The Botanical Review

, 44:457 | Cite as

The integumentary tapetum

  • R. N. Kapil
  • S. C. Tiwari
Article

Abstract

Commonly found in sympetalous plants with unitegmic and tenuinucellate ovules, the integumentary tapetum exhibits great diversity in its distribution, morphology, cytology, differentiation, and behaviour. It is separated from the nucellus and embryo sac by layers of cuticle. The thickness, uniformity and continuity of cuticle is variable not only in diverse taxa but also at different places in the same species. The cuticular layers manifest interruptions, and the embryo sac wall bears certain ingrowths in the regions of these discontinuities. Ultrastructurally, the endothelial cells show characteristics of meristematic as well as secretory cells. Sometimes they develop wall projections and even contain multivesicular bodies. Large quantities of proteins, carbohydrates, ascorbic acid and some enzymes such as oxidative enzymes, amylases, proteases are also known to occur. Besides, a deposition of callose at the onset of pollination is recorded inPetunia. Proliferation of the integumentary tapetum in some hybrids results in seed abortion. It is believed that endothelium helps in coordinating growth in the ovule, channelizes nutrition to the embryo sac, and later performs the protective function.

Keywords

Botanical Review Seed Abortion Wall Ingrowth Cuticular Layer Micropylar Region 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Résumé

La jacquette qui se trouve souvent dans les plantes sympetalous aux ovules unitegmics et tenuinucellates, exhibe une grande diversité dans sa distribution, morphologie, cytologie, différentiation et comportement. Elle est separée du sac embryonnaire et de la micelle par des couches cuticulaires. L’épaisseur, l’uniformité et la continuité du cuticle varient non seulement dans divers taxa mais aussi dans différents endroits de l’espèce. Les couches cuticulaires sont caracterisées par des interruptions sous lesquelles se trouvent certains plis qui viennent du sac embryonnaire. Ultrastructuralement, les cellules de la jacquette démontrent des caractéristiques méristématiques, et sécréteuses. Parfois ces cellules developpement des projections du mur et possèdent de certains corps multivésiculaires. On a aussi trouvé des protéines, des carbohydrates, de l’acide ascorbique, et des enzymes comme de l’enzyme oxidative, des amylases, des protéases, en grandes quantités. En outre, on a aussi détecté une déposition de callose dans le cas dePetunia, au commencement de pollinisation. La proliferation de la jacquette dans certaines hybrides cause l’avortement de la graine. On pense que la jacquette aide à la coordination de l’accroissement de l’ovule, achemine des substances nutritives au sac embryonnaire, et plus tard sert de fonction protectrice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Literature Cited

  1. Agarwal, Savita andS. C. Gupta. 1976. Insoluble polysaccharides inFoeniculum ovules. Curr. Sci. 45: 194–196.Google Scholar
  2. -V. M. Rajeswari and S. C. Gupta. 1975. Insoluble polysaccharides in ovules ofLinum (Abstr.), in Proceedings of the Symposium on Form, Structure and Function, 14. Vallabh Vidyanagar.Google Scholar
  3. Arekal, G. D. 1963 a. Embryological studies in Canadian representatives of the tribe Rhinantheae, Scrophulariaceae. Can. J. Bot. 41: 267–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. —. 1963 b. Contribution to the embryology ofChelone glabra L. Phytomorphology 13: 376–388.Google Scholar
  5. —. 1966. Embryology ofVeronica serpyllifolia. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 64B: 241–257.Google Scholar
  6. —,S. Rajeshwari andN. S. Rangaswamy. 1971. Contribution to the embryology ofScoparia dulcis L. Bot. Notiser 124: 237–248.Google Scholar
  7. — andD. Raju. 1964. Female gametophyte ofLinaria ramosissima Wall. Curr. Sci. 33: 591–592.Google Scholar
  8. Balicka-Ivanowska, G. 1899. Contribution à l’étude du sac embryonnaire chez certaines gamopetales. Flora, Jena 86: 47–71.Google Scholar
  9. Bannikova, Victoria P. 1968. Disturbances in embryogenesis in wide tobacco crosses —Nicotiana paniculata ×N. rustica. Bot. Zhur. 53: 628–638.Google Scholar
  10. Beamish, Katherine I. 1955. Seed failure following hybridization between the hexaploidSolanum dimissum and four diploidSolanum species. Am. J. Bot. 42: 297–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berger, C. andE. Oľga. 1973. Ultrastructural aspects of the embryo sac ofJasione montana L. cell walls. Caryologia 25: 109–120.Google Scholar
  12. Bhaduri, P. N. 1935. Studies on the female gametophyte in Solanaceae. J. Indian bot. Soc. 14: 133–178.Google Scholar
  13. Bhandari, N. N., F. Bouman andS. Natesh. 1976. Ovule ontogeny and seed coat structure ofScrophularia himalensis Royle. Bot. Jahrb. Syst. 95: 535–548.Google Scholar
  14. Bhatnagar, S. P. andB. M. Johri. 1972. Development of angiosperm seeds.In:T. T. Kozlowski (Editor) Seed Biology. 1. Importance, Development and Germination, pp. 77–149. Academic Press Inc. New York.Google Scholar
  15. Blankovskaya, T. F. and M. V. Mironchak. 1969. Polysaccharides in the ovules of Compositae. Sb. Rab. Mol. Uch. Vses. Selek-Genet. Inst. 155–158.Google Scholar
  16. Brink, R. A. andD. C. Cooper. 1941. Incomplete seed failure as a result of somatoplastic sterility. Genetics 26: 487–505.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown, W. V. andG. E. Coe. 1951. A study of sterility inHilaria belangeri (Steud.) Nash andHilaria mutica (Bukl.) Benth. Am. J. Bot. 38: 823–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chopra, R. N. andR. C. Sachar. 1957. Effect of some growth substances on fruit development. Phytomorphology 7: 387–397.Google Scholar
  19. Cooper, D. C. andR. A. Brink. 1945. Seed collapse following matings between diploid and tetraploid races ofLycopersicon pimpinellifolium. Genetics 30: 376–401.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Coulter, J. M. andC. J. Chamberlain. 1903. Morphology of Angiosperms. D. Appleton & Co., New York.Google Scholar
  21. Davis, Gwenda L. 1962. Embryological studies in the Compositae. 1.Sporogenesis, gametogenesis and embryogeny inCotula australis. Austr. J. Bot. 10: 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. — 1966. Systematic Embryology of the Angiosperms. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York.Google Scholar
  23. Deschamps, M. R. 1970. Sur la prèsence de phytoferritine dans l’ovule du Lin,Linum usitatissimum L. Rev. Cytol. et Biol. vég. 33: 101–110.Google Scholar
  24. Deshpande, P. K. 1960. Morphology of the endosperm inCaesulia axillaris. Curr. Sci. 29: 56–57.Google Scholar
  25. — 1962. A reinvestigation of endosperm inTridax procumbens L. Curr. Sci. 31: 113–114.Google Scholar
  26. — 1964a. A contribution to the life history ofBidens biternata (Lour.) Merr. and Sherff. (=Bidens pilosa Linn.). J. Indian bot. soc. 43: 149–157.Google Scholar
  27. —. 1964b. A contribution to the Ufe history ofVolutarella ramosa Roxb. (=Volutarella divaricata Hook. f. et Benth.). J. India bot. Soc. 43: 141–148.Google Scholar
  28. Dhar, Usha. 1976. Part I. Histochemical studies inLinum usitatissimum Linn, andRanunculus sceleratus Linn. — egg to seedling. Part II. Embryology ofCyrilla racemiflora Linn. andClifftonia monophylla (Lam.) Britton ex Sarg, with special reference to the systematic position of the Cyrillaceae. Ph.D. thesis. University of Delhi, India.Google Scholar
  29. Diboll, A. G. andD. A. Larson. 1966. An electron microscopic study of the mature megagametophyte inZea mays. Am. J. Bot. 53: 391–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ducamp, L. 1902. Recherches sur l’embryogénie des Araliacées. Ann. Sci. nat. Bot. (8) 15: 311–402.Google Scholar
  31. Engell, K. andG. B. Petersen. 1977. Integumentary and endothelial cells ofBellis perennis. Morphology and histochemistry in relation to the developing embryo sac. Bot. Tidskrift 71: 237–244.Google Scholar
  32. Esser, K. 1963. Bildund und abbau von callose in den Samenanlagen derPetunia hybrida. Z. Bot. 51: 32–51.Google Scholar
  33. Eymé, J. 1967. Nouvelles observations sur l’infrastructure de tissues nectarigènes floraux. Le Botaniste 50: 169–183.Google Scholar
  34. Findlay, N. andF. V. Mercer. 1971. Nectar production inAbutilon. II. Submicroscopic structure of the nectary. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 24: 657–664.Google Scholar
  35. Ganapathy, P. S. 1970. Clethraceae. Bull. Indian National Sci. Acad. 41:239–240.Google Scholar
  36. Godineau, J. C. 1971. Ultrastructure of the embryo sac ofCrepis tectorum L. after cell formation and fusion of polar nuclei. Ann. Univ. et A.R.E.R.S. 9: 78–88.Google Scholar
  37. Goldflus, M. 1898–1899. Sur la structure et les fonctions de l’assise èpithéliale et des antipodes chez les composées. Jour. de Bot. 12: 374–384; 13: 9–17, 49–59, 87–96.Google Scholar
  38. Guignard, L. 1893. Réchérches sur le développement de la graine et en particulier du tégument seminal. Jour. de Bot. 7: 1–14, 21–34, 57–106, 140–153, 205–214, 241–250, 282–296, 303–311.Google Scholar
  39. Gunning, B. E. S. andJ. S. Pate. 1974. Transfer cells.In: A. E. Robards (Editor), Dynamic Aspects of Plant Ultrastructure, pp. 441–480. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., England.Google Scholar
  40. Haccius, Barbara, N. N. Bhandari andG. Hausner. 1974. In vitro transformation of ovules into rudimentary pistils inNicotiana tabacum L. Jour. Exptl. Bot. 25: 695–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Howe, T. D. 1975. The female gametophyte of three species ofGrindelia and ofPrionopsis ciliata (Compositae). Am. J. Bot. 62: 273–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Iyengar, C. V. K. 1939 a. Development of the embryo sac and endosperm haustoria in some members of Scrophulariaceae. II.Isoplexis canariensis Lindl. andCelsia coromandeliana Vahl. J. Indian bot. Soc. 18: 13–20.Google Scholar
  43. —. 1939 b. Development of the embryo sac and endosperm haustoria in some members of Scrophulariaceae. 3.Limnophila heterophylla andStemodia viscosa. J. Indian bot. Soc. 18: 35–42.Google Scholar
  44. —. 1940a. Structure and development of seed inSopubia trifica Ham. J. Indian bot. Soc. 19: 251–261.Google Scholar
  45. —. 1940b. Development of the embryo sac and endosperm haustoria in some members of Scrophulariaceae. 4.Vandellia hirsuta andV. scabra. J. Indian bot. Soc. 18: 179–189.Google Scholar
  46. —. 1941. Development of the embryo sac and endosperm haustoria inTorenia cordifolia andT. hirsuta. Proc. natl. Inst. Sci., India 7: 61–71.Google Scholar
  47. —. 1942. Development of embryo sac and endosperm haustoria inTetranema mexicana andVerbascum thapsus. Proc. natl. Inst. Sci., India 8: 59–69.Google Scholar
  48. Johansen, D. A. 1950. Plant Embryology. Waltham, Mass.Google Scholar
  49. Joshi, A. C. andJ. Venkateswarlu. 1936. Embryological studies in the Lythraceae III. Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. 3B: 377–400.Google Scholar
  50. Junell, S. 1962. Embryology ofHebenstreitia, Dischisma, Sutera andZaluzianskya. Acta Hort. Goteb. 25: 91–101.Google Scholar
  51. Kallarackal, J. 1976. Ontogenetical and cytochemical studies on the ovule ofLinaria bipartita. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Delhi.Google Scholar
  52. Kapil, R. N. andP. Masand. 1964. Embryology ofHebenstreitia integrifolia Linn. Proc. natl. Inst. Sci., India 32B: 218–232.Google Scholar
  53. — andS. B. Sethi. 1962a. Development of seed inTridax trilobata Hemsl. Phytomorphology 12: 235–239.Google Scholar
  54. ——. 1962b. Gametogenesis and seed development inAinsliaea aptera DC. Phytomorphology 12: 222–234.Google Scholar
  55. — andI. K. Vasil. 1963. Ovule.In: P. Maheshwari (Editor), Recent Advances in the Embryology of Angiosperms, pp. 41–47. International Society of Plant Morphologists, Delhi.Google Scholar
  56. — andS. C. Tiwari. 1978. Embryological investigations and fluorescence microscopy — an assessment of integration. Internat. Rev. Cytol. 53: 291–331.Google Scholar
  57. Kapoor, Tripat, N. K. Parulekar andM. R. Vijayaraghavan. 1975. Contribution to the embryology ofCelsia coromandeliana Vahl. with a discussion on its affinities withVerbascum thapsus L. Bot. Notiser 128: 438–449.Google Scholar
  58. Khan, R. 1963. The behaviour of integumentary tapetum in the ovules containing degenerating gametophytes inUtricularia flexuosa Vahl. Proc. natl. Acad. Sci., India 33B: 651–655.Google Scholar
  59. Lavialle, P. 1912. Réchérches sur la développement de l’ovaire en fruit chez les composées. Ann. Sci. nat. Bot. 9: 39–141.Google Scholar
  60. Maheshwari, P. 1950. An Introduction to the Embryology of Angiosperms. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
  61. Maheswari Devi, H. andT. Pullaiah. 1976. Embryological investigations in the Melampodinae. I.Melampodium divarication. Phytomorphology 26: 77–86.Google Scholar
  62. Millsaps, V. 1936. The structure and development of the seed ofPaulownia tomentosa. J. Elisha Mitchell Sc. Soc. 56: 140–164.Google Scholar
  63. Misra, S. 1964. Floral morphology of the family Compositae. II. Development of the seed and fruit inFlavaria rependa. Bot. Mag., Tokyo 77: 290–296.Google Scholar
  64. —. 1965. Floral morphology of the family Compositae. III. Embryology ofSiegesbeckia orientalis L. Austr. J. Bot. 13: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mohan Ram, H. Y. andM. Dyas. 1975. Occurrence of extra-ovarian ovules in sunflower plants (Helianthus annuus L.) treated with chlorflurenol. Experientia 31: 1278–1279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Nagl, W. 1962. Über endopolyploidie, restitutions kernbildung und kernstruckturen im suspensor von angiospermen und einer gymnosperme. Öst. bot. Z. 109: 431–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Nair, N. C. andR. K. Jain. 1956. Floral morphology and embryology ofBalanites roxburghii. Lloydia 19: 269–279.Google Scholar
  68. Narayana, L. L. 1970. Geraniaceae. Bull. Indian Natn Sci. Acad. 41: 117–120.Google Scholar
  69. Netolitzky, K. 1926. Anatomie der Angiospermen Samen. Borntrager, Berlin.Google Scholar
  70. Newcomb, W. 1973a. The development of the embryo sac of sunflowerHelianthus annuus before fertilization. Can. J. Bot. 51: 863–878.Google Scholar
  71. —. 1973b. The development of the embryo sac of sunflowerHelianthus annuus after fertilization. Can. J. Bot. 51: 879–890.Google Scholar
  72. — andT. A. Steeves. 1971.Helianthus annuus embryogenesis. Embryo sac wall projections before and after fertilization. Bot. Gaz. 132: 367–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Oľga, E. 1975. Pre-fertilization development of ovule ofJasione montana L. Phytomorphology 25: 76–81.Google Scholar
  74. Padmanabhan, D. 1962. A reinvestigation of the endosperm and endothelium inTridax procumbens L. Phytomorphology 12: 356–361.Google Scholar
  75. Plisko, M. A. 1971. An electron microscopic investigation of the characteristic features of megagametogenesis inCalendula officinalis L. Bot. Zhur. 56: 582–597.Google Scholar
  76. Plisko, M. A.. 1974. Ultrastructure of the integument inCalendula officinalis L. in the early period of embryogenesis. Bot. Zhur. 59: 246–251.Google Scholar
  77. Poddubnaya-Arnoldi, V. A., N. V. Zinger andT. P. Petrovskaya-Baranova. 1964. A histochemical investigation of the ovules, embryo sacs and seeds in some angiosperms.In: H. F. Linskens (Editor), Pollen Physiology and Fertilization, pp. 3–7. North-Holland Publ. Comp., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  78. Prasad, K. 1974. Studies in the Cruciferae. Gametophytes, structure and development of seed inEruca sativa Mill. J. Indian bot. Soc. 53: 24–33.Google Scholar
  79. Prasad, K.. 1975. Development and organization of gametophytes in certain species of Cruciferae. Acta Bot. Indica 3: 147–154.Google Scholar
  80. Rau, M. A. 1951. The mechanism of nutrition inVigna catjang. New Phytol. 50: 121–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Rietsema, J. andS. Satina. 1959. Barriers to crossability: Post-fertilization.In: A. G. Avery, S. Satina and J. Rietsema (Editors), Blakeslee: The GenusDatura, pp. 245–262. Ronald Press, New York.Google Scholar
  82. —— andA. F. Blakeslee. 1954. On the nature of embryo inhibition in ovular tumors ofDatura. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., U.S.A. 40: 425–431.Google Scholar
  83. Savchenko, M. E. 1960. Anomalies in the structure of angiosperm ovules. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR (Bot. Sci. Sec.) 130: 15–17.Google Scholar
  84. -. 1973. Morphology and growth of angiospermous ovule. Bull. Sci. Leningrad 1–112.Google Scholar
  85. Schertz, F. M. 1919. Early development of floral organs and embryonic structures ofScrophularia marylandica. Bot. Gaz. 68: 441–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Schmid, E. 1906. Beiträge zur Entwicklungsgeschichte der Scrophulariaceen. Beihefte, bot. Zentbl. 20: 175–299.Google Scholar
  87. Schrock, G. F. andB. F. Palser. 1967. Floral development, anatomy, and embryology ofCollinsia heterophylla with some other species ofCollinsia and onTonella tanella. Bot. Gaz. 128: 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Souèges, R. 1907. Développement et structure du tégument séminal chez les Solanacées. Ann. Sci. nat. Bot. XII 6: 1–124.Google Scholar
  89. Steffen, K. 1955. Kern und Nucleolenwachstum bei endomitotischer Polyploidisierung. (Ein Beitrag zur karyologischen Anatomie vonPedicularis palustris L.). Planta 45: 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Subramanyam, K. 1953. The nutritional mechanism of embryo sac and embryo in the families Campanulaceae, Lobeliaceae and Stylidiaceae. Mysore Univ. J. 13: 355–358.Google Scholar
  91. Svensson, H. G. 1926. Zytologische-embryologische Solanaceenstudien. 1. Über die Samenentwicklung vonHyoscyamus niger. Svensk Bot. Tidskr. 20: 420–434.Google Scholar
  92. Swamy, B. G. L. andK. V. Krishnamurthy. 1970. On the so called endothelium in the monocotyledons. Phytomorphology 20: 262–269.Google Scholar
  93. Takao, S. 1966. Study on the development of the embryo sac inImpatiens balsamina. Bot. Mag., Tokyo 79: 437–446.Google Scholar
  94. —. 1968. A study on the development of embryo sac inImpatiens textori. Bot. Mag., Tokyo 81: 310–317.Google Scholar
  95. Tanaka, R. andK. Watanabe. 1972. Embryological studies inChrysanthemum makinoi and its hybrid crossed with hexaploidCh. japonense. Jour. Sci. Hiroshima Univ., Ser. B, Div. 2 (Botany) 14: 75–84.Google Scholar
  96. Tiagi, B. 1965. Development of the seed and fruit inMelampyrum nemosum L. andM. arvense L. Can. J. Bot. 43: 1511–1521.Google Scholar
  97. — andN. S. Sankhla. 1963. Studies in the family Orobanchaceae — V. Contribution to the embryology ofOrobanche lucorum. Bot. Mag., Tokyo 76: 81–88.Google Scholar
  98. Tsinger, N. V. 1958. Seed, its Development and Physiological Characteristics. Moscow.Google Scholar
  99. Van Overbeek, J., M. E. Conklin andA. F. Blakeslee. 1941. Chemical stimulation of ovule development and its possible relation to parthenogenesis. Am. J. Bot. 28: 647–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Vazart, J. 1971. Degeneration of a synergid and pollen tube entrance into the embryo sac ofLinum usitatissimum L. Ann. Univ. et A.R.E.R.S. 9: 89–97.Google Scholar
  101. Vazart, Bernard andJacqueline Vazart. 1965. Infrastructure de l’ovule du Lin,Linum usitatissimum L. I. L’assise jaquette ou endothelium. C.r. Acad. Sci., Paris 261: 2927–2930.Google Scholar
  102. Vigfússòn, E. 1970. On polyspermy in the sunflower. Hereditas 64: 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Vijayaraghavan, M. R. andU. Dhar. 1976.Scytopetalum tieghemii — embryologically unexplored taxon and affinities of the family Scytopetalaceae. Phytomorphology 26: 16–22.Google Scholar
  104. — andS. Ratnaparkhi. 1972. Some aspects of embryology ofAlectra thomsoni. Phytomorphology 22: 1–8.Google Scholar
  105. Walker, Ruth I. 1955. Cytological and embryological studies inSolanum sectiontuberarium Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 82: 87–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Webster, D. H. andH. B. Currier. 1965. Callose: lateral movement of assimilates from phloem. Science 150: 1610–1611.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Woodcock, C. L. F. andP. R. Bell. 1968. Features of the ultrastructure of the female gametophyte ofMyosurus minimus. Jour. Ultrastru. Res. 22: 546–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The New York Botanical Garden 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. N. Kapil
    • 1
  • S. C. Tiwari
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of DelhiDelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations