<p><strong>Is <em>Rosa × archipelagica</em> (Rosaceae, Rosoideae) really a spontaneous intersectional hybrid between <em>R. rugosa </em>and <em>R. maximowicziana</em>? Molecular data confirmation and evidence of paternal leakage</strong></p>

Abstract

Rosa × archipelagica is a spontaneous hybrid between Rosa rugosa and R. maximowicziana distributed, together with its parental taxa, on the coast of a small Stenina Island in the Peter the Great Gulf, the Sea of Japan (Russian Far East). Its hybrid origin is confirmed by direct electropherogram comparisons of PCR products and maximum likelihood analyses of nuclear ITS 1–2 and plastid intergenic spacers trnH–psbA and ndhC–trnV. The plastome markers indicate R. maximowicziana as the maternal genome donor of Rosa × archipelagica, however, one specimen shows also signs of heteroplasmy. This is the first evidence of possible biparental inheritance of plastids in rose hybrids. The results do not show whether the hybrid plants all belong to F1 or further generations of hybrids.

Hybridization and diversity of aquatic macrophyte Sparganium L. (Typhaceae) as revealed by high-throughput nrDNA sequencing

“…There are a few reasons for the heterogeneity. The first is the retention of part of the rDNA ancestral species in hybrids [29][30][31][32] . The second reason could be pseudogenization of transcriptionally inert rDNA loci with their slow homogenization; it has been shown that in transcriptionally inert rDNA copies the accumulation rate of SNPs and deletions is 10 times higher than in rDNA of transcribed loci 38,40,61,62 .…”

“…First-generation interspecific hybrids always have both parents' rDNA in the genome [27][28][29][30] . In the next generations, some species retain rDNA [31][32][33] , while others undergo rDNA homogenization, resulting in the loss of most of the rDNA of one of the parents and only a minor number of 35S rDNA loci remaining in the genome, which can be detected via sequencing cloned PCR products 22,28,[33][34][35] or by using next-generation-sequencing (NGS) 16,21,[36][37][38][39][40][41] .…”

“…In the next generations, some species retain rDNA [31][32][33] , while others undergo rDNA homogenization, resulting in the loss of most of the rDNA of one of the parents and only a minor number of 35S rDNA loci remaining in the genome, which can be detected via sequencing cloned PCR products 22,28,[33][34][35] or by using next-generation-sequencing (NGS) 16,21,[36][37][38][39][40][41] . Analysis of the intraindividual polymorphism of 35S rDNA fragments has been successfully used to study hybrids in various groups of plants [29][30][31][32][33] . ITS1 and ITS2 fragments are most variable at the intraindividual level 42 .…”

New Insights into the Genomic Structure of Avena L.: Comparison of the Divergence of A-Genome and One C-Genome Oat Species

“…The intragenomic heterogeneity of 35S rDNA in allopolyploids is usually explained by the fact that many plant species, primarily allopolyploids, arose due to interspecific hybridization. Despite the processes of homogenization (concerted evolution) of rDNA repeats, allopolyploids can retain a part of the rDNA of both paternal ancestors for some time [55][56][57][58][59]. In addition, a high level of SNPs in DNA may be an effect of genomic shock accompanying interspecies hybridization [60,61].…”

Endemic Trollius from southeast Sakhalin: revealing another taxonomic confusion in Trollius L. taxonomy – the “T. miyabei case”

“…In the present study, in addition to the psbAtrnH, which is one of the most frequently used and informative regions for most taxonomic groups of land plants (Dong et al 2012, Pang et al 2012, Korotkova et al 2011, Shaw et al 2007, we obtained the nucleotide sequences of the ndhCtrnV region for all samples included in the analysis. The choice of this IGS was due to its successful use in our previous studies of Rosa L., Eversmannia Bunge, and other genera (Schanzer et al 2020, Fedorova et al 2010, Fedorova 2012, Stepanova 2023.…”