Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP) was one of the foundational molecular-marker techniques that transformed genetics and plant/animal breeding in the late 20th century. By comparing the sizes of DNA fragments produced by restriction enzyme digestion, RFLP lets researchers detect genetic variation between individuals, populations and species. Although newer, higher-throughput marker systems have since emerged, RFLP remains an instructive example of how molecular tools link DNA-level changes to practical questions in diversity, mapping and conservation.
What is RFLP? — the basic principle
RFLP depends on differences in the location or presence of restriction endonuclease recognition sites within genomic DNA. When genomic DNA from different individuals is cut with a restriction enzyme, variations such as point mutations within a recognition site, insertions/deletions, or unequal crossing over can change fragment lengths. Those length differences are separated by gel electrophoresis, transferred to a membrane (Southern blot), and visualized by hybridizing a labeled probe that recognizes a specific DNA sequence. The resulting banding patterns reflect the fragment sizes and thus underlying genetic differences (Schlotterer & Tautz, 1992; Karp et al., 1998).
How RFLP is performed — a stepwise overview
-
DNA extraction — highly pure, high-molecular-weight genomic DNA (typically microgram quantities) is isolated.
-
Restriction digestion — DNA is cut with one or more restriction endonucleases chosen for their recognition sequences.
-
Gel electrophoresis — digested fragments are size-separated on agarose (or sometimes pulsed-field gels for very large fragments).
-
Southern blot transfer — fragments are transferred from the gel onto a nitrocellulose or nylon membrane.
-
Probe labeling and hybridization — a labeled DNA probe (radioactive or non-radioactive like digoxigenin/fluorescein) that binds a specific locus is hybridized to the membrane.
-
Detection and analysis — bound probes reveal banding patterns that are compared across samples to identify polymorphisms.
Probes used for RFLP typically derive from cDNA or genomic libraries and are often single-locus fragments of ~0.5–3.0 kb. Genomic-library probes may show greater variability in some cases, though results can vary across species and loci (Miller & Tanksley 1990; Landry & Michelmore 1987).
Key strengths of RFLP
- Codominant inheritance: RFLP detects both alleles in heterozygotes, enabling discrimination between homozygous and heterozygous states—valuable for mapping and breeding (Winter & Kahl, 1995).
- High reproducibility: The laboratory procedures yield robust and repeatable banding patterns.
- Genome-wide distribution: A broad array of restriction enzymes and random probe placement provide wide genomic coverage.
- Historical impact: RFLPs were central to the first generation of genetic linkage maps (Botstein et al., 1980).
Limitations and practical drawbacks
- Large DNA input: RFLP requires relatively high amounts (often 1–10 µg) of intact genomic DNA, which can be difficult for some organisms or sample types.
- Time and labor: The Southern blotting workflow is slow and labor-intensive compared with PCR-based methods.
- Safety and cost: Traditional protocols frequently used radioactive probes, adding expense and safety concerns (though non-radioactive labels are available).
- Sensitivity: RFLP is not ideal for detecting single-base changes unless they affect restriction sites, limiting its utility for point-mutation detection.
- Polymorphism frequency: Not all probes yield polymorphic patterns; for closely related genotypes a high fraction of probes may be monomorphic.
Common applications
- Genetic mapping: RFLP markers were used to construct early genetic linkage maps because they are abundant and codominant.
- Diversity and phylogenetic studies: From within-population variation to relationships among closely related species, RFLPs have been applied in population genetics and phylogeography (Neale & Williams 1991; Miller & Tanksley 1990).
- Fingerprinting and identification: RFLP banding patterns have been used as molecular fingerprints for cultivar/strain identification and forensic applications (e.g., crop/weed gene-flow studies).
- Introgression and hybridization studies: Useful for detecting gene flow between crops and wild relatives, and for tracing hybridization events (Brubaker & Wendel 1994; Clausen & Spooner 1998).
Practical considerations for researchers
- Choice of probe and enzyme: Probe selection strongly influences the chance of observing polymorphism; combining multiple enzymes and probes improves detection.
- Labeling method: Non-radioactive labels (digoxigenin, fluorescein) reduce safety risks and regulatory burdens, at some trade-off to sensitivity and cost.
- Sample quality: Ensure high-quality, high-molecular-weight DNA to avoid smeared gels and ambiguous results.
- Interpretation: Because RFLP patterns reflect genomic context (insertions, deletions, restriction-site changes), careful interpretation is needed—band differences may not directly equate to simple point mutations.
Historical note and current perspective
RFLP markers played a pivotal role in the development of molecular genetics and plant/animal breeding programs, enabling the first molecular linkage maps and many early population-genetic studies (Botstein et al., 1980). Over time, PCR-based markers (e.g., RAPD, AFLP, SSRs, SNP genotyping) became preferred for routine work because they require less DNA, are faster, and scale more readily. Nevertheless, RFLP remains a valuable teaching tool and, in some contexts, a robust method when high reproducibility and codominant locus scoring are required.
Conclusion
RFLP illustrates the power of molecular analysis to reveal genetic variation through a straightforward biochemical principle: the alteration of restriction sites and fragment lengths. While largely supplanted in many laboratories by faster, higher-throughput techniques, RFLP’s codominance, reproducibility and historical importance ensure it remains an instructive and occasionally practical method—especially where precise locus-level scoring and archival comparability are priorities. For students and researchers, understanding RFLP clarifies many concepts that underpin modern molecular marker technologies.
%20(2).png)
0 Comments