Gene Segregation in Autotetraploids: Prediction from Meiotic Configurations

Jackson, R. C.; Jackson, Jeff W.

doi:10.2307/2445844

Cited by 16 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The term segmental allopolyploid was intended for leaky allopolyploids with occasional pairing of homeologous chromosomes; in practice, it often included autopolyploids that either (i) were derived by crosses among populations or subspecies; or (ii) exhibited cytogenetic features that were 'unexpected' for non-hybrids (regular bivalent pairing, high fertility, structural divergence among homologous chromosomes, etc.). Thus, polyploids that prior (and many current-day) researchers would describe as autopolyploids were re-typed as segmental allopolyploids in Stebbins' classification scheme [2,5,6,45,69,86,87].…”

Section: Framing Of Polyploidy By the Modern Evolutionary Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological studies of polyploidy in the 100 years following its discovery

Ramsey

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

245

237

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Polyploidy is a mutation with profound phenotypic consequences and thus hypothesized to have transformative effects in plant ecology. This is most often considered in the context of geographical and environmental distributions—as achieved from divergence of physiological and life-history traits—but may also include species interactions and biological invasion. This paper presents a historical overview of hypotheses and empirical data regarding the ecology of polyploids. Early researchers of polyploidy (1910s–1930s) were geneticists by training but nonetheless savvy to its phenotypic effects, and speculated on the importance of genome duplication to adaptation and crop improvement. Cytogenetic studies in the 1930s–1950s indicated that polyploids are larger (sturdier foliage, thicker stems and taller stature) than diploids while cytogeographic surveys suggested that polyploids and diploids have allopatric or parapatric distributions. Although autopolyploidy was initially regarded as common, influential writings by North American botanists in the 1940s and 1950s argued for the principle role of allopolyploidy; according to this view, genome duplication was significant for providing a broader canvas for hybridization rather than for its phenotypic effects per se . The emphasis on allopolyploidy had a chilling effect on nascent ecological work, in part due to taxonomic challenges posed by interspecific hybridization. Nonetheless, biosystematic efforts over the next few decades (1950s–1970s) laid the foundation for ecological research by documenting cytotype distributions and identifying phenotypic correlates of polyploidy. Rigorous investigation of polyploid ecology was achieved in the 1980s and 1990s by population biologists who leveraged flow cytometry for comparative work in autopolyploid complexes. These efforts revealed multi-faceted ecological and phenotypic differences, some of which may be direct consequences of genome duplication. Several classical hypotheses about the ecology of polyploids remain untested, however, and allopolyploidy—regarded by most botanists as the primary mode of genome duplication—is largely unstudied in an ecological context.

show abstract

Section: Framing Of Polyploidy By the Modern Evolutionary Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological studies of polyploidy in the 100 years following its discovery

Ramsey

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

245

237

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This results in disomic inheritance with 100% of the interspecific heterozygosity transmitted by each gamete (Stift et al, 2008). In autotetraploids, the presence of four homologous chromosomes instead of two results in equal opportunities to pair at meiosis, leading to tetrasomic inheritance with potential multivalent formation (Jackson and Jackson, 1996). In doubled diploids, this hypothetically leads to 66% restitution of heterozygosity (Sanford et al, 1983;Aleza et al, 2016), in the absence of double reduction (DR).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%