Next Article in Journal
First Detection and Molecular Characterization of Apple Stem Grooving Virus, Apple Chlorotic Leaf Spot Virus, and Apple Hammerhead Viroid in Loquat in Spain
Next Article in Special Issue
Chili Pepper AN2 (CaAN2): A Visible Selection Marker for Nondestructive Monitoring of Transgenic Plants
Previous Article in Journal
Hyperspectral Characteristics of an Individual Leaf of Wheat Grown under Nitrogen Gradient
Previous Article in Special Issue
Powdery Mildew Resistance Genes in Single-Plant Progenies Derived from Accessions of a Winter Barley Core Collection
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/plants10112292
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Chromosome Associations during Early Meiosis in Wheat Lines Carrying Chromosome Introgressions from Agropyron cristatum

by
Pilar Prieto
1,*,
Carmen Palomino
2,
Zuny Cifuentes
1 and
Adoración Cabrera
2
1
Plant Breeding Department, Institute for Sustainable Agriculture, Agencia Estatal Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), Alameda del Obispo s/n, Apartado 4048, 14080 Córdoba, Spain
2
Genetics Department, ETSIAM, Campus de Rabanales, Universidad de Córdoba, CeiA3, 14071 Córdoba, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(11), 2292; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112292
Submission received: 23 September 2021 / Revised: 18 October 2021 / Accepted: 20 October 2021 / Published: 25 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Biotechnology and Crop Improvement)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum L. Gaertn., genome P), included in the Triticeae tribe (family Poaceae), is one of the most important grasses in temperate regions. It has been valued as a donor of important agronomic traits for wheat improvement, including tolerance to cold, drought, and high salinity, as well as resistance to leaf rust, stripe rust, and powdery mildew. For successful incorporation of beneficial alleles into wheat, it is essential that recombination between wheat and A. cristatum chromosomes occurs. In this work, we analysed chromosome associations during meiosis in wheat lines carrying chromosome introgressions from A. cristatum chromosomes 5P and 6P in the presence and absence of Ph1 locus using fluorescence in situ hybridisation. The results showed that the Ph1 locus does not affect chromosome associations between A. cristatum and wheat chromosomes because there were no interspecific chromosome associations; therefore, no recombination between chromosomes from wheat and Agropyron were observed in the absence of the Ph1 locus. The 5P and 6P A. cristatum chromosomes do not have a suppressor effect on the Ph1 locus. Wheat univalents in metaphase I suggest that Agropyron chromosomes might carry genes having a role in wheat homologous chromosome associations. Putative effect of the Agropyron genes on wheat chromosome associations does not interact with the Ph1 locus.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum L. Gaertn.) is a Triticeae species (family Poaceae) and has diploid (2n = 2x = 14), tetraploid (2n = 4x = 28), and hexaploid (2n = 6x = 42) forms, all based on the basic genome P [1]. A. cristatum is a perennial species of economic importance that is widely cultivated in North America as an excellent source of forage, and included in the diets of beef and dairy cattle worldwide [2]. Moreover, this species shows tolerance to cold, drought, and high salinity, and is one of the most important grasses in temperate regions [3,4]. It has also been valued for stabilization of heavy metal-contaminated soils [5,6] and watershed management [7]. In a wheat breeding framework, A. cristatum is an appreciated donor of important agronomic traits, such as resistance to leaf rust [8], resistance to powdery mildew [9,10], resistance to stripe rust [11], high salt-tolerance [12], drought stress tolerance [13], and enhanced-grain number per spike and spike length [14]. Hybrids and fertile amphiploids between Triticum and A. cristatum have been successfully obtained [15,16,17,18] with the aim to develop wheat-A. cristatum introgressions [8,14,19].
Recombination between cultivated and alien chromosomes is essential for incorporating beneficial alleles into wheat from their wild relatives. In hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum L., 2n = 6x = 42, genomes AABBDD), chromosome pairing and recombination is mainly controlled by pairing the homoeologous (Ph1b) gene located on the long arm of chromosome 5B. This gene is responsible for the diploidization system that allows regular meiosis in polyploid wheat [20,21]. Elimination, manipulation, or 5B chromosome activity suppression have been utilized to induce homoeologous chromosome pairing in wheat, for example, the use of 5B-deficient stocks [22]. In addition, the homoeologous pairing suppressor allele, Ph2, located on short arm of the 3D chromosome of wheat, has also been used [23], although the recessive mutant of the homoeologous pairing suppressor Ph1b is probably widely used and the most effective method for the induction of homoeologous pairing thus far [24]. A deletion mutant in the Ph1b gene has been the determinant in the development of introgressions between alien and wheat genomes by pairing between homoeologous chromosomes [24].
Other methods that promote homoeologous pairing are based on the development of genetic crosses between wheat and Ae. Speltoides, which suppress the action of the Ph1 gene due to the presence of the Ph1 suppressor genes Su1-Ph1 and Su2-Ph1 [25]. Epistatic genes to Ph1 promoting homoeologous pairing and recombination have also been reported in hybrids of wheat with Aegilops mutica Boiss. [26]. Individual alien chromosomes added to wheat have also been shown to enhance homoeologous pairing by suppression the activity of Ph genes in wheat, such as chromosome 5U of Aegilops umbellulata Zhuk. [27], chromosome 5E and 6E of Elytrigia elongata (Host) Nevski. [28], and chromosome 5Mg of Ae. geniculata Roth [29].
Although some information on chromosome pairing in Agropyron and wheat hybrids and amphiploids is available [17,30], and a possible interaction of genes from Agropyron with the Ph system in wheat has been postulated [31], little is known about the “true” pairing frequency between A. cristatum and wheat chromosomes. Thus, the objective of this work was to analyse chromosome associations during meiosis in wheat lines carrying chromosome introgressions from A. cristatum in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus in the wheat genetic background.

2. Results

2.1. Characterization of 5P and 6P A. cristatum Introgression Lines in Wheat in the Presence and in the Absence of the Ph1 Locus

Addition lines for chromosomes 5P and 6P in the Ph1 genetic background were obtained in the F3 progeny from crosses between A. cristatum additions for chromosomes 5P and 6P in wheat CS with the CS Ph1 mutant, respectively [32]. To detect the presence of 5P or 6P chromosomes in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus, we used specific COS molecular markers for the short and the long arms of these two chromosomes (Figure 1). Zygosity at the Ph1 locus was predicted using Ph1 diagnostic ABC920 SCAR marker (Figure 2).
Based on the analysis using the Ph1 diagnostic marker, we identified homozygous plants for Ph1 and positives for both COS108 and COS150 markers located on the short and the long arm of chromosome 5P, respectively (Figure 1a,b). Fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) analysis demonstrated that these plants were disomic (Figure 3b) or monosomic (Figure 3c) for chromosome 5P in the Ph1 genetic background, respectively. In addition, we identified one ditelosomic A. cristatum introgression line for chromosome 5PS in the Ph1 genetic background, which only amplified the fragment for the COS108 marker located on the short arm of chromosome 5P, but not the one for the COS150 marker located on chromosome 5PL. FISH analyses demonstrated that this plant was ditelosomic for the 5PS arm (Figure 3f). The 5PS ditelosomic plant was selfed and the descendance was also evaluated using COS molecular markers. All plants obtained were ditelosomic for the 5PS chromosome arm, indicating that the 5PS arm was stably inherited to the descendance. All plants were fertile and vigorous. Similarly, positive plants for both COS440 and COS507, specific for the short and the long arm of chromosome 6P, respectively, were detected in the absence of the Ph1 locus (Figure 1a,d) indicating that these plants carried the complete 6P chromosome in the Ph1 mutant background. FISH analysis revealed that these plants were monosomic for chromosome 6P (Figure 3e) and no plant carrying two copies of chromosome 6P in the absence of the Ph1 locus was obtained.

2.2. Early Meiosis Analysis of 5P and 6P A. cristatum Introgression Lines in Wheat in the Presence and in the Absence of the Ph1 Locus

With the aim of assessing a putative effect of the A. cristatum genome on chromosome pairing and recombination during meiosis in wheat, chromosome associations were analysed in pollen mother cells (PMCs) during early meiosis by genomic in situ hybridisation (GISH) in plants carrying one or two copies of chromosomes 5P and 6P from A. cristatum, respectively, in the presence of the Ph1 locus. Observations on chromosome associations in the presence of the Ph1 locus were also compared to equivalent 5P and 6P addition lines in wheat in the absence of the Ph1 locus. We unfortunately did not obtain any plant carrying two copies of chromosome 6P in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Thus, we were only able to compare the effect of the Ph1 locus in disomic 5P plants.
Experiments were developed in more than one hundred PMCs of each genomic combination in both early prophase I of meiosis (zygotene, pachytene) and metaphase I, and both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus. When two copies of 5P or 6P chromosomes were present in the presence of the Ph1 locus, both A. cristatum chromosomes were observed in proximity in the nucleus in early prophase (data not shown). As meiosis progressed, GISH experiments in zygotene–pachytene stages showed homologous 5P A. cristatum chromosomes always fully associated in pairs along the whole chromosome in all the cells analysed (Figure 4a). Similarly, homologous 6P A. cristatum chromosomes were also observed associated at these early meiotic stages in all the cells visualized (Figure 4b). These observations suggested that A. cristatum chromosomes associated correctly in pairs in the wheat background in early meiosis, and no genetic interaction between wheat and A. cristatum chromosomes seemed to be allowed in the presence of the Ph1 locus at these stages. Similarly, experiments in the absence of the Ph1 locus showed that homologous 5P A. cristatum chromosomes were also associated in pairs in early pachytene in all the cells analysed (Figure 4c) suggesting that chromosome interactions between wheat and A. cristatum chromosomes were not promoted in early meiosis in the absence of the Ph1 locus.

2.3. Recombination between A. cristatum and Wheat Chromomomes Does Not Occur Either in the Presence or in the Absence of the Ph1 Locus

Once we observed full chromosome associations between homologous A. cristatum chromosomes for both 5P and 6P during early meiosis in the wheat background either in the presence of in the absence of the Ph1 locus, we also analysed chromosome behaviour of both 5P and 6P A. cristatum chromosomes during metaphase I of meiosis, although interspecific recombination events were not expected, due to the lack of interspecific chromosome pairing earlier in meiosis. Thus, wheat chromosomes were observed associated correctly in bivalents and oriented by centromeres properly at meiosis metaphase I in most of the PMCs analysed from 5P and 6P disomic additions in wheat lines carrying the Ph1 locus (Figure 5). In addition, both homologous 5P and 6P chromosomes were also visualized correctly associated in pairs in the presence of the Ph1 (Figure 5a,c). Moreover, in the 5P monosomic addition line, the A. cristatum chromosome remained always unassociated in all the cells analysed in the presence of the Ph1 locus (Figure 5b). Our observations clearly suggested that recombination did not occur in meiosis between these A. cristatum and wheat chromosomes in the presence of the Ph1 locus, even when only one copy of A. cristatum is present. Thus, 5P Agropyron chromosomes were never observed associated with wheat chromosomes by chiasmata during metaphase I in the 5P A. cristatum monosomic addition line, always remaining as univalent (Figure 5b) and suggesting other requirements for chromosome associations and recombination.
We also focused on studying whether chromosome associations, and therefore overcrossing and recombination events, between A. cristatum and wheat chromosomes could be allowed in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Thus, we analysed chromosome associations in PMCs in metaphase I samples from disomic and monosomic A. cristatum addition lines in wheat in the absence of the Ph1 locus. As expected, homologous 5P A. cristatum chromosomes that associated previously in early meiosis (Figure 4c) remained associated in metaphase I in disomic addition lines in wheat in the absence of the Ph1 (Figure 5d). In the absence of homologues, chromosomes 5P and 6P from A. cristatum also always remained as univalents during metaphase I in GISH experiments in 5P and 6P monosomic addition lines in the absence of the Ph1 locus in all the cells analysed (Figure 5e,f). These results showed that interspecific chromosome associations between A. cristatum and wheat chromosomes are not promoted in the absence of the Ph1 locus, suggesting that chromosome associations might also depend on other elements, such as genome homology, as A. cristatum and wheat species are phylogenetically distant. Furthermore, the absence of homologous chromosomes did not contribute to increasing chromosome associations between A. cristatum and wheat chromosomes, which did not occur either in the presence or in the absence of the Ph1 locus. In summary, our observations suggested that the Ph1 locus does not affect chromosome associations between A. cristatum and wheat chromosomes because no interspecific chromosome associations and recombination between wheat and Agropyron chromosomes were found in either in the presence or in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Our results also suggest that genes carried in 5P and 6P A. cristatum chromosomes do not have a suppressor effect on the Ph1 locus, as the observations were equivalent both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus.

2.4. The Presence of Both 5P and 6P A. cristatum Chromosomes Affects Chromosome Associations and Recombination between Homologous Wheat Chromosomes

Alterations in chromosome pairing between wheat chromosomes were found during GISH experiments developed in meiosis in PMCs from wheat lines carrying both the 5P and the 6P A. cristatum chromosomes. In fact, a high number of cells in metaphase I showed wheat chromosomes remaining as univalents both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus when both the 5P and 6P A. cristatum chromosomes were present in the wheat background (Figure 6). Cells carrying one, two, or three unassociated wheat chromosomes were scored in metaphase I cells in both cases, in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus (Table 1). These results suggested that the Agropyron chromosomes carried genes having a role in homologous chromosome associations as correct wheat homologous pairing was disrupted in the presence of both 5P and 6P Agropyron chromosomes. Our observations also suggested that the putative effect of the Agropyron genes on homologous chromosome associations does not have any interaction with the Ph1 locus because the observations of wheat univalents were equivalent both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus.

3. Discussion

The P genome from A. cristatum contains a high genetic diversity, which has been demonstrated by cytological, molecular, and morphological data [33,34]. The A. cristatum genome has also been considered a valuable source of genes for pest resistance and abiotic stresses in the framework of wide hybridization programs to improve cereal crops [2,35]. For example, hybrids between Triticum and A. cristatum have been obtained to introduce traits from A. cristatum into Triticum [15]. Both durum and common wheat A. cristatum introgression lines have also been developed [8,14,18,19] and they could be a useful source of agronomic traits, such as disease resistance [9,10,11], abiotic stresses [12,13], thousand grain weight [14], and grain quality [36].
Understanding the genomic relationship between the donor and the recipient species is essential for successful introgression of alien chromatin into the wheat genetic background and therefore, for an effective utilization of the large Agropyron gene reservoir for wheat breeding purposes. However, in a plant breeding context, the development of genetic introgressions from species included in the wheat tertiary gene pool, such as A. cristatum, is much more difficult to achieve than from those species belonging to both primary and secondary genetic pools, because they are phylogenetically more distantly related. A. cristatum includes diploid and polyploid forms, all based on the basic genome P [1]. Nevertheless, genetic studies have indicated that synteny is conserved between wheat and the P genome. For example, a high transferability of COS molecular markers between A. cristatum and wheat has been reported [9,37]. Similar results were obtained using FISH of tandem repeats and wheat single-gene probes [38,39]. Genetic linking between A. cristatum and wheat genomes has also been revealed by both sequencing the transcriptome of a tetraploid A. cristatum [40] and genetic mapping using a wheat 660K SNP array [41]. Particularly for homologous groups 5 and 6, comparative mapping using a set of COS molecular markers showed that most of them were located on the short or long arms of wheat chromosome group 5 and 6 and were assigned to corresponding short or long arms of A. cristatum 5P and 6P chromosomes, respectively, indicating both homology between chromosomes 5P and 6P and wheat group 5 and 6, respectively [37]. In addition, synteny between A. cristatum and wheat homologous group 5 has also been demonstrated by mapping agronomically important genes, such as the grain hardness (Ha) and the vernalization (VRN-1) loci on the short and on the long arms of chromosome 5P, respectively [36,42], showing that these loci are collinear with those located on the short and the long arms, respectively, of chromosomes 5A, 5B and 5D in wheat. Together, these results indicated that a conservation of genes exists between wheat and A. cristatum chromosomes. However, in this work, no homoeologous chromosome pairing among wheat and A. cristatum has been found either in the presence or in the absence of the Ph1 locus. The results obtained suggest that the Ph1 locus does not affect chromosome associations between A. cristatum and wheat genomes because no interspecific chromosome associations and recombination between wheat and Agropyron chromosomes were allowed in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Our observations also suggested that the lack of interspecific chromosome pairing, even in the absence of the Ph1 locus, might be due to the divergence of repetitive sequences between wheat and A. cristatum homoelogous group 5 and 6. In fact, specific sequences located on the distal chromosome regions (subtelomeres) might be hampering interspecific chromosome associations between these Agropyron and their homoeologous wheat chromosomes [43,44]. Nevertheless, translocations between wheat and Agropyron species have been previously achieved for transferring important traits, such as leaf and stem rust resistance genes from A. elongatum [45,46], wheat streak mosaic [47], and stem rust resistance genes from A. intermedium [48] to wheat background. Wheat A. cristatum Robertsonian translocations have also been obtained in the absence of the Ph1 locus [32]. Actually, Robertsonian translocations are the most common chromosome rearrangements found between wheat and related species, both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus [49,50], although other interstitial recombination events between wheat chromosomes and those from other relatives have been promoted in the Ph1 mutant background [51].
Previous meiotic analyses in hybrids between wheat and the Agropyron species have shown high levels of chromosome pairing. For example, multivalent configurations were observed in hybrids between T. aestivum and tetraploid A. cristatum [30], and in the hybrid between T. aestivum and tetraploid A. fragile, leading to the conclusion that A. fragile has a genetic system that modified the Ph1 gene activity [31]. Thus, interactions of genes from Agropyron with the Ph1 system in wheat were considered the most plausible explanation for those multivalent configurations [31]. However, GISH analysis in the T. tauschii-A. cristatum (DDPP) amphiploid [17] revealed later that the high pairing observed was ascribable between different P chromosomes or different wheat chromosomes, but not between Agropyron and wheat chromosomes. The observed configurations between P chromosomes could be explained because of the segmental allopolyploid nature of tetraploid A. cristatum. Our results using GISH analysis support these observations as we did not find chromosome associations between A. cristatum and wheat chromosomes, either in the presence or in the absence of the Ph1 locus. In addition, we observed wheat univalents that might suggest that the P genome carries genes affecting associations between wheat chromosomes themselves. Nevertheless, pairing between P and D genomes is possible and allosyndetic pairing was clearly visible in T. tauschii-A. cristatum associations in the DDPP amphiploid [17].
The plant material developed in this work might be very useful in studying the interactions between genes included in the P genome and those controlling chromosome associations in wheat. Previously, chromosome addition lines of A. cristatum in wheat in the presence of the Ph1 locus were developed for chromosomes 1P, 2P, 3P, 4P, 5P, and 6P and the ditelosomic addition line for chromosome arms 2PS, 2PL, 4PS, 5PL, 6PS, and 6PL [15,52,53]. In fact, these available wheat-A. cristatum addition lines allowed the location of molecular markers and genes for several important agronomic traits on specific A. cristatum chromosomes and chromosome arms [8,9,36,42]. However, no ditelosomic addition or substitution lines were previously obtained for the chromosome 5PS arm. Furthermore, in this work, we have developed A. cristatum addition lines for the 5P and 6P chromosome in wheat background in the absence of the Ph1 locus. The availability of CS A. cristatum 5PS ditelosomic lines as well as the Agropyron introgressions in the Ph1 mutant background provided the opportunity to not only locate genes or markers on this chromosome arm, but also to go deeper into the knowledge of chromosome associations in the wheat background.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Material

The plant material used in this study included common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Chinese Spring (CS), CS ph1b mutant [54], CS/A. cristatum disomic addition lines for 5P and 6P chromosomes, and ditelosomic 5PL, 6PS, and 6PL addition lines [15,52,53]. The CS/A.cristatum addition lines for the 5P and 6P chromosomes in the CS ph1bph1b genetic background were selected in descendance from the crosses between the CS/A. cristatum disomic addition lines for 5P and 6P chromosomes with the CS ph1b mutant [32].

4.2. DNA Marker Characterization

Genomic DNA was isolated from young frozen leaf tissue using the CTAB method [55]. Samples were stored at −20 °C until PCR amplification was carried out. The concentration of each sample was estimated using a nano-drop 1000 spectrophotometer (Thermo Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA).
Four conserved orthologous set (COS) markers named COS108, COS150, COS440, and COS580 [56] were used to identify short and long arms from 5P and 6P A. cristatum chromosomes, respectively, included in the addition lines. These COS markers, which have been previously transferred and determined their arm locations on A. cristatum chromosomes [9,37], were selected for being polymorphic between A. cristatum and wheat CS. In detail, each COS marker was specific for each short or long 5P and 6P chromosome arm. Primer sequences for these markers and annealing temperature (Ta) were previously given [9,37]. PCR was performed with 40 ng of template DNA in a 25 μL volume reaction mixture containing 5 μL of 1× PCR buffer 0.5 pM of each primer, 1.5 mM MgCl2, 0.3 mM dNTPs, and 0.625U of Taq DNA polymerase (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). PCR conditions for the COS markers were as follows: 4 min at 94 °C, followed by 35 cycles of 45 s at 94 °C, 50 s at 58 °C, and 50 s at 72 °C. The PCR products were analysed in polyacrylamide gels (10% w/v, C: 2.67%) stained with ethidium bromide.
A PCR assay described by Wang et al. [57] was used to verify the presence of Ph1. Each 30 μL PCR contained 20 ng template DNA, 1× PCR buffer with MgCl2, 0.25 mM dNTP, 0.17 μM primers, and 0.02U/μL of Taq DNA polymerase (Promega, Madison, WI, USA). The reaction was first denatured (94 °C/5min), and then subjected to 35 cycles of 94 °C/60 s, 51 °C/60 s, and 72 °C/60 s, followed by a final extension (72 °C/7min). The PCR products were electrophoretically separated in a 1% agarose gel and visualized by EtBr staining.

4.3. Somatic Cells Analyses

Chromosome spreads were prepared from root tip cells. Seeds were germinated on wet filter paper in the dark for 3 days at 4 °C, followed by a period of 24 h at 25 °C. Root tips from germinating seeds were excised and pretreated in ice water for 24 h and then fixed in a freshly prepared ethanol–acetic acid (3:1 v/v) and stored at 4 °C for at least 1 month. The plants were grown under a greenhouse held at 26 °C during the day and 18 °C during the night at a 16 h photoperiod.
The in situ hybridization protocol followed that described by Cabrera et al. [58]. The probe pAs1 isolated from Aegilops tauschii Coss. [59] was used to determine the D genome of wheat. Genomic DNA from A. cristatum was used as a probe to identify P genome chromosomes. The pAs1 probe was labelled with biotin-16-dUTP (corporate Roche). Total DNA of A. cristatum was labelled with biotin-16-dUTP (Boehringer Mannheim Biochemicals, Germany) or digoxigenin-11-dUTP (Roche Applied Science, Indianapolis, IN, USA) using nick translation. Chromosome preparations were hybridized with an A. cristatum genomic DNA probe or simultaneously with both pAs1 and A. cristatum genomic DNA probes. The final concentration of each probe was 5 ng/μL in the hybridization mix (50% formamide, 2 × SCC, 5 ng of each digoxigenin and biotin-labelled probes, 10% dextran sulfate, 0.14 µg of yeast tRNA, 0.1 µg of sonicated salmon sperm DNA, and 5 ng of glycogen. Posthybridization washes were conducted twice at 2 × SSC (5 min each) at 37 °C plus one extra wash in 1 × SSC at room temperature (RT). Biotin- and digoxigenin-labelled probes were detected with streptavidin-Cy3 conjugates (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA) and antidigoxigenin FITC antibodies (Roche Diagnostics, Meylan, France), respectively. The chromosomes were counterstained with 4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole (DAPI) and mounted in Vectashield (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA, USA). Hybridization signals were visualized using a Leica DMRB epifluorescence microscope and the images were captured with a Leica DFC 7000T camera equipped with an exposimeter spot Leica Wild MPS 52 and were processed with LEICA application suite v4.0 software (Leica, Wetzlar, Germany).

4.4. Meiotic Cells Analyses

GISH analysis allowed the visualization of the A. cristatum chromosome and their associations during meiosis in the wheat background in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus, as described previously [60]. Mature plants were used to collect spikes in meiosis, which were preserved in 100% ethanol–acetic acid 3:1 (v/v) until they were used to characterize chromosome associations. Chromosome spreads were prepared from pollen mother cells (PMCs) at meiosis. Anthers were macerated in a drop of 45% glacial acetic acid on ethanol-cleaned slides, squashed under a cover slip, and dipped in liquid nitrogen in order to fix the plant material on the slide. The cover slip was removed and the slides were air-dried and stored at 4 °C until used. Total genomic DNA from A. cristatum was labelled by nick translation with biotin-11-dUTP to be used as a probe for in situ hybridization experiments in PMCs. The conserved telomeric sequence from A. thaliana (AAATCCC) [61] was also labelled by nick translation with digoxigenin-11-dUTP to allow the visualization of the telomeres from wheat and A. cristatum chromosomes. Similar to somatic cells analysis, the final concentration of each probe was 5 ng/μL in the hybridization mix (50% formamide, 2 × SCC, 5 ng of each digoxigenin and biotin-labelled probes, 10% dextran sulfate, 0.14 µg of yeast tRNA, 0.1 µg of sonicated salmon sperm DNA, and 5 ng of glycogen). Posthybridization washes were equivalent to the ones performed for somatic cells analysis. Biotin-labelled and digoxigenin-labelled probes were detected with a streptavidin-Cy3 conjugate and antidigoxigenin-FITC, respectively. Chromosomes were counterstained with DAPI (4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole) and mounted in Vectashield (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA, USA). Hybridization results were imagined using a Nikon Eclipse 80i epifluorescence microscope. Images were taken with a Nikon CCD camera using the Nikon 3.0 software (Nikon Instruments Europe BV, Amstelveen, The Netherlands) and processed with Photoshop 11.0.2 software for adjustment of brightness and contrast (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA, USA).

5. Conclusions

The development of A. cristatum 5P and 6P chromosomes in wheat in the Ph1 mutant background revealed that chromosome associations between A. cristatum and wheat chromosomes are not performed during meiosis, even in the absence of the Ph1 locus, although the A. cristatum genome might have a putative effect on homologous chromosome associations in wheat itself.

Author Contributions

A.C. and P.P. conceived and designed the study; Z.C. and C.P. performed the experiments; A.C. and P.P. analysed the data and wrote the paper. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by grants RTI2018-093367-B100 and PID2019-103996RB-I00 from the Spanish Research Agency (Ministry of Science, Innovation and Universities).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are very grateful to C. Calderón for her technical support. The authors deeply appreciate the comments from the independent reviewers during the revision of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Dewey, D.R. The genomic system of classification as a guide to intergeneric hybridization with the perennial Triticeae. In Gene Manipulation in Plant Improvement; Gustafson, J.P., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1984; pp. 209–279. [Google Scholar]
  2. Asay, K.H. Breeding potentials in perennials Triticeae grasses. Hereditas 1992, 116, 167–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Dewey, D.R. Salt tolerance of twenty-five strains of Agropyron. Crop Sci. 1960, 52, 631–635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Dewey, D.R. Breeding crested wheatgrass for salt tolerance. Crop Sci. 1962, 2, 403–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Meng, L.; Guo, Q.; Mao, P.; Tian, X. Accumulation and tolerance characteristics of zinc in Agropyron cristatum plants exposed to zinc-contaminated soil. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2013, 91, 298–3016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Guo, Q.; Meng, L.; Mao, P.; Tian, X. An assessment of Agropyron cristatum tolerance to cadmium contaminated soil. Biol. Plant. 2014, 58, 174–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wang, R.R. Agropyron and Psathyrostachys. In Wild Crop Relatives: Genomic and Breeding Resources, Cereals; Kole, C., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; Chapter 2; pp. 77–108. [Google Scholar]
  8. Ochoa, V.; Madrid, E.; Said, M.; Rubiales, D.; Cabrera, A. Molecular and cytogenetic characterization of a common wheat-Agropyron cristatum chromosome translocation conferring resistance to leaf rust. Euphytica 2015, 201, 89–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Copete, A.; Cabrera, A. Chromosomal location of genes for resistance to powdery mildew in Agropyron cristatum and mapping of conserved orthologous set molecular markers. Euphytica 2017, 213, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Li, H.; Jiang, B.; Wang, J.; Lu, Y.; Zhang, J.; Pan, C.; Yang, X.; Li, X.; Liu, W.; Li, L. Mapping of novel powdery mildew resistance gene(s) from Agropyron cristatum chromosome 2P. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2017, 130, 109–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zhang, Z.; Song, L.; Han, H.; Zhou, S.; Zhang, J.; Yang, X.; Li, X.; Liu, W.; Li, L. Physical localization of a locus from Agropyron cristatum conferring resistance to stripe rust in common wheat. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2017, 18, 2403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. McGuire, P.E.; Dvorák, J. High salt-tolerance potential in wheatgrasses. Crop Sci. 1981, 21, 702–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bayat, H.; Nemati, H.; Tehranifar, A.; Gazanchian, A. Screening different crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertner.) accessions for drought stress tolerance. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2016, 62, 769–780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Liu, W.; Han, H.; Lu, Y.; Yang, X.; Li, X.; Li, L. Introgression of Agropyron cristatum 6P chromosome segment into common wheat for enhanced thousand-grain weight and spike length. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2015, 128, 1827–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chen, Q.; Jahier, J.; Cauderon, Y. Production and cytogenetic analysis of BC1, BC2, and BC3 progenies of an intergeneric hybrid between Triticum aestivum (L.) Thell. and tetraploid Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1992, 84, 698–703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Martín, A.; Rubiales, D.; Cabrera, A. Meiotic pairing in a trigeneric hybrid Triticum tauschii-Agropyron cristatum-Hordeum chilense. Hereditas 1998, 129, 113–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Martín, A.; Cabrera, A.; Esteban, E.; Hernández, P.; Ramírez, M.C.; Rubiales, D. A fertile amphiploid between diploid wheat (Triticum tauschii) and crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Genome 1999, 42, 519–524. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Soliman, M.H.; Rubiales, D.; Cabrera, A. A Fertile Amphiploid between durum wheat (Triticum turgidum) and the Agroticum amphiploid (Agropyron cristatum x T. tauschii). Hereditas 2001, 135, 183–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Soliman, M.H.; Cabrera, A.; Sillero, J.C.; Rubiales, D. Genomic constitution and expression of disease resistance in Agropyron cristatum x durum wheat derivatives. Breed. Sci. 2007, 57, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Riley, R.; Chapman, V. Genetic control of the cytologically diploid behaviour of hexaploid wheat. Nature 1958, 182, 713–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sears, E.R. Genetic control of chromosome pairing in wheat. Ann. Rev. Genet. 1976, 10, 31–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sears, E.R. Transfer of alien genetic material to wheat. In Wheat Science-Today and Tomorrow; Evans, L.T., Peacock, W.J., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1981; pp. 75–89. [Google Scholar]
  23. Mello-Sampayo, T. Genetic regulation of meitic chromosome pairing by chromosome 3D of Triticum aestivum. Nat. New Biol. 1971, 230, 22–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Qui, L.; Friebe, B.; Zhang, P.; Gill, B.S. Homoeologous recombination, chromosome engineering and crop improvement. Chromosome Res. 2007, 15, 3–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Dvorak, J.; Deal, K.R.; Luo, M.C. Discovery and mapping of wheat Ph1 suppressors. Genetics 2006, 174, 17–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Dover, G.A.; Riley, R. Variation at two loci affecting homoeologous meiotic pairing in Triticum aestivum × Aegilops mutica hybrids. Nat. New Biol. 1972, 235, 61–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Riley, R.; Chapman, V.; Miller, T. The determination of meiotic chromosome pairing. In Proceedings of the 4th International Wheat Genetics Symposium, University of Missouri, Colombia, MO, USA, 6–11 August 1973; Sears, E.R., Sears, L.M.S., Eds.; pp. 731–738. [Google Scholar]
  28. Dvorak, J. Chromosomal distribution of genes in diploid Elytrigia elongata that promote or suppress pairing of wheat homoeologous chromosomes. Genome 1987, 29, 34–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Liu, W.; Rouse, M.; Friebe, B.; Jin, Y.; Gill, B.S.; Pumphrey, M.O. Discovery and molecular mapping of a new gene conferring resistance to stem rust, Sr53, derived from Aegilops geniculata and characterization of spontaneous translocation stocks with reduced alien chromatin. Chromosom. Res. 2011, 19, 669–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Jahuar, P.P. Chromosome pairing in hybrids between hexaploid bread wheat and tetraploid crested wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Hereditas 1992, 116, 107–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Ahmad, F.; Comeau, A. A new intergeneric hybrid between Triticum aestivum L., and Agropyron fragile (Roth) Candary: Variation in A.fragile for suppression of the wheat Ph-locus activity. Plant Breed. 1991, 106, 275–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Copete-Parada, A.; Palomino, C.; Cabrera, A. Development and characterization of wheat-Agropyron cristatum introgression lines induced by gametocidal genes and Ph1 mutant. Agronomy 2021, 11, 277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Che, Y.H.; Li, H.J.; Yang, Y.P.; Yang, X.M.; Li, X.Q.; Li, L.H. On the use of SSR markers for the genetic characterization of the Agropyron cristatum (L.) Gaertn. in northern China. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2008, 55, 389–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Copete, A.; Moreno, R.; Cabrera, A. Characterization of a world collection of Agropyron cristatum accessions. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2018, 65, 1455–1469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Dong, Y.S.; Zhou, R.H.; Xu, S.J.; Li, L.H.; Cauderon, Y.; Wang, R.R.-C. Desirable characteristics in perennial Triticeae collected in China for wheat improvement. Hereditas 1992, 116, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Cabrera, A.; Castellano, L.; Recio, R.; Alvarez, J.B. Chromosomal location and molecular characterization of three grain hardness genes in Agropyron cristatum. Euphytica 2019, 215, 165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Said, M.; Copete, A.; Gaál, E.; Molnár, I.; Cabrera, A.; Doležel, J.; Vrána, J. Uncovering macrosyntenic relationships between tetraploid Agropyron cristatum and bread wheat genomes using COS markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2019, 132, 2881–2898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  38. Linc, G.; Gaál, E.; Molnár, I.; Icsó, D.; Badaeva, E.; Molnár-Láng, M. Molecular cytogenetic (FISH) and genome analysis of diploid wheatgrasses and their phylogenetic relationship. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0173623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Said, M.; Hřibová, E.; Danilova, T.V.; Karafiátová, M.; Čížková, J.; Friebe, B.; Doležel, J.; Gill, B.S.; Vrána, J. The Agropyron cristatum karyotype, chromosome structure and cross-genome homeology as revealed by fluorescence in situ hybridization with tandem repeats and wheat single-gene probes. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2018, 131, 2213–2227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Zhou, S.; Yan, B.; Li, F.; Zhang, J.; Zhang, J.; Ma, H.; Liu, W.; Lu, Y.; Yang, X.; Liu, X.; et al. RNA-Seq analysis provides first insights into the phylogenetic relationships and interespecific variation between Agropyron cristatum and wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Zhou, S.; Zhang, J.; Che, Y.; Liu, W.; Lu, Y.; Yang, X.; Li, X.; Jia, J.; Liu, X.; Li, L. Construction of Agropyron Gaertn. Genetic linkage maps using a wheat 660 K SNP array reveals a homoeologous relationship with the wheat genome. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2018, 16, 818–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Cabrera, A.; Copete-Parada, A.; Madrid, E. Cloning and characterization of a putative orthologue of the wheat vernalization (VRN1) gene in perennial wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum). Plant Breed. 2020, 139, 1290–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Calderón, M.D.C.; Rey, M.D.; Cabrera, A.; Prieto, P. The subtelomeric region is important for chromosome recognition and pairing during meiosis. Sci. Rep. 2014, 4, 6488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Aguilar, M.; Prieto, P. Sequence analysis of wheat subtelomeres reveals a high polymorphism among homoeologous chromosomes. Plant Genome 2020, 13, e20065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sears, E.R. Agropyron-wheat transfers induced by homoeologous pairing. In Proceedings of the 4th International Wheat Genetic Symposium, Columbia, MO, USA, 6–11 August 1973; Sears, E.R., Sears, L.M.S., Eds.; pp. 191–199. [Google Scholar]
  46. Sears, E.R. Analysis of wheat-Agropyron recombinant chromosomes. In Proceedings of the 8th Eucarpia Congress, Madrid, Spain, 23–25 May 1977; pp. 63–72. [Google Scholar]
  47. Wang, R.C.; Liang, G.H.; Heyne, E.G. Effectiveness of ph gene in inducing homoeologous chromosome pairing Agrotricum. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1977, 51, 139–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Friebe, B.; Zeller, F.J.; Mukai, Y.; Forster, B.P.; Bartos, P.; Mclntosh, R.A. Characterization of rest-resistant wheat-Agropyron intermedium derivatives by C-banding, in situ hybridization and isozyme analysis. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1992, 83, 775–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Prieto, P.; Ramírez, C.; Cabrera, A.; Ballesteros, J.; Martín, A. Development and cytogenetic characterisation of a double goat grass-barley chromosome substitution in tritordeum. Euphytica 2006, 147, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Rey, M.D.; Calderón, M.C.; Rodrigo, M.J.; Zacarías, L.; Alós, E.; Prieto, P. Novel bread wheat lines enriched in carotenoids carrying Hordeum chilense chromosome arms in the ph1b background. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0134598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Rey, M.D.; Calderón, M.C.; Prieto, P. The use of the ph1b mutant to induce recombination between the chromosomes of wheat and barley. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Chen, Q.; Lu, Y.L.; Jahier, J.; Bernard, M. Identification of wheat-Agropyron cristatum monosomic addition lines by RFLP analysis using a set of assigned wheat DNA probes. Theor. Appl. Genet. 1994, 89, 70–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Jubault, M.; Tanguy, A.M.; Abélard, P.; Coriton, O.; Dusautoir, J.C.; Jahier, J. Attempts to induce homoeologous pairing between wheat and Agropyron cristatum genomes. Genome 2006, 49, 190–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sears, E.R. An induced mutant with homoeologous pairing in common wheat. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 1977, 19, 585–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Murray, M.G.; Thompson, W.F. Rapid isolation of high molecular weight plant DNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 1980, 8, 4321–4326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  56. Quraishi, U.M.; Abrouk, M.; Bolot, S.; Pont, C.; Throude, M.; Guilhot, N.; Confolent, C.; Bortolini, F.; Praud, S.; Murigneux, A.; et al. Genomics in cereals: From genome-wide conserved orthologous set (COS) sequences to candidate genes for trait dissection. Funct. Integr. Genom. 2009, 9, 473–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wang, X.; Lai, J.; Liu, G.; Chen, F. Development of a Scar marker for the Ph1 locus in common wheat and its application. Crop Sci. 2002, 42, 1365–1368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cabrera, A.; Martín, A.; Barro, F. In-situ comparative mapping (ISCM) of Glu-1 loci in Triticum and Hordeum. Chromosome Res. 2002, 10, 49–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Rayburn, A.L.; Gill, B.S. Isolation of a D-genome specific repeated DNA sequence from Aegilops squarrosa. Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 1986, 4, 102–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Calderón, M.C.; Rey, M.D.; Martín, A.; Prieto, P. Homoeologous chromosomes from two Hordeum species can recognize and associate during meiosis in wheat in the presence of the Ph1 locus. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Richards, E.J.; Ausubel, F.M. Isolation of a higher eukaryotic telomere from Arabidopsis thaliana. Cell 1988, 53, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 10 02292 g001 550
Figure 1. PCR amplification profiles used for the identification of chromosome 5P and 6P in the wheat addition lines. (a) COS108 and (b) COS150 mapped on the short and the long arm of chromosome 5P, respectively. (c) COS440 and (d) COS507 mapped on short and the long arm of chromosome 6P, respectively. All lines carried a complete chromosome, except for line 5 in in (a,b) which was ditelosomic for the 5PS chromosome arm.
Figure 1. PCR amplification profiles used for the identification of chromosome 5P and 6P in the wheat addition lines. (a) COS108 and (b) COS150 mapped on the short and the long arm of chromosome 5P, respectively. (c) COS440 and (d) COS507 mapped on short and the long arm of chromosome 6P, respectively. All lines carried a complete chromosome, except for line 5 in in (a,b) which was ditelosomic for the 5PS chromosome arm.
Plants 10 02292 g001
Plants 10 02292 g002 550
Figure 2. Genotypic assays for the presence of Ph1. The absence of Ph1 is marked by the ABC920 SCAR marker (individuals 2, 3, 6, and 7). M: size marker; CS: Triticum aestivum cv Chinese Spring; Ph1+: wild type wheat CS; and Ph1−: the parental Ph1 mutant.
Figure 2. Genotypic assays for the presence of Ph1. The absence of Ph1 is marked by the ABC920 SCAR marker (individuals 2, 3, 6, and 7). M: size marker; CS: Triticum aestivum cv Chinese Spring; Ph1+: wild type wheat CS; and Ph1−: the parental Ph1 mutant.
Plants 10 02292 g002
Plants 10 02292 g003 550
Figure 3. FISH to mitotic metaphase chromosome spreads. (a) Disomic CS+5P, Ph1; (b) Disomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; (c) Monosomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; (d) Disomic CS+6P, Ph1; (e) Monosomic CS+6P, ph1ph1; and (f) Ditelosomic CS+5P, Ph1. In (a–e), double FISH signals with the pAs1 probe (red) and A. cristatum genomic DNA (green) as probes; In (f), FISH signals with A. cristatum genomic DNA (red). Scale bar represents 10 µm.
Figure 3. FISH to mitotic metaphase chromosome spreads. (a) Disomic CS+5P, Ph1; (b) Disomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; (c) Monosomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; (d) Disomic CS+6P, Ph1; (e) Monosomic CS+6P, ph1ph1; and (f) Ditelosomic CS+5P, Ph1. In (a–e), double FISH signals with the pAs1 probe (red) and A. cristatum genomic DNA (green) as probes; In (f), FISH signals with A. cristatum genomic DNA (red). Scale bar represents 10 µm.
Plants 10 02292 g003
Plants 10 02292 g004 550
Figure 4. FISH to chromosome spreads in early meiosis stages (zygotene–pachytene) in wheat lines carrying chromosomes 5P or 6P from A. cristatum, both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Simultaneous visualization of telomeres (green) and A. cristatum chromosomes (red). Wheat DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). Agropyron cristatum homologous chromosomes were visualized associated in pairs in all the panels. (a) Disomic CS+5P, Ph1Ph1; (b) Disomic CS+6P, Ph1Ph1; and (c) Disomic CS+5P ph1ph1. The scale bar represents 10 µm.
Figure 4. FISH to chromosome spreads in early meiosis stages (zygotene–pachytene) in wheat lines carrying chromosomes 5P or 6P from A. cristatum, both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Simultaneous visualization of telomeres (green) and A. cristatum chromosomes (red). Wheat DNA was counterstained with DAPI (blue). Agropyron cristatum homologous chromosomes were visualized associated in pairs in all the panels. (a) Disomic CS+5P, Ph1Ph1; (b) Disomic CS+6P, Ph1Ph1; and (c) Disomic CS+5P ph1ph1. The scale bar represents 10 µm.
Plants 10 02292 g004
Plants 10 02292 g005 550
Figure 5. FISH analysis of chromosome associations in metaphase I in wheat lines carrying chromosomes 5P or 6P from A. cristatum, both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Homologous 5P and 6P chromosomes (red) are visualized associated in disomic lines, independent of the presence of the Ph1 locus. Telomeres and wheat chromosomes are visualized in green and blue, respectively. (a) Disomic CS+5P, Ph1Ph1; (b) Monosomic CS+5P, Ph1Ph1; (c) Disomic CS+6P, Ph1Ph1; (d) Disomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; (e) Monosomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; and (f) Monosomic CS+6P, ph1ph1. The scale bar is 10 µm.
Figure 5. FISH analysis of chromosome associations in metaphase I in wheat lines carrying chromosomes 5P or 6P from A. cristatum, both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Homologous 5P and 6P chromosomes (red) are visualized associated in disomic lines, independent of the presence of the Ph1 locus. Telomeres and wheat chromosomes are visualized in green and blue, respectively. (a) Disomic CS+5P, Ph1Ph1; (b) Monosomic CS+5P, Ph1Ph1; (c) Disomic CS+6P, Ph1Ph1; (d) Disomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; (e) Monosomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; and (f) Monosomic CS+6P, ph1ph1. The scale bar is 10 µm.
Plants 10 02292 g005
Plants 10 02292 g006 550
Figure 6. FISH analysis in metaphase I chromosome spreads from wheat lines carrying 5P or 6P A. cristatum chromosomes, both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Representative metaphase I cells showing wheat univalents (arrowed) both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Homologous 5P and 6P chromosomes (red) are visualized associated in disomic lines, independent of the presence of the Ph1 locus. Telomeres are shown in green and wheat chromosomes in blue. (a) Disomic CS+5P, Ph1Ph1; (b) Disomic CS+6P, Ph1Ph1; (c) Disomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; (d) Monosomic CS+6P, ph1ph1. Scale bar is 10 µm.
Figure 6. FISH analysis in metaphase I chromosome spreads from wheat lines carrying 5P or 6P A. cristatum chromosomes, both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Representative metaphase I cells showing wheat univalents (arrowed) both in the presence and in the absence of the Ph1 locus. Homologous 5P and 6P chromosomes (red) are visualized associated in disomic lines, independent of the presence of the Ph1 locus. Telomeres are shown in green and wheat chromosomes in blue. (a) Disomic CS+5P, Ph1Ph1; (b) Disomic CS+6P, Ph1Ph1; (c) Disomic CS+5P, ph1ph1; (d) Monosomic CS+6P, ph1ph1. Scale bar is 10 µm.
Plants 10 02292 g006
Table
Table 1. Analysis of metaphase I cells carrying unassociated (univalent) wheat chromosomes in the presence of 5P and 6P A. cristatum chromosomes.
Table 1. Analysis of metaphase I cells carrying unassociated (univalent) wheat chromosomes in the presence of 5P and 6P A. cristatum chromosomes.
Number of Metaphase I Cells AnalysedNumber (and Percentage of Cells Carrying One, Two, or Three Wheat Chromosomes as UnivalentsTotal Number (and Percentage) of Cells Carrying Wheat Univalents
IIIIII
Chromosome 5P
Monosomic CS+5P Ph1Ph11005 (5.0%)11 (11.0%)2 (2.0%)18 (18.0%)
Disomic CS+5P Ph1Ph113214 (10.6%)18 (13.7%)3 (2.3%)35 (26.5%)
Monosomic CS+5P ph1ph11298 (6.2%)28 (21.7%)4 (3.1%)40 (31.0%)
Disomic CS+5P ph1ph112116 (13.2%)21 (17.3%)3 (2.5%)40 (33.0%)
Chromosome 6P
Monosomic CS+6P ph1ph11162 (1.7%)15 (13.0%)14 (12.1%)31 (26.7%)
Disomic CS+6P Ph1Ph111710 (8.6%)33 (28.2%)3 (2.6%)46 (39.3%)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Prieto, P.; Palomino, C.; Cifuentes, Z.; Cabrera, A. Analysis of Chromosome Associations during Early Meiosis in Wheat Lines Carrying Chromosome Introgressions from Agropyron cristatum. Plants 2021, 10, 2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112292

AMA Style

Prieto P, Palomino C, Cifuentes Z, Cabrera A. Analysis of Chromosome Associations during Early Meiosis in Wheat Lines Carrying Chromosome Introgressions from Agropyron cristatum. Plants. 2021; 10(11):2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112292

Chicago/Turabian Style

Prieto, Pilar, Carmen Palomino, Zuny Cifuentes, and Adoración Cabrera. 2021. "Analysis of Chromosome Associations during Early Meiosis in Wheat Lines Carrying Chromosome Introgressions from Agropyron cristatum" Plants 10, no. 11: 2292. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112292

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop