Advertisement

Genetic Resources and Crop Evolution

, Volume 66, Issue 2, pp 383–399 | Cite as

Reciprocal compatibility within the genus Pisum L. as studied in F1 hybrids: 2. Crosses involving P. fulvum Sibth. et Smith

  • O. E. KosterinEmail author
  • V. S. Bogdanova
  • E. R. Galieva
Research Article
  • 33 Downloads

Abstract

Pisum fulvum Sibth. et Smith. (accession WL2140) was crossed, in both directions, with seven accessions representing other pea taxa: P. abyssinicum A. Br. (1 accession), P. sativum L. subsp. elatius (Bieb.) Schmalh. s.l. (5 accessions) and the cultivated pea, P. sativum L. subsp. sativum (1 accession). Efficiency of crosses (the average number of hybrid seeds per cross), pollen and seed fertility and general quantitative traits of reciprocal F1 hybrids were evaluated in a greenhouse experiment. Crossability with P. fulvum as the seed parent was very poor but at least some viable seeds were obtained in all crosses. F1 hybrids with accessions VIR320, 721 and CE1 (P. s. elatius) were very weak and produced 0–3 seeds; those with WL1238 (P. s. sativum) were variable in vigour and fertility; both reciprocal hybrids with JI1794 were small plants. Other hybrids were tall, vigorously branching but poorly fertile plants. In all F1 hybrids, pollen fertility did not exceed or scarcely exceeded 50% without differences between reciprocal hybrids except for the pair P. fulvum × P. s. sativum. Pollen of all hybrids contained micro-grains formed around chromosomes retarded in anaphase I. Seed fertility was low, with significant differences between reciprocal hybrids found only in the pair P. fulvum—JI1794. F1 hybrids between P. fulvum and peas of the evolutionary ‘lineage AC’ showed higher pollen and seed fertility than those with peas of the ‘lineage B’. The sum of evidence available suggests that P. fulvum does not differ from P. sativum by reciprocal translocations.

Keywords

Pea crop wild relatives Crossing barriers Crossability Reproductive compatibility Pisum L. Pisum fulvum Sibth. et Smith, Pisum sativum subsp. elatius (Bieb.) Schmalh. 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The work was supported by the Russian State Scientific Project No 0324-2018-0018. Lyudmila P. Romkina made a large work with plant handling, Arseniy K. Yadrikhinskiy helped assessing pollen and seed fertility, Vladimir Solovyev helped with quantitative data analysis. Plants were grown in the greenhouse of the Artificial Plant Growing Facility, ICG SB RAS; cytological analysis was carried out in Microscopic Centre Facility ICG SB RAS.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Aryamanesh N, Byrne O, Hardie DC, Khan T, Siddique KHM, Yan G (2012) Large-scale density-based screening for pea weevil resistance in advanced backcross lines derived from cultivated field pea (Pisum sativum) and Pisum fulvum. Crop Pasture Sci 63:612–618.  https://doi.org/10.1071/CP12225 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aznar-Fernández T, Carillo-Perdomo E, Flores F, Rubiales D (2018) Identification and multi-environment validation of resistance to pea weevil (Bruchus pisorum) in Pisum germplasm. J Pest Sci 91:505–514.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10340-017-0925-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barilli E, Cobos MJ, Carillo E, Kilian A, Carling J, Rubiales F (2018) A high-density integrated DArTseq SNP-based genetic map of Pisum fuvlum and identification of QTLs controlling rust resistence. Front Plant Sci 9:167.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ben-Ze’ev N, Zohary D (1973) Species relationship in the genus Pisum L. Isr J Bot 22:73–91Google Scholar
  5. Bogdanova VS, Galieva ER (2009) Meiotic abnormalities as expression of nuclear-cytoplasmic incompatibility in crosses of Pisum sativum subspecies. Russ J Genet 45:623–627.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S1022795409050159 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bogdanova VS, Kosterin OE (2007) Hybridization barrier between Pisum fulvum Sibth. et Smith and P. sativum L. is partly due to nuclear-chloroplast incompatibility. Pisum Genet 39:8–9Google Scholar
  7. Bogdanova VS, Galieva ER, Kosterin OE (2009) Genetic analysis of nuclear-cytoplasmic incompatibility in pea associated with cytoplasm of an accession of wild subspecies Pisum sativum subsp. elatius (Bieb.) Schmalh. Theor Appl Genet 118:801–809.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-008-0940-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bogdanova VS, Galieva ER, Yadrikhinskiy AK, Kosterin OE (2012) Inheritance and genetic mapping of two nuclear genes involved in nuclear-cytoplasmic incompatibility in peas (Pisum sativum L.). Theor Appl Genet 124:1503–1512.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-012-1804-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bogdanova VS, Kosterin OE, Yadrikhinskiy AK (2014) Wild peas vary in their cross-compatibility with cultivated pea (Pisum sativum subsp. sativum L.) depending on alleles of a nuclear-cytoplasmic incompatibility locus. Theor Appl Genet 127:1163–1172.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-014-2288-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bogdanova VS, Zaytseva OO, Mglinets AV, Shatskaya NV, Kosterin OE, Vasiliev GV (2015) Nuclear-cytoplasmic conflict in pea (Pisum sativum L.) is associated with nuclear and plastidic candidate genes encoding Acetyl-CoA carboxylase subunits. PLoS ONE 10(3):e0119835.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0119835 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Byrne OM, Hardie DC, Khan TN, Yan G (2008) Genetic analysis of pod and seed resistance to pea weevil in a Pisum sativum × P. fulvum interspecific cross. Austr J Agric Res 59:854–862.  https://doi.org/10.1071/AR07353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carrillo E, Rubiales D, Pérez-de-Luque A, Fondevilla S (2013) Characterization of mechanisms of resistance against Didymella pinodes in Pisum spp. Eur J Plant Pathol 135:761–769.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-012-0116-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clement SL, McPhee KE, Elberson LR, Evans MA (2009) Pea weevil, Bruchus pisorum L. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae), resistance in Pisum sativum × Pisum fulvum interspecific crosses. Plant Breed 128:478–485.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2008.01603.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coulot P, Rabaute P (2016) Monographie de Leguminosae de France. Tome 4. Tribus des Fabeae, des Cicereae et des Genisteae. Bull de la Société Botanique du Centre-Ouest 46:1–902Google Scholar
  15. Ellis THN, Poyser SJ (2002) An integrated and comparative view of pea genetic and cytogenetic maps. New Phytol 153:17–25.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0028-646X.2001.00302.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Errico A, Conicella C, Venora G (1991) Karyotype studies on Pisum fulvum and Pisum sativum using a chromosome image analysis system. Genome 34:105–108.  https://doi.org/10.1139/g91-017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fondevilla S, Torres AM, Moreno MT, Rubiales D (2007) Identification of a new gene for resistance to powdery mildew in Pisum fulvum, a wild relative of pea. Breed Sci 57:181–184.  https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.57.181 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fondevilla S, Cubero JI, Rubiales D (2011) Confirmation that the Er3 gene, converring resistence to Erysiphe pisi in pea, is a different gene from er1 and er2 genes. Plant Breed 130:281–282.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2010.01769.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kosterin OE (2017a) Abyssinian pea (Lathyrus schaeferi Kosterin nom. nov. pro Pisum abyssinicum A. Br.) is a problematic taxon. Vavilovskii Zhurnal Genetiki i Selektsii = Vavilov J Genet Breed 1(2):158–169.  https://doi.org/10.18699/VJ17.234 (in Russian, English summary)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kosterin OE (2017b) Abyssinian pea (Lathyrus schaeferi Kosterin pro Pisum abyssinicum A. Br.)—a problematic taxon. Acta Biologica Sibirica 3(3):97–110.  https://doi.org/10.14258/abs.v3i3.3621 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kosterin OE, Bogdanova VS (2008) Relationship of wild and cultivated forms of Pisum L. as inferred from an analysis of three markers, of the plastid, mitochondrial and nuclear genomes. Genet Resour Crop Evol 55:735–755.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-007-9281-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kosterin OE, Bogdanova VS (2014) Efficiently of hand pollination in different pea (Pisum) species and subspecies. Indian J Genet Pl Br 74:50–55.  https://doi.org/10.5958/j.0975-6906.74.1.007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kosterin OE, Bogdanova VS (2015) Reciprocal compatibility within the genus Pisum L. as studied in F1 hybrids: 1. Crosses involving P. sativum L. subsp. sativum. Genet Resour Crop Evol 62(5):691–709.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-014-0189-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kosterin OE, Zaytseva OO, Bogdanova VS, Ambrose M (2010) New data on three molecular markers from different cellular genomes in Mediterranean accessions reveal new insights into phylogeography of Pisum sativum L. subsp. elatuis (Bieb.) Schmalh. Genet Resour Crop Evol 57:733–739.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-009-9511-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lamm R (1951) Cytogenetical studies of translocations in Pisum. Hereditas 37:356–372.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-5223.1951.tb02899.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lehmann C (1954) Das morphologische System der Saaterbsen. Der Züchter 24:316–337.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00710392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lehmann CO, Blixt S (1984) Artificial infraspecific classification in relation to phenotypic manifestation of certain genes in Pisum. Agric Hort Genet 42:48–74Google Scholar
  28. Makasheva RK (1979) Kul’turnaya flora SSSR [Cultivated Flora of the USSR], vol. 4, Leningrad (in Russian)Google Scholar
  29. Maxted N, Ambrose M (2001) Peas (Pisum L.). In: Maxted N, Bennett SJ (eds) Plant genetic resources of legumes in the mediterranean, vol 39. Current plant science and biotechnology in agriculture. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 181–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Schaefer H, Hechenleitner P, Santos-Guerra A, Menezes de Sequeira M, Pennington RT, Kenicer G, Carine MA (2012) Systematics, biogeography, and character evolution of the legume tribe Fabeae with special focus on the middle-Atlantic island lineages. BMC Evol Biol 12:250.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-12-250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Singh RJ (2003) Plant cytogenetics, 2nd edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, p 463Google Scholar
  32. Welch BL (1947) The generalisation of “Student’s” problem when several different population variances are involved. Biometrika 34:28–35.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2332510 Google Scholar
  33. Zaytseva OO, Gunbin KV, Mglinets AV, Kosterin OE (2015) Divergence and population traits in evolution of the genus Pisum L. as reconstructed using genes of two histone H1 subtypes showing different phylogenetic resolution. Gene 556:235–244.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zaytseva OO, Bogdanova VS, Mglinets AV, Kosterin OE (2017) Refinement of the collection of wild peas (Pisum L.) and search for the area of pea domestication with a deletion in the plastidic psbA-trnH spacer. Genet Resour Crop Evol 64:1417–1430.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-016-0446-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Cytology and Genetics of the Siberian Branch of Russian Academy of SciencesNovosibirskRussia
  2. 2.Novosibirsk State UniversityNovosibirskRussia

Personalised recommendations