Incompatibility and incongruity: two different mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships

Hogenboom, N. G.

doi:10.1098/rspb.1975.0025

Cited by 148 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, UI between these species and N. alata provides examples of exceptions to the SI x SC rule. These exceptions are similar to those used to argue against the involvement of the S locus in UI (Hogenboom, 1975(Hogenboom, , 1984. Clearly, one or more S RNase-independent pollen rejection mechanisms operate in N. alata.…”

Section: S Rnase-dependent and S Rnase-lndependent Pollen Rejection Mmentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Second, the morphologies of pollen tubes inhibited by Ul are often different from those of pollen tubes inhibited by SI. These difficulties led to formulation of the incongruity hypothesis, stating that interspecific pollen rejection is a multigenic trait in which the S locus plays no special role (Hogenboom, 1975(Hogenboom, ,1984Mutschler and Leidl, 1994). We used cloned S RNase genes from N. alata and plant transformation to address the question of whether S locus products can cause rejection of pollen from SC species.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, in'-volvement of the S locus in interspecific pollen rejection is controversial because there are exceptions to the SI x SC rule (Hogenboom, 1975(Hogenboom, , 1984Mutschler and Leidl, 1994). Moreover, it has been argued that interspecific and intraspecific pollen rejection may occur through separate mechanisms.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, it has been argued that interspecific and intraspecific pollen rejection may occur through separate mechanisms. The rejection reactions typically occur at different positions in the pistil, and inhibited pollen tubes show characteristic differences in morphology (Ascher and Peloquin, 1968;Hogenboom, 1975). Because both SI and unilateral interspecific incompatibility are likely to require several loci (Martin, 1967(Martin, ' ' 1968 Ai et al, 1991; Bernatzky et al, 1995), it has been difficult to design purely genetic strategies to test definitively for the sufficiency of the S locus in interspecific pollen rejection.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

S RNase and Interspecific Pollen Rejection in the Genus Nicotiana: Multiple Pollen-Rejection Pathways Contribute to Unilateral Incompatibility between Self-Incompatible and Self-Compatible Species.

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In self-incompatible (SI) plants, the S locus acts to prevent growth of self-pollen and thus promotes outcrossing within the species. lnterspecific crosses between SI and self-compatible (SC) species often show unilateral lncompatibility that follows the S I x SC rule: S I specles reject pollen from SC specles, but the reciproca1 crosses are usually compatible. The general validity of the S I x SC rule suggests a link between S I and interspeclflc pollen rejectlon; however, this link has been questioned because of a number of exceptlons to the rule. To clarlfy the role of the S locus in interspecific pollen rejection, we transformed severa1 Nicotlana species and hybrids with genes encodlng S A~ or SC,O RNase from S I N. alata. Compatibillty phenotypes in the transgenlc plants were tested using pollen from three SC specles showing unilateral incompatibility with N. alata. S RNase was lmpllcated ln rejecting pollen from all three specles. Rejection of N. plumbaginifolia pollen was similar to S allele-speclfic pollen rejection, showing a requirement for both S RNase and other genetic factors from N. alata. In contrast, S RNase-dependent rejectlon of N. glutinosa and N. tabacum pollen proceeded without these additional factors. N. alata also rejects pollen fmm the latter two specles through an S RNaseindependent mechanism. Our results lmplicate the S locus in all three systems, but lt 1s clear that multlple mechanisms contribute to interspecific pollen rejectlon. INTRODUCTIONMany plants have evolved genetically controlled selfincompatibility (SI) systems that promote outcrossing by restricting pollination between closely related individuals of the same species (de Nettancourt, 1977). Mechanisms also exist to restrict pollination between different species, but comparatively little is known about the control of interspecific pollination.As in other solanaceous plants, SI in the genus Nicotiana is controlled by a single multiallelic locus, the S locus (Newbigin et al., 1993). These plants employ a gametophytic SI system in which pollen is rejected if the S allele in the haploid pollen is the same as either S allele in the diploid pistil. S allele-specific pollen rejection occurs as pollen tubes grow through the extracellular matrix of the stylar transmitting tract (Newbigin et al., 1993). The products of the S locus in the style are the To whom correspondence should be addressed.S RNases (McClure et al., 1989). These glycoproteins are very abundant in the extracellular matrix of the transmitting tract and are also expressed in the stigma and in the epidermis of the placenta (Cornish et Anderson et al., 1989;McClure et al., 1993). S RNases are essential for S allele-specific pollen rejection Murfett et al., 1994), and their ribonuclease activity is required for this function . Following incompatible pollinations, RNA in selfpollen tubes is degraded, and this degradation is consistent with a cytotoxic model for pollen rejection (McClure et al., 1990;Gray et al., 1991; Dickinson, 1994). SI is therefore an active process i...

show abstract

Section: S Rnase-dependent and S Rnase-lndependent Pollen Rejection Mmentioning

confidence: 78%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

S RNase and Interspecific Pollen Rejection in the Genus Nicotiana: Multiple Pollen-Rejection Pathways Contribute to Unilateral Incompatibility between Self-Incompatible and Self-Compatible Species.

et al. 1996

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This is further in agreement with the suggestion that exine-held material transferred to the pollen from the tapetum, as discussed by Heslop-Harrison (1975), may be concerned with the determination of primitive interspecific incompatibility (Pandey, 1979a). An alternative theory that self-incompatibility within a species and interspecific incompatibility between species have no relationship (Abdalla and Hermsen, 1972;Hogenboom, 1975) has been dealt with in detail in another paper and need not concern us here (Pandey, 1979b).…”

Section: Lessons From Studies Of Interspecific Incompatibility Behavimentioning

confidence: 99%

Evolution of Incompatibility Systems in Plants: Origin of ‘Independent’ and ‘Complementary’ Control of Incompatibility in Angiosperms

Pandey

1980

New Phytologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYIncompatibility is a common means of controlling breeding behaviour among plants, and has been an important factor in evolution. It acts to prevent self-fertilization, as well as to prevent sterilization of ovules by foreign pollen. Angiosperms have both inter-and intraspecific incompatibility, and these are controlled by the same S gene complex. Gymnospemis, however, have only interspecific incompatibility. Observations on incompatibility behaviour in flowering plants have suggested that interspecific incompatibility evolved first among gymnosperms or progymnosperms as a means of protecting their naked ovules from foreign pollen. Duplication and redifTerentiation of this 'primary specificity' gene in angiosperm precursors subsequently gave rise to ' secondary specificity' controlling intraspecific incompatibility.Today there are three basic types of incompatibility found among the angiosperms: (i) mherently independent control-each allele independently expresses its individual specificity, shows allelic interaction in the pollen after S gene duplication; (ii) inherently complementary control-alleles of two or more incompatibility loci co-operate to produce a single specificity, shows no allelic interaction; and (iii) late complementary control-alleles of two or more mcompatibility loci co-operate to produce a single specificity, shows allelic interaction. The pattern of distribution of these three types of control has given rise to a controversy over which represents the most primitive type of angiosperm incompatibility.The present paper examines the factors involved in secondary evolution of incompatibility, and concludes that independent control is in fact more primitive. Complementary control probably developed secondarily and independently several times during angiosperm evolution, the first occurrence, that of 'inherently complementary' apparently being among the progenitors of the monocotyledons. While the majority of dicotyledons have the original' inherently independent' control, certain evolutionary lines appear to have switched independently to complementary control, the gametophytic system giving rise to 'inherently complementary control and the sporophytic system giving rise to 'late complementary' control. A major factor in favour of complementary incompatibility system as opposed to independent control systern is the advantage it confers in colonisation after long distance dispersal. The factors involved in the evolution of complementary control, together with certain genetic characteristics of this system, have probably played a significant role in the evolution and distribution of monocotyledons.

show abstract

Reproductive Barriers: Identification, Uses, and Circumvention

Liedl

Anderson

1993

Plant Breeding Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incompatibility and incongruity: two different mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships

Cited by 148 publications

References 43 publications

S RNase and Interspecific Pollen Rejection in the Genus Nicotiana: Multiple Pollen-Rejection Pathways Contribute to Unilateral Incompatibility between Self-Incompatible and Self-Compatible Species.

S RNase and Interspecific Pollen Rejection in the Genus Nicotiana: Multiple Pollen-Rejection Pathways Contribute to Unilateral Incompatibility between Self-Incompatible and Self-Compatible Species.

Evolution of Incompatibility Systems in Plants: Origin of ‘Independent’ and ‘Complementary’ Control of Incompatibility in Angiosperms

Reproductive Barriers: Identification, Uses, and Circumvention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About