International Journal of Plant Sciences

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access
Open Access Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Restricted Access Subscription Access

Self-Incompatibility:A Pollination Control Mechanism in Plants


Affiliations
1 Department of Plantation Crops and Spices, College of Horticulture, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Thrissur (Kerala), India
2 Cocoa Research Centre, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur (Kerala), India
     

   Subscribe/Renew Journal


Mode of pollination is very important in plant breeding because it determines the genetic constitution, nature of gene action, ease in pollination control and stability of varieties after release. There are several mechanisms that promote cross pollination, among these self-incompatibility (SI) is of special significance as it is used in hybrid seed production. SI is defined as the prevention of fusion of fertile (functional) male and female gametes of the same plant (Gowers, 1989). SI is a system where self-recognition and rejection is the rule that prevents inbreeding depression. Bateman (1952) classified self-incompatibility based on the interaction between pollen grains and pistil as complementary and oppositional system. Lewis (1954) has classified SI into homomorphic and heteromorphic systems. Homomorphic SI is again subdivided into gametophytic (determined by the genotype of gametes) and sporophytic (determined by the genotype of the plant) systems. Molecular studies after 1980’s revealed that at least two genes within S-locus control the SI, among these one unit function as male and the other as female determinant. In Brassicaceae family, the determinant gene encodes a pollen ligand and its stigmatic receptor kinase and their interaction induces incompatible signaling within the stigma papilla cells. In the Solanaceae, Rosaceae, and Scrophulariaceae, the female determinant is ribonuclease and F-box protein, suggesting the involvement of RNA degradation and protein degradation within the system. In the Papaveraceae, the female determinant induces Ca2+ dependent signaling network that ultimately results in the death of incompatible pollen (Takayama and Isogai, 2005). Genes controlling the SI is multiallelic in nature and number of alleles varies depending upon the crop. Number of alleles reported are five in Theobroma cacao (Knight and Rogers, 1953), 30 in Brassica campestris (Singh, 2012), 32 alleles in Raphanussativus (Karron et al., 1989). SI is commercially exploited for the production hybrid seeds. Pusa Hybrid-2, Snow Queen and Snow King hybrids of cauliflower, BRH-5, H-44 of cabbage and CCRP8 to CCRP15 (Minimol et al., 2015a) of cocoa are some of the examples. Kucera et al. (2006) has compared the quality between SI and male sterility hybrids in cauliflower and it was found that SI hybrids are superior in their performance. Minimol et al. (2015b) emphasized the importance of polyclonal garden in cocoa for production of F1 hybrid seeds by utilizing the self-incompatibility. Rego and Rego (2013) evaluated the efficiency of three methods of overcoming self-incompatibility in passion fruit and found fruit set of 16.67 and 10 per cent in bud and double pollination, respectively. The main limitations in exploiting SI is the maintenance of inbreds, however, it can be overcome by some temporary methods such as bud pollination, salt sprays and irradiation methods.

Keywords

Self-Incompatibility, Gametes, Homomorphic, Heteromorphic.
Subscription Login to verify subscription
User
Notifications
Font Size


  • Adamson, R.M. (1965). Self and cross-incompatibility in early round headed cabbage. Can. J. Plant Sci., 45:493-498.

  • Aneja, M. and Badilla, A.T. (1994). Carbon dioxide treatment partially overcomes self-incompatibility in cocoa genotype. Hort. Sci., 29 : 15-17.

  • Bassett, M.J. (1986). Breeding vegetable crops. AVI Pub. Com., Westport, Connecticut. 298p.

  • Bateman, A.J. (1952). Self-incompatibility systems in angiosperms. Heredity, 6: 285-310.

  • Choi, C., Tao, R. and Andersen, R.L. (2002). Identification of self-incompatibility alleles and pollen incompatibility groups in sweet cherry by PCR based on S-allele typing and controlled pollination. Euphytica, 123 : 9-20.

  • Cope, F.W. (1939). Studies in the mechanism of self-incompatibility in cacao I. Eighth Annual Report on Cocoa Research, Trinidad, pp. 20-21.

  • East, E.M. and Mangelsdorf, A.J. (1925). A new interpretation of the hereditary behaviour of self-sterile plants. Euphytica, 11 : 166-171.

  • Gowers, S. (1989). Self-incompatibility interactions ofBrassica napus. Euphytica, 42: 99-103.

  • Haffani, Y.Z., Gaude, T., Cock, J.M. and Goring, D.R. (2004). Antisense suppression of thioredoxinhmRNA in Brassica napus cv. Westar pistils causes a low level constitutive pollen rejection response. Plant Mol. Biol., 55: 619-630.

  • Hoser-Krauze, J. (1979). Inheritance of self-incompatibility and the use of it in the production of F1 hybrids of cauliflower. Genet. Pol., 20 : 341-367.

  • Hughes, M.B. and Babcock, E.B. (1950). Self-incompatibility in Crepisfoetida L. subsp. rhoeadifoliaBieb, Schinzet Keller. Genetics, 35: 570-588.

  • Karron, J.D., Marshall, D.L. and Oliveras, D.M. (1989). Numbers of sporophytic self-incompatibility alleles in populations of wild radish. Theor. Appl. Genet., 79 : 457- 460.

  • Knight, R. and Rogers, H.H. (1953). Sterility in Theobroma cacao L. Nature, 172 : 164-169.

  • Kucera, V., Chytilova, V., Vyvadilova, M. and Klima, M. (2006). Hybrid breeding of cauliflower using self-incompatibility and cytoplasmic male sterility. Hort. Sci. (Prague), 33 : 148-152.

  • Lewis, D. (1954). Comparative incompatibility in angiosperms. Adv. Genet., 6: 235-255.

  • Liu, P., Sherman-Broyles, S., Nasrallah, M.E. and Nasrallah, J.B. (2007). A cryptic modifier causing transient self-incompatibility in Arabidopsis thaliana. Curr. Biol., 17 : 734-740.

  • Ma, C.Z., Li, C.Y., Tan, Y.Q., Tang, W., Zhang, J.F., Gao, C.B. and Fu, T.D. (2009). Genetic analysis reveals a dominant S locus and an S suppressor locus in natural self-compatible Brassica napus. Euphytica, 166 : 123-129.

  • Ma, C., Gao, G., Zhang, J., Li, F., Wang, X., Liu, Y. and Fu, T. (2009). A promising way to produce B. napus hybrid seeds by self-incompatibility pollination system. 16th Australian Research Assembly on Brassica, Ballart Victoria. pp. 1-4.

  • Minimol, J.S., Suma, B., Ummer, M. and Chithira, P.G. (2015a). Genetic improvement of cocoa by developing superior hybrids. J. Trop. Agric. 53: 157-165.

  • Minimol, J.S., Suma, B. and Mathew, M. (2015b). Importance of polyclonal garden in production of superior planting material in cocoa. Cashew Cocoa J., 16 : 19-21.

  • Murase, K., Shiba, H., Iwano, M., Che, F.S., Watanabe, M., Isogai, A. and Takayama, S. (2004). A membrane-anchored protein kinase involved in Brassica self-incompatibility signaling. Sci., 303: 1516-1519.

  • Nasrallah, J.B. (2000). Cell–Cell signaling in the self-incompatibility response. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol., 3: 368-373.

  • Odland, M.L. (1962). The utilization of cross-compatibility and self-incompatibility in the roduction of F1 hybrid cabbage. Proceed. American Soc. Hort. Sci., 55: 391-402.

  • Paxman, G.J. (1963). The maximum livelihood estimation of the number of self-sterility alleles in a population. Genetics, 48 : 1029-1032.

  • Rego, M.M. and Rego, E.R. (2013). Overcoming self-incompatibility in passion fruit by double pollination in anthesis stages. Theor. Appl. Genet., 101 : 685-689.

  • Sampson, D.R. (1957). The self-incompatibility phenotype in Brassica isaltered by the transformation of a mutant S locus receptor kinase. Plant Cell, 10: 209-218.

  • Sampson, D.R. (1964). Equilibrium frequencies of sporophytic self-incompatibility alleles. Can. J. Genet. Cytol., 16 : 611- 618.

  • Samuel, M.A., Chong, Y.T., Haasen, K.E., Aldea-Brydges, M.G., Stone, S.L. and Goring, D.R. (2009). Cellular pathways regulating responses to compatible and self-incompatible pollen in Brassica and Arabidopsis stigmas intersect at Exo70A1, a putative component of the exocyst complex. Plant Cell, 21: 2655-2671.

  • Schopfer, C.R., Nasrallah, M.E. and Nasrallah, J.B. (1999). The male determinant of self-incompatibility in Brassica. Sci., 286 : 1697-1700.

  • Singh, B.D. (2012). Plant breeding principles and methods. Kalyani Publishers, New Delhi, 923p.

  • Singh, R.N., Majumdar, P.K. and Sharma, D.K. (1962). Self-incompatibility in mango variety Dashehari. Curr. Sci., 31: 209-215.

  • Stein, J.C., Howlett, B., Boyes, D.C., Nasrallah, M.E. and Nasrallah, J.B. (1991). Molecular cloning of a putative rector protein kinase encoded at the self-incompatibility locus of Brassiaoleracea. Proc. National Acad. Sci., USA 88 : 8816-8820.

  • Stone, S.L., Anderson, E.M., Mullen, R.T. and Goring, D.R. (2003). ARC1is an E3 ubiquitin ligase and promotes the ubiquitination of proteins during the rejection of self-incompatible Brassica pollen. Plant Cell, 15: 885-898.

  • Suzuki, G., Kai, N., Hirose, T., Fukai, K., Nishio, T., Takayama, S., Isogai, A., Watanabe, M. and Hinata, K. (1999). Genomic organization of the S locus: identification and characterization of genes in SLG/SRK region of S(9) haplotype of Brassica campestris (syn. rapa). Genetics, 153: 391-400.

  • Takayama, S. and Isogai, A. (2005). Self-incompatibility in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol., 56: 467-489.

  • Tantikanjana, T., Rizvi, N., Nasrallah, M.E. and Nasrallah, J.B. (2009). A dual role for the S-locus receptor kinase in self-incompatibility and pistil development revealed by an Arabidopsis rdr6 mutation. Plant Cell, 21: 2642-2654.

  • Thompson, K.F. (1957). Kales, Self-incompatibility. Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge, Annual Report 1956. 57: 40-41.

  • Thompson, K.F. (1985). Identical S alleles in different botanical varieties of Brassica oleracea. Nature, 208: 306-307.

  • Valanova, S., Romero, C., Abbott, A.G., Llacer, G. and Badenes, M.L. (2003). An apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) F2 progeny linkage map based on SSR and AFLP markers, mapping plum pox virus resistance and self-incompatibility traits. Theor. Appl. Genet., 107: 239-247.

  • Vanoosthuyse, V., Tichtinsky, G., Dumas, C., Gaude, T. and Cock, J.M. (2003). Interaction of calmodulin, a sorting nexin and kinase-associated protein phosphatase with the Brassica oleraceaS locus receptor kinase. Plant Physiol., 133: 919-929.

  • Wang, Li., Xilin, Hou.,Aifen Zhang, and Ying, Li. (2012). Effect of NaCl on overcoming self-incompatibility in non-heading Chinese cabbage (Brassica campestris ssp chinensis Makino) studied by fluorescent microscopy. Plant Physiol., 932: 127-132.


Abstract Views: 305

PDF Views: 0




  • Self-Incompatibility:A Pollination Control Mechanism in Plants

Abstract Views: 305  |  PDF Views: 0

Authors

Vijayakumar B. Narayanapur
Department of Plantation Crops and Spices, College of Horticulture, Kerala Agricultural University, Vellanikkara, Thrissur (Kerala), India
B. Suma
Cocoa Research Centre, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur (Kerala), India
J. S. Minimol
Cocoa Research Centre, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur (Kerala), India

Abstract


Mode of pollination is very important in plant breeding because it determines the genetic constitution, nature of gene action, ease in pollination control and stability of varieties after release. There are several mechanisms that promote cross pollination, among these self-incompatibility (SI) is of special significance as it is used in hybrid seed production. SI is defined as the prevention of fusion of fertile (functional) male and female gametes of the same plant (Gowers, 1989). SI is a system where self-recognition and rejection is the rule that prevents inbreeding depression. Bateman (1952) classified self-incompatibility based on the interaction between pollen grains and pistil as complementary and oppositional system. Lewis (1954) has classified SI into homomorphic and heteromorphic systems. Homomorphic SI is again subdivided into gametophytic (determined by the genotype of gametes) and sporophytic (determined by the genotype of the plant) systems. Molecular studies after 1980’s revealed that at least two genes within S-locus control the SI, among these one unit function as male and the other as female determinant. In Brassicaceae family, the determinant gene encodes a pollen ligand and its stigmatic receptor kinase and their interaction induces incompatible signaling within the stigma papilla cells. In the Solanaceae, Rosaceae, and Scrophulariaceae, the female determinant is ribonuclease and F-box protein, suggesting the involvement of RNA degradation and protein degradation within the system. In the Papaveraceae, the female determinant induces Ca2+ dependent signaling network that ultimately results in the death of incompatible pollen (Takayama and Isogai, 2005). Genes controlling the SI is multiallelic in nature and number of alleles varies depending upon the crop. Number of alleles reported are five in Theobroma cacao (Knight and Rogers, 1953), 30 in Brassica campestris (Singh, 2012), 32 alleles in Raphanussativus (Karron et al., 1989). SI is commercially exploited for the production hybrid seeds. Pusa Hybrid-2, Snow Queen and Snow King hybrids of cauliflower, BRH-5, H-44 of cabbage and CCRP8 to CCRP15 (Minimol et al., 2015a) of cocoa are some of the examples. Kucera et al. (2006) has compared the quality between SI and male sterility hybrids in cauliflower and it was found that SI hybrids are superior in their performance. Minimol et al. (2015b) emphasized the importance of polyclonal garden in cocoa for production of F1 hybrid seeds by utilizing the self-incompatibility. Rego and Rego (2013) evaluated the efficiency of three methods of overcoming self-incompatibility in passion fruit and found fruit set of 16.67 and 10 per cent in bud and double pollination, respectively. The main limitations in exploiting SI is the maintenance of inbreds, however, it can be overcome by some temporary methods such as bud pollination, salt sprays and irradiation methods.

Keywords


Self-Incompatibility, Gametes, Homomorphic, Heteromorphic.

References