4.4 Article

The Nuclear Component of a Cytonuclear Hybrid Incompatibility in Mimulus Maps to a Cluster of Pentatricopeptide Repeat Genes

期刊

GENETICS
卷 184, 期 2, 页码 455-U198

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.109.108175

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [DEB-0316786, BIO-0328326]
  2. Division Of Environmental Biology
  3. Direct For Biological Sciences [0846089] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Characterizing the genetic and molecular basis of hybrid incompatibilities is a first step toward understanding their evolutionary origins. We fine mapped the nuclear restorer (Rf) of cytoplasm-dependent anther sterility in Mimulus hybrids by identifying and targeting regions of the Mimulus guttatus genome containing large numbers of candidate pentatricopeptide repeat genes (PPRs). The single Mendelian locus Rf was first isolated to a 1.3-cM region on linkage group 7 that spans the genome's largest cluster of PPRs, then split into two tightly linked loci (Rf1 and Rf2) by <10 recombination events in a large (N = 6153) fine-mapping population. Progeny testing of fertile recombinants demonstrated that a dominant M. guttatus allele at each Rf locus was sufficient to restore fertility. Each Rf locus spans a physical region containing numerous PPRs with high homology to each other, suggesting recent tandem duplication or transposition. Furthermore, these PPRs have higher homology to restorers in distantly related taxa (petunia and rice) than to PPRs elsewhere in the Mimulus genome. These results suggest that the cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS)-PPR interaction is highly conserved across flowering plants. In addition, given our theoretical understanding of cytonuclear coevolution, the finding that hybrid CMS results from interactions between a chimeric mitochondrial transcript that is modified by Rf loci identified as PPRs is consistent with a history of selfish mitochondrial evolution and compensatory nuclear coevolution within M. guttatus.

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

4.4
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