4.7 Review

A Dual-Successive-Screen Model at Pollen/Stigma and Pollen Tube/Ovary Explaining Paradoxical Self-Incompatibility Diagnosis in the Olive Tree-An Interpretative Update of the Literature

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants10091938

关键词

Olea europaea L.; paleoploidy; sporophytic self-incompatibility; two S-loci

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study on self-incompatibility (SI) in Olea europaea L. suggests that the dual-successive-screen model (DSSM) controls the expression of SI in pollen/stigma, while instability of certain determinants leads to degradation of pollen tubes and stigma, increasing the possibility of selfing in olive trees.
The 'pollen test' and 'fruit set test' following controlled crossing combinations of parents are the most commonly used methods for pollination incompatibility studies in Olea europaea L. Self-incompatibility (SI), with diagnoses based on the pollen test and pollen germination, indicating self-compatibility, is not always followed by fruit set in this species. To solve this dispute, we have reconciled all observations into a new model. Mismatches between field and laboratory data and between methods are resolved by the dual-successive-screen model (DSSM) supposing two different loci for the expression of the two SI mechanisms. Pollen/stigma is controlled by diallelic SI, or DSI, inferring two G1 and G2 compatibility/incompatibility (C/I) groups for varieties, whereas pollen tubes in ovaries are controlled by poly-allelic SI or PASI with twenty C/I groups. To explain the selfing of varieties, we have suggested that some determinants in the pollen tube and stigma are unstable and degrade (DS-D for degradation of S-determinant) after three to five days, enabling some pollen tubes to avoid being rejected, hence reaching ovules. DSI and PASI in the DSSM and DS-D mechanisms, plus the andromonoecy of the olive tree, complexify SI studies. Inferences from DSSM and DS-D mechanisms in olive orchard practice are detailed.

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

4.7
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