Skip to content

Advertisement

You're viewing the new version of our site. Please leave us feedback.

Learn more

BMC Plant Biology

Open Access

Dioecious Silene latifolia plants show sexual dimorphism in the vegetative stage

BMC Plant Biology201010:208

https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-10-208

Received: 17 December 2009

Accepted: 20 September 2010

Published: 20 September 2010

Abstract

Background

Prior to this study, no differences in gene expression between male and female dioecious plants in the vegetative state had been detected. Among dioecious plants displaying sexual dimorphism, Silene latifolia is one of the most studied species. Although many sexually dimorphic traits have been described in S. latifolia, all of them are quantitative, and they usually become apparent only after the initiation of flowering.

Results

We present RT-PCR-based evidence that in S. latifolia, sexual dimorphism in gene expression is present long before the initiation of flowering. We describe three ESTs that show sex-specific (two male specific and one female specific) transcription at the rosette stage before the first flowering season.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study provides the first molecular evidence of early pre-flowering sexual dimorphism in angiosperms.

Background

Sexual dimorphism (the systematic difference in form or other trait(s) not present in sexual organs between individuals of different sex in the same species) is a widely studied phenomenon in animal models [1] and in humans [2]. Much less is known about sexual dimorphism in vascular dioecious plants (reviewed in [3]).

Among vascular plants displaying sexual dimorphism, Silene latifolia is (together with Fragaria virginiana - [4]) the most studied species. The first study on sexually dimorphic traits in S. latifolia was performed already in the 19th century [5], and since that time many sexually dimorphic traits have been described (e. g., [69]). However, the only known genes involved in sexual dimorphism are those involved in the control of flower development. During flower development, sexual dimorphism starts to occur very early. At the morphological level, the central zone of the floral meristem is significantly smaller in males than in females [10]. This is caused by cell division arrest in male tissues [11]. The difference between male and female flower bud morphology is preceded by differences at the gene expression level. Developmental pathways involved in the switch of male or female flower program have been also identified [12, 13].

The differential expression of some genes probably results from different modes of selection operating in males and females: males are limited in their reproductive success by access to mates, whereas females are more limited by resources [14]. In animals, the evolution of the sexual dimorphism is primarily driven by competition between males and selection for traits recognized by females as marks of male fitness (reviewed in [15])]. Similar principles are probably also at work in animal pollinated plants. In S. latifolia, odor-compounds involved in pollinator attraction differ significantly between sexes, suggesting that selection for higher attractiveness among competing males is mediated by the sensory ecology of the pollinator [16]. In addition, males produce on average up to 16 times more flowers than pollinated females [17]. This difference in flower number is probably driven by a combination of male competition, and, at least partly, by a higher consumption of resources by developing seeds in pollinated female flowers, which probably results in a trade off between seed size and flower number. The difference in flower number is, indeed, less pronounced in non-pollinated females, which produce on average 4 times fewer flowers than males [17, 18]. Yet, selection for increased flower number in males is hypothesized to be the primary mechanism for the further evolution of sexual dimorphism in other traits [8]. It also seems reasonable to expect that differences in the vegetative parts of plants evolved in concert with different flowers types or architecture of inflorescences carried by the plant [3]. Dawson and Geber [3] pointed out that many sexually dimorphic traits could evolve as a consequence of their correlation with other sexually dimorphic traits and so they need not be of adaptive value. Correlations between flower size and the size of the stem leaves have been reported by several independent studies (reviewed by [3]). Steven et al. [18] suggested that variation in sex-limited genes with pleiotropic effects and/or linkage between sex limited loci occurs in S. latifolia. They statistically predicted that selection for increased flower numbers in males along with weak selection for increased flower size in females could lead to dimorphic evolution in several other traits including leaf mass [18].

Almost all of the sexually dimorphic traits in S. latifolia described so far become apparent only after the initiation of flowering. Notable exceptions to this pattern include: sex-dimorphism in the long-term survival of buried seeds and burial induced dormancy in S. latifolia [19], sex-dimorphism in emergence time [20] and in the time to flowering [20, 21]. We present the first molecular evidence that sexually dimorphic gene expression is present in S. latifolia even at the rosette stage, a long time before the initiation of flowering, and describe three ESTs with sex-specific gene expression.

Results and discussion

We re-tested the expression patterns of 22 available S. latifolia ESTs previously described according to Northern blots or Virtual Northerns [2224] as preferentially expressed in male flowers and/or early stamen (for the list of the ESTs chosen for this study, see Additional file 1: Supplementary table S1). Fewer genes than previously claimed have expression limited to male flower buds suggesting the importance of RT-PCR analyses in this case. Only six out of 15 genes previously described as male flower bud specific were expressed in male flower buds only and not in the leaves or in female flower buds (Figure 1A). Two genes, originally described as male flower bud specific, were expressed in male flower buds earlier than in female flower buds (Figure 1B). Twelve genes were expressed in all samples tested (Figure 1C). For the comparison of the previously published data and our results see Additional file 2: Supplementary table S2. We also found one EST (Men-470) expressed exclusively in male flower buds and leaves and one EST (CCLS79.1) expressed exclusively in female flower buds and leaves (Figure 1D). We also serendipitously found one new 550 bp long EST as a "by-product" of PCR amplification of Men-262 (Figure 1D) and named it Serendip2 [GenBank: GU120088]. Serendip2 was expressed exclusively in male flower buds and leaves.
Figure 1

RT-PCR analyses of all the studied ESTs. Expression was investigated by RT-PCR analysis on the tissues indicated above each lane. The ESTs amplified are indicated on the right. Male buds of two mm length represent the stage when meiosis starts in anthers. Female meiosis starts in eight mm long female buds. Further details concerning the flower development in S. latifolia are summarized in Additional file 6: Supplementary table S4 (according to Farbos et al. [47]). (A) ESTs expressed exclusively in male flower buds. (B) ESTs starting to be expressed in male flower buds earlier than in female flower buds. (C) ESTs expressed in leaves and flower buds of both sexes. (D) ESTs showing sex specific expression in all the studied tissues. Two of them (Serendip2, and Men-470) are showing male specific expression while CCLS79.1 gene shows female specific expression. Men-262 is included to illustrate that Serendip2 is amplified with the same pair of primers and it serves also as a proof of the sufficient quality of templates.

To elucidate the discrepancy between the expression patterns found here and those presented in previous research [2224], we performed a homology search of the studied ESTs followed by a search for putative orthologous sequences in Arabidopsis thaliana (for the results, see Additional file 1: Supplementary table S1 and Additional file 3: Supplementary figures S1-11) and their expression patterns according to Genevestigator V3 [25, 26] (for the results, see Additional file 1: Supplementary table S1; Genevestigator workspace file is included as Additional file 4). We found that the gene expression patterns described in A. thaliana were not in a contradiction to our results (cf. Additional file 1: Supplementary table S1 and the Figure 1).

In this article, we present sex-specific expression patterns of Men-470, Serendip2 and CCLS79.1; they are expressed in a sex-specific manner not only in flower buds, but also in the leaves of plants in the vegetative stage of development. At this stage, no expression of genes involved in the flower formation is present in A. thaliana (reviewed in [27]). Men-470 has already been studied using RT-PCR by other authors [24], who reported expression both in male and female flowers and in leaves (sex not specified). Using our primers, we observed transcription in males in all tissues studied, but no transcription in females. This result suggests that the expression of the copy amplified by our primer pair is already sex specific in the rosette stage. We can exclude the alternative possibility that our primers amplified only the Y-linked copy of Men-470 by amplifying the sequence from females (XX). Serendip2 is a new EST that was found in this study. Serendip2 has an open reading frame along the whole sequence, but it has no homology to any known gene either at the DNA or protein level. The most interesting case is probably the CCLS79.1 gene. This sequence was amplified from genomic DNA samples of both females and males, suggesting that the difference in expression is not caused by sex linkage. The results we obtained in CCLS79.1 differ from the results obtained previously in Northern blots [22] that showed expression both in male and female flower buds and no expression in male leaves. The different results of our study can be explained by the fact that RT-PCR can selectively amplify one of several copies present in the genome.

Our results clearly show that male and female S. latifolia plants differ in the expression of at least three genes long before the initiation of flowering; this situation is analogous to the pregonadal stage in mammals [28]. Growth differences and sex specific expression are present in mammalian embryos in the preimplantation stage, long before the formation of sex organs. Similarly, sex-dimorphic gene expression has been found in gastrulating chicken embryos [29]. The main difference between plant and animal bodies is that plants do not possess a true germline and sexual organs develop relatively late in plant life. Given this pattern, our discovery of sexual dimorphism at the rosette stage is surprising. Indeed, contrary to animals, sexual dimorphism in plants at the vegetative stage before inflorescence initiation seems to be extremely rare. In classical dioecious model species, the earliest differences between male and female individuals are apparent in the inflorescence shape (in hop (Humulus) or hemp (Cannabis)). Spatial sex segregation, which is caused by differential seed germination and seedling survival (reviewed by [30]), is an indirect indication of the existence of sexual dimorphism in the vegetative stage of plants [31]. Additionally, the salt grass Distichlis spicata, a species characterized by spatial segregation of sexes, shows sex specific differences in susceptibility to colonization by a mycorrhizal fungus [30]. In this species, the sex specific differences even result in a strong inter-sexual competition [32]. As already listed in introduction, there are only a few indirect indications of the sexually dimorphic sex expression in the early vegetative state in S. latifolia that were obtained by previous studies [1921]. The differences in expression patterns of three ESTs found in this study are the first qualitative differences between the sexes in the vegetative stage in S. latifolia. They are also the first described sequences in plants connected with the sexual dimorphism in the vegetative stage.

The existence of the sex specifically expressed genes in S. latifolia in the rosette stage suggests that there may be some, as yet undetected, physiological differences between sexes. We speculate that such hidden sexual dimorphism may be present in many dioecious species, and this study should inspire other scientists to test other dioecious species for sexual dimorphism in early vegetative stages. The existence of sexually dimorphic patterns means that the S. latifolia plants "know" their sex a long time before flowering, and this situation probably enables the plants to prepare for flowering in a sex specific manner.

Conclusions

To our knowledge, this study provides the first molecular evidence of early pre-flowering sexual dimorphism in angiosperms.

Methods

Orthology identification and search for the expression patterns in A. thaliana

Orthology data were obtained from OrthoMCL [33]. Files containing protein sequence data and orthology group information were downloaded from OrthoMCL version 4, currently containing genes from nine green plant genomes. The OrthoMCL clustering method provides a convenient, but necessarily imperfect means of estimating orthology and paralogy ([34], [35]). The highest BLAST hits can, in some cases, occur due to domain homologies, rather than homology to orthologs [36]. We performed phylogenetic analysis to avoid this misleading orthologue identification. Sequences for phylogenetic tree construction were obtained via a BLASTX homology search of the database of non-redundant protein sequences at NCBI (nr). All ESTs showing significant homology to known sequences were subjected to phylogenetic tree construction to further confirm their orthologues in other plant species. For the phylogenetic analysis, translated sequences were aligned using ClustalW version 1.83 [37], and the alignment was manually corrected using Seaview [38]. Ambiguously aligned parts of the sequences were excluded using Gblocks [39]. Phylogenetic trees were constructed by the maximum likelihood algorithm using PhyML version 3.0.1 [40] using the LG + Γ4 + I model [41] and they were visualized using Dendroscope [42]. Branches were tested for reliability by approximate likelihood-ratio test [43]. Phylogenetic trees were rooted using an appropriate outgroup. Putative orthologues in A. thaliana were detected at all A. thaliana genes that grouped with a respective Silene latifolia EST with a high degree of confidence. The cut-off to detect orthology was set to 0.7. The expression patterns of the A. thaliana orthologues were searched using Genevestigator V3 [25, 26].

Extraction of nucleic acids and RT-PCR

S. latifolia plants were grown as described by Markova et al. [44]. Genomic DNA was isolated as described previously [45]. The sex of the plants was estimated at the rosette stage based on the length polymorphism between X and Y copy of the gene SlssX/Y (using the primers c2B12+1 and c2B12-2)[46]. RNA from a bulk sample of six male or female plants was isolated from rosette leaves (before the first flowering season; at the eight leaves stage) and flower buds of four different sizes (smaller than 1 mm, between 1 and 2 mm, between 2 and 3 mm and bigger than three mm). For RNA isolation and reverse transcription, we used the same procedures as described previously [12]. To verify the results, RT-PCR was also performed on a single male and a single female with the same results as the bulk analysis. A list of all PCR primers and conditions used in this study is provided in Additional file 5: Supplementary Table S3. PCR products were analyzed on agarose gels and visualized under UV light in the presence of ethidium bromide. Expression was classified in a qualitative manner as present or absent.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Ms. Martina Kasikova and Magda Soukupova for technical assistance. This research was mainly supported by the project KJB600040801 (project of the Grant Agency of AS CR to J.Z.) and by the Institutional Research Plans (AV0Z50040507 and AV0Z50040702). This research was also supported by the project IAA600040801 to B.J. (Grant Agency of AS CR) and by project P501/10/0102 to B.V. (Grant Agency of the Czech Republic).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Plant Developmental Genetics, Institute of Biophysics AS CR v. v. i.

References

  1. Williams TM, Carroll SB: Genetic and molecular insights into the development and evolution of sexual dimorphism. Nat Rev Genet. 2009, 10: 797-804. 10.1038/nrg2687.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  2. Ober C, Loisel DA, Gilad Y: Sex-specific genetic architecture of human disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2008, 9: 911-922. 10.1038/nrg2415.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawson TE, Geber MA: Dimorphism in physiology and morphology. Gender and Sexual Dimorphism in Flowering Plants. Edited by: Geber MA, Dawson TE, Delph LF. 1999, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 175-215.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashman TL: The limits on sexual dimorphism in vegetative traits in a gynodioecious plant. Am Nat. 2005, 166 (Suppl): S5-S16. 10.1086/444598.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Schulz A: Beiträge zur Kenntnis der Bestäubungseinrichtungen und Geschlechtsverteilung bei den Pflanzen. II Bibl Bot. 1890, 17: 182-196.Google Scholar
  6. Gehring JL: Temporal patterns in the development of sexual dimorphisms in Silene latifolia (Caryophyllaceae). Bull Torrey Bot Club. 1993, 120: 405-416. 10.2307/2996744.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaltz O, Shykoff JA: Male and female Silene latifolia plants differ in per-contact risk of infection by a sexually transmitted desease. J Ecol. 2001, 89: 99-109. 10.1046/j.1365-2745.2001.00527.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  8. Delph LF, Frey FM, Steven JC, Gehring JL: Investigating the independent evolution of the size of floral organs via G-matrix estimation and artificial selection. Evol Dev. 2004, 6: 438-448. 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2004.04052.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Delph LF, Gehring JL, Arntz AM, Levri M, Frey FM: Genetic correlations with floral display lead to sexual dimorphism in the cost of reproduction. Am Nat. 2005, 166 (Suppl): S31-S41. 10.1086/444597.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Farbos I, Veuskens J, Vyskot B, Oliveira M, Hinnisdaels S, Aghmir A, Mouras A, Negrutiu I: Sexual dimorphism in white campion: deletion on the Y chromosome results in a floral asexual phenotype. Genetics. 1999, 151: 1187-1196.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Matsunaga S, Uchida W, Kawano S: Sex-specific cell division during development of unisexual flowers in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. Plant Cell Physiol. 2004, 45: 795-802. 10.1093/pcp/pch081.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Zluvova J, Nicolas M, Berger A, Negrutiu I, Moneger F: Premature arrest of the male flower meristem precedes sexual dimorphism in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006, 103: 18854-18859. 10.1073/pnas.0606622103.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Kazama Y, Fujiwara MT, Koizumi A, Nishihara K, Nishiyama R, Kifune E, Abe T, Kawano S: A SUPERMAN-like gene is exclusively expressed in female flowers of the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. Plant Cell Physiol. 2009, 50: 1127-1141. 10.1093/pcp/pcp064.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Bateman AJ: Intrasexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity. 2: 349-368. 10.1038/hdy.1948.21.Google Scholar
  15. Hall DW, Kirkpatrick M, West B: Runaway sexual selection when female preferences are directly selected. Evolution. 2000, 54: 1862-1869.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Waelti MO, Page PA, Widmer A, Schiestl FP: How to be an attractive male: floral dimorphism and attractiveness to pollinators in a dioecious plant. BMC Evol Biol. 2009, 9: 190-10.1186/1471-2148-9-190.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Laporte MM, Delph LF: Sex-specific physiology and source-sink relations in the dioecious plant Silene latifolia. Oecologia. 1996, 106: 63-72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Steven JC, Delph LF, Brodie ED: Sexual dimorphism in the quantitative-genetic architecture of floral, leaf, and allocation traits in Silene latifolia. Evolution. 2007, 61: 42-57. 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2007.00004.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Purrington CB, Schmitt J: Sexual dimorphism of dormancy and survivorship in buried seeds of Silene latifolia. Journal of Ecology. 1995, 83: 795-800. 10.2307/2261416.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Purrington CB, Schmitt J: Consequences of sexually dimorphic timing of emergence and flowering in Silene latifolia. J Ecol. 1998, 86: 286-393. 10.1046/j.1365-2745.1998.00262.x.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Doust JL, O'Brien G, Doust LL: Effect of Density on Secondary Sex Characteristics and Sex Ratio in Silene alba (Caryophyllaceae). American Journal of Botany. 1987, 74: 40-46. 10.2307/2444329.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Barbacar N, Hinnisdaels S, Farbos I, Moneger F, Lardon A, Delichere C, Mouras A, Negrutiu I: Isolation of early genes expressed in reproductive organs of the dioecious white campion (Silene latifolia) by subtraction cloning using an asexual mutant. Plant J. 1997, 12: 805-817. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1997.12040805.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  23. Scutt CP, Li T, Robertson SE, Willis ME, Gilmartin PM: Sex determination in dioecious Silene latifolia. Effects of the Y chromosome and the parasitic smut fungus (Ustilago violacea) on gene expression during flower development. Plant Physiol. 1997, 114: 969-979. 10.1104/pp.114.3.969.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Scutt CP, Jenkins T, Furuya M, Gilmartin PM: Male specific genes from dioecious white campion identified by fluorescent differential display. Plant Cell Physiol. 2002, 43: 563-57232. 10.1093/pcp/pcf069.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Zimmermann P, Hirsch-Hoffmann M, Hennig L, Gruissem W: GENEVESTIGATOR. Arabidopsis microarray database and analysis toolbox. Plant Physiol. 2004, 136: 2621-2632. 10.1104/pp.104.046367.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Hruz T, Laule O, Szabo G, Wessendorp F, Bleuler S, Oertle L, Widmayer P, Gruissem W, Zimmermann P: Genevestigator v3: a reference expression database for the meta-analysis of transcriptomes. Adv Bioinformatics. 2008, 2008: 420747-PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  27. Krizek BA, Fletcher JC: Molecular mechanisms of flower development: an armchair guide. Nat Rev Genet. 2005, 6: 688-698. 10.1038/nrg1675.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  28. Yadav BR, King WA, Betteridge KJ: Relationships between the completion of first cleavage and the chromosomal complement, sex, and developmental rates of bovine embryos generated in vitro. Mol Reprod Dev. 1993, 36: 434-439. 10.1002/mrd.1080360405.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhang SO, Mathur S, Hattem G, Tassy O, Pourquié O: Sex-dimorphic gene expression and ineffective dosage compensation of Z-linked genes in gastrulating chicken embryos. BMC Genomics. 2010, 11: 13-10.1186/1471-2164-11-13.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  30. Eppley SM, Mercer CA, Haaning C, Graves CB: Sex-specific variation in the interaction between Distichlis spicata (Poaceae) and mycorrhizal fungi. Am J Bot. 2009, 96: 1967-1973. 10.3732/ajb.0900076.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Bierzychudek P, Eckhart V: Spatial segregation of sexes of dioecious plants. Am Nat. 1988, 132-Google Scholar
  32. Mercer CA, Eppley SM: Inter-sexual competition in a dioecious grass. Oecologia. 2010Google Scholar
  33. Chen F, Mackey AJ, Stoeckert CJ, Roos DS: OrthoMCL-DB: querying a comprehensive multi-species collection of ortholog groups. Nucleic Acids Res. 2006, D363-368. 10.1093/nar/gkj123. 34 DatabaseGoogle Scholar
  34. Li L, Stoeckert CJ, Roos DS: OrthoMCL: identification of ortholog groups for eukaryotic genomes. Genome Res. 2003, 13: 2178-2189. 10.1101/gr.1224503.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  35. Chen F, Mackey AJ, Vermunt K, Roos DS: Assessing Performance of Orthology Detection Strategies Applied to Eukaryotic Genomes. PLoS ONE. 2007, 2: e383-10.1371/journal.pone.0000383.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Lindqvist C, Scheen AC, Yoo MJ, Grey P, Oppenheimer DG, Leebens-Mack JH, Soltis DE, Soltis PS, Albert VA: An expressed sequencetag (EST) library from developing fruits of an Hawaiian endemic mint (Stenogyne rugosa, Lamiaceae): characterization and microsatellite markers. BMC Plant Biol. 2006, 6: 16-10.1186/1471-2229-6-16.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ: CLUSTAL W: improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res. 1994, 22: 4673-4680. 10.1093/nar/22.22.4673.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  38. Galtier N, Gouy M, Gautier C: SEAVIEW and PHYLO_WIN: two graphic tools for sequence alignment and molecular phylogeny. Comput Appl Biosci. 12: 543-548.Google Scholar
  39. Castresana J: Selection of conserved blocks from multiple alignments for their use in phylogenetic analysis. Mol Biol Evol. 2000, 17: 540-552.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Guindon S, Gascuel O: A simple, fast, and accurate algorithm to estimate large phylogenies by maximum likelihood. Syst Biol. 2003, 52: 696-704. 10.1080/10635150390235520.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Le SQ, Gascuel O: An improved general amino acid replacement matrix. Mol BiolEvol. 2008, 25: 1307-1320. 10.1093/molbev/msn067.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  42. Huson D, Richter D, Rausch C, Dezulian T, Franz M, Rupp R: Dendroscope: An interactive viewer for large phylogenetic trees. BMC Bioinformatics. 2007, 8: 460-10.1186/1471-2105-8-460.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Anisimova M, Gascuel O: Approximate likelihood-ratio test for branches: A fast, accurate, and powerful alternative. Syst Biol. 2006, 55: 539-552. 10.1080/10635150600755453.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Markova M, Michu E, Vyskot B, Janousek B, Zluvova J: An interspecific hybrid as a tool to study phylogenetic relationships in plants using the GISH technique. Chromosome Res. 2007, 15: 1051-1059. 10.1007/s10577-007-1180-8.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  45. Zluvova J, Lengerova M, Markova M, Hobza R, Nicolas M, Vyskot B, Charlesworth D, Negrutiu I, Janousek B: The inter-specific hybrid Silene latifolia x S. viscosa reveals early events of sex chromosome evolution. Evol Dev. 2005, 7: 327-336. 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2005.05038.x.PubMedView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  46. Filatov DA: Evolutionary history of Silene latifolia sex chromosomes revealed by genetic mapping of four genes. Genetics. 2005, 170: 975-979. 10.1534/genetics.104.037069.PubMedPubMed CentralView ArticleGoogle Scholar
  47. Farbos I, Oliveira M, Negrutiu I, Mouras A: Sex organ determination and differentiation in the dioecious plant Melandrium album (Silene latifolia): cytological and histological analysis. Sex Plant Reprod. 1997, 10: 155-167. 10.1007/s004970050083.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Zluvova et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement