Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
.
(iii) Uniparental inheritance can induce genome conflicts
between the nucleus and the organelles. In both plant and
Keywords: animal systems, an increased female fitness associated with
cytoplasmic incompatibility; Mullers ratchet; organelle the organellar genotype (cytotype) has been observed [7, 8].
inheritance; organelle recombination; paternal leakage; This phenomenon of a sex-specific selective sieve (mothers
plastome-genome incompatibility; selfish cytoplasmic curse) applies, for example, if female and male metabolic
elements requirements are different [9]. The best studied case is
cytoplasmic male sterility (CMS) in plants. This typically
mitochondrially encoded trait mediates sex determination in
gynodioecious populations and induces a counter-selection
DOI 10.1002/bies.201400110 for nuclear fertility restorer genes [8, 10, 11]. (iv) Finally, the
tight co-evolution of nuclear and organellar genomes can
Max-Planck-Institut fur Molekulare Pflanzenphysiologie, Potsdam-Golm, result in genetic incompatibilities when new genome
Germany
combinations are generated through hybridization. Although
*Corresponding author: the organellar genomes of related species are often very
Stephan Greiner similar and typically have identical coding capacities,
E-mail: greiner@mpimp-golm.mpg.de
organelles are not freely exchangeable between species.
Abbreviations: Enforced by uniparental inheritance and lack of sexual
mtDNA, mitochondrial DNA; oDNA, organelle DNA; ptDNA, plastid DNA. recombination, co-evolution, and co-adaptation of the genetic
80 www.bioessays-journal.com Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. This is an open
access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which
permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is
not used for commercial purposes.
.... Prospects & Overviews S. Greiner et al.
Box 1
Heteroplasmy: Sorting-out and the
Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. 81
S. Greiner et al. Prospects & Overviews ....
Box 2
Is organelle inheritance a by-product or the cause of two sexes?
Problems & Paradigms
mode has remained enigmatic. Further, the validity of the Theoretical models for the occurrence of
assumption that rare biparental transmission and sporadic uniparental organelle inheritance
sexual recombination of organelle DNA (oDNA) can stop the
ratchet remains to be assessed. Although not universal, maternal inheritance is the predomi-
This article describes recent progress in our understand- nant mode of organelle transmission in all eukaryotic king-
ing of organelle inheritance. It discusses the current views doms. This raises the question as to which evolutionary forces
on the driving forces and evolutionary consequences of favor its prevalence. Currently available mathematical models
maternal inheritance in plants, animals, algae, and fungi typically link uniparental (maternal) organelle inheritance with
and highlights important unresolved problems. We suggest the evolution of anisogamy and/or sex determination (e.g. [21
a unifying model of organelle inheritance, and argue that 24]; but also see [5, 6, 25]; Box 2). Below, we briefly discuss the
the dominance of uniparentally maternal transmission is main models in the light of existing experimental evidence. We
an evolutionary unstable trait. Mutational meltdown of point out unsettled questions and assumptions that remain to
organelle genomes is overcome by episodes of recombina- be scrutinized. It should be emphasized that these models are
tion between organelle genomes. The driving force for the not necessarily mutually exclusive.
fall-back to strict uniparental inheritance comes from a
certain type of selfish cytoplasmic elements (i.e. organellar
genomes that are maladaptive, but faster replicating than Genomic conflict models
the native genome). Importantly, such elements cannot be
disarmed by recombination. Finally, we propose experi- As originally proposed by Grun [26] and based on genetic
mental strategies to test the assumptions underlying our observations in evening primroses (genus Oenothera), the
model. most frequently expressed explanation for the evolution of
82 Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc.
.... Prospects & Overviews S. Greiner et al.
Box 3
Modes and mechanisms of oDNA inheritance and their phylogenetic distribution
uniparental organelle inheritance is the avoidance of cytonu- Avoiding competition models posit that two non-recombin-
clear conflicts [21, 22]. The general model diverges into two ing clonal lineages (i.e. the maternal and paternal organellar
types: avoiding competition (between organelles) and genomes) will enter direct competition. Mutations in one of
avoiding negative interaction (between organelle genomes the genomes, for example in a locus determining the
and/or organelle genomes and the nuclear genome). From a replication speed of the organelle, would allow one of the
modeling perspective, the two schemes cannot be fully lineages to outgrow the other. Also, mutations in oDNA might
discerned from each other [2730].1 arise that mar the competing organelles by their attempts
to gain a competitive advantage [24, 35]. Metaphorically
speaking, the nuclear genome does not have an interest in a
1
Integrated in some models is the idea that uniparental inheritance war between organelles in the cytosol [22].
might also help with reducing the negative impact of cytoplasmic Negative interaction models purport that diverging
parasites [31, 32]. However, with few exceptions (e.g. Wolbachia and
related infectious bacteria in arthropods and nematodes), the frequent cytotypes generally reduce fitness [36]. As an exemplary
presence and vertical transmission of cytoplasmic parasites is not mechanistic explanation, and somewhat overlapping with the
documented for many eukaryotes. In addition, the assumption that avoid competition hypothesis, there could be a locus that is
mixing of such parasites generally reduces host fitness is doubt- maladaptive to the nucleus but favors an aggressive (faster
able [33]. Moreover, uniparental transmission may exclude organelles
from vertical transmission, but not necessarily parasites at the same
replicating) cytotype [26, 30]. Considering organelles alone,
time. For example, paternal transmission of a virus was observed in negative interaction could be caused by loci in the two
barley [34], a species that inherits its organelles maternally (Table 1). organellar genomes that are not co-adapted to each other, but
Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. 83
Problems & Paradigms
84
Table 1. Inheritance of mitochondria and plastids in different eukaryotic taxa
Common
Taxon Species name Mitochondrial inheritance Plastid inheritance
Exclusion of mt/mtDNA Reference Exclusion of pt/ptDNA Reference
S. Greiner et al.
The inheritance mode is abbreviated with U, uniparental; M, maternal; P, paternal; B, biparental; PL, paternal leakage; M, maternal predominance; P, paternal predominance; UU, doubly uniparental;
BMP, biparental, maternal and paternal progeny. The mechanisms of exclusion of organelles or oDNA is denoted as for complete disappearance/degradation, # for decrease by digestion/reduction of
copy number (by down-regulated replication or other mechanisms). ECB, enucleated cytoplasmic body; pt, plastids; mt, mitochondrion; mt, female mating type; mt, male mating type; waste bag,
structure containing cytoplasmic material that is excluded from the apical end of sperm tails.
Reference list: 1. Boynton et al. 1987, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 84: 2391; 2. Aoyama et al. 2006, Protoplasma 228: 231; 3. Kuroiwa et al. 1982, Nature 298: 481; 4. Adams et al. 1990 Curr Genet 18: 141; 5.
Kuroiwa 2010, J Plant Res 123: 207; 6. Diers 1967a, Planta 72: 119; 7. Kuroiwa et al. 1988, Protoplasma 146: 89; 8. Owens and Morris 1990, Am J Bot 77: 433; 9. Owens and Morris 1991, Am J Bot 78:
1515; 10. Mogensen and Rusche 1985, Protoplasma 128: 1; 11. Mogensen 1988, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 85: 2594 ; 12. Sodmergen et al. 2002, Planta 216: 235; 13. Hagemann and Schroder 1989,
Protoplasma 152: 57; 14. Miyamura et al. 1987, Protoplasma 141: 149; 15. Yu et al. 1994, Sex Plant Reprod 7: 312; 16. Yu and Russell 1994a, Sex Plant Reprod 7: 324; 17. Yu and Russell 1994b, Planta
193: 115; 18. Medgyesy et al. 1986, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82: 6960; 19. Diers 1967b, Mol Gen Genet 100: 56; 20. Corriveau et al. 1990, Curr Genet 17: 439; 21. Nagata et al. 1999, Planta 209: 53; 22.
Forsthoefel et al. 1992, J Hered 83: 342; 23. Mogensen 1996, Am J Bot 83: 383; 24. Corriveau and Coleman 1988, Am J Bot 75: 1443; 25. Matsuura 1995, Rep Cucurbit Genet Coop 18: 31; 26. Havey 1997,
J Hered 88: 232; 27. Brennicke and Schwemmle 1984, Z Naturforsch 39c: 191 ; 28. Sodmergen et al. 1997, Protoplasma 198: 66; 29. Meyer and Stubbe 1974, Ber Deutsch Bot Ges 87: 29; 30. Chiu and
Sears 1988, Curr Genet 13: 181; 31. Metzlaff et al. 1981, Theor Appl Genet 60: 37; 32. Sodmergen et al. 1992, Protoplasma 186: 73; 33. Weihe et al. 2009, Mol Genet Genom 282: 587; 34. Moriyama and
Prospects & Overviews
Kawano 2003, Genetics 164: 963; 35. Mannella et al. 1979, J Bacteriol 137: 1449; 36. Reich and Luck 1966, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 55: 1600; 37. Birky et al. 1982, in Mitochondrial Genes: 333; 38. Birky
2001, Annu Rev Genet 35: 125; 39. Solieri 2010, Trends Microbiol 18: 521; 40. Ursprung and Schabtach 1965, J Exp Zool 159: 379; 41. Schabtach and Ursprung 1965, J Exp Zool 159: 357; 42. Breton et al.
2007, Trends Genet 23: 465; 43. Zouros et al. 1994 Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91: 7463; 44. Reilly and Thomas 1980, Plasmid 3: 109; 45. DeLuca and OFarrell 2012, Dev Cell 22: 660; 46. Politi et al. 2014, Dev
Cell 29: 305; 47. Kondo et al. 1990, Genetics 126: 657; 48. Meusel and Moritz 1993, Curr Genet 24: 539; 49. Kaneda et al. 1995, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92: 4542; 50. Cummins et al. 1997, Zygote 5: 301;
51. Giles et al. 1980, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 77: 6715; 52. Larsson et al. 1997, Hum Mol Genet 6: 185; 53. Cummins 1998, Rev Reprod 3: 172.
Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc.
....
.... Prospects & Overviews S. Greiner et al.
Figure 2. Different cytological mechanisms can result in maternal inheritance of plastids in angiosperms [120]. Species belonging to the
Lycopersicon type (tomato type), exclude plastids in pollen mitosis I. As the result of an unequal cell division, the resulting large vegetative
cell receives all plastids, whereas the generative cell is devoid of plastids. Species of the Solanum type (potato type) exclude plastids after
pollen mitosis I. Their generative cell contains a few plastids which, however, are selectively degraded (by an unknown mechanism) prior to
division of the generative cell into the two sperm cells in pollen mitosis II. Both mechanisms must be under genetic control of the paternal
gamete. Species of the Triticum type (wheat type) produce sperm cells that still contain plastids. However, the plastids are stripped off upon
fertilization and thus do not enter the cytoplasm of the egg cell. Alternative mechanisms are possible in which the paternal plastids enter the
egg cell, but do not contribute to the embryo. The close phylogenetic relatedness of tomato and potato, which belong to the same family
(Solanaceae; nightshade family) and, according to the most recent taxonomy, even to the same genus (tomato, formerly called Lycopersicon
esculentum, was renamed Solanum lycopersicum), suggests significant evolutionary flexibility and repeated independent evolution of the
mechanisms leading to (paternally controlled) maternal plastid inheritance.
Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. 85
S. Greiner et al. Prospects & Overviews ....
combined by sexual recombination. Alternatively, there is requires a heterozygous advantage at this locus and the tight
the possibility that different organelles harbor different linkage to a self-incompatibility allele. Uniparental inheri-
alleles of one locus, and their heteroplasmic combination is tance can, therefore, only evolve within rather strict boundary
Problems & Paradigms
maladaptive to the cell [37]. Obviously, a strict uniparental conditions. It seems that these problems can be solved by a
inheritance of organelles largely avoids these problems. recently proposed model [5]. It makes the assumption that
Indeed, modeling of such scenarios frequently leads to the the gametes control organelle inheritance. It further takes the
fixation of a nuclear inheritance modifier that causes switch- dynamics of the fitness costs of biparental inheritance into
ing from an ancestral biparental to a derived uniparental account in that cells do not suffer from a fixed cost of
mode of inheritance. biparental inheritance, but the actual costs depend on the
number of selfish or maladaptive mutations. Consequently,
the model predicts that the relative advantage of uniparental
Mutation pressure and the bottleneck model inheritance declines in a mutation frequency-dependent
manner within a population. This appears to be the case
Another starting point toward explaining uniparental inheri- under very broad parameters. Hence, the model is compatible
tance is the assumption that sexual recombination of oDNA is with the different inheritance patterns of oDNA, varying
not the only force that counteracts Mullers ratchet (see between (low-level) paternal leakage and regular biparental
below). Hence, strict uniparental organelle transmission may inheritance (Box 3; Table 1). It can also account for genomic
be less harmful than widely assumed. Most relevant in this conflicts, mutation pressure, and nuclear-organelle co-
context is that organelles pass a genetic bottleneck when adaptation as potential driving forces for uniparental
entering the germline (Box 1). By this mechanism, organelle inheritance. However, in agreement with previous modeling,
mutations can become purified by intra-cellular genetic drift it was found that an inheritance modifier that kills its own
in that genome segregation to homoplasmy occurs [38, 39]. organelles cannot spread. Paternal exclusion should, there-
Subsequently, deleterious mutations can be eliminated fore, be evolutionarily unstable [28]. This is mainly due to the
effectively by selection [12, 40]. Modeling work showed mechanistic problem that such an allele cannot be genetically
that paternal leakage (or biparental transmission) would linked with the fittest cytotype [5, 6, 44]. Nevertheless,
interfere with this process [41]. Interestingly, in the bottle- achievement of maternal inheritance by paternal exclusion of
neck model, absence of sexual recombination of oDNAs is, organelles (killing ones own cytoplasm) is frequent among
to some extent, the driving force rather than the consequence plant and animal species ([4649]; Fig. 2; Table 1). It is,
of uniparental inheritance. however, obviously associated with fitness costs. According to
Sreedharan and Shpak [50], the trait can arise only if one
assumes very high mutation rates of selfish cytoplasmic
Co-adaptation model elements (5% per generation). However, in contrast to
mammalian mitochondrial DNA, the nucleotide substitution
Another model that deserves consideration was postulated frequencies in plastid and plant mitochondrial genomes are
recently [42]. The establishment of DNA-containing organelles very low [51, 52]. Developing the idea further, the occurrence
by endosymbiosis was followed by massive gene transfer from of hermaphrodites with uniparental organelle transmission
the genome of the endosymbiont to the nuclear genome of (as is the case for many self-pollinating plant species) is
the host cell [43]. Since many of the encoded gene products are difficult to explain. In these organisms, maternal transmission
re-imported into the organelle, organellar genomes and implies a costly mechanism for the organism to eliminate
nuclear genomes rely on tight co-evolution and co-adaptation. its own paternal cytoplasm. The second argument that can
Mathematical modeling shows that co-adaptation is enhanced be raised against all models for uniparental inheritance is
by both uniparental inheritance and the genetic bottleneck, the implicit assumption that the cytotype transmitted into the
suggesting that selection for co-adaptation was a driving force hybrid (typically the maternal cytotype) is generally fitter than
for uniparental inheritance and the evolution of two sexes. the excluded (paternal) cytotype (e.g. [25, 46]).
Like the other models, the co-adaptation model assumes lack In summary, the available models of organelle inheri-
of sexual oDNA recombination. tance fail to explain why the uniparentally paternal mode of
organelle inheritance is rare [46] and why killing ones own
(paternal) cytoplasm occurs. Hence, the current theoretical
The evolutionary cause for uniparentally maternal problem connected with organelle inheritance is not its sex
inheritance is still unclear linkage per se, but rather the dominance of the maternal over
the paternal mode and in many cases its control by the
In particular, the different types of genomic conflict paternal gamete. Arguing that gamete size simply deter-
hypotheses have been modeled extensively. From this work, mines organelle inheritance in a largely quantitative manner
several theoretical problems arose. A general argument (in that female gametes are larger and, therefore, harbor
against these hypotheses is that a mutation leading to more organelles), is not satisfactory either. Especially in
uniparental transmission can only be advantageous if a plants, many examples exist for (i) contrasting modes of
selfish cytoplasmic element is present, but not yet fixed in the plastid DNA (ptDNA) and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
population [6, 16, 44]. According to Hutson and Law [45], inheritance, and (ii) biparental or predominantly paternal
fixation of an inheritance modifier (inducing the switch from transmission, implying a high organelle load in the paternal
ancestral biparental inheritance to uniparental inheritance) gamete ([46, 49, 53, 54]; Table 1; Box 3).
86 Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc.
.... Prospects & Overviews S. Greiner et al.
Alternative explanations for uniparental organelle This drives a relaxation of strict maternal inheritance by
DNA inheritance do not apply to the whole paternal leakage or regular biparental transmission. Biparen-
eukaryotic domain tal inheritance is again susceptible to the evolution of selfish
Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. 87
S. Greiner et al. Prospects & Overviews ....
60]. The oxidative damage assumption [56] could be nal or biparental oDNA inheritance should be associated with
relevant to this observation. However, since oxidative damage (i) high organelle numbers and oDNA copy numbers in the
fails to explain relaxed maternal organelle inheritance pollen, as it is the case, for example, in alfalfa, melon or
Problems & Paradigms
patterns (see above), it cannot be the sole and universal Pelargonium [49, 61], and/or (ii) a much larger population
driving force for the observed patterns of oDNA inheritance. size of the pollen compared to the egg, as it is the case in
However, paternal oDNA copy numbers in the sperm cell are gymnosperms which are wind-pollinated. This view is in line
typically substantially smaller than maternal copy numbers in with theoretical considerations, arguing that the higher
the larger egg cell. Hence, genetic drift of oDNAs due to mutational load of organelle genomes in general is not due
stronger genetic bottlenecking at the level of the gamete might to asexuality per se, but is the result of the small effective
represent an additional relevant factor. Consequently, pater- population size of organellar genomes [62].
Figure 3. Repeated origin and loss of uniparental organelle inheritance in evolution and selection pressures for uniparental and biparental
organelle transmission. A: Biparental organelle inheritance likely represented the ancestral stage. It is selected against to avoid the spread of
selfish cytoplasmic elements (left panel). This drives evolution for uniparental inheritance. It is typically maternal and, due to its lineage-
dependent evolution, realized by various cellular mechanisms (indicated by different colors). Uniparental paternal inheritance (dashed arrow)
can evolve, if the mutational load for paternally inherited organelles is low and/or comparable to that of organelles in the egg cell. Strict
uniparental inheritance leads to organelle genome susceptibility to mutational meltdown (middle panel). This, in turn, provides a driving force
for a fall-back to relaxed organelle inheritance patterns to allow (low levels of) sexual oDNA recombination. Repeated evolution of uniparental
inheritance is necessary, since biparental transmission allows the spread of selfish cytoplasmic elements, even if organelle genomes undergo
sexual recombination (right panel). B: Selection pressure for uniparental organelle inheritance as caused by an aggressive and maladaptive
cytoplasm. Organelle genomes a and b are both compatible with their nuclear host genomes AA and BB, respectively. Consider that
cytotype b is incompatible with the hybrid nuclear genome AB, whereas cytotype a is compatible. Upon uniparental inheritance of the two
organelles, reciprocal crosses will give 50% viable offspring (top panel). Identical offspring viability is achieved if both organelles are inherited
biparentally and have identical multiplication speeds (i.e. assertiveness rates in the zygote and the F1 generation; middle panel). The situation
changes dramatically, if in the cytotype that is incompatible to the hybrid a mutation arises (b) that can overgrow the compatible cytotype a
in the offspring. If transmitted biparentally, it will effectively eliminate the compatible cytotype a. This situation would provide a strong selection
pressure for the evolution of uniparental inheritance (lower panel). C: Spread of maladaptive and aggressive cytoplasmic genotypes cannot be
prevented by sexual oDNA recombination. Assume that the compatible cytotype a carries two genetically unlinked loci (cf. Box 4) that confer
compatibility with the hybrid nucleus (inc) and normal replication speed (fast). The incompatible and aggressive cytotype b harbors the alleles
Inc and Fast, conferring incompatibility in the hybrid nuclear background and faster replication. Further assume that the allele Fast shifts the
input ratio of the two cytoplasms a and b into the zygote from 1:1 (upon biparental inheritance with no maternal or paternal bias) to 1:3.
Since in an organelle cross, input frequencies reflect output frequencies and homologous recombination can occur between genomes
(Box 4), the allele combinations inc/fast, inc/Fast, Inc/fast and Inc/Fast will occur in a 1:3:3:9 frequency. [The a and b genomes can
recombine with themselves, resulting in 1 1 a (inc/fast), and 3 3 b (Inc/Fast) genotypes. Recombination between a and b results 1 3 in
the allele combinations inc/Fast and Inc/fast, respectively.] If all oDNA genomes carrying the allele fast are overgrown by Fast genotypes
during ontogenesis, the only two remaining genotypes will be inc/Fast (25%) and Inc/Fast (75%). The latter is incompatible with the host
nuclear genome, but substantially overrepresented in the hybrid population, thus conferring a strong selective disadvantage.
88 Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc.
.... Prospects & Overviews S. Greiner et al.
Taken together, maternal dominance in organelle inheritance Selfish cytoplasmic elements, nuclear-
could be due to a lower mutational load, since in most cytoplasmic co-adaptation, and their interplay
organisms, more oDNA copies are inherited by the mother.
Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. 89
S. Greiner et al. Prospects & Overviews ....
Box 4
Sexual recombination of oDNA: experimentally determined frequencies and
Problems & Paradigms
90 Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc.
.... Prospects & Overviews S. Greiner et al.
bottleneck when entering the germline. Thus, organelle frequent in nature. In the presence of occasional sexual oDNA
genomes become purified by intra-organismic genetic drift, recombination, the fittest alleles of the paternal cytotype
rapidly segregate to homoplasmy, and therefore malfunction- might be able to escape a uniparental inheritance modifier.
Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. 91
S. Greiner et al. Prospects & Overviews ....
III in overlapping subpopulations [13]. Due to hybridization 3. Petit RJ, Vendramin GG. 2007. Plant phylogeography based on organelle
within the population, the incompatible combinations AA-III genes: an introduction. In Weiss S, Ferrand N, eds; Phylogeography of
Southern European Refugia. Dordrecht: Springer. p. 2397.
and BB-II are sometimes observed, building asymmetric 4. Bazin E, Glemin S, Galtier N. 2006. Population size does not influence
Problems & Paradigms
hybridization barriers of different strengths (Fig. 1). Other mitochondrial genetic diversity in animals. Science 312: 5702.
observed combinations, such as AA-II, BB-III, AB-II, or AB-III, 5. Hadjivasiliou Z, Lane N, Seymour RM, Pomiankowski A. 2013.
Dynamics of mitochondrial inheritance in the evolution of binary mating
are compatible. Since plastids with plastome III are
types and two sexes. Proc R Soc Lond B 280: 20131920.
multiplying faster than those with plastome II, they have 6. Hoekstra RF. 2011. Nucleo-cytoplasmic conflict and the evolution of
the potential to outcompete plastome II plastids in this gamete dimorphism. In Togashi T, Cox PA, eds; The evolution of
population. Moreover, this constellation provides a hitchhik- anisogamy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 11130.
7. Rand DM, Haney RA, Fry AJ. 2004. Cytonuclear coevolution: the
ing opportunity for a maladaptive trait in inter-specific genomics of cooperation. Trends Ecol Evol 19: 64553.
hybridization events [8, 13, 82, 83]. In view of all these 8. Greiner S, Rauwolf U, Meurer J, Herrmann RG. 2011. The role of
attractive features, the Oenothera system is clearly one of the plastids in plant speciation. Mol Ecol 20: 67191.
9. Wolff JN, Gemmell NJ. 2013. Mitochondria, maternal inheritance, and
most suitable models for testing some of the key predictions of asymmetric fitness: why males die younger. BioEssays 35: 939.
our current hypotheses on organelle inheritance. 10. Budar F, Touzet P, De Paepe R. 2003. The nucleo-mitochondrial
conflict in cytoplasmic male sterilities revisited. Genetica 117: 316.
11. Chase CD. 2007. Cytoplasmic male sterility: a window to the world of
plant mitochondrial-nuclear interactions. Trends Genet 23: 8190.
Conclusions and outlook 12. Rand DM. 2001. The units of selection of mitochondrial DNA. Annu Rev
Ecol Syst 32: 41548.
Here, we propose a unifying, potentially universal and testable 13. Greiner S, Bock R. 2013. Tuning a menage a trois: co-evolution and co-
adaptation of nuclear and organellar genomes in plants. BioEssays 35:
model, to explain the evolution of organelle inheritance. We 35465.
argue that uniparentally maternal organelle inheritance is an 14. Burton RS, Pereira RJ, Barreto FS. 2013. Cytonuclear genomic
evolutionarily unstable trait. In anisogamous organisms, the interactions and hybrid breakdown. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst 44: 281302.
15. White DJ, Wolff JN, Pierson M, Gemmell NJ. 2008. Revealing the
maternal predominance seems to be due to a higher hidden complexities of mtDNA inheritance. Mol Ecol 17: 492542.
mutational load of the paternal gamete. The major driving 16. Birky CW. 1995. Uniparental inheritance of mitochondrial and chloro-
force for uniparental inheritance could come from selfish plast genes: mechanisms and evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 92:
cytoplasmic genomes that are maladaptive to the host nucleus 113318.
17. Hoekstra RF. 2000. Evolutionary origin and consequences of
but replicate faster than the native cytoplasmic genome. The uniparental mitochondrial inheritance. Hum Reprod 15: 10211.
model is in line with the various inheritance patterns observed 18. Barr CM, Neiman M, Taylor DR. 2005. Inheritance and recombination
in nature. To test the underlying assumptions, the factors of mitochondrial genomes in plants, fungi and animals. New Phytol 168:
3950.
involved in and/or leading to uniparental (maternal) organelle 19. McCauley DE. 2013. Paternal leakage, heteroplasmy, and the evolution
inheritance need to be identified and quantified. We must of plant mitochondrial genomes. New Phytol 200: 96677.
understand nature and function of selfish mutations and 20. Xu J. 2005. The inheritance of organelle genes and genomes: patterns
and mechanisms. Genome 48: 9518.
determine their strength in selection. Also, it will be necessary
21. Cosmides LM, Tooby J. 1981. Cytoplasmic inheritance and intra-
to measure sexual oDNA recombination rates in natural genomic conflict. J Theor Biol 89: 83129.
populations, to identify the genes involved in organelle 22. Eberhard WG. 1980. Evolutionary consequences of intracellular
exclusion and to investigate their population genetics. Further, organelle competition. Q Rev Biol 55: 23149.
23. Hurst LD. 1996. Why are there only two sexes? Proc R Soc Lond B 263:
age and extinction rates of lineages displaying uniparental 41522.
or biparental inheritance need to be determined (cf. [16]). All 24. Hurst LD, Hamilton WD. 1992. Cytoplasmic fusion and the nature of
these parameters should then be used in advanced modeling sexes. Proc R Soc Lond B 247: 18994.
25. Billiard S, Lopez-Villavicencio M, Devier B, Hood ME, et al. 2011.
approaches, to solve one of the most fundamental and Having sex, yes, but with whom? Inferences from fungi on the evolution
puzzling questions in genetics and evolutionary biology. of anisogamy and mating types. Biol Rev 86: 42142.
26. Grun P. 1976. Cytoplasmic Genetics and Evolution. New York:
Columbia University Press.
27. Law R, Hutson V. 1992. Intracellular symbionts and the evolution of
Acknowledgments uniparental cytoplasmic inheritance. Proc R Soc Lond B 248: 6977.
We thank Dr. Barbara B. Sears (Michigan State University) for 28. Randerson JP, Hurst LD. 1999. Small sperm, uniparental inheritance
critical reading and fruitful discussion and Dr. Stephanie Ruf and selfish cytoplasmic elements: a comparison of two models. J Evol
Biol 12: 111024.
(MPI-MP) for images illustrating paternal leakage and help 29. Hastings IM. 1992. Population genetic aspects of deleterious cyto-
with artwork. Research on organelle inheritance and organ- plasmic genomes and their effect on the evolution of sexual
elle-nuclear interactions by the authors is supported by the reproduction. Genet Res 59: 21525.
Max Planck Society and the Deutsche Forschungsgemein- 30. Hoekstra RF. 1990. Evolution of uniparental inheritance of cyto-
plasmic DNA. In Smith MJ, Vida J, eds; Organizational Constrains of
schaft (DFG). We apologize to all colleagues whose work could the Dynamics of Evolution. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
not be discussed due to space constraints. p 26978.
31. Hurst LD. 1990. Parasite diversity and the evolution of diploidy,
multicellularity and anisogamy. J Theor Biol 144: 42943.
32. Frank SA. 1996. Host-symbiont confict over the mixing of symbiotic
References lineages. Proc R Soc Lond B 263: 33944.
33. Vautrin E, Vavre F. 2009. Interactions between vertically transmitted
1. Birky CW. 2001. The inheritance of genes in mitochondria and chloroplasts: symbionts: cooperation or conflict? Trends Microbiol 17: 959.
laws, mechanisms, and models. Annu Rev Genet 35: 12548. 34. Card S, Pearson M, Clover G. 2007. Plant pathogens transmitted by
2. Hagstrom E, Freyer C, Battersby BJ, Stewart JB, et al. 2014. No pollen. Australas Plant Path 36: 45561.
recombination of mtDNA after heteroplasmy for 50 generations in the 35. Charlesworth B. 1983. Reproductive evolution: mating types and
mouse maternal germline. Nucleic Acids Res 42: 11116. uniparental transmission of chloroplast genes. Nature 304: 211.
92 Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc.
.... Prospects & Overviews S. Greiner et al.
36. Sharpley MS, Marciniak C, Eckel-Mahan K, McManus M, et al. 2012. 65. Rose RJ, Thomas MR, Fitter JT. 1990. The transfer of cytoplasmic
Heteroplasmy of mouse mtDNA is genetically unstable and results in and nuclear genomes by somatic hybridisation. Aust J Plant Physiol 17:
altered behavior and cognition. Cell 151: 33343. 30321.
37. Lane N. 2012. The problem with mixing mitochondria. Cell 151: 66. Ziegler ML, Davidson RL. 1981. Elimination of mitochondrial
Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc. 93
S. Greiner et al. Prospects & Overviews ....
92. Azhagiri AK, Maliga P. 2007. Exceptional paternal inheritance of 106. Harris EH, Burkhart BD, Gillham NW, Boynton JE. 1989. Antibiotic
plastids in Arabidopsis suggests that low-frequency leakage of plastids resistance mutations in the chloroplast 16S and 23S rRNA genes of
via pollen may be universal in plants. Plant J 52: 81723. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii: correlation of genetic and physical maps of
93. Schwemmle J, Haustein E, Sturm A, Binder M. 1938. Genetische und the chloroplast genome. Genetics 123: 28192.
Problems & Paradigms
zytologische Untersuchungen an Eu-Oenotheren: Teil I bis VI. Z Indukt 107. Newman SM, Harris EH, Johnson AM, Boynton JE, et al. 1992.
Abstamm Vererbungsl 75: 358800. Nonrandom distribution of chloroplast recombination events in
94. Smith SE. 1989. Influence of parental genotype on plastid Inheritance in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii: evidence for a hotspot and an adjacent
Medicago sativa. J Hered 80: 2147. cold region. Genetics 132: 41329.
95. Zhu T, Mogensen HL, Smith S. 1993. Quantitative, three-dimensional 108. Boynton JE, Gillham NW, Newman SM, Harris EH. 1992. Organelle
analysis of alfalfa egg cells in two genotypes: implications for biparental genetics and transformation of Chlamydomonas. In Herrmann RG, ed;
plastid inheritance. Planta 190: 14350. Cell Organelles. Vienna, New York: Springer. p. 364.
96. Hansen AK, Escobar LK, Gilbert LE, Jansen RK. 2007. Paternal, 109. VanWinkle-Swift KP, Birky CWJ. 1978. The non-reciprocality of
maternal, and biparental inheritance of the chloroplast genome in Passiflora organelle gene recombination in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and
(Passifloraceae): implications for phylogeneitc studies. Am J Bot 94: 426. Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Gen Genet 166: 193209.
97. Bogdanova V, Galieva E, Kosterin O. 2009. Genetic analysis of 110. Chiu W-L, Sears BB. 1985. Recombination between chloroplast DNAs
nuclear-cytoplasmic incompatibility in pea associated with cytoplasm of does not occur in sexual crosses of Oenothera. Mol Gen Genet 198: 5258.
an accession of wild subspecies Pisum sativum subsp. elatius (Bieb.) 111. Medgyesy P, Fejes E, Maliga P. 1985. Interspecific chloroplast
Schmahl. Theor Appl Genet 118: 8019. recombination in a Nicotiana somatic hybrid (protoplast fusion/chloro-
98. Li D, Qi X, Li X, Li L, et al. 2013. Maternal inheritance of mitochondrial plast DNA/physical mapping). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 82: 69604.
genomes and complex inheritance of chloroplast genomes in Actinidia 112. Thanh N, Medgyesy P. 1989. Limited chloroplast gene transfer via
Lind.: evidences from interspecific crosses. Mol Genet Genom 288: 10110. recombination overcomes plastome-genome incompatibility between
99. Bentley KE, Mandel JR, McCauley DE. 2010. Paternal leakage and Nicotiana tabacum and Solanum tuberosum. Plant Mol Biol 12: 8793.
heteroplasmy of mitochondrial genomes in Silene vulgaris: evidence 113. Gillham NW, Boynton JE, Harris EH. 1991. Transmission of plastid
from experimental crosses. Genetics 185: 9618. genes. In Bogorad L, Vasil IK, eds; Cell Culture and Somatic Cell
100. Dujon B. 1981. Mitochondrial genetics and functions. In: Strathern JN, Genetics of Plants. San Diego, New York: Academic Press. p 5592.
Jones EW, Broach JR, eds; Molecular Biology of the Yeast Saccharo- 114. Apitz J, Weihe A, Pohlheim F, Borner T. 2013. Biparental inheritance of
myces: Life Cycle and Inheritance. Cold Spring Harbor: Cold Spring organelles in Pelargonium: evidence for intergenomic recombination of
Harbor Laboratory Press. p. 505635. mitochondrial DNA. Planta 237: 50915.
101. Sears BB. 1998. Replication, recombination, and repair in the 115. Marechal A, Brisson N. 2010. Recombination and the maintenance of
chloroplast genetic system of Chlamydomonas. In Rochaix JD, Gold- plant organelle genome stability. New Phytol 186: 299317.
schmidt-Clermont M, Merchant S, eds; The Molecular Biology of 116. Scott I, Logan DC. 2011. Mitochondrial dynamics. In: Kempken F, ed;
Chloroplasts and Mitochondria in Chlamydomonas. New York Bosten, Plant Mitochondria. New York, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London: Springer.
Dordrecht, London, Moscow: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 11538. p 3163.
102. Remacle C, Colin M, Matagne RF. 1995. Genetic mapping of 117. Kraytsberg Y, Schwartz M, Brown TA, Ebralidse K, et al. 2004.
mitochondrial markers by recombinational analysis in Chlamydomonas Recombination of human mitochondrial DNA. Science 304: 981.
reinhardtii. Mol Gen Genet 249: 18590. 118. Rokas A, Ladoukakis E, Zouros E. 2003. Animal mitochondrial DNA
103. Sager R, Ramanis Z. 1976. Chloroplast genetics of Chlamydomonas: II. recombination revisited. Trends Ecol Evol 18: 4117.
Mapping by cosegregation frequency analysis. Genetics 83: 32340. 119. Smith ML, Duchesne LC, Bruhn JN, Anderson JB. 1990. Mitochon-
104. Gillham NW. 1994. Organelle Genes and Genomes. New York, Oxford: drial genetics in a natural population of the plant pathogen armillaria.
Oxford University Press. Genetics 126: 57582.
105. Linnane AW, Nagley P. 1978. Mitochondrial genetics in perspective: 120. Bock R. 2007. Structure, function, and inheritance of plastid genomes.
the derivation of a genetic and physical map of the yeast mitochondrial In: Bock R, ed; Cell and Molecular Biology of Plastids. Berlin, Heidelberg,
genome. Plasmid 1: 32445. New York: Springer. p 2963.
94 Bioessays 37: 8094, 2014 The Authors. Bioessays published by WILEY Periodicals, Inc.