocols from oil based on CTAB and/or hexane have been developed [204,205] showing different results in terms of quality and quantity of recovered DNA. Recently, Piarulli et al. [48] set up an efficient method for DNA extraction from filtered EVO oil suitable for molecular markers-based traceability purposes.
Table 2 summarizes the main studies contributing to the development of different molecular markers in the olive.

3.12. Tips for Choosing the Best Molecular Marker to Dissect the Olive Diversity

The various molecular markers differ in their main characteristics, including the degree of polymorphism and type of distribution throughout the genome. Table 3 presents a list of the most commonly used molecular markers and their main advantages and limitations. The choice of the best molecular marker mostly depends on the objective of the study, operator’s experience, equipment availability and analysis cost.
In olive, AFLP and ISSR were used for the construction of genetic maps, phylogenetic analyses and intra- and inter-varietal genetic diversity studies [69,70,80]. In the past, amplicons were run on a polyacrylamide gel, making the technique quite laborious. Today, the detection of amplicons is mainly performed through capillary electrophoresis. Although they are highly abundant in the genome and they do not require prior sequence information, nowadays, their use is limited due to the spread of more reliable and informative SSR and SNP which are suitable for automation.
The sequencing of the olive genome boosted the spread of SSR and SNP markers. Their high level of polymorphism and reproducibility make them the markers of choice for most genetic diversity studies. Moreover, SSR and SNP markers can be detected on a very small portion of DNA, which, in the case of highly fragmented DNA such as those extracted by olive oil, may constitute an important advantage [201]. SSR markers are the most used markers in olive genetic diversity assessment. The most common approach for the fragment size evaluation is based on the use of capillary electrophoresis. Nevertheless, the analysis of amplicons by high resolution melting (HRM) assay was demonstrated to be highly effective. In the last years, the low cost and ease of application of the SSR/HRM technique has made this approach widespread [142,206,207].
SNPs are the most abundant markers and their diallelic nature allows a reduced error rate in allele calling compared with other molecular markers, making analysis based on SNPs highly reliable. Moreover, SNP identification is suitable for different detection methods such as CAPS assays, HRM and sequencing techniques. The CAPS assay is the easiest method to detect the SNP variant, however, its limited reliability has made this approach rarely currently used. Detection of SNP through HRM is much more widespread since it was demonstrated to be a fast, simple and reproducible method [142,208]. The most reliable approach is that based on the sequencing of the genomic region encompassing the SNP. Although this approach requires specialized personnel and has higher costs compared to HRM, it is quite often used [48].
The recent technical advances in sequencing methods that occurred have made SNP markers a selection tool in olive genetics study, allowing the development of high-density genetic maps and the study of geographical relationships [12,152,158]. Due to the several advantages of these markers, their use is expected to keep growing in the future.

4. Conclusions

During the last years, studies on molecular markers, genomics and transcriptomics of olive trees have rapidly increased, due to technical advances and innovative solutions. The application of molecular markers is widely recognized as a powerful tool to accelerate breeding programs (MAS Markers Assisted Selection), to perform cultivar identification, to investigate the genetic relationship and to trace raw material and processed foods. The ideal marker is an abstract concept because the right choice depends on several factors, such as money availability, instruments, people and the question to answer, to solve the experimental problem. Fortunately, the availability of tools is quite large, and, by a deep evaluation of advantages and disadvantages, it is possible to choose the best marker to apply in every experiment. This review will contribute to the continuation of the alternatives present in the olive sector and help researchers who will approach olive studies for the first time.

Author Contributions

S.S., C.M. and M.M.M. conceived the review. S.S., M.A.S., S.G., L.P., I.M., V.F., C.M. and M.M.M. wrote the manuscript. V.F., C.M. and M.M.M. critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Apulian Regional Government; Project “RE.D.O.XY” (Valutazione del germoplasma olivicolo pugliese e miglioramento genetico per la resistenza a Xylella fastidiosa); Project “APPROCCI” (Approcci di Next generation sequencing per l’analisi di variabilità e di espressione genica in genotipi di olivo autoctoni pugliesi); by the Italian Ministry of Agricultural, Food and Forestry Policies, Project “Rigenerazione sostenibile dell’agricoltura nei territori colpiti da Xylella fastidiosa”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Besnard, G. Origin and Domestication. In The Olive Tree Genome; Rugini, E., Baldoni, L., Muleo, R., Sebastiani, L., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 1–12. ISBN 978-3-319-48887-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAOSTAT) Database. Available online: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/ (accessed on 9 July 2021).
  3. Lanza, B.; Ninfali, P. Antioxidants in Extra Virgin Olive Oil and Table Olives: Connections between Agriculture and Processing for Health Choices. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Green, P.S.; Wickens, G.E. The Olea europaea complex. In The Davis & Hedge Festschrift; Tan, K., Ed.; Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, UK, 1989; pp. 287–299. [Google Scholar]
  5. Besnard, G.; Baali-Cherif, D. Coexistence of diploids and triploids in a Saharan relict olive: Evidence from nuclear microsatellite and flow cytometry analyses. C. R. Biol. 2009, 332, 1115–1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Green, P.S. A revision of Olea L. (Oleaceae). Kew Bull. 2002, 57, 91–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Besnard, G.; Bervillé, A. Multiple origins for Mediterranean olive (Olea europaea L. ssp. europaea) based upon mitochondrial DNA polymorphisms. C. R. Acad. Sci. Ser. III Sci. Vie 2000, 323, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Vossen, P. Olive oil: History, production, and characteristics of the world’s classic oils. HortScience 2007, 42, 1093–1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Breton, C.; Pinatel, C.; Medail, F.; Bonhommea, F.; Bervillé, A. Comparison between classical and Bayesian methods to investigate the history of olive cultivars using SSR-polymorphisms. Plant Sci. 2008, 175, 524–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Besnard, G.; El Bakkali, A.; Haouane, H.; Baali-Cherif, D.; Moukhli, A.; Khadari, B. Population genetics of Mediterranean and Saharan olives: Geographic patterns of differentiation and evidence for early-generations of admixture. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 1293–1302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  11. Dίez, C.M.; Trujillo, I.; Martinez-Uriroz, N.; Barranco, D.; Rallo, L.; Marfil, P.; Gaut, B.S. Olive domestication and diversification in the Mediterranean basin. New Phytol. 2015, 206, 436–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. D’Agostino, N.; Taranto, F.; Camposeo, S.; Mangini, G.; Fanelli, V.; Gadaleta, S.; Miazzi, M.M.; Pavan, S.; di Rienzo, V.; Sabetta, W.; et al. GBS-derived SNP catalogue unveiled wide genetic variability and geographical relationships of Italian olive cultivars. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 15877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Muzzalupo, I. Olive Germplasm: Italian Catalogue of Olive Varieties; InTech: Rijeka, Croatia, 2012; ISBN 978-953-51-0884-9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Muzzalupo, I.; Vendramin, G.G.; Chiappetta, A. Genetic Biodiversity of Italian Olives (Olea europaea) Germplasm Analyzed by SSR Markers. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 296590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Miazzi, M.M.; di Rienzo, V.; Mascio, I.; Montemurro, C.; Sion, S.; Sabetta, W.; Vivaldi, G.A.; Camposeo, S.; Caponio, F.; Squeo, G.; et al. Re.Ger.O.P.: An Integrated Project for the Recovery of Ancient and Rare Olive Germplasm. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  16. Saddoud Debbabi, O.; Miazzi, M.M.; Elloumi, O.; Fendri, M.; Ben Amar, F.; Savoia, M.; Sion, S.; Souabni, H.; Mnasri, S.R.; Ben Abdelaali, S.; et al. Recovery, Assessment, and Molecular Characterization of Minor Olive Genotypes in Tunisia. Plants 2020, 9, 382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Falek, W.; Sion, S.; Montemurro, C.; Mascio, I.; Gadaleta, S.; Fanelli, V.; Savoia, M.A.; Piarulli, L.; Bechkri, S.; Khelifi, D.; et al. Molecular diversity and ecogeographic distribution of Algerian wild olives (Olea europaea subsp. europaea var. sylvestris). Sci. Agric. 2021, 79, e20200308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Belaj, A.; Caballero, J.M.; Barranco, D.; Rallo, L.; Trujillo, I. Genetic characterization and identification of new accessions from Syria in an olive germplasm Bank by means of RAPD markers. Euphytica 2003, 134, 261–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Noormohammadi, Z.; Hosseini-Mazinani, M.; Trujillo, I.; Rallo, L.; Belaj, A.; Sadeghizadeh, M. Identification and classification of main Iranian olive cultivars using microsatellite markers. HortScience 2007, 42, 1545–1550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Di Rienzo, V.; Miazzi, M.M.; Fanelli, V.; Sabetta, W.; Montemurro, C. The preservation and characterization of Apulian olive germplasm biodiversity. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1199, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hosseini-Mazinani, M.; Mariotti, R.; Torkzaban, B.; Sheikh-Hassani, M.; Ataei, S.; Cultrera, N.G.M.; Pandolfi, S.; Baldoni, L. High genetic diversity detected in olives beyond the boundaries of the Mediterranean sea. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e93146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Mousavi, S.; Mariotti, R.; Bagnoli, F.; Costantini, L.; Cultrera, N.G.M.; Arzani, K.; Pandolfi, S.; Vendramin, G.G.; Torkzaban, B.; Hosseini-Mazinani, M.; et al. The eastern part of the Fertile Crescent concealed an unexpected route of olive (Olea europaea L.) differentiation. Ann. Bot. 2017, 119, 1305–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Marra, F.P.; Caruso, T.; Costa, F.; Di Vaio, C.; Mafrica, R.; Marchese, A. Genetic relationships, structure and parentage simulation among the olive tree (Olea europaea L. subsp. europaea) cultivated in Southern Italy revealed by SSR markers. Tree Genet. Genomes 2013, 9, 961–973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lazović, B.; Adakalić, M.; Pucci, C.; Perović, T.; Bandelj, D.; Belaj, A.; Mariotti, R.; Baldoni, L. Characterizing ancient and local olive germplasm from Montenegro. Sci. Hortic. 2016, 209, 117–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Caruso, T.; Marra, F.P.; Costa, F.; Campisi, G.; Macaluso, L.; Marchese, A. Genetic diversity and clonal variation within the main Sicilian olive cultivars based on morphological traits and microsatellite markers. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 180, 130–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ipek, A.; Barut, E.; Gulen, H.; Ipek, M. Assessment of inter- and intra-cultivar variations in olive using SSR markers. Sci. Agric. 2012, 69, 327–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Ganino, T.; Bartolini, G.; Fabbri, A. The classification of olive germplasm—A review. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2006, 81, 319–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Garcia-Muñoz, S.; Muñoz-Organero, G.; de Andres, M.T.; Cabello, F. Ampelography-an old technique with future uses: The case of minor varieties of Vitis vinifera L. from The Balearic Islands. OENO One 2011, 45, 125–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ciferri, R.; Breviglieri, N. Introduzione ad una classificazione morfo—Ecologica dell’olivo coltivato in Italia. L’Olivicoltore 1942, 1, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  30. Baldini, E.; Scaramuzzi, F. Ulteriori indagini sulla validità del metodo bio-statistico nella descrizione e classificazione delle cultivar di olivo. Ann. Ist. Sper. Agron. 1955, 9, 171–186. [Google Scholar]
  31. Damigella, P. Variabilità dei caratteri biometrici dell’olivo e impiego delle funzioni discriminanti. Ric. Sci. 1960, 4, 522–530. [Google Scholar]
  32. Rallo, L.; Barranco, D. Autochthonous olive cultivars in Andalusia. Acta Hortic. 1983, 140, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. UPOV. Guidelines for the Conduct of Tests for Distinctness, Homogeneity and Stability: Olive; International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants: Genéve, Switzerland, 1985. [Google Scholar]
  34. IOOC Encyclopédie Mondiale de L’Olivier; Conseil Oléicole International: Madrid, Spain, 1997.
  35. Barranco, D.; Cimato, A.; Fiorino, P.; Rallo, L.; Touzani, A.; Castaneda, C.; Serafin, F.; Trujillo, I. World Catalogue of Olive Varieties; Consejo Oleìcola Internacional: Madrid, Spain, 2000; 360p. [Google Scholar]
  36. Terral, J.; Alonso, N.; Buxo i Capdevila, R.; Chatti, N.; Fabre, L.; Fiorentino, G.; Marinval, P.; Perez Jorda, G.; Pradat, B.; Rovira, N.; et al. Historical biogeography of olive domestication (Olea europaea L.) as revealed by geometrical morphometry applied to biological and archaeological material. J. Biogeogr. 2004, 31, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Blazakis, K.N.; Kosma, M.; Kostelenos, G.; Baldoni, L.; Bufacchi, M.; Kalaitzis, P. Description of olive morphological parameters by using open access software. Plant Methods 2017, 13, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Gómez-Gálvez, F.J.; Pérez-Mohedano, D.; de la Rosa-Navarro, R.; Belaj, A. High-throughput analysis of the canopy traits in the worldwide olive germplasm bank of Córdoba using very high-resolution imagery acquired from unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). Sci. Hortic. 2021, 278, 109851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cimato, A.; Cantini, C.; Sani, G.; Marranci, M. Il Germoplasma dell’Olivo in Toscana; Regione Toscana: Florence, Italy, 1993. [Google Scholar]
  40. Hairi, I. Etude des caracteristiques pomologiques des cultivars plus importants de l’olivier en Albanie. In Proceedings of the Atti del Convegno L’Olivicoltura Mediterranea, Rende, Italy, 26–28 January 1995. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pannelli, G.; Alfei, B.; Santinelli, A. Varietà d’Olivo nelle Marche; ASSAM: Ancona, Italy, 1998. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pannelli, G.; Alfei, B.; D’Ambrosio, A.; Rosati, S.; Famiani, F. Varietà di Olivo in Umbria; Pliniana: Perugia, Italy, 2000. [Google Scholar]
  43. De Castro, A.I.; Rallo, P.; Suárez, M.P.; Torres-Sánchez, J.; Casanova, L.; Jiménez-Brenes, F.M.; Morales-Sillero, A.; Jiménez, M.R.; López-Granados, F. High-Throughput System for the Early Quantification of Major Architectural Traits in Olive Breeding Trials Using UAV Images and OBIA Techniques. Front. Plant. Sci. 2019, 10, 1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Rossi, R.; Leolini, C.; Costafreda-Aumedes, S.; Leolini, L.; Bindi, M.; Zaldei, A.; Moriondo, M. Performances Evaluation of a Low-Cost Platform for High-Resolution Plant Phenotyping. Sensors 2020, 20, 3150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Nadeem, M.A.; Nawaz, M.A.; Shahid, M.Q.; Doğan, Y.; Comertpay, G.; Yıldız, M.; Hatipoğlu, R.; Ahmad, F.; Alsaleh, A.; Labhane, N. DNA molecular markers in plant breeding: Current status and recent advancements in genomic selection and genome editing. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2017, 32, 261–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Grati-Kamoun, N.; Mahmoud, F.L.; Rebaï, A.; Gargouri, A.; Panaud, O.; Saar, A. Genetic Diversity of Tunisian Olive Tree (Olea europaea L.) Cultivars Assessed by AFLP Markers. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2006, 53, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. di Rienzo, V.; Sion, S.; Taranto, F.; D’Agostino, N.; Montemurro, C.; Fanelli, V.; Sabetta, W.; Boucheffa, S.; Tamendjari, A.; Pasqualone, A.; et al. Genetic flow among olive populations within the Mediterranean basin. Peer J. 2018, 6, e5260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  48. Piarulli, L.; Savoia, M.A.; Taranto, F.; D’Agostino, N.; Sardaro, R.; Girone, S.; Gadaleta, S.; Fucili, V.; De Giovanni, C.; Montemurro, C.; et al. A robust DNA isolation protocol from filtered commercial olive oil for PCR-based fingerprinting. Foods 2019, 8, 462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Williams, R.C. Restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP). Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 1989, 32, 159–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Amane, M.; Ouazzani, N.; Lumaret, R.; Debain, C. Chloroplast-DNA variation in the wild and cultivated olives (Olea europaea L.) of Morocco. Euphytica 2000, 116, 59–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lumaret, R.; Amane, M.; Ouazzani, N.; Baldoni, L.; Debain, C. Chloroplast DNA variation in the cultivated and wild olive taxa of the genus Olea L. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 101, 547–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Medail, F.; Quezel, P.; Besnard, G.; Khadari, B. Systematics, ecology and phylogeographic significance of Olea europaea L. ssp. maroccana (Greuter & Burdet) P. Vargas et al., a relictual olive tree in south-west Morocco. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2001, 137, 249–266. [Google Scholar]
  53. Besnard, G.; Bervillè, A. On chloroplast DNA variations in the olive (Olea europaea L.) complex: Comparison of RFLP and PCR polymorphisms. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2002, 104, 1157–1163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Khadari, B.; Breton, C.; Moutier, N.; Roger, J.; Besnard, G.; Bervillé, A.; Dosba, F. The use of molecular markers for germplasm management in a French olive collection. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 106, 521–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Besnard, G.; Baradat, P.H.; Chevalier, D.; Tagmount, A.; Bervillé, A. Genetic differentiation in the olive complex (Olea europaea) revealed by RAPDs and RFLPs in the rRNA genes. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2001, 48, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cavallotti, A.; Regina, T.M.; Quagliariello, C. New sources of cytoplasmic diversity in the Italian population of Olea europaea L. as revealed by RFLP analysis of mitochondrial DNA: Characterization of the cox3 locus and possible relationship with cytoplasmic male sterility. Plant Sci. 2003, 164, 241–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. De la Rosa, R.; Angiolillo, A.; Guerrero, C.; Pellegrini, M.; Rallo, L.; Besnard, G.; Bervillé, A.; Martín, A.; Baldoni, L. A first linkage map of olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars using RAPD, AFLP, RFLP and SSR markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 106, 1273–1282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Wu, S.B.; Collins, G.; Sedgley, M. A molecular linkage map of olive (Olea europaea L.) based on RAPD, microsatellite, and SCAR markers. Genome 2004, 47, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Williams, J.G.; Kubelik, A.R.; Livak, K.J.; Rafalski, J.A.; Tingey, S.V. DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic Acids Res. 1990, 18, 6531–6535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  60. Belaj, A.; Trujillo, I.; De la Rosa, R.; Rallo, L.; Gimenez, M.J. Polymorphism and discrimination capacity of randomly amplified polymorphic markers in an olive germplasm bank. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2001, 126, 64–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Durgac, C.; Kiyga, Y.; Ulas, M. Comparative molecular analysis of old olive (Olea europaea L.) genotypes from Eastern Mediterranean Region of Turkey. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2010, 9, 428–433. [Google Scholar]
  62. Iqbal, M.Z.; Jamil, S.; Mehmood, A.; Shahzad, R. Identification of seven olive varieties using rapd molecular markers. J. Agric. Res. 2019, 57, 7–14. [Google Scholar]
  63. Hess, J.; Kadereit, J.W.; Vargas, P. The colonization history of Olea europea L. in Macaronesia based on internal transcribed spacer 1 (ITS-1) sequences, randomly amplified polymorphic DNAs (RAPD) and intersimple sequence repeats (ISSR). Mol. Ecol. 2000, 9, 857–868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Vos, P.; Hogers, R.; Bleeker, M.; Reijans, M.; Van De Lee, T.; Hornes, M.; Frijters, A.; Pot, J.; Peleman, J.; Kuiper, M.; et al. AFLP: A new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res. 1995, 23, 4407–4414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Angiolillo, A.; Mencuccini, M.; Baldoni, L. Olive genetic diversity assessed using amplified fragment length polymorphisms. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1999, 98, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Montemurro, C.; Simeone, R.; Pasqualone, A.; Ferrara, E.; Blanco, A. Genetic relationships and cultivar identification among 112 olive accessions using AFLP and SSR markers. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2005, 80, 105–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Owen, C.A.; Bita, E.; Banilas, G.; Hajjar, S.E.; Sellianakis, V.; Aksoy, U.; Hepaksoy, S.; Chamoun, R.; Talhook, S.N.; Metzidakis, I.; et al. AFLP reveals structural details of genetic diversity within cultivated olive germplasm from eastern Mediterranean. Theor. Appl. 2005, 110, 1169–1176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Albertini, E.; Torricelli, R.; Bitocchi, E.; Raggi, L.; Marconi, G.; Pollastri, L.; Di Minco, G.; Battistini, A.; Papa, R.; Veronesi, F. Structure of genetic diversity in Olea europaea L. cultivars from central Italy. Mol. Breed. 2011, 27, 533–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. El Aabidine, A.Z.; Charafi, J.; Grout, C.; Doligez, A.; Santoni, S.; Moukhli, A.; Jay-Allemand, C.; El Modafar, C.; Khadari, B. Construction of a Genetic Linkage Map for the Olive Based on AFLP and SSR Markers. Crop Sci. 2010, 50, 2291–2302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Khadari, B.; El Aabidine, A.Z.; Grout, C.; Ben Sadok, I.; Doligez, A.; Moutier, N.; Santoni, S.; Sadok, E.C. A Genetic Linkage Map of Olive Based on AFLP, ISSR and SSR Markers. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2013, 135, 548–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Sadok, I.B.; Celton, J.M.; Essalouh, L.; El Aabidine, A.Z.; Garcia, G.; Martinez, S.; Grati-Kamoun, N.; Rebai, A.; Costes, E.; Khadari, B. QTL Mapping of Flowering and Fruiting Traits in Olive. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e62831. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Atienza, S.G.; de la Rosa, R.; León, L.; Martín, A.; Belaj, A. Identification of QTL for agronomic traits of importance for olive breeding. Mol. Breed. 2014, 34, 725–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bautista, R.; Crespillo, R.; Cánovas, F.M.; Claros, M.G. Identification of olive-tree cultivars with SCAR markers. Euphytica 2003, 129, 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Busconi, M.; Sebastiani, L.; Fogher, C. Development of SCAR Markers for Germplasm Characterisation in Olive Tree (Olea europea L.). Mol. Breed. 2006, 17, 59–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. De la Torre, F.; Canovas, F.M.; Claros, M.G. Isolation of DNA from olive oil and oil sediments: Application in oil fingerprinting. J. Food Agric. Environ. 2004, 2, 84–89. [Google Scholar]
  76. Pafundo, S.M.; Agrimonti, C.; Maestri, E.; Marmiroli, N. Applicability of SCAR markers to food genomics: Olive oil traceability. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2007, 55, 6052–6059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Zietkiewicz, E.; Rafalski, A.; Labuda, D. Genome fingerprinting by simple sequence repeat (SSR)-anchored polymerase chain reaction amplification. Genomics 1994, 20, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Pasqualone, A.; Caponio, F.; Blanco, A. Inter-simple sequence repeat DNA markers for identification of drupes from different Olea europaea L. cultivars. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2001, 213, 240–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Vargas, P.; Garmendia, F.; Hess, J.; Kadereit, J.W. Olea europaea subsp. guanchica and subsp. maroccana (Oleaceae), two new names for olive tree relatives. Ann. Jard. Bot. Madr. 2001, 58, 360–361. [Google Scholar]
  80. Essadki, M.; Ouazzani, N.; Lumaret, R.; Moumni, M. ISSR Variation in Olive-tree Cultivars from Morocco and other Western Countries of the Mediterranean Basin. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2006, 53, 475–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Martins-Lopes, P.; Lima-Brito, J.; Gomes, S.; Meirinhos, J.; Santos, L.; Guedes-Pinto, H. RAPD and ISSR molecular markers in Olea europaea L.: Genetic variability and molecular cultivar identification. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2007, 54, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ergun, K. ISSR analysis for determination of genetic diversity and relationship in eight Turkish olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2015, 43, 96–99. [Google Scholar]
  83. Abood, A.A.; Al-Ansari, A.M.; Migdadi, H.M.; Okla, M.K.; Assaeed, A.M.; Hegazy, A.K.; Alshameri, A.M.; Khan, M.A. Molecular and phytochemical analysis of wild type and olive cultivars grown under Saudi Arabian environment. 3 Biotech. 2017, 7, 289:1–289:14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Kaya, E.; Yilmaz-gokdogan, E. Using Two Retrotransposon Based Marker Systems (IRAP and REMAP) for Molecular Characterization of Olive (Olea europaea L.) Cultivars. Not. Bot Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2016, 44, 167–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  85. Powell, W.; Machray, G.C.; Provan, J. Polymorphism revealed by simple sequence repeats. Trends Plant Sci. 1996, 1, 215–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Condit, R.; Hubbell, S.P. Abundance and DNA sequence of two-base repeat regions in tropical tree genomes. Genome 1991, 34, 66–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Garcia, A.A.F.; Benchimol, L.L.; Barbosa, A.M.M.; Geraldi, I.O.; Souza, C.L., Jr.; de Souza, A.P. Comparison of RAPD, RFLP, AFLP and SSR markers for diversity studies in tropical maize inbred lines. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2004, 27, 579–588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Sefc, K.M.; Lopes, M.S.; Mendoca, D.; Rodrigues Dos Santos, M.; Laimer Da Camara Machado, M.; Da Camara Machado, A. Identification of microsatellite loci in olive (Olea europaea L) and their characterization in Italian and Iberian olive trees. Mol. Ecol. 2000, 9, 1171–1173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Cipriani, G.; Marrazzo, M.T.; Marconi, R.; Cimato, A.; Testolin, R. Microsatellite markers isolated in olive (Olea europea L.) are suitable for individual fingerprinting and reveal polymorphism within ancient cultivars. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2002, 104, 223–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sebastiani, L.; Busconi, M. Recent developments in olive (Olea europaea L.) genetics and genomics: Applications in taxonomy, varietal identification, traceability and breeding. Plant Cell Rep. 2017, 36, 1345–1360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Belaj, A.; Satovic, Z.; Cipriani, G.; Baldoni, L.; Testolin, R.; Rallo, L.; Trujillo, I. Comparative study of the discriminating capacity of RAPD, AFLP and SSR markers and of their effectiveness in establishing genetic relationships in olive. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 107, 736–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Rotondi, A.; Magli, M.; Ricciolini, C.; Baldoni, L. Morphological and molecular analyses for the characterization of a group of Italian olive cultivars. Euphytica 2003, 132, 129–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bandelj, D.; Jakše, J.; Javornik, B. Assessment of genetic variability of olive varieties by microsatellite and AFLP markers. Euphytica 2004, 136, 93–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Montemurro, C.; Simeone, R.; Blanco, A.; Saponari, M.; Bottalico, G.; Savino, V.; Martelli, G.P.; Pasqualone, A. Sanitary selection and molecular characterization of olive cultivars grown in Apulia. Acta Hortic. 2008, 791, 603–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Besnard, G.; Rubio de Casas, R.; Vargas, P. Plastid and nuclear DNA polymorphism reveals historical processes of isolation and reticulation in the olive tree complex (Olea europaea). J. Biogeogr. 2007, 34, 736–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Belaj, A.; Muñoz-Diez, C.; Baldoni, L.; Porceddu, A.; Barranco, D.; Satovic, Z. Genetic diversity and population structure of wild olives from the north-western Mediterranean assessed by SSR markers. Ann. Bot. 2007, 100, 449–458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Erre, P.; Chessa, I.; Muñoz-Diez, C.; Belaj, A.; Rallo, L.; Trujillo, I. Genetic diversity and relationships between wild and cultivated olives (Olea europaea L.) in Sardinia as assessed by SSR markers. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2010, 57, 41–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Belaj, A.; Muñoz-Diez, C.; Baldoni, L.; Satovic, Z.; Barranco, D. Genetic diversity and relationships of wild and cultivated olives at regional level in Spain. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 124, 323–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Díez, C.M.; Trujillo, I.; Barrio, E.; Belaj, A.; Barranco, D.; Rallo, L. Centennial olive trees as a reservoir of genetic diversity. Ann. Bot. 2011, 108, 797–807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  100. Hannachi, H.; Breton, C.; Msallem, M.; El Hadj, S.B.; El Gazzah, M.; Bervillé, A. Genetic relationships between cultivated and wild olive trees (Olea europaea L. var. europaea and var. sylvestris) based on nuclear and chloroplast SSR markers. Nat. Resour. 2010, 1, 95–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Boucheffa, S.; Miazzi, M.M.; di Rienzo, V.; Mangini, G.; Fanelli, V.; Tamendjari, A.; Pignone, D.; Montemurro, C. The coexistence of oleaster and traditional varieties genetic diversity and population structure in Algerian olive (Olea europaea) germplasm. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2017, 64, 379–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Boucheffa, S.; Tamendjari, A.; Sanchez-Gimeno, A.C.; Rovellini, P.; Venturini, S.; di Rienzo, V.; Miazzi, M.M.; Montemurro, C. Diversity Assessment of Algerian Wild and Cultivated Olives (Olea europaea L.) by Molecular, Morphological, and Chemical Traits. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2019, 121, 1800302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  103. Barazani, O.; Keren-Keiserman, A.; Westberg, E.; Hanin, N.; Dag, A.; Ben-Ari, G.; Fragman-Sapir, O.; Tugendhaft, Y.; Kerem, Z.; Kadereit, J.W. Genetic variation of naturally growing olive trees in Israel: From abandoned groves to feral and wild? BMC Plant Biol. 2016, 16, 261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  104. Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y.; Moukhli, A.; Haouane, H.; Khadari, B. Ongoing domestication and diversification in grafted olive–oleaster agroecosystems in Northern Morocco. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2017, 17, 1315–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Rallo, P.; Tenzer, I.; Gessler, C.; Baldoni, L.; Dorado, G.; Martin, A. Transferability of olive microsatellite loci across the genus Olea. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2003, 107, 940–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Hannachi, H.; Sommerlatte, H.; Breton, C.; Msallem, M.; El Gazzah, M.; El Hadj, S.B.; Bervillé, A. Oleaster (var. sylvestris) and subsp. cuspidata are suitable genetic resources for improvement of the olive (Olea europaea subsp. europaea var. europaea). Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2009, 56, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kaya, H.B.; Cetin, O.; Kaya, H.; Sahin, M.; Sefer, F.; Kahraman, A.; Tanyolac, B. SNP discovery by Illumina-based transcriptome sequencing of the olive and the genetic characterization of Turkish olive genotypes revealed by AFLP, SSR and SNP markers. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e73674. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  108. Xanthopoulou, A.; Ganopoulos, I.; Koubouris, G.; Tsaftaris, A.; Sergendani, C.; Kalivas, A.; Madesis, P. Microsatellite high-resolution melting (SSR-HRM) analysis for genotyping and molecular characterization of an Olea europaea germplasm collection. Plant. Genet. Resour. 2014, 12, 273–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Díaz-Rueda, P.; Franco-Navarro, J.D.; Messora, R.; Espartero, J.; Rivero-Núñez, C.M.; Aleza, P.; Capote, N.; Cantos, M.; García-Fernández, J.L.; de Cires, A.; et al. SILVOLIVE, a germplasm collection of wild subspecies with high genetic variability as a source of rootstocks and resistance genes for olive breeding. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Koehmstedt, A.M.; Aradhya, M.K.; Soleri, D.; Smith, J.L.; Polito, V.S. Molecular characterization of genetic diversity, structure, and differentiation in the olive (Olea europaea L.) germplasm collection of the United States Department of Agriculture. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2011, 58, 519–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  111. Zelasco, S.; Salimonti, A.; Baldoni, L.; Mariotti, R.; Preece, J.E.; Aradhya, M.; Koehmstedt, A.M. Efficiency Of SSR Markers for Exploring Olive Germplasm Diversity through a Genetic Comparison between The USDA-NCGR and the CRA-OLI Olive Collections. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1057, 585–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Trentacoste, E.R.; Puertas, C.M. Preliminary characterization and morpho-agronomic evaluation of the olive germplasm collection of the Mendoza province (Argentina). Euphytica 2011, 177, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Guerin, J.R.; Sweeney, S.M.; Collins, G.G.; Sedgley, M. The development of a genetic database to identify olive cultivars. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 2002, 127, 977–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Abdessemed, S.; Muzzalupo, I.; Benbouza, H. Assessment of genetic diversity among Algerian olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars using SSR marker. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 192, 10–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Khadari, B.; El Bakkali, A.; Essalouh, L.; Tollon, C.; Pinatel, C.; Besnard, G. Cultivated olive diversification at local and regional scales: Evidence from the genetic characterization of French genetic resources. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  116. Saddoud Deddabi, O.; Montemurro, C.; Ben Maachia, S.; Ben Amar, F.; Fanelli, V.; Gadaleta, S.; El Riachy, M.; Chehade, A.; Siblini, M.; Boucheffa, S.; et al. A Hot Spot of Olive Biodiversity in the Tunisian Oasis of Degache. Diversity 2020, 12, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Saddoud Debbabi, O.; Rahmani Mnasri, S.; Ben Amar, F.; Ben Naceur, M.; Montemurro, C.; Miazzi, M.M. Applications of microsatellite markers for the characterization of olive genetic resources of Tunisia. Genes 2021, 12, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Abuzayed, M.; Frary, A.; Doganlar, S. Genetic diversity of some Palestinian and Turkish olive (Olea europaea L.) germplasm determined with SSR markers. IUG J. Nat. Sci. 2018, 26, 10–17. [Google Scholar]
  119. Dastkar, E.; Soleimani, A.; Jafary, H.; Naghavi, M.R. Genetic and morphological variation in Iranian olive (Olea europaea L.) germplasm. Crop Breed. J. 2013, 3, 99–106. [Google Scholar]
  120. Ercisli, S.; Bencic, D.; Ipek, A.; Barut, E.; Liber, Z. Genetic relationships among olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars native to Croatia and Turkey. J. Appl. Bot. 2013, 85, 144–149. [Google Scholar]
  121. Dervishi, A.; Jakše, J.; Ismaili, H.; Javornik, B.; Štajner, N. Comparative assessment of genetic diversity in Albanian olive (Olea europaea L.) using SSRs from anonymous and transcribed genomic regions. Tree Genet. Genomes 2018, 14, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Gomes, S.; Martins-Lopes, P.; Lopes, J.; Guedes-Pinto, H. Assessing genetic diversity in Olea europaea L. using ISSR and SSR markers. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 2009, 27, 365–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Fernández i Martí, A.; Font i Forcada, C.; Socias i Company, R.; Rubio-Cabetas, M.J. Genetic relationships and population structure of local olive tree accessions from Northeastern Spain revealed by SSR markers. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2015, 37, 1726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Rotondi, A.; Ganino, T.; Beghè, D.; Di Virgilio, N.; Morrone, L.; Fabbri, A.; Neri, L. Genetic and landscape characterization of ancient autochthonous olive trees in northern Italy. Plant Biosyst. 2018, 152, 1067–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Bracci, T.; Busconi, M.; Fogher, C.; Sebastiani, L. Molecular studies in olive (Olea europaea L.): Overview on DNA markers applications and recent advances in genome analysis. Plant Cell Rep. 2011, 30, 449–462. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Sion, S.; Taranto, F.; Montemurro, C.; Mangini, G.; Camposeo, S.; Falco, V.; Gallo, A.; Mita, G.; Saddoud Debbabi, O.; Ben Amar, F.; et al. Genetic characterization of Apulian olive germplasm as potential source in new breeding programs. Plants 2019, 8, 268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  127. Arbeiter, A.; Hladnik, M.; Jakše, J.; Bandelj, D. Identification and validation of novel EST-SSR markers in olives. Sci. Agric. 2017, 74, 215–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Cruz, F.; Julca, I.; Gómez-Garrido, J.; Loska, D.; Marcet-Houben, M.; Cano, E.; Galán, B.; Frias, L.; Ribeca, P.; Derdak, S.; et al. Genome sequence of the olive tree, Olea europaea. Gigascience 2016, 5, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Unver, T.; Wu, Z.; Sterck, L.; Turktas, M.; Lohaus, R.; Li, Z.; Yang, M.; He, L.; Deng, T.; Escalante, F.J.; et al. Wild olive genome and oil biosynthesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E9413–E9422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  130. Rao, G.; Zhang, J.; Liu, X.; Lin, C.; Xin, H.; Xue, L.; Wang, C. De novo assembly of a new Olea europaea genome accession using nanopore sequencing. Hortic. Res. 2021, 8, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Li, D.; Long, C.; Pang, X.; Ning, D.; Wu, T.; Dong, M.; Han, X.; Guo, H. The newly developed genomic-SSR markers uncover the genetic characteristics and relationships of olive accessions. PeerJ 2020, 8, e8573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Rekik, I.; Salimonti, A.; Grati Kamoun, N.; Muzzalupo, I.; Perri, E.; Rebai, A. Characterisation and identification of Tunisian olive tree varieties by microsatellite markers. HortScience 2008, 43, 1371–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Trujillo, I.; Ojeda, M.A.; Urdiroz, N.M.; Potter, D.; Barranco, D.; Rallo, L.; Diez, C.M. Identification of the Worldwide Olive Germplasm Bank of Córdoba (Spain) using SSR and morphological markers. Tree Genet. Genomes 2014, 10, 141–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Beghè, D.; Garcìa Molano, J.F.; Fabbri, A.; Ganino, T. Olive biodiversity in Colombia. A molecular study of local germplasm. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 189, 122–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Doveri, S.; Gil, F.G.; Díaz, A.; Reale, S.; Busconi, M.; da Câmara Machado, A.; Martín, A.; Fogher, C.; Donini, P.; Lee, D. Standardization of a set of microsatellite markers for use in cultivar identification studies in olive (Olea europaea L.). Sci. Hortic. 2008, 116, 367–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Baldoni, L.; Cultrera, N.G.; Mariotti, R.; Riccioloni, C.; Arcioni, S.; Vendramin, G.G.; Buonamici, A.; Porceddu, A.; Sarri, V.; Ojeda, M.A.; et al. A consensus list of microsatellites markers for olive genotyping. Mol. Breed. 2009, 24, 213–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Bartolini, G. Olea Databases. 2008. Available online: http://www.oleadb.it (accessed on 9 July 2021).
  138. Ben Ayed, R.; Ben Hassen, H.; Ennouri, K.; Ben Marzoug, R.; Rebai, A. OGDD (Olive Genetic Diversity Database): A microsatellite markers’ genotypes database of worldwide olive trees for cultivar identification and virgin olive oil traceability. Database 2016, 2016, bav090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  139. Torres, M.R.; Cornejo, P.; Bertoldi, V.; Ferrer, M.S.; Masuelli, R.W. Development of a microsatellite database for identification of olive (Olea europaea L.) cultivars in Mendoza, Argentina. Acta Hortic. 2014, 1057, 521–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Haddad, B.; Gristina, A.S.; Mercati, F.; Saadi, A.E.; Aiter, N.; Martorana, A.; Sharaf, A.; Carimi, F. Molecular Analysis of the Official Algerian Olive Collection Highlighted a Hotspot of Biodiversity in the Central Mediterranean Basin. Genes 2020, 11, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  141. Alba, V.; Sabetta, W.; Blanco, A.; Pasqualone, A.; Montemurro, C. Microsatellite markers to identify specific alleles in DNA extracted from monovarietal virgin olive oils. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2009, 229, 375–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Chedid, E.; Rizou, M.; Kalaitzis, P. Application of high resolution melting combined with DNA-based markers for quantitative analysis of olive oil authenticity and adulteration. Food Chem. X 2020, 6, 100082. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Pasqualone, A.; di Rienzo, V.; Miazzi, M.M.; Fanelli, V.; Caponio, F.; Montemurro, C. High resolution melting analysis of DNA microsatellites in olive pastes and virgin olive oils obtained by talc addition. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 2015, 117, 2044–2048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Xanthopoulou, A.; Ganopoulos, I.; Bosmali, I.; Tsaftaris, A.; Madesis, P. DNA fingerprinting as a novel tool for olive and olive oil authentication, traceability, and detection of functional compounds. In Olives and Olive Oil as Functional Foods: Bioactivity, Chemistry and Processing; Shahidi, F., Kiritsakis, A., Eds.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 587–601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Batrinou, A.; Strati, I.F.; Houhoula, D.; Tsaknis, J.; Sinanoglou, V.J. Authentication of olive oil based on DNA analysis. Grasas y Aceites 2020, 71, e366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Duran, C.; Appleby, N.; Edwards, D.; Batley, J. Molecular genetic markers: Discovery, applications, data storage and visualisation. Curr. Bioinform. 2009, 4, 16–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Yang, J.; Dai, P.; Zhou, T.; Huang, Z.; Feng, L.; Su, H.; Liu, Z.; Zhao, G. Genetic diversity and structure of wintersweet (Chimonanthus praecox) revealed by EST-SSR markers. Sci. Hortic. 2013, 150, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Belaj, A.; del Carmen Dominguez-García, M.; Atienza, S.G.; Urdíroz, N.M.; De la Rosa, R.; Satovic, Z.; Martín, A.; Kilian, A.; Trujillo, I.; Valpuesta, V.; et al. Developing a core collection of olive (Olea europaea L.) based on molecular markers (DArTs, SSRs, SNPs) and agronomic traits. Tree Genet. Genomes 2012, 8, 365–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Domínguez-García, M.C.; Belaj, A.; De la Rosa, R.; Satovic, Z.; Heller-Uszynska, K.; Kilian, A.; Martín, A.; Atienza, S.G. Development of DArT markers in olive (Olea europaea L.) and usefulness in variability studies and genome mapping. Sci. Hortic. 2012, 136, 50–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Ayed, R.; Ennouri, K.; Hassen, H.; Rebai, A. Molecular phylogeny to specify Zalmati and Chemlali Tataouine Tunisian olive cultivars. J. New Sci. Agric. Biotechnol. 2015, 18, 689–694. [Google Scholar]
  151. Biton, I.; Doron-Faigenboim, A.; Jamwal, M.; Mani, Y.; Eshed, R.; Rosen, A.; Sherman, A.; Ophir, R.; Lavee, S.; Avidan, B.; et al. Development of a large set of SNP markers for assessing phylogenetic relationships between the olive cultivars composing the Israeli olive germplasm collection. Mol. Breed. 2015, 35, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. İpek, A.; Yılmaz, K.; Sıkıcı, P.; Tangu, N.A.; Öz, A.T.; Bayraktar, M.; İpek, M.; Gülen, H. SNP discovery by GBS in olive and the construction of a high-density genetic linkage map. Biochem. Genet. 2016, 54, 313–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Belaj, A.; De La Rosa, R.; Lorite, I.J.; Mariotti, R.; Cultrera, N.G.; Beuzón, C.R.; González-Plaza, J.J.; Muñoz-Mérida, A.; Trelles, O.; Baldoni, L. Usefulness of a new large set of high throughput EST-SNP markers as a tool for olive germplasm collection management. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  154. Kaya, H.B.; Akdemir, D.; Lozano, R.; Cetin, O.; Kaya, H.S.; Sahin, M.; Smith, J.L.; Tanyolac, B.; Jannink, J.L. Genome wide association study of 5 agronomic traits in olive (Olea europaea L.). Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 18764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  155. Elshire, R.J.; Glaubitz, J.C.; Sun, Q.; Poland, J.A.; Kawamoto, K.; Buckler, E.S.; Mitchell, S.E. A robust, simple genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS) approach for high diversity species. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e19379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Rowe, H.C.; Renaut, S.; Guggisberg, A. RAD in the realm of next-generation sequencing technologies. Mol. Ecol. 2011, 20, 3499–3502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  157. Baird, N.A.; Etter, P.D.; Atwood, T.S.; Currey, M.C.; Shiver, A.L.; Lewis, Z.A.; Selker, E.U.; Cresko, W.A.; Johnson, E.A. Rapid SNP discovery and genetic mapping using sequenced RAD markers. PLoS ONE 2008, 3, e3376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Marchese, A.; Marra, F.P.; Caruso, T.; Mhelembe, K.; Costa, F.; Fretto, S.; Sargent, D.J. The first high-density sequence characterized SNP-based linkage map of olive (‘Olea europaea’ L. subsp. ’europaea’) developed using genotyping by sequencing. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2016, 10, 857–863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Taranto, F.; D’Agostino, N.; Pavan, S.; Fanelli, V.; di Rienzo, V.; Sabetta, W.; Miazzi, M.M.; Zelasco, S.; Perri, E.; Montemurro, C. Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) diversity in an olive germplasm collection. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1199, 27–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Zhu, S.; Niu, E.; Shi, A.; Mou, B. Genetic diversity analysis of olive germplasm (Olea europaea L.) with genotyping-by-sequencing technology. Front. Genet. 2019, 10, 755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  161. Mariotti, R.; Fornasiero, A.; Mousavi, S.; Cultrera, N.G.M.; Brizioli, F.; Pandolfi, S.; Passeri, V.; Rossi, M.; Magris, G.; Scalabrin, S.; et al. Genetic mapping of the incompatibility locus in olive and development of a linked Sequence-Tagged Site marker. Front. Plant. Sci. 2020, 10, 1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Ben Ayed, R.; Rebai, A. Tunisian Table Olive Oil Traceability and Quality Using SNP Genotyping and Bioinformatics Tools. BioMed Res. Int. 2019, 2019, 8291341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Imadi, S.R.; Kazi, A.G.; Ahanger, M.A.; Gucel, S.; Ahmad, P. Plant transcriptomics and responses to environmental stress: An overview. J. Genet. 2015, 94, 525–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Sabetta, W.; Mascio, I.; Squeo, G.; Gadaleta, S.; Flamminii, F.; Conte, P.; Di Mattia, C.D.; Piga, A.; Caponio, F.; Montemurro, C. Bioactive potential of minor italian olive genotypes from Apulia, Sardinia and Abruzzo. Foods 2021, 10, 1371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Agarwal, P.; Parida, S.K.; Mahto, A.; Das, S.; Mathew, I.E.; Malik, N.; Tyagi, A.K. Expanding frontiers in plant transcriptomics in aid of functional genomics and molecular breeding. Biotechnol. J. 2014, 9, 1480–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Alagna, F.; Mariotti, R.; Panara, F.; Caporali, S.; Urbani, S.; Veneziani, G.; Esposto, S.; Taticchi, A.; Rosati, A.; Rao, R.; et al. Olive phenolic compounds: Metabolic and transcriptional profiling during fruit development. BMC Plant.Biol. 2012, 12, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  167. Muñoz-Mérida, A.; González-Plaza, J.J.; Cañada, A.; Blanco, A.M.; García-López, M.d.C.; Rodríguez, J.M.; Pedrola, L.; Sicardo, M.D.; Hernández, M.L.; De la Rosa, R.; et al. De novo assembly and functional annotation of the olive (Olea europaea) transcriptome. DNA Res. 2013, 20, 93–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Parra, R.; Paredes, M.A.; Sanchez-Calle, I.M.; Gomez-Jimenez, M.C. Comparative transcriptional profiling analysis of olive ripe-fruit pericarp and abscission zone tissues shows expression differences and distinct patterns of transcriptional regulation. BMC Genom. 2013, 14, 866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  169. Carmona, R.; Zafra, A.; Seoane, P.; Castro, A.J.; Guerrero-Fernández, D.; Castillo-Castillo, T.; Medina-García, A.; Cánovas, F.M.; Aldana-Montes, J.F.; Navas-Delgado, I.; et al. ReprOlive: A database with linked data for the olive tree (Olea europaea L.) reproductive transcriptome. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Iaria, D.L.; Chiappetta, A.; Muzzalupo, I. A de novo transcriptomic approach to identify flavonoids and anthocyanins “switch-off” in olive (Olea europaea L.) drupes at different stages of maturation. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 6, 1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  171. Mariotti, R.; Belaj, A.; De La Rosa, R.; Leòn, L.; Brizioli, F.; Baldoni, L.; Mousavi, S. EST–SNP Study of Olea europaea L. Uncovers Functional Polymorphisms between Cultivated and Wild Olives. Genes 2020, 11, 916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Olofsson, J.K.; Cantera, I.; Van de Paer, C.; Hong-Wa, C.; Zedane, L.; Dunning, L.T.; Alberti, A.; Christin, P.A.; Besnard, G. Phylogenomics using low-depth whole genome sequencing: A case study with the olive tribe. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2019, 19, 877–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Kyriakopoulou, C.I.; Kalogianni, D.P. Genetic identification of the wild form of olive (Olea europaea var. sylvestris) using allele-specific real-time PCR. Foods 2020, 9, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  174. Jiménez-Ruiz, J.; Ramírez-Tejero, J.A.; Fernández-Pozo, N.; de la O Leyva-Pérez, M.; Yan, H.; de la Rosa, R.; Belaj, A.; Montes, E.; Rodríguez-Ariza, M.O.; Navarro, F.; et al. Transposon activation is a major driver in the genome evolution of cultivated olive trees (Olea europaea L.). Plant Genome 2020, 13, e20010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  175. Mutz, K.; Heilkenbrinker, A.; Lönne, M.; Walter, J.; Stahl, F. Transcriptome analysis using next-generation sequencing. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2013, 24, 22–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Metzker, M.L. Sequencing technologies—The next generation. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11, 31–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  177. Zafra, A.; Carmona, R.; Traverso, J.A.; Hancock, J.T.; Goldman, M.H.; Claros, M.G.; Simon, H.J.; Alche, J.D. Identification and functional annotation of genes differentially expressed in the reproductive tissues of the olive tree (Olea europaea L.) through the generation of subtractive libraries. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Bruno, L.; Picardi, E.; Pacenza, M.; Chiappetta, A.; Muto, A.; Gagliardi, O.; Muzzalupo, I.; Pesole, G.; Bitonti, M.B. Changes in gene expression and metabolic profile of drupes of Olea europaea L. cv Carolea in relation to maturation stage and cultivation area. BMC Plant Biol. 2019, 19, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  179. Ramírez-Tejero, J.A.; Jiménez-Ruiz, J.; Leyva-Pérez, M.d.l.O.; Barroso, J.B.; Luque, F. Gene Expression Pattern in Olive Tree Organs (Olea europaea L.). Genes 2020, 11, 544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Leyva-Perez, M.d.l.O.; Valverde-Corredor, A.; Valderrama, R.; Jiménez-Ruiz, J.; Muñoz-Merida, A.; Trelles, O.; Barroso, J.B.; Mercado-Blanco, J.; Luque, F. Early and delayed long-term transcriptional changes and short-term transient responses during cold acclimation in olive leaves. DNA Res. 2015, 22, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  181. Mousavi, S.; Regni, L.; Bocchini, M.; Mariotti, R.; Cultrera, N.G.; Mancuso, S.; Googlani, J.; Chakerolhosseini, M.R.; Guerrero, C.; Albertini, E.; et al. Physiological, epigenetic and genetic regulation in some olive cultivars under salt stress. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1093. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  182. Moretti, S.; Francini, A.; Hernández, M.L.; Martínez-Rivas, J.M.; Sebastiani, L. Effect of saline irrigation on physiological traits, fatty acid composition and desaturase genes expression in olive fruit mesocarp. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 141, 423–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Hernández, M.L.; Velázquez-Palmero, D.; Sicardo, M.D.; Fernández, J.E.; Diaz-Espejo, A.; Martínez-Rivas, J.M. Effect of a regulated deficit irrigation strategy in a hedgerow ‘Arbequina’ olive orchard on the mesocarp fatty acid composition and desaturase gene expression with respect to olive oil quality. Agric. Water Manag. 2018, 204, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Gros-Balthazard, M.; Besnard, G.; Sarah, G.; Holtz, Y.; Leclercq, J.; Santoni, S.; Wegmann, D.; Glémin, S.; Khadari, B. Evolutionary transcriptomics reveals the origins of olives and the genomic changes associated with their domestication. Plant J. 2019, 100, 143–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Grasso, F.; Coppola, M.; Carbone, F.; Baldoni, L.; Alagna, F.; Perrotta, G.; Pérez-Pulido, A.J.; Garonna, A.; Facella, P.; Daddiego, L.; et al. The transcriptional response to the olive fruit fly (Bactrocera oleae) reveals extended differences between tolerant and susceptible olive (Olea europaea L.) varieties. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0183050. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  186. Leyva-Pérez, M.d.l.O.; Jiménez-Ruiz, J.; Gómez-Lama Cabanás, C.; Valverde-Corredor, A.; Barroso, J.B.; Luque, F.; Mercado-Blanco, J. Tolerance of olive (Olea europaea) cv Frantoio to Verticillium dahliae relies on both basal and pathogen-induced differential transcriptomic responses. New Phytol. 2018, 217, 671–686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  187. Serrano, A.; León, L.; Belaj, A.; Román, B. Nucleotide diversity analysis of candidate genes for Verticillium wilt resistance in olive. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 274, 109653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Giampetruzzi, A.; Morelli, M.; Saponari, M.; Loconsole, G.; Chiumenti, M.; Boscia, D.; Savino, V.N.; Martelli, G.P.; Saldarelli, P. Transcriptome profiling of two olive cultivars in response to infection by the CoDiRO strain of Xylella fastidiosa subsp. pauca. BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  189. Novelli, S.; Gismondi, A.; Di Marco, G.; Canuti, L.; Nanni, V.; Canini, A. Plant defense factors involved in Olea europaea resistance against Xylella fastidiosa infection. J. Plant Res. 2019, 132, 439–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Sabella, E.; Luvisi, A.; Aprile, A.; Negro, C.; Vergine, M.; Nicolì, F.; Miceli, A.; De Bellis, L. Xylella fastidiosa induces differential expression of lignification related-genes and lignin accumulation in tolerant olive trees cv. Leccino. J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 220, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Neale, D.B.; Williams, C.G. Restriction fragment length polymorphism mapping in conifers and applications to forest genetics and tree improvement. Can. J. For. Res. 1991, 21, 545–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Besnard, G.; Khadari, B.; Villemur, P.; Bervillé, A. Cytoplasmic male sterility in the olive (Olea europaea L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 2000, 100, 1018–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Mariotti, R.; Cultrera, N.G.; Diez, C.M.; Baldini, L.; Rubini, A. Identification of new polymorphic regions and differentiation of cultivated olives (Olea europaea L.) through plastome sequence comparison. BMC Plant Biol. 2010, 10, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  194. Bronzini de Caraffa, V.; Giannettini, J.; Gambotti, C.; Maury, J. Genetic relationships between cultivated and wild olives of Corsica and Sardinia using RAPD markers. Euphytica 2002, 123, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. García-Díaz, A.; Oya, R.; Sánchez, A.; Luque, F. Effect of prolonged vegetative reproduction of olive tree cultivars (Olea europaea L.) in mitochondrial homoplasmy and heteroplasmy. Genome 2003, 46, 377–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Intrieri, M.C.; Muleo, R.; Buiatti, M. Chloroplast DNA polymorphisms as molecular markers to identify cultivars of Olea europaea L. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2007, 82, 109–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Besnard, G.; Henry, P.; Wille, L.; Cooke, D.; Chapuis, E. On the origin of the invasive olives (Olea europaea L., Oleaceae). Heredity 2007, 99, 608–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  198. Besnard, G.; Rubio de Casas, R.; Christin, P.; Vargas, P. Phylogenetics of Olea (Oleaceae) based on plastid and nuclear ribosomal DNA sequences: Tertiary climatic shifts and lineage differentiation times. Ann. Bot. 2009, 104, 143–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  199. Niu, E.; Jiang, C.; Wang, W.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, S. Chloroplast Genome Variation and Evolutionary Analysis of Olea europaea L. Genes 2020, 11, 879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  200. Dong, W.; Sun, J.; Liu, Y.; Xu, C.; Wang, Y.; Suo, Z.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, Z.; Wen, J. Phylogenomic relationships and species identification of the olive genus Olea (Oleaceae). J. Syst. Evol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  201. Fanelli, V.; Mascio, I.; Miazzi, M.M.; Savoia, M.A.; De Giovanni, C.; Montemurro, C. Molecular Approaches to Agri-Food Traceability and Authentication: An Updated Review. Foods 2021, 10, 1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  202. Ayed, R.B.; Grati-Kamoun, N.; Moreau, F.; Rebaï, A. Comparative study of microsatellite profiles of DNA from oil and leaves of two Tunisian olive cultivars. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2009, 229, 757–762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Uncu, A.T.; Frary, A.; Doganlar, S. Cultivar origin and admixture detection in Turkish olive oils by SNP-based CAPS assays. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2015, 63, 2284–2295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  204. Muzzalupo, I.; Perri, E. Recovery and characterisation of DNA from virgin olive oil. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2002, 214, 528–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  205. Consolandi, C.; Palmieri, L.; Severgnini, M.; Maestri, E.; Marmiroli, N.; Agrimonti, C.; Baldoni, L.; Donini, P.; De Bellis, G.; Castiglioni, B. A procedure for olive oil traceability and authenticity: DNA extraction, multiplex PCR and LDR-universal array analysis. Eur. Food Res. Technol. 2008, 227, 1429–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  206. Montemurro, C.; Miazzi, M.; Pasqualone, A.; Fanelli, V.; Sabetta, W.; di Rienzo, V. Traceability of PDO Olive Oil “Terra di Bari” Using High Resolution Melting. J. Chem. 2015, 2015, 496986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  207. Gomes, S.; Breia, R.; Carvalho, T.; Carnide, V.; Martins-Lopes, P. Microsatellite High-Resolution Melting (SSR-HRM) to Track Olive Genotypes: From Field to Olive Oil. J. Food Sci. 2018, 83, 2415–2423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  208. Pereira, L.; Gomes, S.; Barrias, S.; Fernandes, J.R.; Martins-Lopes, P. Applying high-resolution melting (HRM) technology to olive oil and wine authenticity. Food Res. Int. 2018, 103, 170–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Figure 1. Use of the different types of markers for olive diversity studies during the last 20 years, based on the number of published papers using Scopus-indexed journal: SSR markers, the combined use of SSR–SNP markers and SNP markers. We can observe that the use of SSR for the cultivar identification increased by 2002 and it still is the most used, whereas the use of novel technologies and SNP markers is growing by 2017. By 2018, the combined use of SSR and SNP markers showed a powerful synergy in discriminating among highly similar cultivars, in resolving synonymies and homonymies and allowing a better cultivar identification, particularly in juvenile stages.
Figure 1. Use of the different types of markers for olive diversity studies during the last 20 years, based on the number of published papers using Scopus-indexed journal: SSR markers, the combined use of SSR–SNP markers and SNP markers. We can observe that the use of SSR for the cultivar identification increased by 2002 and it still is the most used, whereas the use of novel technologies and SNP markers is growing by 2017. By 2018, the combined use of SSR and SNP markers showed a powerful synergy in discriminating among highly similar cultivars, in resolving synonymies and homonymies and allowing a better cultivar identification, particularly in juvenile stages.
Genes 12 01474 g001
Table 1. The approaches used for the description and discrimination of olive cultivars using morphological traits.
Table 1. The approaches used for the description and discrimination of olive cultivars using morphological traits.
YearDescriptorsReferences
1940Fruits, leaves, inflorescences and endocarp[29]
1950Leaves, drupes and stones[30,31]
1960
1970
1980Whole plant, fruiting branches, leaves, inflorescences, fruits and endocarp[32,33]
1990Changes to the list of UPOV descriptors and addition of agronomic characters[39,40]
2000Plant passport data, qualitative and quantitative morphological descriptors[41,42]
[35,36]
2010Morpho-geometric analysis on existing and fossil olive stones[37]
Analysis and image processing of leaves, fruits and endocarp
2020High resolution imagery for analysis of olive canopy traits[38]
Table 2. Summary of the principal DNA-based molecular markers applied in Olea europaea studies.
Table 2. Summary of the principal DNA-based molecular markers applied in Olea europaea studies.
Molecular MarkerDevelopersApplication in Olea europea L.References
RFLPWilliams et al., 1989Wild and cultivated olea variability[49]
Phylogenetic studies[50,51,52,53]
Genetic maps[54,55,56,57,58]
Development of organelle-based markers[53,192,193,194]
RAPDWilliams et al., 1990DNA fingerprinting of cultivars[18,60,61,62]
Phylogenetic studies[7,63]
AFLPVos et al., 1995DNA fingerprinting of cultivars[65,66]
Phylogenetic studies[67,68]
Construction of linkage map[55,69,70]
QTL identification[71,72]
SCAR and CAPSParan and Michelmore, 1993DNA fingerprinting of cultivars[73,74]
Cultivar traceability in olive oil[76,203]
ISSRZietkiewicz et al., 1994Phylogenetic studies[79]
Germplasm characterization[80,81,82,83]
SSRMorgante and Olivieri, 1993Phylogenetic studies[9,95,96,97,98,99,100,101,102,103,104]
Subspecies analysis[10,21,105,106]
DNA fingerprinting of cultivars[54,107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123]
Cultivar traceability in olive oil[142,143,144,145,201]
EST-SSR Germplasm characterization[22,121,127]
SNPWang et al., 1998Cultivar identification[12,107,148,153,159]
Genetic maps[149,152,158]
Phylogenetic studies[150,151,160]
Cultivar traceability in olive oil[48]
Table 3. List of the most commonly used molecular markers and their main advantages and limitations.
Table 3. List of the most commonly used molecular markers and their main advantages and limitations.
MarkerDetection SystemAdvantagesDisadvantages* Cost Per Sample
AFLPCapillary electrophoresisHigh genomic abundance
High polymorphism
No sequence information is required
Laboriousness of the technique
Dominant markers
Expensive
50 euro
ISSRCapillary electrophoresisHigh genomic abundance
No sequence information is required
Slightly informative
Dominant markers
10 euro
SSRCapillary electrophoresisHigh polymorphismReduced genomic abundance10 euro
High Resolution MeltingHigh polymorphism
Low cost
Reduced genomic abundance
Require optimization
5 euro
SNPHigh Resolution MeltingHigh genomic abundance
Low cost
Require optimization5 euro
CAPSHigh genomic abundance
Easy to perform
Expensive
Low reliability
20 euro
SequencingHigh genomic abundance
High reliability
Specialized personnel15 euro
* costs per sample, are referred to a single marker and analyses in a small research laboratory providing all in house works.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sion, S.; Savoia, M.A.; Gadaleta, S.; Piarulli, L.; Mascio, I.; Fanelli, V.; Montemurro, C.; Miazzi, M.M. How to Choose a Good Marker to Analyze the Olive Germplasm (Olea europaea L.) and Derived Products. Genes 2021, 12, 1474. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12101474

AMA Style

Sion S, Savoia MA, Gadaleta S, Piarulli L, Mascio I, Fanelli V, Montemurro C, Miazzi MM. How to Choose a Good Marker to Analyze the Olive Germplasm (Olea europaea L.) and Derived Products. Genes. 2021; 12(10):1474. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12101474

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sion, Sara, Michele Antonio Savoia, Susanna Gadaleta, Luciana Piarulli, Isa Mascio, Valentina Fanelli, Cinzia Montemurro, and Monica Marilena Miazzi. 2021. "How to Choose a Good Marker to Analyze the Olive Germplasm (Olea europaea L.) and Derived Products" Genes 12, no. 10: 1474. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12101474

APA Style

Sion, S., Savoia, M. A., Gadaleta, S., Piarulli, L., Mascio, I., Fanelli, V., Montemurro, C., & Miazzi, M. M. (2021). How to Choose a Good Marker to Analyze the Olive Germplasm (Olea europaea L.) and Derived Products. Genes, 12(10), 1474. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes12101474

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop