Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Incongruity: Non-Functioning of Intercellular and Intracellular Partner Relationships Through Non-Matching Information

  • Chapter
Cellular Interactions

Part of the book series: Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology ((PLANT,volume 17))

Abstract

Intimate relationships between partners exist in a multiplicity of forms, within and between organisms. Their functioning is based on well-regulated interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Bellartz S (1956) Das Pollenschlauch Wachstum nach arteigener und artfremder Bestäu–bung einiger Solanaceen und die Inhaltsstoffe ihres Pollens und ihrer Griffel. Planta 47: 588–612

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Browning JA (1979) Genetic protective mechanisms of plant–pathogen populations: their coevolution and use in breeding for resistance. In: Harris MK (ed) Biology and breeding for resistance to arthropods and pathogens in agricultural plants. Texas A & M Univ, pp 52–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushnell WR (1979) The nature of basic compatibility: comparisons between pistil-pollen and host-parasite interaction. In: Daly JM, Uritani I (eds) Recognition and specificity in plant host–parasite interactions. Univ Park Press, Baltimore, pp 221–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Bushnell WR, Rowell JB (1981) Suppressors of defense reactions: a model for roles in specificity. Phytopathology 71: 1012–1014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaleff RS (1981) Genetics of higher plants. Applications of cell culture. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge London New York Melbourne Chmielewski T (1968) Cytogenetical and taxonomical studies on a new tomato form, Part II. Genet Pol 9: 97–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarke AE, Harrison S, Knox RB, Raff J, Smith P, Marchalonis JJ (1977) Common antigens and male-female recognition in plants. Nature 265: 161–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day PR (1973) Genetics of host–parasite interaction, Freeman, San Francisco Dobzhansky T (1947) Genetics and the origin of species, 2nd edn. Columbia Univ Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dover GA, Riley R (1977) Inferences from genetical evidence on the course of meiotic chromosome pairing in plants. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 277: 313–326

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Eenink AH (1976) Genetics of host–parasite relationships and uniform and differential resistance. Neth J PI Path 82: 133–145

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellingboe AH (1979) Inheritance of specificity: the gene-for-gene hypothesis. In: Daly JM, Uritani I (eds) Recognition and specificity in plant host-parasite interactions. Univ Park Press, Baltimore, pp 3–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellingboe AH (1981) Changing concepts in host–pathogen genetics. Annu Rev Phyto– pathol 19: 125–143

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Esser K (1967) Pilze als Objekte genetischer Forschung. Ber Dtsch Bot Ges 80: 453 - 469

    Google Scholar 

  • Esser K, Blaich R (1973) Heterogenic incompatibility in plants and animals. Adv Genet 17: 107–152

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari TE, Lee SS, Wallace DH (1981) Biochemistry and physiology of recognition in pollen-stigma interactions. Phytopathology 71: 752–755

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilissen LJWJ (1978) Bevruchtingsbiologische aspecten van zelf-incompatibele planten van Petunia hybrida L. PHD Thesis, Nijmegen, pp 68

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilissen LJWJ (1981) Van eel tot cel. Vakbl Biol 15: 328–334

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilula NB (1980) Cell-to-cell communication and development. In: Subtelny S, Wessells NK (eds) The cell surface: mediator of developmental processes. Academic Press, London New York, pp 23–41

    Google Scholar 

  • Grant V (1971) Plant speciation. Columbia Univ Press, New York London

    Google Scholar 

  • Grun P (1961) Early stages in the formation of internal barriers to gene exchange between diploid species of Solanum. Am J Bot 48: 79–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grun P, Aubertin M (1966) The inheritance and expression of unilateral incompatibility in Solanum. Heredity 21: 131–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hadwiger LA, Loschke DC (1981) Molecular communication in host-parasite interactions: hexosamine polymers (chitosan) as regulator compounds in race-specific and other interactions. Phytopathology 71: 756–762

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hermsen JGTh (1978) General considerations on interspecific hybridization. In: Sanchez- Monge E, Garcia-Olmedo F (eds) Interspecific hybridization in plant breeding. Proc 8th Congress Eucarpia, Madrid, pp 299–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermsen JGTh, Sawicka E (1979) Incompatibility and incongruity in tuber-bearing Solanum species. In: Hawkes JG, Lester RN, Skelding AD (eds) The biology and taxonomy of the Solanaceae, Academic Press, London New York, pp 445–453

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermsen JGTh, Olsder J, Jansen P, Hoving E (1974) Acceptance of self-compatible pollen from Solanum verrucosum in dihaploids from S. tuberosum. In: Linskens HF (ed) Fertilization in higher plants. North Holland, Amsterdam, pp 37–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Hermsen JGTh, Govaert I, Hoekastra S, van Loon C, Neefjes C (1978) Analysis of the effect of parental genotypes on crossability of diploid Solanum tuberosum with S. verrucosum. A gene-for-gene relationship? In: Sanchez-Monge E, Garcia-Olmedo F (eds) Interspecific hybridization in plant breeding. Proc 8th Congress Eucarpia, Madrid, pp 305–312

    Google Scholar 

  • Heslop-Harrison J ( 1978 a) Recognition and response in the pollen–stigma interaction. In: Curtis A (ed) Cell-cell recognition. Soc Exp Biol Symp 32, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, London New York Melbourne, pp 121–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Heslop-Harrison J ( 1978 b) Cellular recognition systems in plants. Studies in Biology vol 100. Arnold, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Heslop-Harrison J, Heslop-Harrison Y, Barber J (1975) The stigma surface in incompatibility responses. Proc R Soc Lond B 188: 287–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom NG (1972a) Breaking breeding barriers in Lycopersicon. 4. Breakdown of unilateral incompatibility between L. peruvianum (L.) Mill, and L. esculentum Mill. Euphytica 21: 397–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom NG (1972b) Breaking breeding barriers in Lycopersicon. 5. The inheritance of the unilateral incompatibility between L. peruvianum (L.) Mill, and L. esculentum Mill, and the genetics of its breakdown. Euphytica 21: 405–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom NG (1973) A model for incongruity in intimate partner relationships. Euphytica 22: 219–233

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom NG (1975) Incompatibility and incongruity: two different mechanisms for the non–functioning of intimate partner relationships. Proc R Soc Lond B 188: 361–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom NG (1979a) Incompatibility and incongruity in Lycopersicon. In: Hawkes JG, Lester RN, Skelding AD (eds) The biology and taxonomy of the Solanaceae, Academic Press, London New York, pp 435–444

    Google Scholar 

  • Hogenboom NG ( 1979 b) Exploitation of incongruity, a new tool for hybrid seed production. In: Zeven AC, van Harten AM (eds) Proc Conf Broadening Genet Base Crops. PUDOC Wageningen, pp 299–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Holliday R (1977) Recombination and meiosis. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 277: 359–370

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Kho YO, den Nijs APM, Franken J (1980) Interspecific hybridization in Cucumis L. II. The crossability of species, an investigation of in vivo pollen tube growth and seed set. Euphytica 29: 661–672

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knox RB, Willing RR, Ashford AE (1972) Pollen–wall proteins: role as recognition substances in interspecific incompatibility in poplars. Nature 237: 381–383

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laven H (1967) Eradication of Culex pipiens fatigans through cytoplasmic incompatibility. Nature 216: 383–384

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D (1965) A protein dimer hypothesis on incompatibility. Genet Today 3: 657–663

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis D, Crowe LK (1958) Unilateral interspecific incompatibility in flowering plants. Heredity 12: 233–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsley DL, Sandler L (1977) The genetic analysis of meiosis in female Drosophila melanogaster. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 277: 295–312

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Linskens HF (1968) Egg–sperm interactions in higher plants. Accademia Nazionale Dei Lincei, Quaderno 104: 47–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Linskens HF (1975) Incompatibility in Petunia. Proc R Soc Lond B 188: 299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linskens HF (1980) Physiology of fertilization and fertilization barriers in higher plants. In: Subtelny S, Wessells NK (eds) The cell surface: mediator of developmental processes. Academic Press, London New York, pp 113–126

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin FW (1961) Complex unilateral hybridization in Lycopersicon hirsutum. Proc Natl Acad Sei USA 47: 855–857

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martin FW (1963) Distribution and interrelationships of incompatibility barriers in the Lycopersicon hirsutum Humb et Bonpl complex. Evolution 17: 519–528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGuire DC, Rick CM (1954) Self–incompatibility in species of Lycopersicon sect. Eriopersicon and hybrids with L. esculentum. Hilgardia 23: 101–124

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandey KK (1968) Compatibility relationships in flowering plants: role of the S-gene complex. Am Nat 102: 475–489

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandey KK (1969) Elements of the S-gene complex. V. Interspecific cross-compatibility relationships and theory of the evolution of the S complex. Genetica 40: 447–474

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandey KK (1979) The genus Nicotiana: evolution of incompatibility in flowering plants. In: Hawkes JG, Lester RN, Skelding AD (eds) The biology and taxonomy of the Solanaceae. Academic Press, London New York, pp 421–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Parlevliet JE (1981) Disease resistance in plants and its consequences for plant breeding. In: Frey KJ (ed) Plant Breeding II. The Iowa State Univ Press, Ames, pp 309– 364

    Google Scholar 

  • Riley R, Flavell RB (1977) A first view of the meiotic process. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 277: 191–199

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sampson DR (1962) Intergeneric pollen–stigma incompatibility in the Cruciferae. Can J Genet 4: 38–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanz C (1945) Pollen-tube growth in intergeneric pollinations on Datura stramonium. Proc Natl Acad Sei USA 31: 361–367

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith EB (1968) Pollen competition and relatedness in Haplopappus section Isopappus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bot Gaz 129:371–373 Stebbins GL (1950) Variation and evolution in plants, Columbia Univ Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern H, Hotta Y (1978) Regulatory mechanisms in meiotic crossing–over. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 29: 415 - 436

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stettier RF (1968) Irradiated mentor pollen: its use in remote hybridization of black cottonwood. Nature 219: 746–747

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stettier RF, Koster R, Steenackers V (1980) Interspecific crossability studies in poplars. Theor Appi Genet 58: 273–282

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stout AB (1952) Reproduction in Petunia. Mem Torrey Bot Club 20: 1–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Swaminathan MS, Murty BR (1957) One–way incompatibility in some species crosses in the genus Nicotiana. Indian J Genet PI Breed 17: 23–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderplank JE (1963) Plant diseases: epidemics and control. Academic Press, London New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderplank JE (1968) Disease resistance in plants. Academic Press, London New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Vanderplank JE (1978) Genetic and molecular basis of plant pathogenesis. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Willing RR, Pry or LD (1976) Interspecific hybridization in poplar. Theor Appi Genet 47: 141–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. N. G. Hogenboom
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Botanisch Laboratorium Faculteit der Wiskunde en Natuurwetenschappen, Katholieke Universiteit, Toernooiveld, NL-6525 ED, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Hans F. Linskens

  2. Welsh Plant Breeding Station, University College of Wales, SY23-3EB, Plas Gogerddan Near Aberystwyth, Great Britain

    John Heslop-Harrison

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1984 Springer-Verlag

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hogenboom, N.G. (1984). Incongruity: Non-Functioning of Intercellular and Intracellular Partner Relationships Through Non-Matching Information. In: Linskens, H.F., Heslop-Harrison, J. (eds) Cellular Interactions. Encyclopedia of Plant Physiology, vol 17. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69299-4_27

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-69299-4_27

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-69301-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-69299-4

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation