Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T09:34:32.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elements of the S-gene complex

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

Kamla Kant Pandey
Kamla Kant Pandey
Affiliation:
Crop Research Division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Lincoln, New Zealand
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Cultivated plants of Nicotiana alata are self-incompatible and are of two kinds: normal (N); and exceptional (M). N plants are reciprocally compatible with N. langsdorffii; M plants are compatible only as males. M plants contain an unusual allele, SFI, which has a dual action in the style: it rejects both self-pollen, and Sf pollen from N. langsdorffii. The overall results agree with the assumption that the SFI gene produces two kinds of specificity in the style: primary specificity, which is responsible for the rejection of Sf pollen; and secondary specificity, which is responsible for the rejection of self-pollen as in SI alleles generally. The genetic sub-units concerned must be closely linked; there was no evidence for their dissociation in the 599 plants studied.

In both compatible and incompatible pollinations, SFI pollen grows more slowly than SI and, in addition, appears to depress the normal rate of growth of SI pollen. In consequence, crosses SfSf × SISFI ♂ yielded significantly fewer S.I. plants than the 50% expected. The two kinds of pollen grew at comparable rates, however, when F1 (M × M) plants involving parents from different original sources were backcrossed to SfSf ♀. Progenies then showed the expected 1:1 ratio of S.I. to S.C. plants. These results are assumed to be due to differential behaviour of the SFI allele according to its genetic background. The change in background would be from a degree of homozygosity, in plants from the same source, to a degree of heterozygosity, in crosses between plants from different sources.

The high incidence of the SFI gene in N. alata is considered to be due to the advantage it confers on a self-incompatible population when it is overlapping with a related self-compatible population (having the Sf gene). Plants carrying an SFI allele, by rejecting the Sf pollen, will restrict the spread of inbreeding and so be favoured by selection.

The origin of the SFI and Sf alleles are discussed in relation to the author's hypothesis of S-gene structure.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 5 , Issue 3 , November 1964 , pp. 397 - 409
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1964

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. & De Winton, D. (1931). The genetic analysis of an unusual relationship between self-sterility and self-fertility in Nicotiana. Ann. Mo. bot. Gdn, 18, 97–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bateman, A. J. (1943). Specific differences in Petunia. II. Pollen growth. J. Genet. 45, 236–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowe, L. K. (1955). The evolution of incompatibility in species of Oenothera. Heredity, 9, 293–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. C., Bennett, D. & Beasley, A. B. (1962). Mutation and recombination in the vicinity of a complex gene. Genetics, 47, 285–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
East, E. M. (1929). Self-sterility. Bibliogr. genet. 5, 331–370.Google Scholar
Grun, P. & Radlow, A. (1961). Evolution of barriers to crossing of self-incompatible with self-compatible species of Solanum. Heredity, 16, 137–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroh, M. (1956). Genetische und Entwicklungsphysiologische Untersuchungen über die Selbststerilität von Raphanus raphanistrum. Z. indukt. Abstamm.- u. VererbLehre, 87, 365–384.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. (1949). Incompatibility in flowering plants. Biol. Rev. 24, 472–496.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, D. (1954 a). Comparative incompatibility in angiosperme and fungi. Advanc. Genet. 6, 235–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewis, D. (1954 b). Incompatibility in relation to physiology, genetics and evolutionary taxonomy. Proc. 8th Intern. Bot. Congr., Sec. 10, 124–132.Google Scholar
Lewis, D. & Crowe, L. K. (1958). Unilateral interspecific incompatibility in flowering plants. Heredity, 12, 233–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, F. W. (1961 a). Complex unilateral hybridization in Lycopersicon hirsutum. Proc. nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., 47, 855–857.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, F. W. (1961 b). The inheritance of self-incompatibility in hybrids of Lycopersicon esculentum Mill× L. chilense Dun. Genetics, 46, 1443–1454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mather, K. (1943). Specific differences in Petunia. I. Incompatibility. J. Genet. 45, 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGuire, D. C. & Rick, C. M. (1954). Self-incompatibility in species of Lycopersicon sect. Eriopersicon and hybrids with L. esculentum. Hilgardia, 23, 101–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, K. K. (1956). Mutations of self-incompatibility alleles in Trifolium pratense and T. repens. Genetics, 41, 327–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pandey, K. K. (1957). Genetics of self-incompatibility in Physalis ixocarpa Brot.—A new system. Amer. J. Bot. 44, 879–887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, K. K. (1960). Incompatibility in Abutilon ‘Hybridum’. Amer. J. Bot. 47, 877–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, K. K. (1962 a). A theory of S gene structure. Nature, Lond., 196, 236–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, K. K. (1962 b). Interspecific incompatibility in Solanum species. Amer. J. Bot. 49, 874–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pandey, K. K. (1962 c). Genetics of incompatibility behaviour in the Mexican Solanum species S. pinnatisectum. Z. induct. Abstamm.- u. VererbLehre, 93, 378–388.Google Scholar
Pandey, K. K. (1963). Stigmatic secretion and bud-pollinations in self- and cross-incompatible plants. Naturwissenschaften, 50, 408–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar