4.5 Article

Cytoplasmic male sterility in Mimulus hybrids has pleiotropic effects on corolla and pistil traits

期刊

HEREDITY
卷 106, 期 5, 页码 886-893

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/hdy.2010.133

关键词

gynodioecy; sexual dimorphism; CMS; genetic correlation

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0316786]
  2. MRI [DBI-0321329]
  3. FIBR [EF-0328636]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The mechanisms underlying genetic associations have important consequences for evolutionary outcomes, but distinguishing linkage from pleiotropy is often difficult. Here, we use a fine mapping approach to determine the genetic basis of association between cytonuclear male sterility and other floral traits in Mimulus hybrids. Previous work has shown that male sterility in hybrids between Mimulus guttatus and Mimulus nasutus is due to interactions between a mitochondrial gene from M. guttatus and two tightly linked nuclear restorer alleles on Linkage Group 7, and that male sterility is associated with reduced corolla size. In the present study, we generated a set of nearly isogenic lines segregating for the restorer region and male sterility, but with unique flanking introgressions. Male-sterile flowers had significantly smaller corollas, longer styles and greater stigmatic exsertion than fertile flowers. Because these effects were significant regardless of the genotypic composition of introgressions flanking the restorer region, they suggest that these floral differences are a direct byproduct of the genetic incompatibility causing anther abortion. In addition, we found a non-significant but intriguing trend for male-sterile plants to produce more seeds per flower than fertile siblings after supplemental pollination. Such pleiotropic effects may underlie the corolla dimorphism frequently observed in gynodioecious taxa and may affect selection on cytoplasmic male sterility genes when they initially arise. Heredity (2011) 106, 886-893; doi:10.1038/hdy.2010.133; published online 19 January 2011

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据