4.6 Article

Tight genetic linkage of genes causing hybrid necrosis and pollinator isolation between young species

期刊

NATURE PLANTS
卷 9, 期 3, 页码 420-+

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41477-023-01354-8

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A chitinase gene is responsible for hybrid necrosis, which is a post-zygotic isolation mechanism. This gene is tightly linked with genes in pollinator-mediated reproductive isolation, suggesting the cooperation of pre- and post-zygotic barriers. The mechanisms of reproductive isolation causing phenotypic diversification and speciation are important in evolutionary research.
A chitinase gene is responsible for the hybrid necrosis between two young Petunia species. This gene is tightly linked with genes in pollinator-mediated reproductive isolation, suggesting cooperation of pre- and post-zygotic barriers. The mechanisms of reproductive isolation that cause phenotypic diversification and eventually speciation are a major topic of evolutionary research. Hybrid necrosis is a post-zygotic isolation mechanism in which cell death develops in the absence of pathogens. It is often due to the incompatibility between proteins from two parents. Here we describe a unique case of hybrid necrosis due to an incompatibility between loci on chromosomes 2 and 7 between two pollinator-isolated Petunia species. Typical immune responses as well as endoplasmic reticulum stress responses are induced in the necrotic line. The locus on chromosome 2 encodes ChiA1, a bifunctional GH18 chitinase/lysozyme. The enzymatic activity of ChiA1 is dispensable for the development of necrosis. We propose that the extremely high expression of ChiA1 involves a positive feedback loop between the loci on chromosomes 2 and 7. ChiA1 is tightly linked to major genes involved in the adaptation to different pollinators, a form of pre-zygotic isolation. This linkage of pre- and post-zygotic barriers strengthens reproductive isolation and probably contributes to rapid diversification and speciation.

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

4.6
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