4.6 Article

Genetic architecture and evolution of the S locus supergene in Primula vulgaris

Journal

NATURE PLANTS
Volume 2, Issue 12, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NPLANTS.2016.188

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. BBSRC [BB/H019278/2, G11027, P11021]
  2. Gatsby Foundation
  3. University of Leeds
  4. Durham University
  5. University of East Anglia
  6. Earth & Life Systems Alliance (ELSA)
  7. BBSRC [BB/H019278/1, BBS/E/T/000PR5885, BB/H019278/2, BBS/E/T/000PR6193] Funding Source: UKRI
  8. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/H019278/2, BBS/E/T/000PR5885, BB/H019278/1, BBS/E/T/000PR6193] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Darwin's studies on heterostyly in Primula described two floral morphs, pin and thrum, with reciprocal anther and stigma heights that promote insect-mediated cross-pollination. This key innovation evolved independently in several angiosperm families. Subsequent studies on heterostyly in Primula contributed to the foundation of modern genetic theory and the neo-Darwinian synthesis. The established genetic model for Primula heterostyly involves a diallelic S locus comprising several genes, with rare recombination events that result in self-fertile homostyle flowers with anthers and stigma at the same height. Here we reveal the S locus supergene as a tightly linked cluster of thrum-specific genes that are absent in pins. We show that thrums are hemizygous not heterozygous for the S locus, which suggests that homostyles do not arise by recombination between S locus haplotypes as previously proposed. Duplication of a floral homeotic gene 51.7 million years (Myr) ago, followed by its neofunctionalization, created the current S locus assemblage which led to floral heteromorphy in Primula. Our findings provide new insights into the structure, function and evolution of this archetypal supergene.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available