, Volume 99, Issue 5, pp 352–359 | Cite as

Position-dependent NOR activity in barley

  • Ingo Schubert
  • Gottfried Künzel


Two types of intraspecific nucleolar dominance/suppression are described for barley,Hordeum vulgare L. When the nucleolus organizing regions (NORs) originally belonging to chromosomes 6 and 7 are combined by translocation in one chromosome, NOR 6 is dominant over NOR 7. Neither significant loss of rDNA nor its hypermethylation is the reason for the reduced nucleolus forming activity of NOR 7. Intrachromosomal NOR suppression probably does not occur in isochromosome 6s, which has two NORs 6 in one chromosome. Meiotic and somatic pairing of the homologous arms might be the reason for early fusion of their nucleoli and thus for the lower than expected maximum number of interphase nucleoli. Variable suppression of a partial NOR (63) is described for descendants of crosses between translocation lines with split NORs 6 and 7. In these cases also, the reduced activity of the partial NOR 63 is not due to deletion of rDNA as shown by in situ hybridization. Unstable methylation of NOR 63 in heterozygous F1 individuals is probably the cause of this phenomenon.


Developmental Biology Significant Loss Translocation Line Early Fusion Variable Suppression 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anastassova-Kristeva M, Nicoloff H, Künzel G, Rieger R (1977) Nucleolus formation in structurally reconstructed barley karyotypes with six satellite chromosomes. Chromosoma 62:103–109Google Scholar
  2. Anastassova-Kristeva M, Nicoloff H, Rieger R, Künzel G, Hagberg A (1979a) Nucleolus organizer activity as affected by chromosome repatterning in barley. Barley Genet Newslett 9:9–12Google Scholar
  3. Anastassova-Kristeva M, Rieger R, Künzel G, Nicoloff H, Hagberg A (1979b) Further evidence on ‘nucleolar dominance’ in barley translocation lines. Barley Genet Newslett 10:3–6Google Scholar
  4. Appels R, Gerlach WL, Dennis ES, Swift H, Peacock WJ (1980) Molecular and chromosomal organization of DNA sequences coding for the ribosomal RNAs in cereals. Chromosoma 78:293–311Google Scholar
  5. Cabello P, Gonzales-Fernandez A, Leyton C, Sans J, de la Torre C (1986) Stimulated nucleologenesis in meristematic cells with hypomethylated DNA. Biol Cell 58:91–94Google Scholar
  6. Flavell RB, O'Dell M, Thompson WF (1988) Regulation of cytosine methylation in ribosomal DNA and nucleolus organizer expression in wheat. J Mol Biol 204:523–534Google Scholar
  7. Kenton AY, Owens SJ, Langton D (1988) The origin of ringformation and self-compatibility inGibasis pulchella (Commelinaceae). Kew Chromosome Conference III. HMSO, pp 75–84Google Scholar
  8. Konishi T, Linde-Laursen I (1988) Spontaneous chromosomal rearrangements in cultivated and wild barleys. Theor Appl Genet 75:237–243Google Scholar
  9. Künzel G (1984) Isochromosome for the short arm of barley chromosome 6. Barley Genet Newslett 14:6–8Google Scholar
  10. Lacadena JR, Cermeno MC, Orellana J, Santos JL (1984) Evidence for wheat-rye nucleolar competition (amphiplasty) in triticale by silver staining procedure. Theor Appl Genet 75:207–213Google Scholar
  11. Linde-Laursen I (1984) Nucleolus organizer polymorphism in barley,Hordeum vulgare L. Hereditas 100:33–43Google Scholar
  12. Navashin M (1927) Changes in the number and form of chromosomes as a result of hybridization. Z Zellforsch Mikrosk Anat 6:195–233Google Scholar
  13. Navashin M (1928) ‘Amphiplasty’ — eine neue karyologische Erscheinung. Proc Int Conf Genet 5:1148–1152Google Scholar
  14. Nicoloff H, Anastassova-Kristeva M, Künzel G (1977a) Changes in nucleolar activity due to segmental interchanges between satellite chromosomes in barley. Biol Zentralbl 96:223–227Google Scholar
  15. Nicoloff H, Anastassova-Kristeva M, Künzel G, Rieger R (1977b) The behaviour of nucleolus organizers in structurally changed karyotypes of barley. Chromosoma 62:103–109Google Scholar
  16. Nicoloff H, Anastassova-Kristeva M, Rieger R, Künzel G (1979) ‘Nucleolar dominance’ as observed in barley translocation lines with specifically reconstructed SAT chromosomes. Theor Appl Genet 55:247–251Google Scholar
  17. Ochs RL, Liwsche MA, Shen E, Carrol RE, Busch H (1985) Nucleologenesis: Composition and fate of prenucleolar bodies. Chromosoma 92:330–336Google Scholar
  18. Reeder RH (1985) Mechanisms of nucleolar dominance in animals and plants. J Cell Biol 101:2013–2016Google Scholar
  19. Rieger R, Nicoloff H, Anastassova-Kristeva M (1979) ‘Nucleolar dominance’ in interspecific hybrids and translocation lines — a review. Biol Zentralbl 98:385–398Google Scholar
  20. Schubert I (1990) Both NORs within a tandem duplication inVicia faba L. are active. Biol Zentralbl 109:267–269Google Scholar
  21. Schubert I, Wobus U (1985) In situ hybridization confirms jumping nucleolus organizing regions inAllium. Chromosoma 92:143–148Google Scholar
  22. Yakura K, Tanifuji S (1983) Molecular cloning and restriction analysis of Eco-RI fragments ofVicia faba rDNA. Plant Cell Physiol 24:1327–1330Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ingo Schubert
    • 1
  • Gottfried Künzel
    • 1
  1. 1.Zentralinstitut für Genetik und KulturpflanzenforschungGaterslebenGerman Democratic Republic

Personalised recommendations