Transgenic Research

, Volume 3, Issue 5, pp 263–278 | Cite as

Opportunities for gene transfer from transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus) to related species

  • Jodi A. Scheffler
  • Philip J. Dale
Review

Abstract

Before novel transgenic plant genotypes are grown outside containment facilities and evaluated under field conditions, it is necessary to complete a risk assessment to consider the possible consequences of that release. An important aspect of risk assessment is to consider the likelihood and consequences of the transgene being transferred by cross-pollination to related species, including other crops, weeds and ruderal populations. The purpose of this report is to review the literature to assess the ease with whichBrassica napus can hybridize with related species. The evidence for hybridization is considered at three levels: a) by open pollination, b) by hand pollination and c) by the use ofin vitro ovule and embryo rescue techniques; and also examines the fertility and vigour of the F1, F2 and backcross generations. Four species are reported to hybridize withB. napus by open pollination:B. rapa andB. juncea using fully fertile parents; andB. adpressa andR. raphanistrum using a male-sterileB. napus parent. Seventeen species are reported to form hybrids (including the four species above) withB. napus when pollination is carried out manually. At least 12 of these species were unable to form F2 progeny, and eight were unable to produce progeny when the F1 was backcrossed to one of the parental species. Many factors will influence the success of hybridization under field conditions, including: distance between the parents, synchrony of flowering, method of pollen spread, specific parental genotypes used, direction of the cross and the environmental conditions. Even where there is a possibility of hybridization betweenB. napus and a related species growing in the vicinity of a release, poor vigour and high sterility in the hybrids will generally mean that hybrids and their progeny will not survive in either an agricultural or natural habitat.

Key words

Brassica napus oilseed rape transgenic plants interspecific hybridization gene transfer risk assessment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aslamyousuf, M. and Bechyne, M. (1982) Some observations on the interspecific hybridization within oilseed brassicas. Sbornik Vysoké Skola Zemědělské v PrazeAgronomická Fakultav Cěských Budějovicich Fytorechinká Râda A 36, 169–77.Google Scholar
  2. Ayotte, R., Harney, P.M. and Souza Machado, V. (1987) The transfer of triazine resistance fromBrassica napus L. toB. oleracea L. I. Production of F1 hybrids through embryo rescue.Euphytica 36, 615–24.Google Scholar
  3. Bajaj, Y.P.S., Mahajan, S.K. and Labana, K.S. (1986) Interspecific hybridization ofBrassica napus andB. juncea through ovary, ovule and embryo culture.Euphytica 35, 103–9.Google Scholar
  4. Batra, V., Shivanna, K.R. and Prakash, S. (1989) Hybrids of wild speciesErucastrum gallicum and crop brassicas.Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Society for the Advancement of Breeding Research in Asia and Oceania 1, 443–6.Google Scholar
  5. Batra, V., Prakash, S. and Shivanna, K.R. (1990) Intergeneric hybridization betweenDiplotaxis siifolia, a wild species and crop brassicas.Theor. Appl. Genet. 80, 537–41.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, T. (1950) Siebenjährige blütenbiologische Studien an den CruziferenBrassica napus L.,Brassica rapa L.,Brassica oleracea L., Raphanus L. undSinapis L. Z.Pflanzenzüchtg. German30, 222–40.Google Scholar
  7. Beversdorf, W.D., Weiss-Lerman, J., Erickson, L.R. and Souza Machado, V. (1980) Transfer of cytoplasmically-inherited triazine resistance from bird's rape to cultivated oilseed rape (Brassica campestris andB. napus)Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 22, 167–72.Google Scholar
  8. Bing, D.J., Downey, R.K. and Rakow, G.F.W. (1991) Potential of gene transfer among oilseedBrassica and their weedy relatives. Groupe Consultatif International de Recherche sur la ColzaGCIRC 8th International Rapeseed Congress 4, 1022–7.Google Scholar
  9. Calder, R.A. (1937) Interpollination of brassicas. Its significance in relation to seed-production.New Zealand J. Agric. 55, 299–308.Google Scholar
  10. Catchside, D.G. (1934) The chromosomal relationships in the swede and turnip groups of brassica.Ann. Bot. 48, 601–33.Google Scholar
  11. Chasseray E. and Duesing, J. (1992) Field trials of transgenic plants: an overview.Agro Food Ind. Hi-Tech 3, 1–10.Google Scholar
  12. Chevre, A.M., Eber, F., Brun, H., Plessis, J., Primard, C. and Renard, M. (1991) Cytogenetic studies ofBrassica napus-Sinapis alba hybrids from ovary culture and protoplast fusion. Attempts to introduceAlternaria resistance into rapeseed.Groupes Consultatif International de Recherche sur la Colza 8th International Rapeseed Congress 2, 346–51.Google Scholar
  13. Chevre, A.M., Renard, M., Eber, F., Vallee, P., Deschamps, M. and Kerlan, M.C. (1992) Study of spontaneous hybridization between male-sterile rapeseed and weeds.13th EUCARPIA Congress pp. 67–8.Google Scholar
  14. Chiang, M.S., Chiang, B.Y. and Grant, W.F. (1977) Transfer of resistance to race 2 ofPlasmodiophora brassicae fromBrassica napus to cabbage (B. oleracea var.capitata). I. Interspecific hybridization betweenB. napus andB. oleracea var.capitata. Euphytica 26, 319–36.Google Scholar
  15. Chiang, M.S., Chiang, B.Y. and Grant W.F. (1979) Transfer of resistance to race 2 ofPlasmodiophora brassicae fromBrassica napus to cabbage (B. oleracea ssp.capitata). III. First backcross and F2 progenies from interspecific hybrids betweenB. napus andB. oleracea ssp.Capitata. Euphytica 28, 257–66.Google Scholar
  16. Dale, P.J. (1992) Spread of engineered genes to wild relatives.Pl Physiol. 100, 13–15.Google Scholar
  17. Dale, P.J. (1994) The impact of hybrids between genetically modified crop plants and their related species: general considerations.Mol. Ecol. 3, 31–6.Google Scholar
  18. Dale, P.J., Irwin, J.A. and Scheffler, J.A. (1993) The experimental and commercial release of transgenic crop plants.Pl. Breed. 111, 1–22.Google Scholar
  19. Delourme, R., Eber, F. and Chevre, A.M. (1989) Intergeneric hybridization ofDiplotaxis erucoides withBrassica napus I. Cytogenetic analysis of F1 and BC1 progeny.Euphytica 41, 123–8.Google Scholar
  20. Diederichsen, E. and Sacristan, M.D. (1988) Interspecific hybridizations in the genusBrassica followed by in ovule embryo culture.Cruciferae Newsl.13, 20–1.Google Scholar
  21. Eber, F., Chevre, A.M., Baranger, A., Vallee, P., Tanguy, X. and Renard, M. (1994) Spontaneous hybridization between a male sterile oilseed rape and two weeds.Theor. Appl. Genet. (in press).Google Scholar
  22. EEC Directive 90/220 (1990) On deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms.Google Scholar
  23. Erickson, L.R., Straus, N.A. and Beversdorf, W.D. (1983) Restriction patterns reveal orgins of chloroplast genomes inBrassica amphiploids.Theor. Appl. Genet. 65 201–6.Google Scholar
  24. Fernandez-Escobar, J., Dominguez, J., Martin, A. and Fernandez-Martinez, J.M. (1988) Genetics of the erucic acid content in interspecific hybrids of Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata Braun) and rapeseed (B. napus L.).Pl. Breed. 100, 310–5.Google Scholar
  25. Fernandez-Serrano, O., Alonso, L.C. and Fernandez-Escobar, J. (1991) Genetic transfer among cultivated polyploidBrassica species.Groupe Consultatif International de Recherche sur la Colza 8th International Repeseed Congress 4, 1016–21.Google Scholar
  26. Gatenby, A.A. and Cocking, E.C. (1978) The evolution of fraction 1 protein and the distribution of the small subunit polypeptide coding sequences in the genusBrassica.Pl. Sci. Lett.12, 299–303.Google Scholar
  27. Gowers, S. (1982) The transfer of characters fromBrassica campestris L.toBrassica napus L.: production of clubroot-resistant oil-seed rape (B. napus spp.oleifera).Euphytica 31, 971–6.Google Scholar
  28. Grabiec, B. (1971) Evaluation of semisynthetic values of froms of theBrassica napus L. species from the standpoint of plant breeding.Genetica Polonica 12 333–7.Google Scholar
  29. Gundimeda, H.R., Prakash, S. and Shivanna, K.R. (1992) Intergeneric hybrids betweenEnarthrocarpus lyratus, a wild species, and crop brassicas.Theor. Appl. Genet. 83, 655–62.Google Scholar
  30. Haga, T. (1938) Ongenomes in the genusBrassica (a collective review) [Japanese]Jap. J. Genet. 14, 74–89.Google Scholar
  31. Harberd, D.J. (1972) A contribution to the cyto-taxonomy ofBrassica (Cruciferae) and its allies.bot. J. Linn. Soc. 65, 1–23.Google Scholar
  32. Harberd, D.J. (1976) Cytotaxonomic studies ofBrassica and related genera. In Vaughan, J.G., MacLeod, A.J. and Jones, B.M.G. eds.,The Biology and Chemistry of the Cruciferae, pp. 47–68. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  33. Harberd, D.J. and McArthur, E.D. (1980) Meiotic analysis of some species and genus hybrids in theBrassiceae In Tsunoda, S., Hinata, K. and Gomez-Campo, C. eds.,Brassica Crops and Wild Allies, pp. 65–87, Tokyo: Jap. Sci. Soc. Press.Google Scholar
  34. Health and Safety Commission (1992) Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) revised proposals for new regulations. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  35. Hedge I.C. (1976) A systematic and geographical survey of the old world Cruciferae. In Vaughan, J.G., MacLeod, A.J. and Jones, B.M.G.. eds.,The Biology and Chemistry of the Cruciferae, pp. 1–45. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  36. Heyn, F.W. (1977) Analysis of unreduced gametes in the Brassiceae by crosses between species and ploidy levels.Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. 78, 13–30.Google Scholar
  37. Hoffmann, W. and Peters, R. (1958) Versuche zur herstellung synthetischer und semisynthetischer Rapsformen.Der Züchter [German, English summary]28, 40–51.Google Scholar
  38. Honma, S. and Summers, W.L. (1976) Interspecific hybridization betweenBrassica napus L. (Napobrassica group) andB. oleracea L. (Botrytis group).J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 101, 299–302.Google Scholar
  39. Inomata, N. (1988) Intergeneric hybridization betweenBrassica napus andSinapis arvensis and their crossability.Cruciferae Newsl. 13, 22–3.Google Scholar
  40. Inomata, N. (1991) Intergeneric hybridization inBrassica juncea x Sinapis pubescens andB. napus x S. pubescens, and their cytological studies.Cruciferae Newsl. 14/15, 10–1.Google Scholar
  41. Jahier, J., Chevre, A.M. and Eber, F. (1989) Extraction of disomic addition lines ofBrassica napus-B. nigra.Genome 32, 408–13.Google Scholar
  42. Jahr, W. (1962) Befruchtungsbiologie und Allopolyploidie bei der Artkreuzung Sommerraps x Chinakohl.Der Züchter [German]32, 216–25.Google Scholar
  43. Johnston, T.D. (1974) Transfer of disease resistance fromBrassica campestris L. to rape (B. napus L.).Euphytica 23, 681–3.Google Scholar
  44. Kajanus, B. (1917) Wissenschaftliche originalarbeiten, Aufsätze. Über Bastardierungen zwischenBrassica napus L. und Brassica rapa L.Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. [German]5, 265–322.Google Scholar
  45. Karpechenko, G.D. (1922) The number of chromosomes and genetic correlation of cultivated CruciferaeBull. Appl. Bot. Pl. Breed. 13, 1–14.Google Scholar
  46. Kerlan, M.C., Chevre, A.M., Eber, F., Botterman, J. and DeGreef, W. (1991) Risk assessment of gene transfer from transgenic rapeseed to wild species in optimal conditions.Groupe Consultatif International de Recherche sur la Colza 8th International Rapeseed Congress 4, 1027–33.Google Scholar
  47. Kerlan, M.C. (1992a) Etude des possibilités de transfert d'un gène marqueur de résistance à un herbicide (Basta) d'une lignée transgénique de colzà 5 espèces adventices. Thèse de Doctorat,Université de Rennes I [French, English abstract].Google Scholar
  48. Kerlan, M.C., Chevre, A.M., Eber, F., Baranger, A. and Renard, M. (1992b) Risk assessment of outcrossing of transgenic rapessed to relate species: I. Interspecific hybrid production under optimal conditions with emphasis on pollination and fertilization.Euphytica 62, 145–53.Google Scholar
  49. Lammerink, J. (1970) Inter-specific transfer of clubroot resistance fromBrassica campestris L. toB. napus L.New Zealand J..Agric. Res. 13, 105–110.Google Scholar
  50. Lefol, E. (1993) Risques de transfert interspecifique d'un gene de colza transgénique. Thèse de Doctorat,Université de Paris-Sud Centre D'Orsay [French, English abstract].Google Scholar
  51. Lefol, E., Danielou, V., Darmency, H., Kerlan, M.C., Vallee, P., Chevre, A.M., Renard, M. and Reboud, X. (1991) Escape of engineered genes from rapeseed to wild Brassiceae.Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protect. Conference (Weeds) Volume 3 pp. 1049–56. Farnham, UK: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
  52. Lelivelt, C.L.C., Leunissen, E.H.M. Fredericks, H.J., Helsper, J.P.F.G. and Krens, F.A. (1993) Transfer of resistance to the beet cyst nematode (Heterodera schachtii Schm.) fromSinapis alba L. (white mustard) to theBrassica napus L. gene pool by means of sexual and somatic hybridization.Theor. Appl. Genet. 85, 688–696.Google Scholar
  53. Luo, P., Li, X.F., Wang, Z.C. and Lan, Z.Q. (1989) A study on distant hybridization between rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) and oil radish (Raphanus sativus var.oleifera Makino).Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Society for the Advancement of Breeding Research in Asia and Oceania Bangi Selongor; Malaya1 467–9.Google Scholar
  54. Mackay, G.R. (1973) Interspecific hybrids between forage rape (Brassica napus L.) and turnip (Brassica campestris L. ssp.rapifera) as alternatives to forage rape 1. An exploratory study with single pair crosses.Euphytica 22, 495–9.Google Scholar
  55. Manton, I. (1932) Introduction to the general cytology of the Cruciferae.Ann. Bot. 46, 509–56.Google Scholar
  56. Mathias, R. (1985) Transfer of cytoplasmic male sterility from brown mustard (Brassica juncea L. Coss.) into rapeseed (Brassica napus L.).Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. 95, 371–4.Google Scholar
  57. Mathias, R. (1991) Improved embryo rescue technique for intergeneric hybridization betweenSinapis species andBrassica napus.Cruciferae Newsl. 14/15, 90–1.Google Scholar
  58. McNaughton, I.H. and Ross, C.L. (1978) Inter-specific and inter-generic hybridization in the Brassicae with special emphasis on the improvement of forage crops.Scottish Plant Breeding Station Fifty-Seventh Annual Report 1977–78, p. 75–110.Google Scholar
  59. Mero, C.E. and Honma, S. (1984) Inheritance of bolt resistance in an interspecific cross ofBrassica speciesBrassica napus L. ×B. campestris L. ssp.pekinensis. J. Hered. 75, 407–10.Google Scholar
  60. Mizushima, U. (1950a) Karyogenetic studies of species and genus hybrids in the tribe Brassiceae of Cruciferae.Tohoku. J. Agric. Res. 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
  61. Mizushima, U. (1950b) On several artificial allopolyploids obtained in the tribe Brassicae of Cruciferae.Tohoku J. Agric. Res. 1, 15–27.Google Scholar
  62. Mizushima, U. (1980) Genome analysis inBrassica and allied genera. In Tsunoda, S., Hinata, K, and Gomez-Campo, C. eds.,Brassica Crops and Wild Allies, pp. 89–106. Tokyo: Jap. Sci. Soc. Press.Google Scholar
  63. Morinaga, T. (1929a) Interspecific hybridization inBrassica. I. The cytology of F1 hybrids ofB. napella and various other species with 10 chromosomes.Cytologia 1, 16–27.Google Scholar
  64. Morinaga, T. (1929b) Interspecific hybridization inBrassica. II. The cytology of F1 hybrids ofB. cerna and various other species with 10 chromosomes.Jap. J. Bot. 4, 277–89.Google Scholar
  65. Morinaga, T. (1929c) Interspecific hybridization inBrassica. III. The cytology of F1 hybrid ofB. cernua andB. napella.J. Dept. Agric. Kyusha Imperial Univ. 2, 199–206.Google Scholar
  66. Morinaga, T. (1934) On the chromosome number ofBrassica juncea andBrassica napus, on the hybid between the two, and on offspring line of the hybrid.Jap. J. Genet. [Japanese]9, 161–3.Google Scholar
  67. Morinaga, T. and Fukushima, E. (1933) Karyological studies on a spontaneous haploid mutant ofBrassica napella.Cytologia 4, 457–60.Google Scholar
  68. Namai, H. (1977) Transfer of economic characters by means of interspecific and intergeneric crosses in the tribe Brassiceae of Cruciferae.Cruciferae Newslet. 2, 6–7.Google Scholar
  69. Namai, H., Sarashima, M. and Hosoda, T. (1980) Interspecific and intergeneric hybridization breeding in Japan. In Tsunoda, S., Hinata, K. and Gomez-Campo, C. eds.,Brassica Crops and Wild Allies, pp. 191–203, Tokyo: Jap. Sci. Soc. Press.Google Scholar
  70. Nanda Kumar, P.B.A., Prakash, S. and Shivanna, K.R. (1989) Wide hybridization inBrassica: Studies on interspecific hybrids between cultivated species (B. napus, B. juncea) and a wild species (B. Gavinae).Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the Society for the Advancement of Breeding Research in Asia and Oceania Bangi Selongor: Malaya1, 435–8.Google Scholar
  71. National Research Council USA (1989) Field testing genetically modified organisms: framework for decisions. Washington DC. National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  72. Nelson, A. (1927) Fertility in the genusBrassica.J. Genet. 18 109–35.Google Scholar
  73. Nishiyama, I., Sarashima, M. and Matsuzawa, Y. (1991) Critical discussion on abortive interspecific crosses inBrassica.Pl. Breed. 107, 288–302.Google Scholar
  74. Nwankiti, O. (1971) Cytogenetic and breeding studies withBrassica II. Progenies from backcrosses involving primary hybrids betweenB. napus andB. campestris.Hereditas 68, 35–45.Google Scholar
  75. OECD (1986) Recombinant DNA safety considerations. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  76. OECD (1990) Good development practices for small scale field research with genetically modified plants and microorganisms: a discussion document. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Group of National Experts on Safety in Biotechnology.Google Scholar
  77. Olsson, G. (1949) OlikaBrassica-arters förmåga att korsa sig med varandra [The crossing ability between different species ofBrassica].Sveriges Utädosfören. Tidskr. [Swedish]59, 193–195. [English summary inBiol Abstr.24 22498].Google Scholar
  78. Olsson, G. and Hagberg, A. (1955) Investigation on haploid rape.Hereditas 41, 227–237Google Scholar
  79. Paulmann, W. and Röbbelen G. (1988) Effective transfer of cytoplasmic male sterility from radish (Raphanus sativus L.) to rape (Brassica napus L.).Pl. Breed. 100, 299–309.Google Scholar
  80. Pearson, O.H. (1928) A suggested classfication of the genusBrassica.Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 25, 105–10.Google Scholar
  81. Prakash, S. and Chopra, V.L. (1988) Introgression of resistance to shattering inBrassica napus fromBrassica Juncea through non-homologous recombination.Pl. Breed. 101, 167–8.Google Scholar
  82. Prakash, S. and Hinata, K. (1980) Taxonomy, cytogenetics and origin of crop Brassicas, a review.Opera Bot. 55, 1–57.Google Scholar
  83. Quazi, M.H. (1988) Interspecific hybrids betweenBrassica napus L. andB. oleracea L. developed by embryo culture.Theor. Appl. Genet. 75, 309–18.Google Scholar
  84. Renard, M. and Dosba, F. (1980) Etude de l'haploidie chez le colza (Brassica napus L. var.oleifera Metzger.).Ann. Amelior. Plantes [French]30, 191–209.Google Scholar
  85. Ringdahl, E.A., McVetty, P.B.E. and Sernyk, J.L. (1987) Intergeneric hybridization ofDiplotaxis spp. withBrassica napus: A source of new CMS systems?Can. J. Pl. Sci. 67, 239–43.Google Scholar
  86. Ripley, V.L. and Arnison, P.G. (1990) Hybridization ofSinapis alba L.Brassica napus L. via embryo rescue.Pl. Breed. 104, 26–33.Google Scholar
  87. Röbbelen, G. (1966) Beobachtungen bei interspezifischenBrassica-Kreuzungen insbesondere über die Entstehung matromorpher F1-Pflanzen.Angewandte Botanik [German, English summary]39, 205–21.Google Scholar
  88. Roemer, W. (1935) Fruchtbarkeits-und Vererbungsstudien beiBrassica-Artkreuzungen.Z. Pflanzenzüchtg. [German]20, 377–416.Google Scholar
  89. Rousselle, P. and Eber, F. (1983) Croisements interspécifiques entre quelquesBrassicae etBrassica napus L. analyse génomique des hybrides et perspectives d'obtention de systèmes d'androstérilité chez le colza.Agronomie [French, English summary]3, 155–9.Google Scholar
  90. Roy, N.N. (1978) A study on disease variation in the populations of an interspecific cross ofBrassica juncea L.×B. napus L.Euphytica 27, 145–9.Google Scholar
  91. Roy, N.N. (1980) Species crossability and early generation plant fertility in interspecific crosses ofBrassica.SABRAO J,12, 43–53.Google Scholar
  92. Roy, N. N. (1984) Interspecific transfer ofBrassica juncea-type high blackleg resistance toBrassica napus.Euphytica 33, 295–303.Google Scholar
  93. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution Thirteenth Report (1989) The release of genetically engineered organisms to the environment, London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office.Google Scholar
  94. Sacristan, M.D. and Gerdemann, M. (1986) Different behavior ofBrassica juncea andB. carinata as sources ofPhoma lingam resistance in experiments of interspecific transfer toB. napus. Pl. Breed. 97, 304–14.Google Scholar
  95. Sasaoka, T. (1930) Karyological observations in different interspecific hybrids ofBrassica.Jap. J. Genet. 6, 20–32.Google Scholar
  96. Scheffler, J.A., Parkinson, R. and Dale, P.J. (1993) Frequency and distance of pollen dispersal from transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus).Transgenic Res. 2, 356–64.Google Scholar
  97. Schulz, O.E. (1919) Cruciferae-Brassiceae, Subtribus I. Brassicinae et II. Raphaninae. In Engler, A. ed.,Das Pflanzenreich, [German] vol4 pp. 1–290. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.Google Scholar
  98. Shiga, T. (1970) Rape breeding by interspecific crossing betweenBrassica napus andBrassica campestris in Japan.J. Agric. Res. Quarterly 5, 5–10.Google Scholar
  99. Sikka, S.M. (1940) Cytogenetics ofBrassica hybrids and species.J. Genet. 40, 441–509.Google Scholar
  100. Singh, A.K., Moss, J.P. and Smartt J. (1990) Ploidy manipulations for interspecific gene transfer. In Brady, N.C. ed.,Advances in Agronomy, vol43 pp. 199–240. London: Academic Press Inc.Google Scholar
  101. Sinskaia, E.N. (1928) Geo-systematical investigations of cultivatedBrassica.Bull. Appl. Bot. Genet. Pl. Breed. [Russian, English summary]17, 3–166.Google Scholar
  102. Song, K.M. and Osborn, T.C. (1992) Polyphyletic origins ofBrassica napus: new evidence based on organelle and nuclear RFLP analyses.Genome 35, 992–1001.Google Scholar
  103. Song, K.M., Osborn, T.C. and Williams, P.H. (1988)Brassica taxonomy based on nuclear restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) 1. Genome evolution of diploid and amphidiploid species.Theor. Appl. Genet. 75 784–94.Google Scholar
  104. Song, K.M., Osborn, T.C. and Williams, P.H. (1990)Brassica taxonomy based on nuclear restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) 3. Genome relationships inBrassica and related genera and the origin ofB. oleracea andB. rapa (syn.campestris).Theor. Appl. Genet. 79, 497–506.Google Scholar
  105. Stace, C.A. (1991)New Flora of the British Isles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Stringam, G.R. and Downey, R.K. (1973) Haploid frequencies inBrassica napus.Can. J. Pl. Sci. 53, 299–31.Google Scholar
  107. Sutton, A.W. (1908)Brassica crosses.J. Linn. Soc. Bot. 38, 337–49.Google Scholar
  108. Takahata, Y. and Hinata, K. (1986) Application of a pattern analysis (quantification method III) for the isozyme relations in crop Brassicas.Cruciferae Newsl. 11, 12–3.Google Scholar
  109. Takeshita, M., Masahiro, K. and Tokumasu, S. (1980) Application of ovule culture to the production of intergeneric or interspecific hybrids inBrassica andRaphanus.Jap. J. Genet. 55, 373–87.Google Scholar
  110. Thompson, K.F. (1969) Frequencies of haploids in spring oil-seed rape (Brassica napus).Heredity 24, 318–9.Google Scholar
  111. Türesson, G. and Nordenskiöld, H. (1943) Chromosome doubling and cross combinations in some cruciferous plants.Lantbr.Hogsk. Ann (Uppsala) 11, 201–6.Google Scholar
  112. U, N. (1935) Genome-analysis inBrassica with special reference to the experimental formation ofB. napus and peculiar mode of fertilization.Jap. J. Bot. 7, 389–452.Google Scholar
  113. U, N. and Nagamatsu, T. (1933) On the difference betweenBrassica campestris L. andB. napus L. in regard to fertility and natural crossing I. Fertility under different modes of pollination.J. Imper. Agric. Expt. Stat. Nishigahara (Tokyo) [Japanese, English summary]2, 113–28.Google Scholar
  114. USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] (1991) User's guide for introducing genetically engineered plants and microorganisms.Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Technical Bulletin No. 1783. Hyattsville, Maryland USA.Google Scholar
  115. Vaughan, J.G. (1977) A multidisciplinary study of the taxonomy and origin ofBrassica crops.BioScience 27, 35–40.Google Scholar
  116. Warwick, S.I. and Black, L.D. (1991) Molecular systematics ofBrassica and allied genera (subtribe Brassicinae, Brassiceae) — chloroplast genome and cytodeme congruence.Theor. Appl. Genet. 82, 81–92.Google Scholar
  117. Warwick, S.I., Black, L.D. and Aguingalde, I. (1992) Molecular systematics ofBrassica and allied genera (subtribe Brassicinae, Brassicae) — chloroplast DNA variation in the genusDiplotaxis.Theor. Appl. Genet. 83, 839–50.Google Scholar
  118. Yamagishi, H. and Takayanagi, K. (1982) Cross-compatibility of Hakuran (artificially synthesizedBrassica napus) withBrassica vegetables.Cruciferae Newsl. 7, 34–5.Google Scholar
  119. Yarnell, S.H. (1956) Cytogenetics of the vegetable crops. II. Crucifers.Bot. Rev. 22, 81–166.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman & Hall 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jodi A. Scheffler
    • 1
  • Philip J. Dale
    • 1
  1. 1.John Innes CentreNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations