Abstract
MANY angiosperms employ self-incompatibility systems to prevent inbreeding1,2. The simple genetics of such systems3–6 have made them attractive models of plant cellular communication. Implicit in the single locus genetics is that only one or a few gene products are necessary for recognition and rejection of incompatible pollen. Results in the sporophytic system of the Brassicaceae suggest that different S-locus products are responsible for the pollen and pistil parts of the recognition and rejection response7,8. In solanaceous plants, which have a gametophytic self-incompatibility system, the S-locus product responsible for the pollen portion of the interaction has not been identified, but ribonucleases encoded by the S-locus (S-RNases) are strongly implicated in the style part of the recognition and rejection reaction9–14. In Nicotiana alata, pollen recogni-tion and rejection occur if its S-allele matches either S-allele in the style. The putative stylar S-RNase is abundant in the transmitting tract15, and pollen rejection may be related to action of S-RNase on pollen RNAs10. Efforts to understand the molecular basis for pollen recognition and rejection have been limited by the lack of a system for manipulating and expressing S-RNases4–6,16. Here we use the promoter of a style-expressed gene from tomato to obtain high levels of S-RNase expression in transgenic Nicotiana. Recognition and rejection of N. alata pollen S-alleles occur faithfully in the transgenic plants. Our results show that S-RNases alone are sufficient for pollen rejection in this system.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
de Nettancourt, D. Incompatibility in Angiosperms (Springer, New York, 1977).
Haring, V., Gray, J. E., McClure, B. A., Anderson, M. A. & Ciarke, A. E. Science 250, 937–941 (1990).
Nasrallah, J. B., Nishio, T. & Nasrallah, M. E. A. Rev. PI. Physiol. PI. molec. Biol. 42, 393–422 (1991).
Murfett, J. & McClure, B. A. in Molecular Biology of Tomato (ed. Yoder, J.) 139–151 (Tech-nomic, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1993).
Sims, T. L. Crit. Rev. PI. Sci. 12, 129–167 (1993).
Thompson, R. D. & Kirch, H-H. Trends Genet. 8, 381–387 (1992).
Stein, J. C., Hewlett, B., Boyes, D. C., Nasrallah, M. E. & Nasrallah, J. B. Proc. natn. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 88, 8816–8820 (1991).
Goring, D. R., Glavin, T. L, Schafer, U. & Rothstein, S. J. PI. Cell 5, 531–539 (1993).
McClure, B. A. et al. Nature 342, 955–957 (1989).
McClure, B. A., Gray, J. E., Anderson, M. A. & Ciarke, A. E. Nature 347, 757–760 (1990).
Broothaerts, W., Vanvinckenroye, P., Decock, B., Van Damme, J. & Vendrig, J. C. Sex. PL Reprod. 4, 258–266 (1991).
Loerger, T. R., Gohlke, J. R., Xu, B. & Kao, T-H. Sex. PI. Reprod. 4, 81–87 (1991).
Singh, A., Ai, Y. & Kao, T-H. Pl. Physiol. 96, 61–68 (1991).
Anderson, M. A. et al. Nature 31, 38–44 (1986).
Jahnen, W., Batterham, M. P., Ciarke, A. E., Moritz, R. L. & Simpson, R. J. Pl. Cell 1, 493–499 (1989).
Murfett, J. et al. Pl. Cell 4, 1063–1074 (1992).
Kheyr-Pour, A. et al. Sex. Pl. Reprod. 3, 88–97 (1990).
Anderson, M. A. et al. Pl. Cell 1, 483–491 (1989).
Coleman, C. E. & Kao, T-H. Pl. molec. Biol. 18, 725–737 (1992).
Kaufmann, H., Salamini, F. & Thompson, R. D. Molec. gen. Genet. 226, 457–466 (1991).
Stevens, W. L. J. Genet. 43, 301–307 (1942).
Gasser, C. S., Budelier, K. A., Smith, A. G., Shah, D. M. & Fraley, R. T. Pl. Cell 1, 15–24 (1989).
Gasser, C. S., Harikrishna, K., Jampates-Beale, R., Milligan, S. B. & Robinson-Beers, K. in Molecular Biology of Tomato (ed. Yoder, J.) 161–173 (Technomic, Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1993).
Bevan, M. Nucleic Acids Res. 12, 8711–8721 (1984).
Clark, K. R., Okuley, J. J., Collins, P. D. & Sims, T. L Pl. Cell 2, 815–826 (1990).
Ai, Y. et al. Sex. PL Reprod. 3, 130–138 (1990).
Ebert, P. R. & Ciarke, A. E. Pl. molec. Biol. 14, 815–824 (1990).
Bernatzky, R. & Tanksley, S. D. Theor. appL Genet. 72, 314–321 (1986).
McClure, B. A. & Guilfoyle, T. Science 243, 91–93 (1989).
Kho, Y. 0. & Baer, J. Euphytica 17, 299–302 (1968).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Murfett, J., Atherton, T., Mou, B. et al. S-RNase expressed in transgenic Nicotiana causes S-allele-specific pollen rejection. Nature 367, 563–566 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1038/367563a0
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/367563a0
This article is cited by
-
Incompatible pollen abortion and late-acting self-incompatibility in Schima superba
Scientific Reports (2022)
-
Caspase-like proteases and the phytohormone cytokinin as determinants of S-RNAse–based self-incompatibility–induced PCD in Petunia hybrida L.
Protoplasma (2021)
-
Aminooxyacetic acid (АОА), inhibitor of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxilic acid (AСС) synthesis, suppresses self-incompatibility-induced programmed cell death in self-incompatible Petunia hybrida L. pollen tubes
Protoplasma (2020)
-
The origin and widespread occurrence of Sli-based self-compatibility in potato
Theoretical and Applied Genetics (2020)
-
A mutation near the active site of S-RNase causes self-compatibility in S-RNase-based self-incompatible plants
Plant Molecular Biology (2020)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.
