Self-(in)compatibility in apricot germplasm is controlled by two major loci, S and M

Muñoz-Sanz, Juan Vicente; Zuriaga, Elena; López, Inmaculada; Badenes, María L.; Romero, Carlos

doi:10.1186/s12870-017-1027-1

BMC Plant Biology

Table 3 S- and M-haplotypes assigned to the apricot accessions analyzed in this study

From: Self-(in)compatibility in apricot germplasm is controlled by two major loci, S and M

	Cultivar	SI/SC	S-genot^d	M-genot^e		Cultivar	SI/SC	S-genot	M-genot
1	Alba	SC^b	S ₁/S _C	M _1–1/M ₃	35	Henderson	SC?	S ₃/S ₁₇	M _2–0/M ₁₆
2	ASP	↗sterile^b,c	S ₅/S _C	M _4–0/M _5–1	36	Katy^a	SC/SC^b	S ₁/S ₂	M ₃/m _0–0
3	Aurora^a	SI	S ₁/S ₁₇	M ₃/M ₁₁	37	Kech-pshar^a	?	S ₁₅/S _Z	M _?/M _?
4	Bebecou	SC	S ₆/S _C	M _4–0/M _4–2	38	Konservnyi P. ^a	SC	S ₂/S _C	M _4–1/M _8–1
5	Bergeron^a	SC	S ₂/S _C	M _4–0/M _8–0	39	Lambertin-1^a	SI	S ₁/S ₂	M _1–0/M ₁₇
6	Budapest^a	SC	S ₂/S _C	M _1–1/M ₁₂	40	Lito	SC^b	S ₆ / S _C	M ₆/M ₁₀
7	Búlida	SC	S ₅/S _C	M _4–1/M _5–1	41	Manrí	?	S _C / S _C	m _0–0 / m _0–0
8	Canino^a	SC/SC^b	S ₂/S _C	M _1–0/m _0–0	42	Mari de Cenad^a	SC	S _C/S ₁₉	M _8–0/M ₁₈
9	Canino 9–7	?	S ₂/S _C	M _1–0/m _0–0	43	Mariem	SC?^b	S ₇/S ₂₀	M _1–0/M _8–2
10	Canino 14–4	SC^b	S ₂/S _C	M _1–0/m _0–0	44	Martinet	?	S ₂/S ₂	m _0–0 / m _0–1
11	Canino 14–6	SC^b	S ₂/S _C	M _1–0/m _0–0	45	Mitger	SC^b	S _C / S _C	M _5–0/M _5–0
12	Castlebrite	SC	S ₂/S ₂	M ₃/m _0–0	46	Moniquí^a	SI	S ₂/S ₆	M _4–1/M _14–0
13	Castleton	SC	S ₁/S ₂	M ₃/m _0–0	47	Ninfa	SC	S ₇/S _C	M _7–0/M ₁₀
14	Ceglédi óriás^a	SI	S ₈/S ₉	M ₁₂/M ₁₃	48	Orange Red	SI	S ₆/S ₁₇	M _2–0/M _2–1
15	Colorao^a	↗sterile	S ₅/S _C	M _4–0/M _4–0	49	Ouardi^a	SI	S ₂/S ₇	M _1–0/M _7–0
16	Corbató	SC^b	S ₂/S ₅	M _5–0/m _0–0	50	Palabras	SC/SC^b	S _C / S _C	m _0–0 / m _0–0
17	Cow-1	SC^b	S ₁/S ₃₁	M ₃/m _0–0	51	Palau^a	SC/SC^b	S _C / S _C	m _0–0 / m _0–0
18	Cow-2	SI^b	S ₂₀/S ₃₁	M _1–0/m _0–0	52	Patterson	SC	S ₁/S _C	M _1–3/M ₃
19	Cristalí	SC^b	S ₂₀/S _C	M _5–0/m _0–0	53	Perla	SI^b	S ₂/S ₂₀	M _1–2/M _15–1
20	Currot^a	SC/SC^b	S _C / S _C	m _0–0 / m _0–0	54	Portici	SC/SC^b	S ₂/S ₂₀	M _1–4/m _0–0
21	Dulcinea	SC	S ₂/S _C	M _7–3/M _14–1	55	Rojo Carlet	SC^b	S _C / S _C	M _4–0/M _5–0
22	Effect^a	SC	S ₈/S _C	M _8–0/M ₁₂	56	Rózsakajszi^a,f	SC	S ₂/S _C	M _1–0/M ₁₂
23	Ezzine	SC^b	S ₂₄/S _C	M _1–0/M _7–1	57	Sayeb^a	SC	S ₇/S _C	M _1–0/M _7–2
24	Fergani	?	S _V/S _X	M _?/M _?	58	Shalah^a	SC	S ₅/S ₁₁	M _8–1/M ₁₉
25	GaltaRoja	SC/SC^b	S _C / S _C	M _4–0/M _5–2	59	SEO	SI	S ₆/S ₁₇	M _2–0/M ₆
26	GVV	?	S ₂/S _C	M _4–0/M _5–2	60	Stella	SI	S ₆/S ₂₀	M ₉/M ₉
27	Gandía	?	S _C / S _C	m _0–0 / m _0–0	61	Szegedi M.	SI	S ₈/S ₉	M ₁₂/M ₁₃
28	Gavatxet	?	S ₂₀/S _C	m _0–0 / m _0–0	62	Tadeo	SC	S ₂₀/S _C	M _15–0/m _0–0
29	Ginesta^a	SC/SC^b	S _C / S _C	m _0–0 / m _0–0	63	Tirynthos	SC	S _C / S _C	M ₁₀/M ₁₀
30	Goldrich^a	SI/SI^b	S ₁/S ₂	M _1–0/M _2–0	64	Trevatt	SC	S ₂/S _C	M _1–0/m _0–0
31	Gönci Magyar^a	SC	S ₈/S _C	M _8–0/M ₁₂	65	Veecot	SI/SI^b	S ₂/S ₂₀	M _2–0/M ₃
32	Harcot^a	SI/SI^b	S ₁/S ₄	M _1–0/M _2–2	66	Velázquez	SI	S ₅/S ₂₀	M _4–0/M _4–1
33	Hargrand^a	SI	S ₁/S ₂	M _1–0/M _2–0	67	Xirivello	?	S _C / S _C	M _4–0/M _4–1
34	Harlayne	SC	S ₃/S ₂₀	M _2–0/M ₉

^aCultivars previously S-genotyped by Halázs et al. [18]; Vilanova et al. [19]; Halázs et al. [20]; Zuriaga et al. [26]; Halázs et al. [27]; Burgos et al. [42]; Alburquerque et al. [79]
^bOwn data on SI/SC phenotype obtained in this work (see Table 2). Additionally, SC had been observed in a set of accessions grown under insect-proof screen house at IVIA (‘Rojo de Carlet’, ‘Mitger’, ‘Palabras’, ‘Palau’, ‘Currot’, ‘Ginesta’, ‘Canino 14–4’ and ‘Canino 14–6’) showing moderate fruit-setting (not quantified) across several years
^cMale-sterility in the ASP accession was indicated by shrunken pale anthers
^d S-allele nomenclature is proposed according to Vilanova et al. [19]; Halázs et al. [27]; Zhang et al. [29]; Wu et al. [30]; Gu et al. [31] and Halázs et al. [28]. S-haplotype associated with SC (S _C) is written in bold
^e M-haplotypes were named with two digits. The first one corresponds to the M-haplotype ‘main class’ and the second to the subtype. M-haplotype variants associated with SC (m _0–0 and m _0–1) are written in bold. Haplotypes designated by M _? could not be defined
^f S-genotype determined for Rózsakajszi (S ₂ S _C) was not in agreement with that previously reported by Halázs et al. [18] (S _C S _C). Reasons for this discrepancy are still unknown

Back to article page

ISSN: 1471-2229

Contact us

General enquiries: journalsubmissions@springernature.com