| Literature DB >> 30713546 |
Maurizio E Picarella1, Andrea Mazzucato1.
Abstract
Parthenocarpy in a broad sense includes those processes that allow the production of seedless fruits. Such fruits are favorable to growers, because they are set independently of successful pollination, and to processors and consumers, because they are easier to deal with and to eat. Seedless fruits however represent a biological paradox because they do not contribute to offspring production. In this work, the occurrence of parthenocarpy in Angiosperms was investigated by conducting a bibliographic survey. We distinguished monospermic (single seeded) from plurispermic (multiseeded) species and wild from cultivated taxa. Out of 96 seedless taxa, 66% belonged to plurispermic species. Of these, cultivated species were represented six times higher than wild species, suggesting a selective pressure for parthenocarpy during domestication and breeding. In monospermic taxa, wild and cultivated species were similarly represented. The occurrence of parthenocarpy in wild species suggests that seedlessness may have an adaptive role. In monospermic species, seedless fruits are proposed to reduce seed predation through deceptive mechanisms. In plurispermic fruit species, parthenocarpy may exert an adaptive advantage under suboptimal pollination regimes, when too few embryos are formed to support fruit growth. In this situation, parthenocarpy offers the opportunity to accomplish the production and dispersal of few seeds, thus representing a selective advantage. Approximately 20 sources of seedlessness have been described in tomato. Excluding the EMS induced mutation parthenocarpic fruit (pat), the parthenocarpic phenotype always emerged in biparental populations derived from wide crosses between cultivated tomato and wild relatives. Following a theory postulated for apomictic species, we argument that wide hybridization could also be the force driving parthenocarpy, following the disruption of synchrony in time and space of reproductive developmental events, from sporogenesis to fruit development. The high occurrence of polyploidy among parthenocarpic species supported this suggestion. Other commonalities between apomixis and parthenocarpy emerged from genetic and molecular studies of the two phenomena. Such insights may improve the understanding of the mechanisms underlying these two reproductive variants of great importance to modern breeding.Entities:
Keywords: Solanum lycopersicum; adaptation; apomixis; inventory; parthenocarpy; tomato
Year: 2019 PMID: 30713546 PMCID: PMC6345683 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01997
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Figure 1Distribution of species reported in literature for the occurrence of parthenocarpy (n = 95). Taxa are grouped according to the phylogenetic group (A), life form (B), sex distribution (C), and fruit type (D). Distribution of monospermic [(E), n = 32] and of plurispermic [(F), n = 63] species according to the status as wild, non-fruit crops and fruit crops.
Figure 2Relationship between parthenocarpy and polyploidy. Distribution of diploid (D) and polypoid (P) parthenocarpic species in relation with (A) the seed category (Mo, monospermic; Pl, plurispermic), (B) the life form (He, annual and perennial herbs; Sh, shrubs; Tr, trees), (C) the distribution of sexes (Di, dioecious; M, monoecious; H, hermafrodite) and (D) the status as fruit crop (FC), non-fruit crop (NFC), or wild species (W). ** indicate distributions significantly different for P ≤ 0.01 after χ2-test of 2 × 2 or 2 × 3 contingency tables.
Figure 3Examples of seeded and seedless fruits in parthenocarpic species. (A) Pastinaca sativa (courtesy of M.R. Berenbaum), (B) Bursera aptera (courtesy of M.F. Ramos Ordoñez), (C) Elaeis oleifera (courtesy of E. Barcelos), (D) Annona squamosa (from Lora et al., 2011), (E) Actinidia arguta cv Issai (courtesy of I. Kataoka), (F) Cucumis sativus (courtesy of M. J. Dìez), (G) Citrus clementine (courtesy of C. Mesejo), (H) Musa acuminata banksia (from Sardos et al., 2016), (I) Solanum muricatum (courtesy of J. Prohens), (L) Solanum lycopersicum (seeded and pat-2 fruits in the genetic background of cv Super Marmande, authors' archive).
Sources of genetic parthenocarpy in tomato described in the literature (species are reported with taxonomic names adopted after Peralta et al., 2008).
| Cv Ventura | – | Bianchi and Soressi, | ||
| Severianin | Byzon | Dovedar, 1973 (cited by Philouze, | ||
| Kyo-temari | Severianin | – | Takisawa et al., | |
| RP 75–59 | Atom | Bubjekosoko | Reimann-Philipp, 1968 (cited by Philouze, | |
| IVT-2 | Zijlstra, | |||
| IL5-1 | Gorguet et al., | |||
| IVT-1 | Zijlstra, | |||
| – | – | Bonny best | Large cherry | Hawthorn, |
| – | Kraevoj, 1949 (cited by Philouze, | |||
| – | – | Lesley and Lesley, | ||
| – | New Caledonia | Johnson and Hall, | ||
| – | Luneva, 1957 (cited by Philouze, | |||
| – | Reimann-Philipp, 1977 personal communication (cited by Philouze, | |||
| – | Baggett and Frazier, | |||
| – | Baggett and Frazier, | |||
| – | Baggett and Frazier, | |||
| – | – | Philouze, unpublished (cited by Philouze, | ||
| – | Stoeva et al., 1985 (cited by Lukyanenko, | |||
| Carobeta | – | Georgiev and Mikhailov, | ||
| – | Mikhailov and Georgiev, 1987 (cited by Lukyanenko, |
Not determined, not applicable.
Derived from a cross between a variant from “Severianin” and a non-parthenocarpic cultivar.
Classified in the IPK seedbank (.
Classified in the IPK genebank as L. esculentum Mill. convar. fruticosum Lehm. var. pygmaeum Lehm.
Figure 4Correlation coefficients between expression of fruit set-related genes in cultivated and wild forms of tomato. logFC of the expression few days after anthesis and at anthesis of genes up-regulated by pollination (PD group) and early fruit growth (FG group) in cv Chico III ovaries (Ruiu et al., 2015) and in M82 and S. pimpinellifolium pericarp, placenta and septum (Tomato Expression Atlas at the Sol Genomics Network website, sgn, https://solgenomics.net;Shinozaki et al., 2018).