Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Distinguishing between self-incompatibility and other reproductive barriers in plants using male (MCC) and female (FCC) coefficient of crossability

  • Original articles
  • Published:
Sexual Plant Reproduction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

It is difficult to assess self-incompatibility (SI) as a phenomenon or to distinguish it from other reproductive barriers. Our objective was to demonstrate a method of separating reproductive barriers and other factors affecting SI expression. The analysis consists of four parts: (1) calculating male (MCC) and female (FCC) coefficients of crossability using seed set from a diallel crossing design; (2) determining significant male and female differences using a 1∶1 paired Chi-square test; (3) constructing scatter diagrams of FCC versus MCC; (4) performing linear regression analysis between FCC and MCC. Diallel data from eight genera with various reproductive barriers were used to illustrate and validate the usefulness of this method. SI can be distinguished from other reproductive barriers (incongruity, inbreeding depression, post-fertilization phenomena) using 1∶1 Chisquare and regression analysis. In addition, the incorporation of ovule counts is crucial for demarcating the SI phenomenon in species where ovule numbers vary between self- and outcross pollinations. Male and female steriles can be identified with the MCC/FCC equations and subsequently removed from further analysis.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson NO, Liedl BE (1986) Genetic modeling of self-incompatibility in Poaceae utilizing SIGMAS-1. HortScience 21:845

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson NO, Liedl BE (1987) SIGMAS Version 2.0. A soft-ware program for self-incompatibility genetic modeling. Plant Cell Incomp Newslett 19:1–2

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson NO, Liedl BE, Larson DJ, Ascher PD (1987) Genetic and evolutionary studies of self-incompatibility (SI) using rapid cycling Brassicas. Proc Crucifer Improvement Cooperative Workshop IV:27

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson NO, Liedl BE, Ascher PD (1988a) Formulating incompatibility genetic models: the theoretical uses of ITS and ITC. Genome 30 [Supp 1]:291

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson NO, Liedl BE, Ascher PD, Widmer RE, Desborough SL (1988b) Evaluating self-incompatibility in Chrysanthemum. The influence of ovule number. Sex Plant Reprod 1:173–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascher PD (1976) Self-incompatibility systems in floriculture crops. Acta Hortic 63:205–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell RB (1988) Mating structure and the cost of deleterious mutation. I. Postponing inbreeding. J Hered 78:179–183

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll CP, Low RJ (1975) Flowering behaviour and self fertility in dihaploid Solatium tuberosum. Potato Res 18:416–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Compton RH (1912) Preliminary note on the inheritance of self-fertility in Reseda odorata. Proc Cambridge Philos Soc 22:7

    Google Scholar 

  • Correns C (1912) Selbsterilität und Individualstoffe. Festschrift zur 84. Versammlung Deutscher Naturforscher und Ärzte in Münster in Westfalen, issued by the Medizinisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Gesellschaft zu Münster, pp 186–217

  • Correns C (1913) Selbsterilität und Individualstoffe. Biol Zentralbl 33:389–423

    Google Scholar 

  • Darwin CR (1876) The effect of cross- and self-fertilization in the vegetable kingdom. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • DeNettancourt D (1977) Incompatibility in angiosperms. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • East EM, Mangelsdorf AJ (1925) A new interpretation of the behaviour of self-sterile plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 11:166–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner CO, Eberhart SA (1966) Analysis and interpretation of the variety cross diallel and related populations. Biometrics 22:439–452

    Google Scholar 

  • Gerstel DU (1950) Self-incompatibility studies in guayule. II. Inheritance. Genetics 35:482–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Haghighi KR, Ascher PD (1988) Fertile, intermediate hybrids between Phaseolus vulgaris and P. acutifolius from congruity backcrossing. Sex Plant Reprod 1:51–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Hardon JJ (1967) Unilateral incompatibility between Solanum pennellii and Lycopersicon esculentum. Genetics 57:795–808

    Google Scholar 

  • Haruta T (1966) Studies on the genetics of self- and cross-incompatibility in cruciferous vegetable. Northrup King & Co, Minneapolis

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayward MD, Wright AJ (1971) The genetic control of incompatibility in Lolium perenne L. Genetica 42:414–421

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermsen JGT (1979) Factors controlling interspecific crossability and their bearing on the strategy for breaking barriers to intercrossing of tuber-bearing Solanum species. In: Proc Conf Broadening Genet Base Crops, Wageningen, pp 311–318

  • Hogenboom NG (1973) A model for incongruity in intimate partner relationships. Euphytica 22:219–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom NG (1975) Incompatibility and incongruity: two different mechanisms for the non-functioning of intimate partner relationships. Proc R Soc London Ser B 188:361–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom NG (1984) Incongruity: non-functioning of intercellular and intracellular partner relationships through non-matching information. In: Linskens HF, Heslop-Harrison J (eds) Cellular Interactions. (Encyclopedia of plant physiology, NS, vol 17). Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 641–654

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes MB, Babcock EB (1950) Self-incompatibility in Crepis foetida subsp. rheaedifolia. Genetics 35:570–588

    Google Scholar 

  • Hummel R, Ascher PD, Pellet HM (1982) Genetic control of self-incompatibility in red osier dogwood. J Hered 73:308–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Jost L (1907) Über die Selbsterilität einiger Blüten. Bot Z 65:77–117

    Google Scholar 

  • Lande R, Schemske DW (1985) The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants. I. Genetic models. Evolution 39:24–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence MJ, Marshall DF, Curtis VE, Fearon CH (1985) Gametophytic self-incompatibility re-examined: a reply. Heredity 54:131–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D, Crowe LK (1958) Unilateral interspecific incompatibility in flowering plants. Heredity 12:233–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Liedl BE, Anderson NO (1986a) Incompatibility hermeneutics: the determination of cutoff values. Plant Cell Incompat Newslett 18:6–12

    Google Scholar 

  • Liedl BE, Anderson NO (1986b) SIGMAS-1: A software program for self-incompatibility genetic modeling. J Hered 77:480

    Google Scholar 

  • Liedl BE, Anderson NO, Desborough SL, Ascher PD (1988) Empirical evidence for the use of ITS/ITC in determining cutoff values for genetic modeling of incompatible Solanum. Genome 30 [Supp 1]:291

    Google Scholar 

  • Lillie FR (1913) The mechanism of fertilization. Science 38:524–528

    Google Scholar 

  • Maletsky SI, Weisman NJ (1978) A population genetic analysis of self- and cross-incompatibility in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Theor Appl Genet 52:21–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan TH (1910) Cross- and self-fertilization in Ciona intestinalis. Arch Entwicklungsmech Org 30:206–234

    Google Scholar 

  • Padrutt JA (1988) Post-pollination reproductive biology of Rhododendron prinophyllium (Small) Millais. MS thesis, University of Minnesota

  • Poehlman JM (1979) Breeding field crops. AVI Publication, Westport, p 470

    Google Scholar 

  • Robacker C, Ascher PD (1981) Discriminating styles (DS) and pollen-mediated pseudo-self-compatibility (PMPSC) in Nemesia strumosa Benth. I. Characteristics and inheritance of DS. Theor Appl Genet 60:297–302

    Google Scholar 

  • Robacker C, Ascher PD (1982) Discriminating styles (DS) and pollen-mediated pseudo-self-compatibility (PMPSC) in Nemesia strumosa Benth. II. Origin of PMPSC and nature of the DS-PMPSC interaction. Theor Appl Genet 61:289–296

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruemmele BA (1988) Reproductive biology in Poa annua L. PhD thesis, University of Minnesota

  • Seavey SR, Bawa KS (1986) Late-acting self-incompatibility in angiosperms. Bot Rev 52:195–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Spoor W, McCraw JM (1984) Self-incompatibility in Lolium: a reply. Heredity 53:239–240

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein J, Su PR (eds) (1978) The Random House dictionary. Ballantine Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vander Kloet SP, Cabilio P (1984) Annual variation in seed production in a population of Vaccinium corymbosum L. Bull Torrey Bot Club 111:483–488

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace DH (1979) Interactions of S alleles in sporophytically controlled self-incompatibility of Brassica. Theor Appl Genet 54:193–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiens D (1984) Ovule survivorship, brood size, life history, breeding systems, and reproductive success in plants. Oecologia 64:47–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams EG, Knox RB, Rouse JL (1982) Pollination sub-systems distinguished by pollen tube arrest after incompatible interspecific crosses in Rhododendron (Ericaceae). J Cell Sci53:255–277

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Horticultural Science and Landscape Architecture, University of Minnesota, 305 Alderman Hall, 1970 Folwell Avenue, 55108, St. Paul, MN, USA

    N. O. Anderson, B. E. Liedl, P. D. Ascher & S. L. Desborough

Authors
  1. N. O. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. E. Liedl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. D. Ascher
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. L. Desborough
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Scientific Journal Series Paper Number 16,686 of the Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station

Order of the first two authors was statistically determined by replicated tosses (n = 10) of a penny (US currency)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderson, N.O., Liedl, B.E., Ascher, P.D. et al. Distinguishing between self-incompatibility and other reproductive barriers in plants using male (MCC) and female (FCC) coefficient of crossability. Sexual Plant Reprod 2, 116–126 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00192000

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00192000

Key words

Search

Navigation