Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T19:37:21.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Overcoming self-incompatibility in Eruca sativa by chemical treatment of stigmas

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2007

Wancang Sun ,
Qiyuan Pan ,
Zigang Liu ,
Yaxiong Meng ,
Tao Zhang ,
Heling Wang  and
Xiucong Zeng
Wancang Sun*
Affiliation:
Agronomy College, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, P.R., China
Qiyuan Pan
Affiliation:
National Center for Health Statistics, 3311 Toledo Road, Room 4431, Hyattsville, MD 20782, USA
Zigang Liu
Affiliation:
Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, P.R., China
Yaxiong Meng
Affiliation:
Agronomy College, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, P.R., China
Tao Zhang
Affiliation:
Gansu Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, P.R., China
Heling Wang
Affiliation:
Agronomy College, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, P.R., China
Xiucong Zeng
Affiliation:
Agronomy College, Gansu Agricultural University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730070, P.R., China
*
*Corresponding author: E-mail:, wangcangsun@yahoo.com.cn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As a member of the tribe Brassiceae, Eruca sativa, although a minor crop worldwide, is considered a valuable genetic resource for cabbage, rapeseed and other Brassica crops. Self-incompatibility (SI) in Brassica has been extensively studied, but information on SI in E. sativa is limited. Of six chemicals used to treat the stigmas to overcome SI in five E. sativa lines, gibberellin was the most effective. As gibberellin is well known for its ability to break dormancy and to promote cell elongation, its effectiveness may help to understand the mechanisms of SI. Urea and ammonium sulphate were also effective. These two chemicals are known to affect protein stability, which may help explain their effects on SI. Although table salt has been reported as being effective in overcoming SI in B. rapa, B. oleracea and B. napu, it was not effective in E. sativa. Sucrose and alcohol also had negligible effect. There was significant variation among the genotypes in SI intensity and response to chemicals, but the genotype–chemical interaction was not significant. The data presented in this paper add to our understanding of SI in E. sativa and may lead to a better use of this genetic resource.

Keywords

Eruca sativagenetic resourcesgibberellinself-incompatibilitystigma chemical treatment
Type
Research Article
Information
Plant Genetic Resources , Volume 3 , Issue 1 , April 2005 , pp. 13 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © NIAB 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allwood, EG, Anthony, RG, Smertenko, AP, Reichelt, S, Drobak, BK, Doonan, JH, Weeds, AG and Hussey, P (2002) Regulation of the pollen-specific actin-depolymerizing factor LIADF1. The Plant Cell 14: 2915–2927.Google Scholar
ap Rees, T (1984) Sucrose metabolism. In: Lewis, DH (ed.) Storage Carbohydrates in Vascular Plants. London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 53–73.Google Scholar
Bateman, AJ (1955) Self-incompatibility systems in angiosperms. III. Cruciferae. Heredity 9: 52–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carafa, AM and Carratu, G (1997) Stigma treatment with saline solutions: a new method to overcome self-compatibility in Brassica oleracea L. Journal of Horticultural Science 72: 531–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, H (1995) Dry stigma, water and self-incompatibility in Brassica. Sexual Plant Reproduction 8: 1–10.Google Scholar
Dunbar, A and Rowley, JR (1984) Betula pollen development before and after dormancy: exine and intine. Pollen Spores 26: 299–337.Google Scholar
Elleman, CJ and Dickinson, HG (1994) Pollen–stigma interaction during sporophytic self- incompatibility in Brassica oleracea. In: Williams, EG, Clarke, AE and Knox, RB (eds) Genetic Control of Self-incompatibility and Reproductive Development in Flowering Plants. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. pp. 67–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrari, TE and Wallace, DH (1977) Incompatibility on Brassica stigmas is overcome by treating pollen with cycloheximide. Science 196(4288): 436–438.Google Scholar
Franklin-Tong, N (2002) Receptor–ligand interaction demonstrated in Brassica self-incompatibility. Trends in Genetics 18: 113–115.Google Scholar
Fu, TD (1994) Breeding and Utilization of Hybrid Rapeseed. Wuhan: Hubei Publishing House of Science and Technology (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Fu, TD, Ping, S, Yang, XO and Yang, GS (1992) Overcoming self-incompatibility of Brassica napus by salt (NaCl) spray. Plant Breeding (Zeitschrift fur Pflanzenzuchtung) 109: 255–258.Google Scholar
Fukai, E, Fujimoto, R and Nishio, T (2003) Genomic organization of the S core region and the S flanking regions of a class-II S haplotype in Brassica rapa. Molecular Genetics and Genomics 269: 361–369.Google Scholar
Gómez-Campo, C (1980) Morphology and morpho-taxonomy of the tribe Brassiceae. In: Tsunoda, S, Hinata, K and Gómez-Campo, C (eds) Brassica Crops and Wild Allies. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press, pp. 3–31;.Google Scholar
Hinata, K and Nishio, T (1980) Self-incompatibility in crucifers In: Tsunoda, S, Hinata, K and Gómez-Campo, C (eds) Brassica Crops and Wild Allies. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press, pp. 223–233.Google Scholar
Hinata, K, Isogai, A and Isuzugawa, K (1994) Manipulation of sporophytic self-incompatibility in plant breeding. In: Williams, EG, Clarke, AE and Knox, RB (eds) Genetic Control of Self-incompatibility and Reproductive Development in Flowering Plants. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 102–115.Google Scholar
Hiscock, SJ and Dickinson, HG (1993) Unilateral incompatibility within the Brassicaceae: further evidence for the involvement of the self-incompatibility (S)-locus. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 86: 744–753.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiscock, SJ and McInnis, SM (2003) Pollen recognition and rejection during the sporophytic self-incompatibility response: Brassica and beyond. Trends in Plant Science 8: 606–613.Google Scholar
Hu, DZ, An, CT, Dong, HZ, Bing, DJ and Niu, JY (1983) Overcoming self-incompatibility in rapeseed by spraying chemicals. Oil Crops of China 1983 (2): 1–5 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Iwano, M, Shiba, H, Funato, M, Shimosato, H, Takayama, S and Isogai, A (2003) Immunohistochemical studies on translocation of pollen S-haplotype determinant in self-incompatibility of Brassica rapa. Plant and Cell Physiology 44: 428–436.Google Scholar
Johnson, SA and McCormick, S (2001) Pollen germinates precociously in the anthers of raring-to-go, an Arabidopsis gametophytic mutant. Plant Physiology 126: 685–695.Google Scholar
Kachroo, A, Schopfer, CR, Nasrallah, ME and Nasrallah, JB (2001) Allele-specific receptor-ligand interactions in Brassica self-incompatibility. Science 293(5536): 1824–1826.Google Scholar
Kemp, BP and Doughty, J (2003) Just how complex is the Brassica S-receptor complex?. Journal of Experimental Botany 54: 157–168.Google Scholar
Kimura, R, Sato, K, Fujimoto, R and Nishio, T (2002) Recognition specificity of self-incompatibility maintained after the divergence of Brassica oleracea and Brassica rapa. The Plant Journal 29: 215–223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liu, HL and Fu, TD (1981) Preliminary results in selecting the self-incompatible line, maintaining line, and restoring line in oilseed Brassica napus. Journal of Agricultural University of Central China 1981(3): 9–28 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Lopez, I, Anthony, RG, Maciver, SK, Jiang, CJ, Khan, S, Weeds, AG and Hussey, PJ (1996) Pollen specific expression of maize genes encoding actin depolymerizing factor-like proteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 93: 7415–7420.Google Scholar
Monteiro, AA, Gabelman, WH and Williams, PH (1988) Use of sodium chloride solution to overcome self-incompatibility in Brassica campestris. HortScience 5: 876–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murase, K, Shiba, H, Iwano, M, Che, FS, Watanabe, M, Isogai, A and Takayama, S (2004) A membrane-anchored protein kinase involved in Brassica self-incompatibility signaling. Science 303(5663): 1516–1519.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Plucknett, DL and Horne, ME (1992) Conservation of genetic resources. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 42: 75–92.Google Scholar
Prakash, S (1980) Cruciferous oilseeds in India. In: Tsunoda, S, Hinata, K, Gómez-Campo, C (eds) Brassica Crops and Wild Allies. Tokyo: Japan Scientific Societies Press, pp. 151–164.Google Scholar
Rozwadowski, K, Zhao, R, Jackman, L, Huebert, T, Burkhart, WE, Hemmingsen, SM, Greenwood, J and Rothstein, SJ (1999) Characterization and immunolocalization of a cytosolic calcium-binding protein from Brassica napus and Arabidopsis pollen. Plant Physiology 120: 787–797.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sakamoto, K and Nishio, T (2001) Distribution of S haplotypes in commercial cultivars of Brassica rapa. Plant Breeding 120: 155–161.Google Scholar
Sarker, RH, Elleman, CJ and Dickinson, HG (1988) Control of pollen hydration in Brassica requires continued protein synthesis, and glycosylation is necessary for interspecific incompatibility. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 85: 4340–4344.Google Scholar
Sato, Y, Fujimoto, R, Toriyama, K and Nishio, T (2003) Commonality of self-recognition specificity of S haplotypes between Brassica oleracea and Brassica rapa. Plant Molecular Biology 52: 617–626.Google Scholar
Sharma, N, Bajaj, M and Shivanna, KR (1985) Overcoming self-incompatiblity through the use of lectin and sugar in Petunia and Eruca. Annals of Botany 55: 139–141.Google Scholar
Steiner, C, Bauer, J, Amrhein, N and Bucher, M (2003) Two novel genes are differentially expressed during early germination of the male gametophyte of Nicotiana tabacum. Biochimica Biophysica Acta 1625: 123–133.Google Scholar
Sun, WC (2000) Studies on identification of Eruca germplasm resources and distant crosses of rapeseed. PhD dissertation, Library of Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, P.R. China (in Chinese).Google Scholar
Takayama, S, Shimosato, H, Shiba, H, Funato, M, Che, FS, Watanabe, M, Iwano, M and Isogai, A (2001) Direct ligand–receptor complex interaction controls Brassica self-incompatibility. Nature 413(6855): 534–538.Google Scholar
Taiz, L and Zeiger, E (1991) Plant Physiology. Redwood City, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Co., pp. 426–451.Google Scholar
Verma, SC, Malik, R and Dhir, I (1977) Genetics of the incompatibility system in the crucifer Eruca sativa L. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B. Biological Sciences 196(1123): 131–159.Google Scholar
Vinterhalter, DV and Vinterhalter, BS (1999) Hormone-like effects of sucrose in plant in vitro cultures. Phyton 39(3): 57–60.Google Scholar
Voet, D and Voet, JG (1990) Three-dimensional structure of proteins. In: Biochemistry. New York: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 144–192.Google Scholar
Waldman, M and Shevah, Y (2000) Biological diversity—an overview. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 123: 299–310.Google Scholar
Wilkes, G (1989) Germplasm preservation: objectives and needs. In: Knutson, L and Stoner, AK (eds) Biotic Diversity and Germplasm Preservation, Global Imperatives. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 13–41.Google Scholar