Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 124, Issue 8, pp 1503–1512 | Cite as

Inheritance and genetic mapping of two nuclear genes involved in nuclear–cytoplasmic incompatibility in peas (Pisum sativum L.)

  • Vera S. Bogdanova
  • Elvira R. Galieva
  • Arseniy K. Yadrikhinskiy
  • Oleg E. KosterinEmail author
Original Paper


Genetic analysis was performed to finely map and assess the mode of inheritance of two unlinked nuclear genes Scs1 and Scs2 involved in incompatibility of the nuclear genome of the cultivated pea Pisum sativum subsp. sativum with the cytoplasm of the wild pea of the subspecies P. sativum subsp. elatius, accession VIR320. Based on the segregation of genotypes in the progeny of the test-crosses, we concluded that if the cytoplasm was inherited from the wild pea VIR320, the Scs1 allele from the cultivated pea was gametophyte lethal and sporophyte recessive lethal. The Scs2 allele from the cultivated pea reduced male gametophyte viability. In homozygote, Scs2 from cultivated parent brought about nuclear–cytoplasmic conflict manifested as chlorophyll deficiency, reduction of blade organs, and low pollen fertility of about 20%. In heterozygote, Scs1 and Scs2 genes reduced pollen fertility by ca 50 and 30%, respectively. The Scs1 and Scs2 genes involved in nuclear–cytoplasmic incompatibility were genetically mapped. The distance between the markers bordering Scs1 comprised about 2.5 cM on linkage group III. The map distance between the bordering markers in the neighborhood of Scs2 varied substantially from cross to cross in the range of 2.0–15.1 cM on linkage group V.


rbcL Test Line Pollen Count Pollen Fertility Male Gametophyte 
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.



The authors are grateful to Dr. James J. Russo, from Columbia University for valuable suggestions and correcting the English language. This work was supported by the Russian Foundation for Fundamental Research, Grant 10-04-00230-a. Microscopic analysis was performed at the Microscopy Centre of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics SD RAS.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

122_2012_1804_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (204 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 203 kb)


  1. Aksyonova E, Sinyavskaya M, Danilenko N, Pershina L, Nakamura C, Davydenko O (2005) Heteroplasmy and paternally oriented shift of the organellar DNA composition in barley–wheat hybrids during backcrosses with wheat parents. Genome 48:761–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JA, Maan SS (1995) Interspecific nuclear–cytoplasmic compatibility controlled by genes on group 1 chromosomes in durum wheat. Genome 38:803–808PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asakura N, Nakamura C, Ohtsuka I (1997a) A nuclear compatibility gene, Ncc-tmp, of Triticum timopheevi for the cytoplasm of Aegilops squarrosa. Genes Genet Syst 72:71–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asakura N, Nakamura C, Ohtsuka I (1997b) RAPD markers linked to the nuclear gene from Triticum timopheevii that confers compatibility with Aegoilops squarrosa cytoplasm on alloplasmic durum wheat. Genome 40:201–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asakura N, Nakamura C, Ohtsuka I (2000) Homoeoallelic gene Ncc-tmp of Triticum timopheevii conferring compatibility with the cytoplasm of Aegilops squarrosa in the tetraploid wheat nuclear background. Genome 43:503–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Ben-Ze’ev N, Zohary D (1973) Species relationship in the genus Pisum L. Isr J Bot 22:73–91Google Scholar
  7. Bogdanova VS (2007) Inheritance of organelle DNA markers in a pea cross associated with nuclear–cytoplasmic incompatibility. Theor Appl Genet 114:333–339PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogdanova VS, Berdnikov VA (2001) Observation of a phenomenon resembling hybrid dysgenesis, in a wild pea subspecies Pisum sativum ssp. elatius. Pisum Genet 33:5–8Google Scholar
  9. Bogdanova VS, Kosterin OE (2006) A case of anomalous chloroplast inheritance in crosses of garden pea involving an accession of wild subspecies. Dokl Biol Sci 406:44–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bogdanova VS, Yadrikhinskiy AK (2010) Mapping the st locus in respect to three molecular markers on linkage group III. Pisum Genet 42:41–42Google Scholar
  11. Bogdanova VS, Galieva ER, Kosterin OE (2009) Genetic analysis of nuclear–cytoplasmic incompatibility in pea associated with cytoplasm of an accession of wild subspecies Pisum sativum subsp. elatius (Bieb.) Schmahl. Theor Appl Genet 118:801–809PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De Martino T, Errico A, Lassandro A, Conicella C (2000) Distorted segregation resulting from pea chromosome reconstructions with alien segments from Pisum fulvum. J Hered 91:322–325PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Greiner S, Rauwolf U, Meurer J, Herrmann RG (2011) The role of plastids in plant speciation. Mol Ecol 20:671–691PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haldane JBS, Waddington CH (1931) Inbreeding and linkage. Genetics 16:357–374PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hall KJ, Parker JS, Ellis THN, Turner L, Knox MR, Hofer JMI, Lu J, Ferrandiz C, Hunter PJ, Taylor JD, Baird K (1997) The relationship between genetic and cytogenetic maps of pea. II. Physical maps of linkage mapping populations. Genome 40:755–769PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kalo P, Seres A, Taylor SA, Jakab J, Kevei Z, Kereszt A, Endre G, Ellis TH, Kiss GB (2004) Comparative mapping between Medicago sativa and Pisum sativum. Mol Genet Genomics 272:235–346PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Konieczny A, Ausubel FM (1993) A procedure for mapping Arabidopsis mutations using co-dominant ecotype-specific PCR-based markers. Plant J 4:403–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kosambi DD (1944) The estimation of map distances from recombination values. Ann Eugen 12:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lander ES, Green P, Abrahamson J, Barlow A, Daly MJ, Lincoln SE, Newburg L (1987) MAPMAKER: an interactive computer package for constructing primary genetic linkage maps of experimental and natural populations. Genomics 1:174–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maan S (1992a) Transfer of a species cytoplasm specific (scs) gene of Triticum timopheevii Zhuk. to T. turgidum. Genome 35:238–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Maan S (1992b) The scs and Vi genes correct a syndrome of cytoplasmic effects in alloplasmic durum wheat. Genome 35:780–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ohtsuka I (1991) Genetic differentiation in wheat genomes in relation to compatibility with Aegilops squarrosa cytoplasm and application to phylogeny of polyploid wheats. J Fac Agric Hokkaido Univ 65, part 2, 127–198Google Scholar
  23. Simons KJ, Gehlhar SB, Maan SS, Kianian SF (2003) Detailed mapping of the species cytoplasm-specific (scs) gene in durum wheat. Genetics 165:2129–2136PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Singh RJ (2003) Plant cytogenetics, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 21Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vera S. Bogdanova
    • 1
  • Elvira R. Galieva
    • 1
  • Arseniy K. Yadrikhinskiy
    • 1
  • Oleg E. Kosterin
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Cytology and GeneticsRussian Academy of Sciences, Siberian BranchNovosibirskRussia
  2. 2.Novosibirsk State UniversityNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations