Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T13:07:50.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sexual and parasexual analysis of Ustilago violacea

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2009

A. W. Day  and
J. K. Jones
A. W. Day
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Botany, University of Reading
J. K. Jones
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Botany, University of Reading
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.

Forty-two mutants of the anther smut fungus Ustilago violacea were mapped by means of complementation tests, mitotic haploidization, and meiotic segregation. Spontaneous mitotic haploidization was very rare, but haploids were induced at a high frequency using p–fluorophenylalanine (PFP). Haploid segregants appeared as fast-growing, spherical colonies (papillae) which grew away from the diploid growth on PFP medium. Thirty-three markers, classified by complementation tests into 21 genes, were mapped by mitotic haploidization in 10–12 linkage groups. There were no discrepancies in the linkage data, and all the markers could be assigned unequivocally to linkage groups. Although about 250 diploids were analysed, there were no segregants in which mitotic crossing-over and mitotic haploidization appeared to have occurred simultaneously.

Thirteen of the 33 markers, in six or seven genes, were expressed infrequently (0–5%) in the papillae produced on PFP medium. These markers, which behaved unusually and were designated missing-markers, were found to be on two chromosomes which tended to remain disomic on PFP medium. Thus 8–10 chromosomes haploidize readily on PFP medium, whereas two other chromosomes are resistant to the effects of PFP and remain disomic. Meiotic segregation was investigated in crosses of genetically marked haploid stocks and also hi diploids, using the host plant. Some of the results enabled preliminary maps to be made of three linkage groups. The results from meiotic segregation were fully compatible with those from mitotic haploidization and the complementation tests.

The genetical evidence for a haploid chromosome number of at least 10–12 is in conflict with the observations of several cytologists that n = 2 in this species.

Type
Research Article
Information
Genetics Research , Volume 14 , Issue 3 , December 1969 , pp. 195 - 221
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1969

References

REFERENCES

Baker, H. G. (1947). Infection of species of Melandrium by Ustilago violacea (Pers) Fuckel and the transmission of the resultant disease. Ann. Bot. 11, 333–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baker, H. G. (1948). Stages in invasion and replacement demonstrated by species of Melandrium. J. Ecol. 36, 96–119.Google Scholar
Das, M. C. (1949). Morphology and cytology of Entyloma microsporum (Unger) Schroet. and Urocystis anemones (Pers) Wint. on Ranunculus repens L. Ind. Phytopath. 2, 108–127.Google Scholar
Day, A. W. & Jones, J. K. (1968). The production and characteristics of diploids in Ustilago violacea. Genet. Res. 11, 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fincham, J. R. S. (1966). Genetic Complementation. New York: W. A. Benjamin.Google Scholar
Fincham, J. R. S. & Day, P. R. (1965). Fungal Genetics, 2nd edn.Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fischer, G. W. & Holton, C. S. (1957). Biology and Control of the Smut Fungi. New York: Ronald Press.Google Scholar
Goldschmidt, V. (1928). Vererbungsversuche mit den biologischen Arten des Antherenbrandes (Ustilago violacea Pers.). Z. Bot. 21, 1–90.Google Scholar
Harper, R. A. (1898). Nuclear phenomena in the smuts. Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Lett. 5, 475–498.Google Scholar
Hirschhorn, E. (1954). A cytologie study of several smut fungi. Mycologia 37, 217–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, R. (1961 a). The genetics of Ustilago maydis. Genet. Res. 2, 204–230.Google Scholar
Holliday, R. (1961 b). Induced mitotic crossing-over in Ustilago maydis. Genet. Res. 2, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holliday, R. (1964). The induction of mitotic recombination by mitomycin C in Ustilago and Saccharomyces. Genetics, Princeton 50, 323–335.Google Scholar
Huttig, W. (1933). Über den Einfluss von Aussenbedingungen auf die Chromosomenreduktion. Züchter 5, 243–247.Google Scholar
Käfer, E. (1961). The process of spontaneous recombination in vegetative nuclei of Aspergillus nidulans. Genetics, Princeton 46, 1581–1609.Google Scholar
Kharbush, S. S. (1927). Contribution a l'étude des phenomenes sexuels chez les Ustilaginées. Ann. Sci. Nat. Bot., Ser. 10, 9, 285–297.Google Scholar
Kharbush, S. S. (1928). Recherches histologiques sur les Ustilaginées. Revue Path. veg. Ent. agric. Fr. 15, 48–56.Google Scholar
Kniep, H. (1926). Uber Artkreuzungen bei Brandpilzen. Z. Pilsk. 10, 217–247.Google Scholar
Lhoas, P. (1961). Mitotic haploidization by treatment of Aspergillus niger diploide with p–fluorophenylalanine. Nature, Lond. 290, 744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCully, K. S. & Forbes, E. (1965). The use of p–fluorophenylalanine with ‘master strains’ of Aspergillus nidulans for assigning genes to linkage groups. Genet. Res. 6, 352–359.Google Scholar
Mortimer, R. K. & Hawthorne, D. C. (1966). Genetic mapping in Saccharomyces. Genetics, Princeton 53, 165–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Person, C. & Wighton, D. (1964). The chromosomes of Ustilago. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 6, 242. (Abstr.)Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G. (1956). The parasexual cycle in fungi. Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 10, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pontecorvo, G. (1963).Microbial genetics: retrospect and prospect. Proc. R. Soc. B 158, 1–23.Google Scholar
Pontecorvo, G. & Käfer, E. (1958). Genetic analysis by means of mitotic recombination. Adv. Genet. 9, 71–104.Google Scholar
Robinow, C. F. & Bakerspiegel, A. (1965). Somatic nuclei and forms of mitosis in fungi. In The Fungi (ed. Ainsworth, G. C. and Susman, A. S.), vol. II, chap. 6. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Roman, G. (1956). Studies of gene mutation in Saccharomyces. Cold Spring Harb. Symp. quant. Biol. 21, 175–185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roper, J. A. (1966). The parasexual cycle. In The Fungi (ed. Ainsworth, G. C. and Sussman, A. S.), vol. II, chap. 18. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Strømnaes, Ø. & Garber, E. D. (1963). Heterocaryosis and the parasexual cycle in Aspergillus fumigatus. Genetics, Princeton 48, 653–662.Google Scholar
Trione, E. J. (1964). Isolation and in vitro culture of the wheat bunt fungi, Tilletia caries and T. controversa. Phytopathology 54, 593–596.Google Scholar
Wang, C. S. (1943). Studies on the cytology of Ustilago crameri. Phytopathology 33, 1122–1133.Google Scholar
Wang, D. T. (1932). Observations cytologiques sur l'Ustilago violacea (Pers.) Fuckel. C. r. hebd. Séanc. Acad. Sci., Paris 195, 1417–1418.Google Scholar
Wang, D. T. (1934). Contribution à l'étude des Ustilaginées (cytologie du parasite et pathologie de la cellule hôte). Botaniste 26, 540–670.Google Scholar