Self-incompatibility

Self-incompatibility (SI) is a general name for several genetic mechanisms that prevent self-fertilization in sexually reproducing organisms, and thus encourage outcrossing and allogamy. It is contrasted with separation of sexes among individuals (dioecy), and their various modes of spatial (herkogamy) and temporal (dichogamy) separation.

SI is best-studied and particularly common in flowering plants,^[1] although it is present in other groups, including sea squirts and fungi.^[2] In plants with SI, when a pollen grain produced in a plant reaches a stigma of the same plant or another plant with a matching allele or genotype, the process of pollen germination, pollen-tube growth, ovule fertilization, or embryo development is inhibited, and consequently no seeds are produced. SI is one of the most important means of preventing inbreeding and promoting the generation of new genotypes in plants and it is considered one of the causes of the spread and success of angiosperms on Earth.

Mechanisms of single-locus self-incompatibility

The best studied mechanisms of SI act by inhibiting the germination of pollen on stigmas, or the elongation of the pollen tube in the styles. These mechanisms are based on protein-protein interactions, and the best-understood mechanisms are controlled by a single locus termed S, which has many different alleles in the species population. Despite their similar morphological and genetic manifestations, these mechanisms have evolved independently, and are based on different cellular components;^[3] therefore, each mechanism has its own, unique S-genes.

The S-locus contains two basic protein coding regions – one expressed in the pistil, and the other in the anther and/or pollen (referred to as the female and male determinants, respectively). Because of their physical proximity, these are genetically linked, and are inherited as a unit. The units are called S-haplotypes. The translation products of the two regions of the S-locus are two proteins which, by interacting with one another, lead to the arrest of pollen germination and/or pollen tube elongation, and thereby generate an SI response, preventing fertilization. However, when a female determinant interacts with a male determinant of a different haplotype, no SI is created, and fertilization ensues. This is a simplistic description of the general mechanism of SI, which is more complicated, and in some species the S-haplotype contains more than two protein coding regions. ^{[citation needed]}

Following is a detailed description of the different known mechanisms of SI in plants. ^{[citation needed]}

Gametophytic self-incompatibility (GSI)

In gametophytic self-incompatibility (GSI), the SI phenotype of the pollen is determined by its own gametophytic haploid genotype. This is the most common type of SI.^[4] Two different mechanisms of GSI have been described in detail at the molecular level, and their description follows. ^{[citation needed]}

The RNase mechanism

In this mechanism, pollen tube elongation is halted when it has proceeded approximately one third of the way through the style.^[5] The female component ribonuclease protein, termed S-RNase^[6] probably causes degradation of the ribosomal RNA (rRNA) inside the pollen tube, in the case of identical male and female S alleles, and consequently pollen tube elongation is arrested, and the pollen grain dies.^[5]

Within a decade of the initial confirmation their role in GSI, proteins belonging to the same RNase gene family were also found to cause pollen rejection in species of Rosaceae and Plantaginaceae. Despite initial uncertainty about the common ancestry of RNase-based SI in these distantly related plant families, phylogenetic studies^[7] and the finding of shared male determinants (F-box proteins)^[8][9][10] strongly supported homology across eudicots. Therefore, this mechanism likely arose approximately 90 million years ago, and is the inferred ancestral state for approximately 50% of all plant species.^[7][11]

In the past decade, the predictions about the wide distribution of this mechanism of SI have been confirmed, placing additional support of its single ancient origin. Specifically, a style-expressed T2/S-RNase gene and pollen-expressed F-box genes are now implicated in causing SI among the members of Rubiaceae,^[12] Rutaceae,^[13] and Cactaceae.^[14] Therefore, other mechanisms of SI are thought to be recently derived in eudicots plants, in some cases relatively recently. One particularly interesting case is the Prunus SI systems, which functions through self-recognition^[15] (the cytotoxic activity of the S-RNAses is inhibited by default and selectively activated by the pollen partner SFB upon self-pollination), [where "SFB" is a term that stands "for S-haplotype-specific F-box protein", as explained (parenthetically) in the abstract of^[15]], while SI in the other species with S-RNAse functions through non-self recognition (the S-RNAses are selectively detoxified upon cross-pollination).

The S-glycoprotein mechanism

In this mechanism, pollen growth is inhibited within minutes of its placement on the stigma.^[5] The mechanism is described in detail for Papaver rhoeas and so far appears restricted to the plant family Papaveraceae. ^{[citation needed]}

The female determinant is a small, extracellular molecule, expressed in the stigma; the identity of the male determinant remains elusive, but it is probably some cell membrane receptor.^[5] The interaction between male and female determinants transmits a cellular signal into the pollen tube, resulting in strong influx of calcium cations; this interferes with the intracellular concentration gradient of calcium ions which exists inside the pollen tube, essential for its elongation.^[16][17][18] The influx of calcium ions arrests tube elongation within 1–2 minutes. At this stage, pollen inhibition is still reversible, and elongation can be resumed by applying certain manipulations, resulting in ovule fertilization.^[5]

Subsequently, the cytosolic protein p26, a pyrophosphatase, is inhibited by phosphorylation,^[19] possibly resulting in arrest of synthesis of molecular building blocks, required for tube elongation. There is depolymerization and reorganization of actin filaments, within the pollen cytoskeleton.^[20][21] Within 10 minutes from the placement on the stigma, the pollen is committed to a process which ends in its death. At 3–4 hours past pollination, fragmentation of pollen DNA begins,^[22] and finally (at 10–14 hours), the cell dies apoptotically.^[5][23]

Sporophytic self-incompatibility (SSI)

In sporophytic self-incompatibility (SSI), the SI phenotype of the pollen is determined by the diploid genotype of the anther (the sporophyte) in which it was created. This form of SI was identified in the families: Brassicaceae, Asteraceae, Convolvulaceae, Betulaceae, Caryophyllaceae, Sterculiaceae and Polemoniaceae.^[24] Up to this day, only one mechanism of SSI has been described in detail at the molecular level, in Brassica (Brassicaceae). ^{[citation needed]}

Since SSI is determined by a diploid genotype, the pollen and pistil each express the translation products of two different alleles, i.e. two male and two female determinants. Dominance relationships often exist between pairs of alleles, resulting in complicated patterns of compatibility/self-incompatibility. These dominance relationships also allow the generation of individuals homozygous for a recessive S allele.^[25]

Compared to a population in which all S alleles are co-dominant, the presence of dominance relationships in the population, raises the chances of compatible mating between individuals.^[25] The frequency ratio between recessive and dominant S alleles, reflects a dynamic balance between reproductive assurance (favoured by recessive alleles) and avoidance of selfing (favoured by dominant alleles).^[26]

The SI mechanism in Brassica

As previously mentioned, the SI phenotype of the pollen is determined by the diploid genotype of the anther. In Brassica, the pollen coat, derived from the anther's tapetum tissue, carries the translation products of the two S alleles. These are small, cysteine-rich proteins. The male determinant is termed SCR or SP11, and is expressed in the anther tapetum as well as in the microspore and pollen (i.e. sporophytically).^[27][28] There are possibly up to 100 polymorphs of the S-haplotype in Brassica, and within these there is a dominance hierarchy. ^{[citation needed]}

The female determinant of the SI response in Brassica, is a transmembrane protein termed SRK, which has an intracellular kinase domain, and a variable extracellular domain.^[29][30] SRK is expressed in the stigma, and probably functions as a receptor for the SCR/SP11 protein in the pollen coat. Another stigmatic protein, termed SLG, is highly similar in sequence to the SRK protein, and seems to function as a co-receptor for the male determinant, amplifying the SI response.^[31]

The interaction between the SRK and SCR/SP11 proteins results in autophosphorylation of the intracellular kinase domain of SRK,^[32][33] and a signal is transmitted into the papilla cell of the stigma. Another protein essential for the SI response is MLPK, a serine-threonine kinase, which is anchored to the plasma membrane from its intracellular side.^[34] A downstream signaling cascade leads to proteasomal degradation that produces an SI response.^[35]

Other mechanisms of self-incompatibility

These mechanisms have received only limited attention in scientific research. Therefore, they are still poorly understood.

2-locus gametophytic self-incompatibility

The grass subfamily Pooideae, and perhaps all of the family Poaceae, have a gametophytic self-incompatibility system that involves two unlinked loci referred to as S and Z.^[36] If the alleles expressed at these two loci in the pollen grain both match the corresponding alleles in the pistil, the pollen grain will be recognized as incompatible.^[36] At both loci, S and Z, two male and one female determinant can be found. All four male determinants encode proteins belonging to the same family (DUF247) and are predicted to be membrane-bound. The two female determinants are predicted to be secreted proteins with no protein family membership.^[37][38][39]

Heteromorphic self-incompatibility

A distinct SI mechanism exists in heterostylous flowers, termed heteromorphic self-incompatibility. This mechanism is probably not evolutionarily related to the more familiar mechanisms, which are differentially defined as homomorphic self-incompatibility.^[40]

Almost all heterostylous taxa feature SI to some extent. The loci responsible for SI in heterostylous flowers, are strongly linked to the loci responsible for flower polymorphism, and these traits are inherited together. Distyly is determined by a single locus, which has two alleles; tristyly is determined by two loci, each with two alleles. Heteromorphic SI is sporophytic, i.e. both alleles in the male plant, determine the SI response in the pollen. SI loci always contain only two alleles in the population, one of which is dominant over the other, in both pollen and pistil. Variance in SI alleles parallels the variance in flower morphs, thus pollen from one morph can fertilize only pistils from the other morph. In tristylous flowers, each flower contains two types of stamens; each stamen produces pollen capable of fertilizing only one flower morph, out of the three existing morphs.^[40]

A population of a distylous plant contains only two SI genotypes: ss and Ss. Fertilization is possible only between genotypes; each genotype cannot fertilize itself.^[40] This restriction maintains a 1:1 ratio between the two genotypes in the population; genotypes are usually randomly scattered in space.^[41][42] Tristylous plants contain, in addition to the S locus, the M locus, also with two alleles.^[40] The number of possible genotypes is greater here, but a 1:1 ratio exists between individuals of each SI type.^[43]

Cryptic self-incompatibility (CSI)

Cryptic self-incompatibility (CSI) exists in a limited number of taxa (for example, there is evidence for CSI in Silene vulgaris, Caryophyllaceae^[44]). In this mechanism, the simultaneous presence of cross and self pollen on the same stigma, results in higher seed set from cross pollen, relative to self pollen.^[45] However, as opposed to 'complete' or 'absolute' SI, in CSI, self-pollination without the presence of competing cross pollen, results in successive fertilization and seed set;^[45] in this way, reproduction is assured, even in the absence of cross-pollination. CSI acts, at least in some species, at the stage of pollen tube elongation, and leads to faster elongation of cross pollen tubes, relative to self pollen tubes. The cellular and molecular mechanisms of CSI have not been described. ^{[citation needed]}

The strength of a CSI response can be defined, as the ratio of crossed to selfed ovules, formed when equal amounts of cross and self pollen, are placed upon the stigma; in the taxa described up to this day, this ratio ranges between 3.2 and 11.5.^[46]

Late-acting self-incompatibility (LSI)

Late-acting self-incompatibility (LSI) is also termed ovarian self-incompatibility (OSI). In this mechanism, self pollen germinates and reaches the ovules, but no fruit is set.^[47][48] LSI can be pre-zygotic (e.g. deterioration of the embryo sac prior to pollen tube entry, as in Narcissus triandrus^[49]) or post-zygotic (malformation of the zygote or embryo, as in certain species of Asclepias and in Spathodea campanulata^{[50][51][52][53]}).

The existence of the LSI mechanism among different taxa and in general, is subject for scientific debate. Criticizers claim, that absence of fruit set is due to genetic defects (homozygosity for lethal recessive alleles), which are the direct result of self-fertilization (inbreeding depression).^[54][55][56] Supporters, on the other hand, argue for the existence of several basic criteria, which differentiate certain cases of LSI from the inbreeding depression phenomenon.^[47][52]

Self-compatibility (SC)

Self-compatibility (SC) is the absence of genetic mechanisms which prevent self-fertilization resulting in plants that can reproduce successfully via both self-pollen and pollen from other individuals. Approximately one half of angiosperm species are SI,^[1] the remainder being SC. Mutations that disable SI (resulting in SC) may become common or entirely dominate in natural populations. Pollinator decline, variability in pollinator service, the so-called "automatic advantage" of self-fertilisation, among other factors, may favor the loss of SI. ^{[citation needed]}

Many cultivated plants are SC, although there are notable exceptions, such as apples and Brassica oleracea. Human-mediated artificial selection through selective breeding is often responsible for SC among these agricultural crops. SC enables more efficient breeding techniques to be employed for crop improvement. However, when genetically similar SI cultivars are bred, inbreeding depression can cause a cross-incompatible form of SC to arise, such as in apricots and almonds.^[57][58] In this rare, intraspecific, cross-incompatible mechanism, individuals have more reproductive success when self-pollinated rather than when cross-pollinated with other individuals of the same species. In wild populations, intraspecific cross-incompatibility has been observed in Nothoscordum bivalve.^[59]

See also

• Allogamy – type of fertilizationPages displaying wikidata descriptions as a fallback
• Dichogamy – Sex change as part of the normal life cycle of a speciesPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
• Dimorphous flower – Two different types of flowers (style) on same plantPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
• Dioecy – Having distinct male and female organisms
• Heterosis – Difference in a quantitative trait between heterozygous and homozygous genotypes
• Monocotyledon reproduction – Flowering plant reproduction system
• Outcrossing – Technique of crossing between different breeds
• Plant sexuality – Parts of plant enabling sexual reproductionPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
• Pollination – Biological process occurring in plants
• Protandry – Sex change as part of the normal life cycle of a speciesPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets

References

1. Igic B, Lande R, Kohn JR (2008). "Loss of Self-Incompatibility and Its Evolutionary Consequences". International Journal of Plant Sciences. 169 (1): 93–104. doi:10.1086/523362. S2CID 15933118.
2. Sawada H, Morita M, Iwano M (August 2014). "Self/non-self recognition mechanisms in sexual reproduction: new insight into the self-incompatibility system shared by flowering plants and hermaphroditic animals". Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications. 450 (3): 1142–1148. doi:10.1016/j.bbrc.2014.05.099. PMID 24878524.
3. Charlesworth D, Vekemans X, Castric V, Glémin S (October 2005). "Plant self-incompatibility systems: a molecular evolutionary perspective". The New Phytologist. 168 (1): 61–69. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01443.x. PMID 16159321.
4. Franklin FC, Lawrence MJ, Franklin-Tong VE (1995). "Cell and molecular biology of self-incompatibility in flowering plants". Int. Rev. Cytol. International Review of Cytology. 158: 1–64. doi:10.1016/S0074-7696(08)62485-7. ISBN 978-0-12-364561-6.
5. Franklin-Tong VE, Franklin FC (June 2003). "The different mechanisms of gametophytic self-incompatibility". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 358 (1434): 1025–1032. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1287. PMC 1693207. PMID 12831468.
6. McClure BA, Haring V, Ebert PR, Anderson MA, Simpson RJ, Sakiyama F, Clarke AE (1989). "Style self-incompatibility gene products of Nicotiana alata are ribonucleases". Nature. 342 (6252): 955–957. Bibcode:1989Natur.342..955M. doi:10.1038/342955a0. PMID 2594090. S2CID 4321558.
7. Igic B, Kohn JR (November 2001). "Evolutionary relationships among self-incompatibility RNases". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 98 (23): 13167–13171. doi:10.1073/pnas.231386798. PMC 60842. PMID 11698683.
8. Qiao H, Wang F, Zhao L, Zhou J, Lai Z, Zhang Y, et al. (September 2004). "The F-box protein AhSLF-S2 controls the pollen function of S-RNase-based self-incompatibility". The Plant Cell. 16 (9): 2307–2322. doi:10.1105/tpc.104.024919. PMC 520935. PMID 15308757.
9. Ushijima K, Yamane H, Watari A, Kakehi E, Ikeda K, Hauck NR, et al. (August 2004). "The S haplotype-specific F-box protein gene, SFB, is defective in self-compatible haplotypes of Prunus avium and P. mume". The Plant Journal. 39 (4): 573–586. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2004.02154.x. PMID 15272875.
10. Sijacic P, Wang X, Skirpan AL, Wang Y, Dowd PE, McCubbin AG, et al. (May 2004). "Identification of the pollen determinant of S-RNase-mediated self-incompatibility". Nature. 429 (6989): 302–305. Bibcode:2004Natur.429..302S. doi:10.1038/nature02523. PMID 15152253. S2CID 4427123.
11. Steinbachs JE, Holsinger KE (June 2002). "S-RNase-mediated gametophytic self-incompatibility is ancestral in eudicots". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 19 (6): 825–829. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004139. PMID 12032238.
12. Asquini E, Gerdol M, Gasperini D, Igic B, Graziosi G, Pallavicini A (2011). "S-RNase-like Sequences in Styles of Coffea (Rubiaceae). Evidence for S-RNase Based Gametophytic Self-Incompatibility?". Tropical Plant Biology. 4 (3–4): 237–249. doi:10.1007/s12042-011-9085-2. S2CID 11092131.
13. Liang M, Cao Z, Zhu A, Liu Y, Tao M, Yang H, et al. (February 2020). "Evolution of self-compatibility by a mutant S_m-RNase in citrus". Nature Plants. 6 (2): 131–142. Bibcode:2020NatPl...6..131L. doi:10.1038/s41477-020-0597-3. PMC 7030955. PMID 32055045.
14. Ramanauskas K, Igić B (September 2021). "RNase-based self-incompatibility in cacti". The New Phytologist. 231 (5): 2039–2049. doi:10.1111/nph.17541. PMID 34101188. S2CID 235370441.
15. Matsumoto D, Tao R (2016). "Distinct Self-recognition in the Prunus S-RNase-based Gametophytic Self-incompatibility System". The Horticulture Journal. 85 (4): 289–305. doi:10.2503/hortj.MI-IR06. ISSN 2189-0102. Archived from the original on 2022-09-28. Retrieved 2022-09-28.
16. Franklin-Tong VE, Ride JP, Read ND, Trewavas AJ, Franklin FC (1993). "The self-incompatibility response in Papaver rhoeas is mediated by cytosolic free calcium". Plant J. 4: 163–177. doi:10.1046/j.1365-313X.1993.04010163.x.
17. Franklin-Tong VE, Hackett G, Hepler PK (1997). "Ratioimaging of Ca21 in the self-incompatibility response in pollen tubes of Papaver rhoeas". Plant J. 12 (6): 1375–86. doi:10.1046/j.1365-313x.1997.12061375.x.
18. Franklin-Tong VE, Holdaway-Clarke TL, Straatman KR, Kunkel JG, Hepler PK (February 2002). "Involvement of extracellular calcium influx in the self-incompatibility response of Papaver rhoeas". The Plant Journal. 29 (3): 333–345. doi:10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01219.x. PMID 11844110. S2CID 954229.
19. Rudd JJ, Franklin F, Lord JM, Franklin-Tong VE (April 1996). "Increased Phosphorylation of a 26-kD Pollen Protein Is Induced by the Self-Incompatibility Response in Papaver rhoeas". The Plant Cell. 8 (4): 713–724. doi:10.1105/tpc.8.4.713. PMC 161131. PMID 12239397.
20. Geitmann A, Snowman BN, Emons AM, Franklin-Tong VE (July 2000). "Alterations in the actin cytoskeleton of pollen tubes are induced by the self-incompatibility reaction in Papaver rhoeas". The Plant Cell. 12 (7): 1239–1251. doi:10.1105/tpc.12.7.1239. PMC 149062. PMID 10899987.
21. Snowman BN, Kovar DR, Shevchenko G, Franklin-Tong VE, Staiger CJ (October 2002). "Signal-mediated depolymerization of actin in pollen during the self-incompatibility response". The Plant Cell. 14 (10): 2613–2626. doi:10.1105/tpc.002998. PMC 151239. PMID 12368508.
22. Jordan ND, Franklin FC, Franklin-Tong VE (August 2000). "Evidence for DNA fragmentation triggered in the self-incompatibility response in pollen of Papaver rhoeas". The Plant Journal. 23 (4): 471–479. doi:10.1046/j.1365-313x.2000.00811.x. PMID 10972873.
23. Thomas SG, Franklin-Tong VE (May 2004). "Self-incompatibility triggers programmed cell death in Papaver pollen". Nature. 429 (6989): 305–309. Bibcode:2004Natur.429..305T. doi:10.1038/nature02540. PMID 15152254. S2CID 4376774.
24. Goodwillie C (1997). "The genetic control of self-incompatibility in Linanthus parviflorus (Polemoniaceae)". Heredity. 79 (4): 424–432. doi:10.1038/hdy.1997.177.
25. Hiscock SJ, Tabah DA (June 2003). "The different mechanisms of sporophytic self-incompatibility". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences. 358 (1434): 1037–1045. doi:10.1098/rstb.2003.1297. PMC 1693206. PMID 12831470.
26. Ockendon DJ (1974). "Distribution of self-incompatibility alleles and breeding structure of open-pollinated cultivars of Brussels sprouts". Heredity. 32 (2): 159–171. doi:10.1038/hdy.1974.84.
27. Schopfer CR, Nasrallah ME, Nasrallah JB (November 1999). "The male determinant of self-incompatibility in Brassica". Science. 286 (5445): 1697–1700. doi:10.1126/science.286.5445.1697. PMID 10576728.
28. Takayama S, Shiba H, Iwano M, Shimosato H, Che FS, Kai N, et al. (February 2000). "The pollen determinant of self-incompatibility in Brassica campestris". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 97 (4): 1920–1925. Bibcode:2000PNAS...97.1920T. doi:10.1073/pnas.040556397. PMC 26537. PMID 10677556.
29. Stein JC, Howlett B, Boyes DC, Nasrallah ME, Nasrallah JB (October 1991). "Molecular cloning of a putative receptor protein kinase gene encoded at the self-incompatibility locus of Brassica oleracea". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 88 (19): 8816–8820. Bibcode:1991PNAS...88.8816S. doi:10.1073/pnas.88.19.8816. PMC 52601. PMID 1681543.: .
30. Nasrallah JB, Nasrallah ME (1993). "Pollen–stigma signalling in the sporophytic self-incompatibility response". Plant Cell. 5 (10): 1325–35. doi:10.2307/3869785. JSTOR 3869785.
31. Takasaki T, Hatakeyama K, Suzuki G, Watanabe M, Isogai A, Hinata K (February 2000). "The S receptor kinase determines self-incompatibility in Brassica stigma". Nature. 403 (6772): 913–916. Bibcode:2000Natur.403..913T. doi:10.1038/35002628. PMID 10706292. S2CID 4361474.
32. Schopfer CR, Nasrallah JB (November 2000). "Self-incompatibility. Prospects for a novel putative peptide-signaling molecule". Plant Physiology. 124 (3): 935–940. doi:10.1104/pp.124.3.935. PMC 1539289. PMID 11080271.
33. Takayama S, Shimosato H, Shiba H, Funato M, Che FS, Watanabe M, et al. (October 2001). "Direct ligand-receptor complex interaction controls Brassica self-incompatibility". Nature. 413 (6855): 534–538. Bibcode:2001Natur.413..534T. doi:10.1038/35097104. PMID 11586363. S2CID 4419954.
34. Murase K, Shiba H, Iwano M, Che FS, Watanabe M, Isogai A, Takayama S (March 2004). "A membrane-anchored protein kinase involved in Brassica self-incompatibility signaling". Science. 303 (5663): 1516–1519. Bibcode:2004Sci...303.1516M. doi:10.1126/science.1093586. PMID 15001779. S2CID 29677122.
35. Subramanian Sankaranarayanan, Muhammad Jamshed, and Marcus A. Samuel (2015), "Degradation of glyoxalase I in Brassica napus stigma leads to self-incompatibility response", Nature Plants, 1 (12): 15185, Bibcode:2015NatPl...115185S, doi:10.1038/nplants.2015.185{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
36. Baumann U, Juttner J, Bian X, Langridge P (2000). "Self-incompatibility in the Grasses". Annals of Botany. 85 (Supplement A): 203–209. doi:10.1006/anbo.1999.1056.
37. Rohner M, Manzanares C, Yates S, Thorogood D, Copetti D, Lübberstedt T, et al. (January 2023). "Fine-Mapping and Comparative Genomic Analysis Reveal the Gene Composition at the S and Z Self-incompatibility Loci in Grasses". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 40 (1). doi:10.1093/molbev/msac259. PMC 9825253. PMID 36477354.
38. Lian X, Zhang S, Huang G, Huang L, Zhang J, Hu F (2021). "Confirmation of a Gametophytic Self-Incompatibility in Oryza longistaminata". Frontiers in Plant Science. 12: 576340. doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.576340. PMC 8044821. PMID 33868321.
39. Shinozuka H, Cogan NO, Smith KF, Spangenberg GC, Forster JW (February 2010). "Fine-scale comparative genetic and physical mapping supports map-based cloning strategies for the self-incompatibility loci of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.)". Plant Molecular Biology. 72 (3): 343–355. doi:10.1007/s11103-009-9574-y. PMID 19943086. S2CID 25404140.
40. Ganders FR (1979). "The biology of heterostyly". New Zealand Journal of Botany. 17 (4): 607–635. Bibcode:1979NZJB...17..607G. doi:10.1080/0028825x.1979.10432574.
41. Ornduff R, Weller SG (June 1975). "Pattern diversity of incompatibility groups in Jepsonia heterandra (Saxifragaceae) (SAXIFRAGACEAE)". Evolution; International Journal of Organic Evolution. 29 (2): 373–375. doi:10.2307/2407228. JSTOR 2407228. PMID 28555865.
42. Ganders FR (1976). "Pollen flow in distylous populations of Amsinckia (Boraginaceae)". Canadian Journal of Botany. 54 (22): 2530–5. doi:10.1139/b76-271.
43. Spieth PT (December 1971). "A necessary condition for equilibrium in systems exhibiting self-incompatible mating". Theoretical Population Biology. 2 (4): 404–418. Bibcode:1971TPBio...2..404S. doi:10.1016/0040-5809(71)90029-3. PMID 5170719.
44. Glaettli, M. (2004). Mechanisms involved in the maintenance of inbreeding depression in gynodioecious Silene vulgaris (Caryophyllaceae): an experimental investigation. PhD dissertation, University of Lausanne.
45. Bateman AJ (1956). "Cryptic self-incompatibility in the wallflower: Cheiranthus cheiri L". Heredity. 10 (2): 257–261. doi:10.1038/hdy.1956.22.
46. Travers SE, Mazer SJ (February 2000). "The absence of cryptic self-incompatibility in Clarkia unguiculata (Onagraceae)". American Journal of Botany. 87 (2): 191–196. doi:10.2307/2656905. JSTOR 2656905. PMID 10675305.
47. Seavey SF, Bawa KS (1986). "Late-acting self-incompatibility in angiosperms". Botanical Review. 52 (2): 195–218. Bibcode:1986BotRv..52..195S. doi:10.1007/BF02861001. S2CID 34443387.
48. Sage TL, Bertin RI, Williams EG (1994). "Ovarian and other late-acting self-incompatibility systems". In Williams EG, Knox RB, Clarke AE (eds.). Genetic control of self-incompatibility and reproductive development in flowering plants. Advances in Cellular and Molecular Biology of Plants. Vol. 2. Amsterdam: Kluwer Academic. pp. 116–140. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-1669-7_7. ISBN 978-90-481-4340-5.
49. Sage TL, Strumas F, Cole WW, Barrett SC (June 1999). "Differential ovule development following self- and cross-pollination: the basis of self-sterility in Narcissus triandrus (Amaryllidaceae)". American Journal of Botany. 86 (6): 855–870. doi:10.2307/2656706. JSTOR 2656706. PMID 10371727. S2CID 25585101.
50. Sage TL, Williams EG (1991). "Self-incompatibility in Asclepias". Plant Cell Incomp. Newsl. 23: 55–57.
51. Sparrow FK, Pearson NL (1948). "Pollen compatibility in Asclepias syriaca". J. Agric. Res. 77: 187–199.
52. Lipow SR, Wyatt R (February 2000). "Single gene control of postzygotic self-incompatibility in poke milkweed, Asclepias exaltata L". Genetics. 154 (2): 893–907. doi:10.1093/genetics/154.2.893. PMC 1460952. PMID 10655239.
53. Bittencourt NS, Gibbs PE, Semir J (June 2003). "Histological study of post-pollination events in Spathodea campanulata beauv. (Bignoniaceae), a species with late-acting self-incompatibility". Annals of Botany. 91 (7): 827–834. doi:10.1093/aob/mcg088. PMC 4242391. PMID 12730069.
54. Klekowski EJ (1988). Mutation, Developmental Selection, and Plant Evolution. New York: Columbia University Press.
55. Waser NM, Price MV (1991). "Reproductive costs of self-pollination in Ipomopsis aggregata (Polemoniaceae): are ovules usurped?". American Journal of Botany. 78 (8): 1036–43. doi:10.2307/2444892. JSTOR 2444892.
56. Lughadha N (1998). "Preferential outcrossing in Gomidesia (Myrtaceae) is maintained by a post-zygotic mechanism.". In Owen SJ, Rudall PJ (eds.). Reproductive biology in systematics, conservation and economic botany. London: Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew. pp. 363–379. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.2787.0247.
57. Egea J, Burgos L (November 1996). "Detecting cross-incompatibility of three North American apricot cultivars and establishing the first incompatibility group in apricot". Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science. 121 (6): 1002–1005. doi:10.21273/JASHS.121.6.1002. Retrieved 25 December 2020.
58. Gómez EM, Dicenta F, Batlle I, Romero A, Ortega E (19 February 2019). "Cross-incompatibility in the cultivated almond (Prunus dulcis): Updating, revision and correction". Scientia Horticulturae. 245: 218–223. Bibcode:2019ScHor.245..218G. doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2018.09.054. hdl:20.500.12327/55. S2CID 92428859. Archived from the original on 19 March 2022. Retrieved 25 December 2020.
59. Weiherer DS, Eckardt K, Bernhardt P (July 2020). "Comparative floral ecology and breeding systems between sympatric populations of Nothoscordum bivalve and Allium stellatum (Amaryllidaceae)". Journal of Pollination Ecology. 26 (3): 16–31. doi:10.26786/1920-7603(2020)585. S2CID 225237548. Archived from the original on 29 July 2024. Retrieved 25 December 2020.

Further reading

• Lan XG, Yu XM, Li YH (July 2005). "[Progress in study on signal transduction of gametophytic self-incompatibility]". Yi Chuan = Hereditas (in Chinese). 27 (4): 677–685. PMID 16120598.
• Boavida LC, Vieira AM, Becker JD, Feijó JA (2005). "Gametophyte interaction and sexual reproduction: how plants make a zygote". The International Journal of Developmental Biology. 49 (5–6): 615–632. doi:10.1387/ijdb.052023lb. hdl:10400.7/71. PMID 16096969.

External links

• Kimball JW (4 February 2019). "Self-Incompatibility: How Plants Avoid Inbreeding". Kimball's Biology Pages.
• Silverside AJ (January 2002). "Heterostyly in cowslip". Biological Sciences, University of Paisley. Archived from the original on 2002-03-06.