Current Genetics

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 167–171 | Cite as

Cell type determines plastid transmission in tomato intergeneric somatic hybrids

  • Y. Li
  • K. C. Sink
Original Articles

Summary

Mesophyll (M)- and suspension culture (S)-derived protoplasts of both Lycopersicon esculentum, tomato, and its wild relative Solanum lycopersicoides were fused as S+M, M+M and S+S combinations, respectively, to resolve the role of parental cell types in determining cpDNA transmission to intergeneric somatic hybrid plants. The mesophyll cpDNA was preferentially transmitted to 96% of the plants, each regenerated from a separate callus, in M+S and S+M fusion combinations. In contrast, for the M+M combination there was an equable distribution of either tomato cpDNA or that of S. lycopersicoides among the 34 hybrid plants. The number of plastids or proplastids in mesophyll or suspension protoplasts was not a factor regulating cpDNA transmission. Mesophyll or suspension protoplasts of both fusion partners had comparable frequencies of either plastid type with a mean of 23. The biased transmission of plastids from the mesophyll parent in somatic hybrid plants of S+M and M+S combinations appears to be due to differential multiplication of plastids, possibly conditioned by an unequal input of the nucleoids found in plastids versus proplastids. In the M+M fusion, plastid and nucleotid input and subsequent plastid multiplication are apparently equal, and when combined with random sorting out leads to an equal distribution of parental cpDNAs in the regenerated somatic hybrid plants. For the S+S combination, 22 somatic hybrid plants have exclusively tomato cpDNA, an outcome that is not readily explained by donor cell input.

Key words

Cell fusion Organelles Plastome Protoplasts 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Akada S, Hirai A (1983) Plant Sci Lett 32:95–100Google Scholar
  2. Butterfass T (1979) Patterns of chloroplast reproduction. Springer, WienGoogle Scholar
  3. Chen K, Wildman SG, Smith HH (1977) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74:5109–5112Google Scholar
  4. Clark E, Schnabelrauch L, Hanson MR, Sink KC (1986) Theor Appl Genet 72:748–755Google Scholar
  5. Coleman AW (1984) Exp Cell Res 152:528–540Google Scholar
  6. Corriveau JL, Polans NO, Coleman AW (1989) Curr Genet 16:47–51Google Scholar
  7. Cseplo A, Nagy F, Maliga P (1984) Mol Gen Genet 198:7–11Google Scholar
  8. Flick CE, Kut SA, Bravo JE, Gleba YY, Evans DA (1985) Bio/ Technology 3:555–560Google Scholar
  9. Fluhr R, Aviv D, Galun E, Edelman M (1984) Theor Appl Genet 67:491–497Google Scholar
  10. Frearson EM, Power JB, Cocking EC (1973) Dev Biol 33:130–137Google Scholar
  11. Gleba YY, Kolesnik NN, Meshkene IV, Cherep NN, Parokonny AS (1984) Theor Appl Genet 69:121–128Google Scholar
  12. Guri A, Sink KC (1988) Theor Appl Genet 76:490–496Google Scholar
  13. Handley LW, Sink KC (1985) Plant Sci 42:201–207Google Scholar
  14. Handley LW, Nickels RL, Cameron MW, Moore PP, Sink KC (1986) Theor Appl Genet 71:691–697Google Scholar
  15. Herrmann RG, Kowallik KV (1970) Protoplasma 68:365–372Google Scholar
  16. Levi A, Ridley BL, Sink KC (1988) Curr Genet 14:177–182Google Scholar
  17. James TW, Jope C (1978) J Cell Biol 79:623–630Google Scholar
  18. Kowallik KV, Herrmann RG (1972) J Cell Sci 11:357–377Google Scholar
  19. Kumar A, Cocking EC (1987) Am J Bot 74:1289–1303Google Scholar
  20. Kuroiwa TS, Suzuki T, Ogawa K, Kawano S (1981) Plant Cell Physiol 22:381–396Google Scholar
  21. Maniatis T, Fritzsch EF, Sambrook J (1982) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual cloning. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Miyamura S, Nagata T, Kuroiwa T (1986) Protoplasma 133:66–72Google Scholar
  23. Miyamura S, Kuroiwa T, Nagata T (1987) Protoplasma 141:149–159Google Scholar
  24. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) Physiol Plant 15:473–497Google Scholar
  25. Niedz RP, Rutter SM, Handley LW, Sink KC (1985) Plant Sci 39:199–204Google Scholar
  26. Palmer JD (1986) Methods Enzymol 118:167–186Google Scholar
  27. Pehu E, Karp A, Moore K, Steele S, Dunckley R, Jones MGK (1989) Theor Appl Genet 78:696–704Google Scholar
  28. Phillips AL (1985) Curr Genet 10:147–152Google Scholar
  29. Possingham JV (1980) Annu Rev Plant Physiol 31:113–129Google Scholar
  30. Possingham JV, Smith JW (1972) J Exp Bot 23:1050–1059Google Scholar
  31. Rogers SO, Bendich AJ (1988) Plant Mol Biol Manual A 6:1–10Google Scholar
  32. Rose RJ, Thomas MR, Filler JT (1990) Aust J Plant Physiol 17:303–321Google Scholar
  33. Scandalios JG (1969) Biochem Genet 3:37–39Google Scholar
  34. Scott NS, Tymms MJ, Possingham JV (1984) Planta 161:12–19Google Scholar
  35. Scowcroft WR, Larkin PJ (1981) Theor Appl Genet 60:179–184Google Scholar
  36. Thomas MR, Rose RJ (1983) Planta 158:329–338Google Scholar
  37. Yasuda T, Kuroiwa T, Nagata T (1988) Planta 174:235–241Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Y. Li
    • 1
  • K. C. Sink
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HorticultureMichigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations