Is competition between mesocarp cells of peach fruits affected by the percentage of wild species genome?

Quilot, Bénédicte; Génard, Michel

doi:10.1007/s10265-007-0125-9

Cited by 24 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In our study, cell number, not cell size, made contributions to large fruit. This result is consistent with that of Quilot and Génard (2008), who compared four peach groups with different percentages of a wild, smallfruited peach genome. They found that the percentage of the wild peach genome affected maximal mesocarp cell number but not the maximal mesocarp cell size suggesting that increased mesocarp cell numbers resulted in the large fruit size in cultivated peach genotypes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Fruit size QTL analysis of an F1 population derived from a cross between a domesticated sweet cherry cultivar and a wild forest sweet cherry

Zhang

Sebolt

Ranaweera

et al. 2009

Tree Genetics & Genomes

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maximizing fruit size is critical for profitable sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.) production. Yet, despite its importance, little is known about the genetic control of fruit size. The objective of this study was to identify quantitative trait loci (QTLs) for fruit size and two essential components of fruit size, mesocarp cell number and size. This study utilized a double pseudo-testcross population derived from reciprocal crosses between a sweet cherry cultivar with~8 g fruit, "Emperor Francis" (EF), and a wild forest sweet cherry selection with~2 g fruit, "New York 54" (NY). A total of 190 F 1 progeny previously utilized for the construction of the linkage maps were evaluated in 2006 and 2007 for fruit weight, length, and diameter; mesocarp cell number and length; and pit length and diameter. In 2008, a subset of this population was again evaluated for fruit weight. Correlation analysis revealed that the three fruit size traits were highly correlated with each other, and mesocarp cell number, not cell length, was correlated with fruit size. Three QTLs were identified for each fruit size trait, and one QTL was identified for mesocarp cell number. Fruit size QTLs were found on linkage group 2 on the EF map (EF 2) and linkage groups 2 and 6 on the NY map (NY 2 and NY 6). On EF 2, the cell number QTL clustered with the fruit size QTL, suggesting that the underlying basis of the fruit size increase associated with this QTL was an increase in mesocarp cell number. On NY 6, pit length and diameter QTLs clustered with those for fruit size, suggesting that the underlying morphological basis of this fruit size QTL is the difference in pit size.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Fruit size QTL analysis of an F1 population derived from a cross between a domesticated sweet cherry cultivar and a wild forest sweet cherry

Zhang

Sebolt

Ranaweera

et al. 2009

Tree Genetics & Genomes

102

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In contrast, cultivar fruit size variability is generally due to mesocarp cell number rather than cell size in olives (Hammami et al 2011) and other drupes (Scorza et al 1991;Yamaguchi et al 2004;Olmstead et al 2007;Quilot and Génard 2008), and this pattern was observed in layers 5-9. This contrasting behavior indicates a morphogenetic difference between layers 1-4, which behave in a similar manner to the epidermis, and layers 5-9, which behave in the same manner as the mesocarp.…”

Section: Relationships Of Fruit Size To Epidermal and Subepidermal Cementioning

confidence: 89%

“…lular processes that produce the final size of fleshy fruits (Gillaspy et al 1993). Comparative studies attribute cultivar fruit size variation to cell number (Scorza et al 1991;Yamaguchi et al 2004;Olmstead et al 2007;Quilot and Génard 2008;Hammami et al 2011) or both cell number and size when wild genotypes are included in the comparison (Yamaguchi et al 2002;Harada et al 2005). However, although exocarp cell activity is considered to be a relevant component of fruit development (Gillaspy et al 1993;Lemaire-Chamley et al 2005;Fu et al 2010), it has generally not been considered in studies of fruit growth or with respect to genetically based size differences.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Analysis of Cell Organization in the External Region of the Olive Fruit

Hammami

Rapoport

2012

International Journal of Plant Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Definitions of the cells that constitute the exocarp or exterior tissue of fleshy fruits are often vague, sometimes providing contradictory descriptions of the epidermis plus none or varying numbers of underlying cell layers for the same species. This study uses a morphometric approach to investigate how cell dimensions, cell number, and their relation with genetically based fruit size differences can contribute to a characterization of tissue organization in the external fruit region, using the olive drupe as an example. We determined cell area, radial and tangential widths, and cell number in the epidermis and 20 subepidermal cell layers of mature fruits of four olive cultivars that range in fruit size. Variation of these measurements among cell layers and the implied cellular contributions to fruit expansion revealed two different subepidermal regions, but with constant widths and layer numbers for all cultivars: (1) the first four cell layers (1-4), which have similar behavior to the epidermis; and (2) the following five cell layers (5-9), which are more similar to the mesocarp. The results provide new insights about cell patterns in the external region of the olive fruit and suggest that layers 1-4 together with the epidermis may act as a multiseriate exocarp and layers 5-9 may act as an outer mesocarp.

show abstract

“…In their review of intra-plant competition, Sadras & Denison (2009) concluded that plant individuals might use competition-like mechanisms to allocate resources such as nutrients, but only if it increases overall individual fitness. Competition within plant individuals is known to lead to trade-offs between size and number of plant units (Sadras, 1995;Chikov, 2008;Sadras & Denison, 2009) as well as between vegetative and reproductive structures (e.g., Liu et al, 2007;Quilot & Genard, 2008). The vertical growth of shrubs can also be limited by the abrasive effect of windblown ice particles (Sonesson & Callaghan, 1991), resulting in differential growth patterns among stems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different parts, different stories: climate sensitivity of growth is stronger in root collars vs. stems in tundra shrubs

Ropars

Angers‐Blondin

Gagnon

et al. 2017

Global Change Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Shrub densification has been widely reported across the circumpolar arctic and subarctic biomes in recent years. Long-term analyses based on dendrochronological techniques applied to shrubs have linked this phenomenon to climate change. However, the multi-stemmed structure of shrubs makes them difficult to sample and therefore leads to non-uniform sampling protocols among shrub ecologists, who will favor either root collars or stems to conduct dendrochronological analyses. Through a comparative study of the use of root collars and stems of Betula glandulosa, a common North American shrub species, we evaluated the relative sensitivity of each plant part to climate variables and assessed whether this sensitivity is consistent across three different types of environments in northwestern Québec, Canada (terrace, hilltop and snowbed). We found that root collars had greater sensitivity to climate than stems and that these differences were maintained across the three types of environments. Growth at the root collar was best explained by spring precipitation and summer temperature, whereas stem growth showed weak and inconsistent responses to climate variables. Moreover, sensitivity to climate was not consistent among plant parts, as individuals having climate-sensitive root collars did not tend to have climate-sensitive stems. These differences in sensitivity of shrub parts to climate highlight the complexity of resource allocation in multi-stemmed plants. Whereas stem initiation and growth are driven by microenvironmental variables such as light availability and competition, root collars integrate the growth of all plant parts instead, rendering them less affected by mechanisms such as competition and more responsive to signals of global change. Although further investigations are required to determine the degree to which these findings are generalizable across the tundra biome, our results indicate that consistency and caution in the choice of plant parts are a key consideration for the success of future dendroclimatological studies on shrubs.

show abstract

Is competition between mesocarp cells of peach fruits affected by the percentage of wild species genome?

Cited by 24 publications

References 36 publications

Fruit size QTL analysis of an F1 population derived from a cross between a domesticated sweet cherry cultivar and a wild forest sweet cherry

Fruit size QTL analysis of an F1 population derived from a cross between a domesticated sweet cherry cultivar and a wild forest sweet cherry

Quantitative Analysis of Cell Organization in the External Region of the Olive Fruit

Different parts, different stories: climate sensitivity of growth is stronger in root collars vs. stems in tundra shrubs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About