Sexual Plant Reproduction

, Volume 18, Issue 4, pp 187–194 | Cite as

Pollen–pistil barriers to crossing in maize and teosinte result from incongruity rather than active rejection

Original Article

Abstract

Many popcorn strains cannot be fertilized by pollen of dent and flint strains although the reciprocal crosses are successful. Similarly, plants of some annual teosinte populations can fertilize maize but do not accept its pollen. Single genes or gene complexes govern these two unilateral barriers to crossing. Failure of fertilization could reflect active rejection by the pistil of pollen containing a contrasting allele (incompatibility). Alternatively, the pistil could require presence of a matching allele in pollen (congruity). To distinguish between these possibilities genetically, the receptivity to pollen having both alleles was determined. If there is active rejection, heteroallelic pollen would not be accepted; if presence of a matching allele is required, heteroallelic pollen would be accepted. In both the popcorn and teosinte crossing barrier systems, heteroallelic pollen functioned, consistent with the congruity model.

Keywords

Cross incompatibility Incongruity Pollen–pistil interaction Zea mays

References

  1. Asher PD, Peloquin SJ (1968) Pollen tube growth and incompatibility following intra- and inter-specific pollinations in Lilium longiflorum. Am J Bot 55:1230–1234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auger DL, Birchler JA (2002) Maize tertiary trisomic stocks derived from B-A translocations. J Heredity 93:42–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckett JB (1983) Kernel-weight effects and transmission of a partial trisome involving the long arm of chromosome 5 in maize. Can J Genet Cytol 25:346–353Google Scholar
  4. Beckett JB (1991) Cytogenetic, genetic and plant breeding applications of B-A translocations in maize. In: Gupta PK, Tsuchiya T (eds) Chromosome engineering in plants: genetics, breeding, evolution, vol 2A. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 493–529Google Scholar
  5. Bernacchi D, Tanksley SD (1997) An interspecific backcross of Lycopersion esculentum × L. hirsutum: linkage analysis and a QTL study of sexual compatibility factors and floral traits. Genetics 147:861–877PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Birchler JA (1993) Trisomic manipulation. In: Freeling M, Walbot V (eds) The maize handbook. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 302–308Google Scholar
  7. de Nettancourt D (2001) Incompatibility and incongruity in wild and cultivated plants. 2nd edn. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Edlund AF, Swanson R, Preuss D (2004) Pollen and stigma structure and function: the role of diversity in pollination. Plant Cell 16:S84–S97CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Emerson RA (1934) Relation of the differential fertilization genes, Ga ga, to certain other genes of the Su-Tu lineage group of maize. Genetics 19:137–156PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans MMS, Kermicle JL (2001) Teosinte crossing barrier 1, a locus governing hybridization of teosinte with maize. Theor Appl Genet 103:259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franklin-Tong VE, Franklin FCH (2003) The different mechanisms of gametophytic self-incompatibility. Phil Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 358:1025–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grun P, Aubertin M (1966) The inheritance and expression of unilateral incompatibility in Solanum. Heredity 21:131–138Google Scholar
  13. Hancock CN, Kondo K, Beecher B, McClure B (2003) The S-locus and unilateral incompatibility. Phil Trans R Soc Lond Ser B 358:1133–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hermsen JGTh, Olsder J, Jansen P, Hoving E (1974) Acceptance of self-compatible pollen from Solanum verrocosum in dihaploids from S. tuberosum. In: Linskens HF (ed) Fertilization in higher plants. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 37–40Google Scholar
  15. Hogenboom NG (1972) Breaking breeding barriers in Lycopersicon. 5. The inheritance of the unilateral incompatibility between L. peruvianum (L.) Mill. and L. esculentum Mill. and the genetics of its breakdown. Euphytica 21:405–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hogenboom NG (1975) Incompatibility and incongruity: two different mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships. Proc R Soc Lon B 188:361–375Google Scholar
  17. Hogenboom NG (1984) Incongruity: non-functioning of intercellular and intracellular partner relationships through non-matching information. In: Linskens HF, Heslop-Harrison J (eds) Encyclopedia of plant physiology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 640–654Google Scholar
  18. Jones DF (1920) Selective fertilization in pollen mixtures. Biol Bulletin 38:251–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kao T-h, Tsukamoto T (2004) The molecular and genetic basis of S-RNase-based self-incompatibility. Plant Cell 16:S72–S83CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kachroo A, Nasrallah ME, Nasrallah JB (2002) Self-incompatibility in the Brassicaceae: receptor-ligand signaling and cell-to-cell communication. Plant Cell 14:5227–5238Google Scholar
  21. Kermicle JL (2001) Genetic barriers that restrict hybridization in corn and teosinte. Corn Sorghum Res Conf 56:17–23Google Scholar
  22. Kermicle JL, Allen JO (1990) Cross incompatibility between maize and teosinte. Maydica 35:399–408Google Scholar
  23. Lee EA, Darrah LL, Coe EH (1996) Dosage effects on morphological and quantitative traits in maize aneuploids. Genome 39:898–908CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lewis D, Crowe LK (1958) Unilateral incompatibility in flowering plants. Heredity 12:233–256Google Scholar
  25. Liedl BE, McCormick S, Mutschler MA (1996) Unilateral incongruity in crosses involving Lycopersicon penellii and L. esculentum is distinct from self-incompatibility in expression, timing and location. Sex Plant Reprod 9:299–308Google Scholar
  26. Meyer P, Saedler H (1996) Homology-dependent gene silencing in plants. Annu Rev Plant Phys 47:23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murfett J, Strabala TJ, Zurek DM, Mou B, Beecher B, McClure BA (1996) 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. Plant Cell 8:943–958CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Nelson OE (1952) Non-reciprocal cross-sterility in maize. Genetics 36:101–124Google Scholar
  29. Nelson OE (1993) The gametophyte factors of maize. In: Freeling M, Walbot V (eds) The maize handbook. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York pp 496–503Google Scholar
  30. Roman H (1947) Mitotic nondisjunction in the case of interchanges involving the B-type chromosome in maize. Genetics 32:391–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanchez AM, Bosch M, Bots M, Nieuwland J, Feron R, Mariani C (2004) Pistil factors controlling pollination. Plant Cell 16:S98–S106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Stone SL, Anderson EM, Mulen RT, Goring DR (2003) ARC1 is an E3 ubiquitin ligase and promotes the ubiquination of proteins during the rejection of self-incompatible Brassica pollen. Plant Cell 15:885–898CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Swanson R, Edlund AF, Preuss D (2004) Species specificity in pollen–pistil interactions. Annu Rev Genetics 38:739–818Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of GeneticsUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant BiologyCarnegie Institution of WashingtonStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations