ArticlePlant molecular biology1998
RNaseI from Escherichia coli cannot substitute for S-RNase in rejection of Nicotiana plumbaginifolia pollen.
Article in Plant molecular biology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Interspecific reproductive barriers in the tomato clade: opportunities to decipher mechanisms of reproductive isolation.Sexual plant reproduction · 2011Review
- The S-locus and unilateral incompatibility.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2003Review
- Expressing foreign genes in the pistil: a comparison of S-RNase constructs in different Nicotiana backgrounds.Plant molecular biology · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unilateral incompatibility often occurs between self-incompatible (SI) species and their self-compatible (SC) relatives. For example, SI Nicotiana alata rejects pollen from SC N. plumbaginifolia, but the reciprocal pollination is compatible. This interspecific pollen rejection system closely resembles intraspecific S-allele-specific pollen rejection. However, the two systems differ in degree of specificity. In SI, rejection is S-allele-specific, meaning that only a single S-RNase causes rejection of pollen with a specific S genotype. Rejection of N. plumbaginifolia pollen is less specific, occurring in response to almost any S-RNase. Here, we have tested whether a non-S-RNase can cause rejection of N. plumbaginifolia pollen. The Escherichia coli rna gene encoding RNAseI was engineered for expression in transgenic (N. plumbaginifolia x SC N. alata) hybrids. Expression levels and pollination behavior of hybrids expressing E. coli RNaseI were compared to controls expressing SA2-RNase from N. alata. Immunoblot analysis and RNase activity assays showed that RNaseI and SA2-RNase were expressed at comparable levels. However, expression of SA2-RNase caused rejection of N. plumbaginifolia pollen, whereas expression of RNaseI did not. Thus, in this system, RNase activity alone is not sufficient for rejection of N. plumbaginifolia pollen. The results suggest that S-RNases may be specially adapted to function in pollen rejection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9484450What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.