Incongruity: Non-Functioning of Intercellular and Intracellular Partner Relationships Through Non-Matching Information

Hogenboom, N. G.

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-69299-4_27

Cited by 47 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our interpretation contrasts with the incongruity hypothesis of Hogenboom (1975Hogenboom ( , 1984. This hypothesis suggests that failure of interspecific pollination is best described as incongruity resulting from evolutionary divergente between species.…”

Section: Complex Mechanisms For Lnterspecific Pollen Rejectioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…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 Msupporting

confidence: 68%

“…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%

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: Complex Mechanisms For Lnterspecific Pollen Rejectioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

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

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

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

“…Post-mating barriers to interspecific hybridisation within plant genera are often unilateral (Lewis and Crowe 1958;Abdalla and Hermsem 1972;Hogenboom 1975Hogenboom , 1984de Nettancourt 1977de Nettancourt , 1984Levin 1978a;Williams and Rouse 1988) and Eucalyptus is no exception. While hybridisation between species within Eucalyptus subgenera is relatively common (Griffin et al 1988), the unilateral failure of artificial hybridisation within subgenera has been reported for E. caesia x E.pulverulenta (Pryor 1956), E. caesia x E. leucoxylon (Beardsell et al 1979), E. globulus x E. viminalis (Pryor 1956), E. globulus x E. nitens (Tibbits 1986), E. globulus x E. ovata, E. globulus x E. gunnii and E. globulus x E. morrisbyi (Potts and Savva 1988).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Unilateral Cross-Incompatibility in Eucalyptus: the Case of Hybridisation Between E. globulus and E. nitens

Gore¹,

Potts²,

Volker³

et al. 1990

Aust. J. Bot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth of E. globulus and E. nitens pollen tubes in styles of E. globulus was examined in order to elucidate the site of the unilateral barrier to hybridisation. Pollen tubes of E. nitens failed to grow the full length of the larger E. globulus style. E. globulus pollen tubes grew an average of 1.4 mm per day for the first 4 days, compared with 0.8 mm per day for pollen tubes of E. nitens. From days 4 to 14, the growth of E. nitens pollen tubes slowed to an average of 0.2 mm per day and virtually no growth occurred after day 14. In contrast, E. globulus pollen tubes grew through the style and into the ovary between days 5 and 14. By day 28, at about the time of style abscission, E. nitens tubes had grown only 6 mm, well short of the full length of the E. globulus style (9-10 mm). A similar difference in growth was obtained in vitro where E. nitens pollen tubes were significantly shorter than those of E. globulus. A comparison also including E. ovata, E. urnigera and E. gunnii indicated a significant correlation between style length and in vitro pollen tube length. It is argued that the unilateral cross-incompatibility between E. globulus and E. nitens is due to a structural barrier arising from an inherent limit to pollen tube growth which is associated with pistil size.

show abstract

Factors Affecting Inter- and Intra-specific Pollen Rejection in Nicotiana

et al. 2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incongruity: Non-Functioning of Intercellular and Intracellular Partner Relationships Through Non-Matching Information

Cited by 47 publications

References 40 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.

Unilateral Cross-Incompatibility in Eucalyptus: the Case of Hybridisation Between E. globulus and E. nitens

Factors Affecting Inter- and Intra-specific Pollen Rejection in Nicotiana

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About