4.6 Review

The selfing syndrome: a model for studying the genetic and evolutionary basis of morphological adaptation in plants

Journal

ANNALS OF BOTANY
Volume 107, Issue 9, Pages 1433-1443

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcr023

Keywords

Evolution; selfing syndrome; autogamy; pollen-to-ovule ratio; flower size; herkogamy; quantitative trait loci; self-incompatibility

Categories

Funding

  1. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/E024793/1]
  2. European Union [236753-evo_flore]
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/E024793/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. BBSRC [BB/E024793/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background In angiosperm evolution, autogamously selfing lineages have been derived from outbreeding ancestors multiple times, and this transition is regarded as one of the most common evolutionary tendencies in flowering plants. In most cases, it is accompanied by a characteristic set of morphological and functional changes to the flowers, together termed the selfing syndrome. Two major areas that have changed during evolution of the selfing syndrome are sex allocation to male vs. female function and flower morphology, in particular flower (mainly petal) size and the distance between anthers and stigma. Scope A rich body of theoretical, taxonomic, ecological and genetic studies have addressed the evolutionary modification of these two trait complexes during or after the transition to selfing. Here, we review our current knowledge about the genetics and evolution of the selfing syndrome. Conclusions We argue that because of its frequent parallel evolution, the selfing syndrome represents an ideal model for addressing basic questions about morphological evolution and adaptation in flowering plants, but that realizing this potential will require the molecular identification of more of the causal genes underlying relevant trait variation.

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