, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 364–372 | Cite as

Time and site of theS-gene action, breeding systems and relationships in incompatibility

  • K. K. Pandey


In self-incompatible angiosperms correlations have been discovered between the genetic systems of compatibility control, floral morphology, pollen cytology, and site of pollen inhibition. The present paper critically reviews these relationships and their exceptions with particular reference to the time and site of theS-gene action. A hypothesis explaining these relationships and some of the exceptions has been proposed earlier. The major factor affecting these relationships is believed to be time of theS-gene action — late- or post-meiotic (not earlier than telophase I) in the gametophytic system and early (homomorphic) — or premeiotic (heteromorphic) in the sporophytic system. Recent work of Heslop-Harrison and his colleagues has provided additional evidence about the suggested timing of theS-gene action in the gametophytic species. In the sporophytic species, however, Heslop-Harrison suggests that theS-gene action occurs in the tapetum and not in the meiocytes. In the present discussion it is argued that tapetal action of certain elements of theS-gene complex is possible, but only in the heteromorphic species. It is suggested that major exceptions are by-products of secondary evolution of incompatibility after the primary incompatibility had been disturbed, or had broken down.


Plant Physiology Recent Work Genetic System Present Discussion Breeding System 
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. Arasu, N. T., 1968. Self-incompatibility in angiosperms: A review. Genetica 39: 1–24.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, H. G., 1966. The evolution, functioning, and breakdown of heteromorphic incompatibility systems. I. ThePlumbaginaceae. Evolution 20: 349–368.Google Scholar
  3. Bateman, A. J., 1954. The diversity of incompatibility systems in flowering plants. Proc. VIII Int. Bot. Congr., Paris, Sect. 10: 138–145.Google Scholar
  4. Bateman, A. J., 1956. Cryptic self-incompatibility in the wallflower:Cheiranthus cheiri L. Heredity 10: 257–261.Google Scholar
  5. Brewbaker, J. L., 1957. Pollen cytology and self-incompatibility systems in plants. J. Hered. 48: 271–277.Google Scholar
  6. Brewbaker, J. L. &Natrajan, A. T., 1960. Centric fragments and pollen-part mutation of incompatibility alleles inPetunia. Genetics 45: 699–704.Google Scholar
  7. Brewbaker, J. L. &Shapiro, N., 1959. Homozygosity andS gene mutation. Nature 183: 1209–1210.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Bubar, J. S., 1959. Differences between self-incompatibility and self-sterility. Nature 183: 411–412.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Cleland, R. E., 1950. Studies inOenothera cytogenetics and phylogeny. Indiana University Sci. Ser. 16: 1–348.Google Scholar
  10. Cope, F. W., 1958. Incompatibility inTheobroma cacao. Nature 181: 279.Google Scholar
  11. Crowe, L. K., 1954. Incompatibility inCosmos bipinnatus. Heredity 8: 1–11.Google Scholar
  12. Crowe, L. K., 1955. The evolution of incompatibility in species ofOenothera. Heredity 9: 293–322.Google Scholar
  13. Giles, W. F., 1949. The morphological aspects of self-sterility inLotus corniculatus. Ph. D. Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia.Google Scholar
  14. Hecht, A., 1964. Partial inactivation of an incompatibility substance in the stigmas and styles ofOenothera. In:H. F. Linskens (Ed.) Pollen physiology and fertilization. North-Holland, Amsterdam, p. 237–243.Google Scholar
  15. Heslop-Harrison, J., 1968a. Ribosome sites andS-gene action. Nature 218: 90–91.Google Scholar
  16. Heslop-Harrison, J., 1968b. Tapetal origin of pollen-coat substances inLilium. New Phytol. 67: 779–786.Google Scholar
  17. Kroh, M., 1964. An electron microscopic study of the behavior ofCruciferae pollen after pollination. In:H. F. Linskens (Ed.), Pollen physiology and fertilization. North-Holland Publ. Co. Amsterdam, p. 221–224.Google Scholar
  18. Lewis, D., 1949. Structure of the incompatibility gene. II. Induced mutation rate. Heredity 3: 339–355PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lewis, D., 1954. Comparative incompatibility in angiosperms and fungi. Adv. Gent. 6: 235–285.Google Scholar
  20. Lewis, D., 1956. Incompatibility and plant breeding. Brookhaven Symp. Biol. 9: 89–100.Google Scholar
  21. Lewis, D., 1961. Chromosome fragments and mutation of the incompatibility gene. Nature 190: 990–991.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Lewis, D. &Crowe, L. K., 1958. Unilateral interspecific incompatibility in flowering plants. Heredity 12: 233–256.Google Scholar
  23. Linskens, H. F. &Heinen, W., 1962. Cutinase-Nachweizen Pollen. Z.Bot. 50: 338–347.Google Scholar
  24. Lundquist, A., 1964. The genetics of incompatibility. In.S. J. Geerts (Ed.), Genetics Today. Pergamon, London, p. 637–647.Google Scholar
  25. Mackenzie, A., Heslop-Harrison, J. &Dickinson, H. G., 1967. Elimination of ribosomes during meiotic prophase. Nature, 215: 997–999.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Makinen, Y. L. A. &Lewis, D., 1962. Immunological analysis of incompatibility (S) proteins and of crossreacting material in a self-compatible mutant ofOenothera organensis. Genet. Res. 3: 352–363.Google Scholar
  27. Mather, K., 1943. Specific differences inPetunia. I. Incompatibility. J. Genet. 45: 215–235.Google Scholar
  28. Mather, K. &De Winton, D., 1941. Adaptation and counteradaptation of the breeding system inPrimula. Ann. Bot. 5: 297–311.Google Scholar
  29. Pandey, K. K., 1956a. Mutation of self-incompatibility alleles inTrifolium pratense andT. repens. Genetics 41: 327–343.Google Scholar
  30. Pandey, K. K., 1956b. Incompatibility in autotetraploidTrifolium pratense. Genetics 41: 353–366.Google Scholar
  31. Pandey, K. K., 1957. Genetics of self-incompatibility inPhysalis ixocarpa Brot. A new system. Am. J. Bot. 44: 879–887.Google Scholar
  32. Pandey, K. K., 1959. Mutations of the self-incompatibility gene (S) and pseudocompatibility in angiosperms. Lloydia 22: 222–234.Google Scholar
  33. Pandey, K. K., 1960. Evolution of gametophytic and sporophytic systems of self-incompatibility in angiosperms. Evolution 14: 98–115.Google Scholar
  34. Pandey, K. K., 1965. Centric chromosome fragments and pollen-part mutation of the incompatibility gene inNicotiana alata. Nature 206: 792–795.Google Scholar
  35. Pandey, K. K., 1967. Elements of theS-gene complex. II. Mutation and complementation at theS I locus inNicotiana alata. Heredity 22: 255–284.Google Scholar
  36. Pandey, K. K., 1968. Compatibility relationships in flowering plants: Role of theS-gene complex. Am. Nat. 102: 475–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pandey, K. K., 1969. Elements of theS-gene complex. V. Interspecific cross-compatibility relationships and theory of the evolution of theS complex. Genetica 40: 447–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Panella, A. &Lorenzetti, F., 1966. Selfing and selection in alfalfa breeding programmes. Euphytica 15: 248–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Rowlands, D. G., 1958. The nature of the breeding system in the field bean (V. faba L.) and its relationship to breeding for yield. Heredity 12: 113–126.Google Scholar
  40. Schürhoff, P. N., 1926. Die Zytologie der Blutenpflanzen. Ferdinand Ente, Stuttgart.Google Scholar
  41. Steiner, E., 1961. Incompatibility in the complex-heterozygotes ofOenothera. Genetics 46: 301–315.Google Scholar
  42. Whitehead, W. L. &Davis, R. L., 1954. Self- and crosscompatibility in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Agron. J. 46: 452–456.Google Scholar
  43. Whitehouse, H. L. K., 1950. Multiple allelomorph incompatibility of pollen and style in the evolution of angiosperms. Ann. Bot. 14: 199–216.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. K. Pandey
    • 1
  1. 1.Grasslands DivisionDSIRPalmerston NorthNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations