4.5 Article

Positional cloning of the s haplotype determining the floral and incompatibility phenotype of the long-styled morph of distylous Turnera subulata

期刊

MOLECULAR GENETICS AND GENOMICS
卷 285, 期 2, 页码 101-111

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00438-010-0590-z

关键词

Heterostyly; Distyly; S-locus; Positional cloning; BAC contig; s haplotype

资金

  1. NSERC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Heterostyly is a plant breeding system occurring in approximately 28 plant families and it has often been used as a model system in plant genetics and evolution. Although heterostyly has been studied for over a century beginning with Charles Darwin, the genes determining floral architecture and incompatibility are still unknown. To identify the genes residing at the S-locus of distylous Turnera subulata, we used a positional cloning strategy and assembled three BAC contigs across the S-locus region. In total, 31 overlapping BAC clones were assembled into contigs 1, 2 and SL. We developed and mapped numerous co-dominant markers from the ends of BAC clones across the S-locus region and assayed X-ray deletion mutants to delimit the region of the contig containing the S-locus. Deletion mapping revealed that a single BAC clone (L22s) within contig-SL contains the s haplotype, while two additional BAC clones (I1 and K15) may contain parts of the dominant S haplotype. Furthermore, we exploited the contigs assembled and investigated the rates of recombination at the S-locus as well as in two regions on either side of the S-locus. We found that recombination rates (estimated in kb/cM) are 2-5 times lower at the S-locus relative to flanking regions, although they are not statistically significant. The present study represents a landmark in the molecular characterization of the S-locus of a heterostylous species. We are now on the verge of identifying the genes that have remained elusive since Darwin's comprehensive study of heterostylous systems more than 125 years ago.

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