Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The origin and function of self-incompatibility in flowering plants

  • Review
  • Published:
Sexual Plant Reproduction Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The evolutionary significance of self-incompatibility (SI) traditionally has been linked to reduced inbreeding through enforced outcrossing. This view is founded on the premise that outcrossing reduces inbreeding. It is important, when considering the evolutionary significance of any genetic system, to try to distinguish those factors related to the evolution of, from those related to the maintenance of, the system in question. Three factors are considered important for the maintenance of SI: (1) phylogenetic constraint in species descended from SI ancestors, (2) reduced inbreeding in populations, and (3) fitness benefits to individuals resulting from the avoidance of selfing. I suggest that the first two factors should be rejected when considering the origin of SI (whether one or more origins are hypothesized) and that the increase in individual fitness resulting from the avoidance of self-fertilization among individuals that are heterozygous for deleterious alleles may be sufficient to account for the origin of SI. Self-fertilization in plants (except in species that predominantly self-fertilize) generally results in a reduction in fitness of some individuals due to the increased expression of deleterious or lethal recessive alleles, regardless of the degree of inbreeding in the population or the frequency of the allele in question. Inbreeding is a consequence of population structure in many outcrossing plant species. Complex (multi-locus and multi-allelic) systems of SI exist that reduce inbreeding. However, it is argued that these are derived either from simpler systems of SI that may have very little or no effect on inbreeding, in which case any effect on level of inbreeding is secondary, or are not true self-incompatibility systems and are part of a regulatory system that serves to balance the level of inbreeding and outbreeding. Multi-locus and multi-allelic systems of SI and heteromorphic systems of SI are discussed in terms of derived versus ancestral characteristics. A reassessment of the role of breeding systems in the development of a population structure promoting inbreeding is suggested, which may have been of crucial importance in the success and diversification of angiosperms.

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 M, Cornish E, Mau S, Williams E, Hoggart R, Atkinson A, Bonig I, Grego B, Simpson R, Roche R, Haley J, Penschow J, Niall H, Tregear G, Coghlan J, Crawford R, Clarke A (1986) Cloning of cDNA for a stylar glycoprotein associated with expression of self-incompatibility in Nicotiana alata. Nature 321:38–44

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascher PD (1984) Discriminating styles and pollen-mediated pseudo-self compatibility. Am J Bot 71 (5, part 2):98

    Google Scholar 

  • Baker H (1959) Reproductive methods as factors in speciation in flowering plants. Cold Spring Harbor Symp Quant Biol 24:177–191

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (1979) The evolutionary breakdown of tristyly in Eichornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms (water hyacinth). Evolution 33:499–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (1985) Ecological genetics of breakdown in tristyly. In: Haeck J, Woldendorp JW (eds) Structure and functioning of plant populations, vol 2. North Holland, Amsterdam New York, pp 267–275

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett S (1988) The evolution, maintenance, and loss of self-incompatibility systems. In: Lovett-Doust J, Lovett-Doust L (eds) Plant reproductive ecology. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 98–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Bateman AJ (1952) Self-incompatibility systems in angiosperms. I. Theory. Heredity 6:285–310

    Google Scholar 

  • Bawa K (1980) Evolution of dioecy in flowering plants. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 11:15–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach J (1981) Pollinator foraging and the evolution of dioecy. Am Nat 118:572–577

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach JH, Bawa K (1980) Role of pollination in the evolution of dioecy from distyly. Evolution 34:1138–1142

    Google Scholar 

  • Beach JH, Kress WJ (1980) Sporophyte versus gametophyte. A note on the origin of self-incompatibility in flowering plants. Syst Bot 5:1–5

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewbaker JL (1967) The distribution and phylogenetic significance of binucleate and trinucleate pollen grains in the angiosperms. Am J Bot 54:1069–1083

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell JM, Lawrence MJ (1981) The population genetics of the self-incompatibility polymorphism in Papaver rhoeas. II. The number and frequency of S-alleles in a natural population (R106). Heredity 46:81–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth D (1979) The evolution and breakdown of tristyly. Evolution 33:486–498

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth D (1985) Distribution of dioecy and self-incompatibility in angiosperms. In: Greenwood J, Slatkin M (eds) Evolution — essays in honour of John Maynard Smith. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 237–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1979a) The evolutionary genetics of sexual systems in flowering plants. Proc R Soc London Ser B 205:513–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Charlesworth D, Charlesworth B (1979b) The evolution and breakdown of S-allele systems. Heredity 43:41–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Crepet WL (1983) The role of insect pollination in the evolution of the angiosperms. In: Real L (ed) Pollination biology. Academic Press, Orlando, Fla, pp 29–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Crepet WL (1984) Advanced (constant) insect pollination mechanisms: patterns of evolution and implications vis-avis angiosperm diversity. Ann Mo Bot Gard 71:607–630

    Google Scholar 

  • Crow JF, Kimura M (1970) An introduction to population genetics theory. Harper & Row, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe LK (1964) The evolution of outbreeding in plants. I. The angiosperms. Heredity 19:435–457

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruden RW (1988) Temporal dioecism: systematic breadth, associated traits, and temporal patterns. Bot Gaz (Chicago) 149:1–15

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Doyle JA, Hickey LJ (1976) Pollen and leaves from the Mid-Cretaceous Potomac Group and their bearing on early angiosperm evolution. In: Beck CB (ed) Origin and early evolution of angiosperms. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 139–206

    Google Scholar 

  • East EM (1940) The distribution of self-sterility in the flowering plants. Proc Am Philos Soc 82:449–518

    Google Scholar 

  • East EM, Mangelsdorf AJ (1925) A new interpretation of the hereditary behavior of self-sterile plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 11:166–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Emerson SH (1938) The genetics of self-incompatibility in Oenothera organensis. Genetics 23:190–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewens WJ (1964) The distribution of self-sterility alleles. Genetics 50:1433–1438

    Google Scholar 

  • Falconer DS (1960) Introduction to quantitative genetics. Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganders F (1979) Evolution of heterostyly. NZ J Bot 17:607–635

    Google Scholar 

  • Givnish T (1982) Outcrossing versus ecological constraints in the evolution of dioecy. Am Nat 119:849–865

    Google Scholar 

  • Gottlieb LD (1982) Conservation and duplication of isozymes in plants. Science 216:373–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould SJ, Vrba E (1982) Exaptation — a missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology 8:4–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant V (1975) Genetics of flowering plants. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Heslop-Harrison J (1983) Self-incompatibility: phenomenology and physiology. Proc R Soc London Ser B 218:371–395

    Google Scholar 

  • Holsinger K (1986) Dispersal and plant mating systems: the evolution of self-fertilization in subdivided populations. Evolution 40:405–413

    Google Scholar 

  • Jagorski JS, Ascher PD, Widmer RE (1983) Multigenic selfincompatibility in hexaploid Chrysanthemum. Euphytica 32:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Kress WJ (1983) Self-incompatibility in Central America Heliconia. Evolution 37:735–744

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen K (1977) Self-incompatibility in Beta vulgaris L. I. Four gametophytic, complementary S-loci in sugar beet. Hereditas 85:227–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen K (1985) Cell surface recognition glycoproteins and their possible role in angiosperm self-incompatibility. In: Willemse MTM, Went JL van (eds) Sexual reproduction in seed plants, ferns and mosses. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp 112–114

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin D (1981) Dispersal vs gene flow in plants. Ann Mo Bot Gard 68:233–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Levin D, Wilson J (1978) The genetic implications of ecological adaptations in plants. In: Freysen A, Woldendorp J (eds) Structure and functioning of plant populations. North Holland, Amsterdam New York, pp 75–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D (1979) Genetic versatility of incompatibility in plants. NZ J Bot 17:637–644

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D, Rao A (1971) Evolution of dimorphism and population polymorphism in Pemphis acidula Forst. Proc R Soc London Ser B 178:79–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd D (1979) Some reproductive factors affecting the selection of self-fertilization in plants. Am Nat 113:67–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveless M, Hamrick J (1984) Ecological determinants of genetic structure in populations. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 14:65–95

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundqvist A (1962) The nature of the two-loci incompatibility system in grasses. I. The hypothesis of duplicative origin. Hereditas 48:169–181

    Google Scholar 

  • Lundqvist A (1975) Complex self-incompatibility systems in angiosperms. Proc R Soc London Ser B 188:235–245

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather K (1973) Genetical structure of populations. Chapman and Hall, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J (1978) The evolution of sex. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayr E (1963) Animal species and evolution. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod MJ, Guttman SI, Eshbaugh WH, Rayle RE (1983) An electrophoretic study of evolution in Capsicum (Solanaceae). Evolution 37:562–574

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy DL (1964) The reproductive biology of Oxalis priceae. Am J Bot 51:1045–1050

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulcahy DL, Mulcahy GB (1983) Gametophytic self-incompatibility re-examined. Science 220:1247–1251

    Google Scholar 

  • Muenchow G (1981) An S-locus model for the distyly supergene. Am Nat 118:756–760

    Google Scholar 

  • Muller HJ (1950) Our load of mutations. Am J Hum Genet 2:111–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagylaki T (1975) The deterministic behavior of self-incompatibility alleles. Genetics 79:545–550

    Google Scholar 

  • Nasrallah J, Kao T, Goldberg M, Nasrallah M (1985) A cDNA clone incoding an S-locus-specific glycoprotein from Brassica oleracea. Nature 318:263–267

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Olmstead RG (1986) Self-incompatibility in light of population structure and inbreeding. In: Mulcahy DL, Mulcahy GB, Ottaviano E (eds) Biotechnology and ecology of pollen. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 239–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Opler AT, Baker H, Frankie G (1980) Plant reproductive characteristics during secondary succession in neotropical low-land forest ecosystems. Biotropica 12 [Suppl]:40–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Parkin DT (1979) An introduction to evolutionary genetics. Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Partridge L (1983) Non-random mating and offspring fitness. In: Bateson P (ed) Mate choice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 227–253

    Google Scholar 

  • Regal RJ (1977) Ecology and evolution of flowering plant dominance. Science 196:622–629

    Google Scholar 

  • Richards AJ (1986) Plant breeding systems. Allen and Unwin, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz Z, Arroyo T, Arroyo MTK (1978) Plant reproductive ecology of a secondary deciduous tropical forest in Venezuela. Biotropica 10:221–230

    Google Scholar 

  • Schemske D, Lande R (1985) The evolution of self-fertilization and inbreeding depression in plants. II. Empirical observations. Evolution 39:41–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields WM (1982) Philopatry, inbreeding, and the evolution of sex. State University New York Press, Albany

    Google Scholar 

  • Shields WM (1983) Optimal inbreeding and the evolution of philopatry. In: Swingland JR, Greenwood PJ (eds) The ecology of animal movement. Clarendon Press, Oxford, pp 132–159

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobrevila C, Arroyo MTK (1982) Breeding systems in a montane tropical cloud forest in Venezuela. Plant Syst Evol 140:19–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins GL (1957) Self-fertilization and population variability in the higher plants. Am Nat 91:337–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Stebbins GL (1974) Flowering plants: evolution above the species level. Harvard University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson J, Barrett S (1981) Selection for outcrossing, sexual selection, and the evolution of dioecy in plants. Am Nat 118:443–449

    Google Scholar 

  • Uyenoyama M (1988a) On the evolution of genetic incompatibility systems: incompatibility as a mechanisms for the regulation of outcrossing distance. In: Levin BR, Michod RE (eds) The evolution of sex: an examination of current ideas. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass, pp 212–232

    Google Scholar 

  • Uyenoyama M (1988a) On the evolution of genetic incompatibility systems. II. Initial increase of strong gametophytic self-incompatibility under partial selfing and half-sib mating. Am Nat 131:700–722

    Google Scholar 

  • Weller S (1976) The genetic control of tristyly in Oxalis section Ionoxalis. Heredity 37:387–392

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Whitehouse HKL (1950) Multiple-allelemorph incompatibility of pollen and style in the evolution of angiosperms. Ann Bot (London) 14:198–216

    Google Scholar 

  • Willson MF (1983) Plant reproductive ecology. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1922) Coefficients of inbreeding and relationship. Am Nat 56:330–338

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1939) The distribution of self-sterility alleles in populations. Genetics 24:538–552

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright S (1940) Breeding structure of populations in relation to speciation. Am Nat 74:232–248

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biology, University of Michigan, 48109, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    R. G. Olmstead

Authors
  1. R. G. Olmstead
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olmstead, R.G. The origin and function of self-incompatibility in flowering plants. Sexual Plant Reprod 2, 127–136 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00192758

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00192758

Key words

Search

Navigation