Genetics Behind Sexual Incompatibility in Plants: How Much We Know and What More to Uncover?

Chakraborty, Sukanya; Dutta, Shyamali; Das, Mita

doi:10.1007/s00344-023-11005-z

Cited by 5 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 280 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to loss‐of‐function mutations in coding regions, mating‐system shifts can also stem from transcription silencing or exonic rearrangements in pertinent genes (Chakraborty et al., 2023). For instance, down‐regulation caused by transposon‐like insertions in the promoter regions of the male‐determining self‐incompatibility genes MGST and BnSP11 ‐ 1 trigger the shift from self‐incompatibility to self‐compatibility in Prunus avium and Brassica napus , respectively (Gao et al., 2016; Ono et al., 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Genomic analyses elucidate S‐locus evolution in response to intra‐specific losses of distyly in Primula vulgaris

Mora‐Carrera,

Stubbs,

Potente

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Distyly, a floral dimorphism that promotes outcrossing, is controlled by a hemizygous genomic region known as the S‐locus. Disruptions of genes within the S‐locus are responsible for the loss of distyly and the emergence of homostyly, a floral monomorphism that favors selfing. Using whole‐genome resequencing data of distylous and homostylous individuals from populations of Primula vulgaris and leveraging high‐quality reference genomes of Primula we tested, for the first time, predictions about the evolutionary consequences of transitions to selfing on S‐genes. Our results reveal a previously undetected structural rearrangement in CYPᵀ associated with the shift to homostyly and confirm previously reported, homostyle‐specific, loss‐of‐function mutations in the exons of the S‐gene CYPᵀ. We also discovered that the promoter and intronic regions of CYPᵀ in distylous and homostylous individuals are conserved, suggesting that down‐regulation of CYPᵀ via mutations in its promoter and intronic regions is not a cause of the shift to homostyly. Furthermore, we found that hemizygosity is associated with reduced genetic diversity in S‐genes compared with their paralogs outside the S‐locus. Additionally, the shift to homostyly lowers genetic diversity in both the S‐genes and their paralogs, as expected in primarily selfing plants. Finally, we tested, for the first time, long‐standing theoretical models of changes in S‐locus genotypes during early stages of the transition to homostyly, supporting the assumption that two copies of the S‐locus might reduce homostyle fitness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition to loss-of-function mutations in coding regions, mating-system shifts can also stem from transcription silencing or exonic rearrangements in pertinent genes (Chakraborty et al, 2023).…”

Section: Genetic Basis Of Transitions From Distyly To Homostyly In Pr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Genomic analyses elucidate S‐locus evolution in response to intra‐specific losses of distyly in Primula vulgaris

Mora‐Carrera,

Stubbs,

Potente

et al. 2024

Ecology and Evolution

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In Brassicaceae, SSI is controlled by an S-locus comprising the female determinant S-locus protein 11/S-locus Cys-rich (SP11/SCR) and the male determinant S-locus receptor kinase (SRK) (Schopfer, 1999;Takasaki et al, 2000;Fujii et al, 2016;Chakraborty et al, 2023). The S-locus is highly linked to S-locus glycoprotein (SLG), and both are inherited as an S-haplotype (Nasrallah and Wallace, 1967;Nasrallah et al, 1985;Schopfer, 1999;Suzuki et al, 1999;Sehgal and Singh, 2018).…”

Section: Genetic Regulation Of Self-incompatibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A major obstacle to using wild relatives in tomato breeding is the presence of intra-and interspecific reproductive barriers. Intraspecific barriers, known as self-incompatibility (SI), prevent self-fertilization and maintain genetic diversity in species by promoting outcrossing (Kaothien-Nakayama et al, 2010;Fujii et al, 2016;Broz and Bedinger, 2021;Chakraborty et al, 2023). SI barriers rely on self and non-self-recognition mechanisms between pollen and pistil, followed by inhibition of pollen tube development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In SSI, recognition occurs in the stigma, leading to pollen hydration and germination through the style. Lack of recognition prevents pollen hydration (Fujii et al, 2016;Broz and Bedinger, 2021;Chakraborty et al, 2023;Wang and Filatov, 2023). In Rosaceae, Solanaceae and Plantaginaceae GSI, interaction between male and female SI determinants occurs in the style (Fujii et al, 2016;Broz and Bedinger, 2021;Wang and Filatov, 2023).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intra- and inter-specific reproductive barriers in the tomato clade

Moreels,

Bigot,

Defalque

et al. 2023

Front. Plant Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) domestication and later introduction into Europe resulted in a genetic bottleneck that reduced genetic variation. Crosses with other wild tomato species from the Lycopersicon clade can be used to increase genetic diversity and improve important agronomic traits such as stress tolerance. However, many species in the Lycopersicon clade have intraspecific and interspecific incompatibility, such as gametophytic self-incompatibility and unilateral incompatibility. In this review, we provide an overview of the known incompatibility barriers in Lycopersicon. We begin by addressing the general mechanisms self-incompatibility, as well as more specific mechanisms in the Rosaceae, Papaveraceae, and Solanaceae. Incompatibility in the Lycopersicon clade is discussed, including loss of self-incompatibility, species exhibiting only self-incompatibility and species presenting both self-compatibility and self-incompatibility. We summarize unilateral incompatibility in general and specifically in Lycopersicon, with details on the ’self-compatible x self-incompatible’ rule, implications of self-incompatibility in unilateral incompatibility and self-incompatibility-independent pathways of unilateral incompatibility. Finally, we discuss advances in the understanding of compatibility barriers and their implications for tomato breeding.

show abstract