| Literature DB >> 24265735 |
Michaela Sonnleitner1, Birgit Weis, Ruth Flatscher, Pedro Escobar García, Jan Suda, Jana Krejčíková, Gerald M Schneeweiss, Manuela Winkler, Peter Schönswetter, Karl Hülber.
Abstract
Reproductive interactions among cytotypes in their contact zones determine whether these cytotypes can co-exist and form stable contact zones or not. In autopolyploids, heteroploid cross-compatibilities might depend on parental ploidy, but tests of this hypothesis in autopolyploid systems with more than two ploidies are lacking. Here, we study Jacobaea carniolica, which comprises diploid, tetraploid, and hexaploid individuals regularly forming contact zones. Seeds obtained from in situ cross-pollinations within and among cytotypes were subjected to DNA flow cytometry and greenhouse germination experiments. Hybrid fitness and parental effects on hybrid fitness were tested with regression models comparing fitness parameters of early life stages. Irrespective of the direction of crosses, seed viability and seedling survival in diploid-polyploid crosses were substantially lower than in tetraploid-hexaploid crosses. In contrast, seedling growth traits indicated neither transgressive character expression nor any selection against hybrid offspring. Congruent with a model of genome dosage effects, these traits differed between reciprocal crosses, especially of diploids and tetraploids, where trait values resembled those of the maternal parent. The strong effect of parental ploidy on offspring fitness in heteroploid crosses may cause contact zones involving exclusively polyploid cytotypes to be less stable over longer terms than those involving diploids and polyploids.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24265735 PMCID: PMC3827125 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0078959
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
In situ cross-pollinations (left) among diploid, tetraploid and hexaploid individuals of Jacobaea carniolica and consecutive germination of a subset of the seed yield of heteroploid crosses (right) in the climate chamber.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||||
| 2 | 39 | 3955 | 11.1 | 121 | 21.5 |
| 9.1 | – | – | – | 195 | 58/29.7 | 48.3 |
| 3.4 | 1.7 | – | – | 5.2 |
| 4 | 37 | 5878 | 13.8 | 123 | – |
| 30.9 | – | – | – | 212 | 63/29.7 | – |
| 30.1 | 3.2 | – | – | 14.3 |
| 2 | 40 | 4290 | 2.9 | 43 | 72.1 | – |
| 4.6 | – | – | 56 | 16/28.6 | 81.2 | – | – | 6.3 | – | – | 12.5 |
| 6 | 36 | 5692 | 7.6 | 57 | – | – |
| 28.1 | 40.3 | – | 102 | 40/39.2 | – | – |
| 27.5 | 57.5 | – | 10.0 |
| 4 | 34 | 5624 | 39.4 | 154 | – | – | 3.9 |
| – | 0.7 | 286 | 181/63.3 | – | – | 1.1 |
| 1.1 | – | 7.7 |
| 6 | 39 | 6107 | 38.5 | 186 | – | – | – |
| 5.9 | 1.6 | 365 | 192/52.6 | – | – | – |
| 3.7 | 1.0 | 6.8 |
| 2 | 40 | 3858 | 52.2 | 103 | 100 | – | – | – | – | – | 405 | 149/36.8 | |||||||
| 4 | 36 | 5614 | 50.5 | 122 | – | – | 100 | – | – | – | 334 | 100/29.9 | |||||||
| 6 | 38 | 5822 | 32.6 | 154 | – | – | – | – | 100 | – | 354 | 207/58.5 | |||||||
| 2 | 31 | 3095 | 4.6 | 92 | 39/42.4 | ||||||||||||||
| 4 | 29 | 4268 | 7.7 | 130 | 35/26.9 | ||||||||||||||
| 6 | 28 | 4966 | 1.3 | 54 | 29/53.7 | ||||||||||||||
maternal parent is given first; SI, selfing treatments.
Figure 1Fitness of progeny.
Comparison of the fitness of progeny derived from homoploid (grey bars) or heteroploid crosses (white bars) of the three main cytotypes of Jacobaea carniolica. Seed set and survival rate represent the proportion of viable seeds and the proportion of seedlings alive at the end of the experiment, respectively. For heteroploid crosses only hybrids (ploidy intermediate to parental ploidies) were considered, except for seed set. P-values derived from (generalised) linear mixed-effects models indicate significance of deviations of heteroploid progeny (e.g. 2x4x, 4x2x; maternal parent is given first) from the intermediate value of parental homoploid crosses (e.g. 2x2x, 4x4x); arrows indicate the direction of significant deviations.
Test for intermediacy of fitness components of heteroploid crosses of Jacobaea carniolica.
| Comparison of treatments | no. total | no. hybrids | coefficient ± SE | z- or t- value | p-value |
|
| |||||
| (2 | 13427/115 | – | −0.82±0.08 | −9.97 |
|
| (2 | 15350/113 | – | −0.83±0.09 | −9.30 |
|
| (2 | 13970/118 | – | −1.22±0.10 | −12.74 |
|
| (2 | 15372/114 | – | −1.10±0.11 | −9.75 |
|
| (4 | 17060/108 | – | −0.03±0.11 | −0.24 | 0.807 |
| (4 | 17543/113 | – | −0.03±0.09 | −0.37 | 0.714 |
|
| |||||
| (2 | 874 | 135 | −0.29±0.10 | −2.91 |
|
| (2 | 883 | 147 | −0.18±0.09 | −2.08 |
|
| (2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| (2 | 791 | 32 | −0.95±0.29 | −3.30 |
|
| (4 | 950 | 273 | 0.28±0.09 | 3.12 |
|
| (4 | 1014 | 338 | 0.13±0.08 | 1.64 | 0.101 |
|
| |||||
| (2 | 326/86 | 26/16 | −0.10±0.02 | −4.10 |
|
| (2 | 331/87 | 31/17 | 0.05±0.02 | 1.96 |
|
| (2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| (2 | 416/75 | 2/2 | −0.05±0.07 | −0.81 | 0.420 |
| (4 | 486/95 | 160/30 | −0.02±0.01 | −1.20 | 0.230 |
| (4 | 495/101 | 169/36 | −0.02±0.02 | −1.40 | 0.160 |
|
| |||||
| (2 | 260/83 | 23/15 | 0.33±0.11 | 2.91 |
|
| (2 | 268/87 | 31/19 | −0.38±0.10 | −3.75 |
|
| (2 | – | – | – | – | – |
| (2 | 346/71 | 1/1 | 0.96±0.57 | 1.70 | 0.090 |
| (4 | 456/94 | 158/30 | −0.18±0.07 | −2.46 |
|
| (4 | 467/100 | 169/36 | 0.05±0.07 | 0.78 | 0.434 |
maternal parent is given first;
pooled data of the homoploid crosses of the parental cytotypes were compared to heteroploid crosses by means of (generalised) linear mixed-effects models;
number of observations (i.e. number of pollinated florets of all treatments in a comparison) and number of groups (i.e. number of pollinated plants) used in the models;
number of flow-cytometrically verified hybridogenic seedlings and number of pollinated plants from which these hybrids originate (see text for details);
p-values ≤0.05 are given in bold.
Test for parental-like fitness components of heteroploid crosses of Jacobaea carniolica.
| Comparison of treatments | no. total | coefficient ± SE | z- or t- value | p-value | |
|
| |||||
| 2 | 9569/75 | −2.37±0.31 | −7.69 |
| |
| 4 | 11492/73 | −2.41±0.34 | −7.00 |
| |
| 2 | 10112/78 | −3.14±0.37 | −8.53 |
| |
| 6 | 11514/74 | −2.79±0.46 | −6.12 |
| |
|
| |||||
| 2 | 469 | −0.70±0.34 | −2.09 |
| |
| 4 | 478 | −0.38±0.28 | −1.35 | 0.177 | |
| 2 | – | – | – | – | |
| 6 | 437 | −2.24±0.82 | −2.72 |
| |
| 4 | 596 | 1.56±0.30 | 5.22 |
| |
| 4 | 616 | 0.15±0.33 | 0.44 | 0.659 | |
|
| |||||
| 2 | 220/55 | −0.02±0.07 | 0.32 | 0.748 | |
| 4 | 137/48 | −0.13±0.08 | −1.62 | 0.106 | |
|
| |||||
| 2 | 165/52 | −0.59±0.35 | 1.69 | 0.094 | |
| 4 | 126/50 | −0.78±0.33 | −2.37 |
| |
| 4 | 253/61 | 0.39±0.24 | 1.59 | 0.114 | |
maternal parent is given first; calculated only for significant comparisons in Table 2;
number of progeny and number of pollinated plants used in the (generalised) linear mixed-effects models;
p-values <0.05 are given in bold.
Influence of the direction of heteroploid cross-pollinations in Jacobaea carniolica on the fitness of the progeny.
| Comparison of treatments | no. | coefficient ± SE | z- or t- value | p-value |
|
| ||||
| 2 | 9833/76 | −0.02±0.33 | −0.08 | 0.940 |
| 2 | 9982/76 | 0.45±0.43 | 1.04 | 0.299 |
| 4 | 11731/73 | −0.02±0.34 | −0.05 | 0.963 |
|
| ||||
| 2 | 279 | −0.32±0.34 | −0.93 | 0.352 |
| 2 | – | – | – | – |
| 4 | 588 | 0.44±0.33 | 1.31 | 0.190 |
|
| ||||
| 2 | 57/33 | 0.43±0.10 | 4.31 |
|
| 2 | – | – | – | – |
| 4 | 329/66 | −0.01±0.06 | −0.23 | 0.816 |
|
| ||||
| 2 | 54/34 | −2.20±0.50 | −4.41 |
|
| 2 | – | – | – | – |
| 4 | 327/66 | 0.68±0.21 | 3.17 |
|
maternal parent is given first;
number of seeds/hybridogenic seedlings and pollinated plants used in the (generalised) linear mixed-effects models;
p-values <0.05 are given in bold.