IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ibn/jasjnl/v8y2016i2p10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Development and Fertility Restoration of CMS Eggplant Lines Carrying the Cytoplasm of Solanum violaceum

Author

Listed:
  • Konstantinos Krommydas
  • Zisis Tzikalios
  • Panagiotis Madesis
  • Fotios Bletsos
  • Athanasios Mavromatis
  • Demetrios Roupakias

Abstract

A functional cytoplasmic male sterile (CMS) eggplant line carrying the cytoplasm of Solanum violaceum was developed in the past, but the fertility restoring genes (Rf-genes) were not identified. This work aimed to produce the CMS lines of three Hellenic eggplant cultivars (viz., ‘Langada’, ‘Emi’ and ‘Tsakoniki’) using the cytoplasm of S. violaceum and study the inheritance of the Rf-genes. The respective CMS eggplant lines were developed by the backcross method and examined for their fertility parameters. The results demonstrated that female fertility was not affected by the cytoplasm of S. violaceum. In contrast, the occurrence of three male fertility phenotypes (male sterile, male fertile and potentially male fertile) indicated that male fertility was affected by nuclear/cytoplasmic interactions. Male sterile plants were characterized by indehiscent anthers, low pollen viability and abnormal anther morphology. Male fertile plants formed dehiscent anthers with high pollen viability and normal morphology. Potentially male fertile plants initially formed dehiscent anthers, but in later stages formed exclusively indehiscent anthers. Male fertile plants were obtained in the advanced backcross populations of CMS ‘Tsakoniki’, but not in CMS ‘Langada’ and CMS ‘Emi’. The genetic analysis of fertility restoration indicated that male fertility in the genetic background of cv. ‘Tsakoniki’ is controlled by one essential genetic locus, affected by a secondary modifying locus. Molecular analysis of cp-DNA and mt-DNA in the CMS lines indicated maternal inheritance of the cytoplasm organelles. Our findings demonstrate that the genotype of the eggplant parent can affect the expression of CMS as well as fertility restoration.

Suggested Citation

  • Konstantinos Krommydas & Zisis Tzikalios & Panagiotis Madesis & Fotios Bletsos & Athanasios Mavromatis & Demetrios Roupakias, 2016. "Development and Fertility Restoration of CMS Eggplant Lines Carrying the Cytoplasm of Solanum violaceum," Journal of Agricultural Science, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 8(2), pages 1-10, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:8:y:2016:i:2:p:10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/download/54684/30226
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jas/article/view/54684
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Costa-Font, Montserrat & Gil, José M. & Traill, W. Bruce, 2008. "Consumer acceptance, valuation of and attitudes towards genetically modified food: Review and implications for food policy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(2), pages 99-111, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edward Royzman & Corey Cusimano & Robert F. Leeman, 2017. "What lies beneath? Fear vs. disgust as affective predictors of absolutist opposition to genetically modified food and other new technologies," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 12(5), pages 466-480, September.
    2. Kentaka Aruga, 2017. "Consumer responses to food produced near the Fukushima nuclear plant," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 19(4), pages 677-690, October.
    3. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    4. Irz, Xavier & Mazzocchi, Mario & Réquillart, Vincent & Soler, Louis-Georges, 2015. "Research in Food Economics: past trends and new challenges," Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement, Editions NecPlus, vol. 96(01), pages 187-237, March.
    5. Lynn J. Frewer, 2017. "Consumer acceptance and rejection of emerging agrifood technologies and their applications," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(4), pages 683-704.
    6. Hu, R. & Deng, H., 2018. "A Crisis of Consumers’ Trust in Scientists and Influence on Consumer Attitude," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 276047, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Menrad, Klaus & Gabriel, Andreas & Gylling, Morten, 2009. "Costs Of Co-Existence And Traceability Systems In The Food Industry In Germany And Denmark," Conference Papers 91301, University of Weihenstephan-Triesdorf, Straubing Centre of Science.
    8. Michelson, Hope & Fairbairn, Anna & Ellison, Brenna & Maertens, Annemie & Manyong, Victor, 2021. "Misperceived quality: Fertilizer in Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 148(C).
    9. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    10. Fan, Xiaoli & Muringai, Violet, 2018. "Effect of Information on Consumer Acceptance of Genetically Modified Potatoes in Canada," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274073, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    11. Götz, Linde & Svanidze, Miranda & Tissier, Alain & Brand Duran, Alejandro, 2022. "Consumers’ willingness to Buy CRISPR gene-edited tomatoes: Evidence from a choice experiment case study in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 14(2).
    12. Ashkan Pakseresht & Brandon R McFadden & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2017. "Consumer acceptance of food biotechnology based on policy context and upstream acceptance: evidence from an artefactual field experiment," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(5), pages 757-780.
    13. Mattia C. Mancini & Kent Kovacs & Eric Wailes & Jennie Popp, 2016. "Addressing the Externalities from Genetically Modified Pollen Drift on a Heterogeneous Landscape," Land, MDPI, vol. 5(4), pages 1-18, October.
    14. Greehy, Grainne & McCarthy, Mary & Henchion, Maeve M. & Dillon, Emma J. & McCarthy, Sinead, 2011. "An Exploration of Irish Consumer Acceptance of Nanotechnology Applications in Food," 2011 International European Forum, February 14-18, 2011, Innsbruck-Igls, Austria 122006, International European Forum on System Dynamics and Innovation in Food Networks.
    15. Andreas Drichoutis & Phoebe Koundouri & Mavra Stithou, 2013. "A Laboratory Experiment for the Estimation of Health Risks: Policy Recommendations," DEOS Working Papers 1316, Athens University of Economics and Business.
    16. Karen Lewis DeLong & Carola Grebitus, 2018. "Genetically modified labeling: The role of consumers’ trust and personality," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(2), pages 266-282, March.
    17. Bett, Charles & Ouma, James Okuro & Groote, Hugo De, 2010. "Perspectives of gatekeepers in the Kenyan food industry towards genetically modified food," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(4), pages 332-340, August.
    18. Bindu Paudel & Deepthi E. Kolady & David Just & Evert Van der Sluis, 2023. "Determinants of consumer acceptance of gene‐edited foods and its implications for innovators and policymakers," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 39(3), pages 623-645, July.
    19. Hu, Yang & House, Lisa A. & Gao, Zhifeng, 2022. "How do consumers respond to labels for crispr (gene-editing)?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    20. Pesek, John D., Jr. & Bernard, John C. & Gupta, Meeta, 2011. "Consumer Interest in Environmentally Beneficial Chicken Feeds: Comparing High Available Phosphorus Corn and Other Varieties," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1-15, August.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R00 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General - - - General
    • Z0 - Other Special Topics - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ibn:jasjnl:v:8:y:2016:i:2:p:10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Canadian Center of Science and Education (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cepflch.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.