title: Effect of teosinte cytoplasmic genomes on maize phenotype.
abstract: Determining the contribution of organelle genes to plant phenotype is hampered by several factors, including the paucity of variation in the plastid and mitochondrial genomes. To circumvent this problem, evolutionary divergence between maize (Zea mays ssp. mays) and the teosintes, its closest relatives, was utilized as a source of cytoplasmic genetic variation. Maize lines in which the maize organelle genomes were replaced through serial backcrossing by those representing the entire genus, yielding alloplasmic sublines, or cytolines were created. To avoid the confounding effects of segregating nuclear alleles, an inbred maize line was utilized. Cytolines with Z. mays teosinte cytoplasms were generally indistinguishable from maize. However, cytolines with cytoplasm from the more distantly related Z. luxurians, Z. diploperennis, or Z. perennis exhibited a plethora of differences in growth, development, morphology, and function. Significant differences were observed for 56 of the 58 characters studied. Each cytoline was significantly different from the inbred line for most characters. For a given character, variation was often greater among cytolines having cytoplasms from the same species than among those from different species. The characters differed largely independently of each other. These results suggest that the cytoplasm contributes significantly to a large proportion of plant traits and that many of the organelle genes are phenotypically important.
authors.affiliation: Laboratory of Genetics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin 53706, USA. allenjo@missouri.edu
authors.forename: James O
authors.initials: JO
authors.lastname: Allen
mesh_terms: D003433:Crosses, Genetic; D003593:Cytoplasm / Q000235:genetics*; D014644:Genetic Variation; D018745:Genome, Plant; D010641:Phenotype; D012150:Polymorphism, Restriction Fragment Length; D013045:Species Specificity; D003313:Zea mays / Q000145:classification* / Q000235:genetics*
references.citation: Genetics. 1987 Sep;117(1):139-47
references.pmid: 17246395
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 1994 Sep;89(1):127-32
references.pmid: 24177781
references.citation: Evolution. 1989 Nov;43(7):1555-1559
references.pmid: 28564240
references.citation: Genetics. 1991 Sep;129(1):285-95
references.pmid: 1682215
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 1993 Dec;87(4):416-22
references.pmid: 24190313
references.citation: Annu Rev Genet. 1991;25:461-86
references.pmid: 1812814
references.citation: Trends Plant Sci. 2004 Feb;9(2):61-4
references.pmid: 15106588
references.citation: Genetics. 1980 Aug;95(4):929-44
references.pmid: 17249053
references.citation: Genome. 1994 Apr;37(2):210-6
references.pmid: 18470070
references.citation: Plant Cell. 1990 Feb;2(2):107-13
references.pmid: 1967030
references.citation: Genetics. 1993 Jun;134(2):559-70
references.pmid: 8325489
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987 Dec;84(24):9054-8
references.pmid: 3480529
references.citation: Annu Rev Genet. 1983;17:27-48
references.pmid: 6364962
references.citation: Genetics. 1980 Aug;95(4):945-60
references.pmid: 17249054
references.citation: New Biol. 1990 Feb;2(2):179-86
references.pmid: 1964592
references.citation: Mol Biol Evol. 2001 Sep;18(9):1745-53
references.pmid: 11504854
references.citation: Yi Chuan Xue Bao. 2000;27(4):325-30
references.pmid: 11147351
references.citation: Nature. 1997 Apr 3;386(6624):485-8
references.pmid: 9087405
references.citation: Genetics. 1984 Apr;106(4):735-49
references.pmid: 17246206
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 1986 Sep;72(6):794-8
references.pmid: 24248202
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 1987 Oct;74(6):781-8
references.pmid: 24240340
references.citation: Science. 1979 Jan 12;203(4376):186-8
references.pmid: 17834721