I suspect this article will appeal especially to Dr. Kuska, since it relates to the role of small RNAs in grafted plants, but I think the implications are interesting for anyone who deals with roses.
1 Like
Iâve tried the link several times and keep getting this message:
[quote]Error
There was a problem handling your request.
Please try again in a few minutes, or contact us if you continue to experience this problem.[/quote]
Does that link require membership or some sort of paid access, perhaps through a university?
Peter
Sorry about that, the website must be looking at the referring page or something, because it fails for me even as I have a copy of that paper open in another tab.
This one should work: Heritable variation and small RNAs in the progeny of chimeras of Brassica juncea and Brassica oleracea - PubMed
I did not have a problem with the original link. I have printed it out and will comment later. Thank you Hardy.
[quote=âHardy_â]Sorry about that, the website must be looking at the referring page or something, because it fails for me even as I have a copy of that paper open in another tab.
This one should work: [url]Heritable variation and small RNAs in the progeny of chimeras of Brassica juncea and Brassica oleracea - PubMed
Thanks, Hardy. The second link worked for me.
Peter
It may have been a temporary glitch, Peter. It worked fine for me. Perhaps it might depend upon which browser youâre using? I frequently find that an issue, which is why I switch back and forth between Firefox, Google Chrome and AOHellâs IE. I wish I could remember the name of the rose, but MR8 lists one which consistently altered color, flower shape and mutated to a climber when budded to a specific root stock.
They should have called it Misfortuniana.
The issue first got a lot of attention when a tomato with an unusual leaf trait was used as a root stock, and the new growth on scions would sometimes show the same mutant leaf characteristic. Kind of like if you grafted onto Bullata and started getting some new growth that was bullate. Apparently that sort of thing may happen across grafts quite a lot, even if itâs not usually very visible.
Confusing to my misty brain.
Does anyone remember the post or article about how grafting a rose that doesnât normally set seed onto a root of a rose that does set hips could influence the scion plant to set hips?
I thought this year about attempting to graft Persian Yellow onto something else in an attempt to get it to set hips.
[quote=âjbergesonâ]Confusing to my misty brain.
Does anyone remember the post or article about how grafting a rose that doesnât normally set seed onto a root of a rose that does set hips could influence the scion plant to set hips?
I thought this year about attempting to graft Persian Yellow onto something else in an attempt to get it to set hips.[/quote]
There are cases.
J. H. Nicolas (1927) wrote:
âHave the soil and original method of propagation a direct relation to the fertility or sterility of a plant? We have long noted here that grafted plants of R. Hugonis, for example, will profusely bear seeds, while plants grown from cuttings are very scant seed bearers, almost approaching sterility. Paulâs Scarlet Climber as an own root plant may be considered as sterile, but a grafted plant will bear both self- and hand-pollinated seeds. I have also noted that plants of the same variety in different parts of the nursery have a different seed bearing capacity, although both receive the same amount of sunshine. As an instance, R. bracteata and R. Altaica at one location are practically sterile, while a short distance away, but in a different soil, nearly every bloom, either hand- or self-pollinated, sets fruit.â
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/Nicolas_sterility.html
To the contrary, Van Fleet (1919) found that R. moyesii was better ungrafted:
âOwing to its poor seeding abilities when grown as grafted plants on heavy soil, less progress has been made than was hoped for with R. Moyesii, notable among wild roses for the deep red coloring and waxy texture of its widely expanded blooms. Now that our plants have been transferred to the sandy loam of Bell Experiment Plot, and have become established on their own roots, seeds are more freely borne, and a fair number of hybrids are under way. Pollen was plentifully produced, even when the fruits failed to mature, and a few early crosses, the result of applying it to the stigmas of other species and varieties, have sufficiently developed to show prospective value.â
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Roses/breeding/VanFleet/VanFleet1919.html
Schoener pollinated 5000 blossoms of Rosa nutkana by âPaul Neyronâ but did not get a single hip. But with Nutkana grafted to âPaul Neyronâ, he succeeded a little better, and was able to raise âShoenerâs Nutkanaâ, which Nicolas used to breed âLeonard Barronâ, a Hybrid Tea-like variety with 7 inch blooms.
Karl K
In addition to RNA interference (RNAi), there are some fairly recent reports that messenger RNA (mRNA) can pass into the vascular system and be exchanged between parasites and hosts.
Cross-Species Translocation of mRNA from Host Plants into the Parasitic Plant Dodder
This being the case, we must expect a similar transfer between stock and scion.
Thus, a gene present in one part of the of a grafted specimen can be âexpressedâ (i.e., the corresponding protein be synthesized) in the other part.
Whether by RNAi or mRNA, certain âstress genesâ in the âGalaâ apple were activated when this variety was grafted onto a specific rootstock. The grafted trees became resistant to fire blight, though the variety is usually susceptible.
Rootstock effects on gene expression patterns in apple tree scions. 2003
The reciprocal influence between stock and scion has long been known, though not understood until recently. In a letter dated March 18, 1930, William Prince of Flushing, NY wrote:
âI have now to state to you what I have never met with in any author, that the graft has an influence on the stock and root of the tree. The cherry tree when the thermometer in hard winters falls much below zero, is frequently killed by the severity of the frost. I had some years ago, 1821, a number of cherry trees killed, but the Weeping cherry, a native of Siberia, although budded some height from the ground, remained uninjured; this led me more minutely to examine their roots, and I found invariably, that the roots of all the weeping cherries differed from the roots of other cherry trees, although the stock was the same; the roots of the trees grafted or budded with the weeping cherry being much fuller of fine spreading fibres, and rooting much stronger. Mentioning this fact to a man who keeps a small apple nursery in this place, and on whose veracity I could depend, he told me that the graft of the Siberian crab apple trees, although grafted two feet from the ground, affected the roots, and caused them to become so wiry and hard, and so full of these fine tough fibrous roots, and that they were very different from the roots of other apple trees.â
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/PrinceGrafts1832.html
I have read of only one case of this influence of scion on stock in roses. Michurin crossed Kazenlik x Persian Yellow.
âSeveral strains of roses were grafted on a bed of wildlings of the Rosa canina. Among them was a new Rosa lutea hybrid which I bred. Three years after the grafting all the roses from this bed were dug up for transplantation, and it turned out that, with few exceptions, all the specimens of the grafted Rosa lutea [hybrid] had absolutely smooth roots, without any branchings and fibrils as is usually the case with the Rosa lutea on its own roots. At the same time all the grafts of the other strains had a well-branched and fibrillous root system. Of course, such an example of particularly strong influence of a scion on a stock is an exception. Nevertheless, it is a fact, and horticulturists must bear this phenomenon in mind. Even though it may manifest itself in other plants in a lesser degree, but manifest itself it will all the same.â
This influence of scion on root growth of the stock is not universal. In apples it usually occurs, but there are exceptions. Some roots have an âindividualityâ that lets them keep their own growth habit. These selections have sometimes been used as interstocks to block the scion/stock interaction. Pears are often not so cooperative.
In the case discussed by Michurin, we may wonder how a hybrid could influence the root growth habit of the Canina seedlings, but fail to do so with its own roots. It may be that Kazenlik resists the influence, and passed along its resistance to the hybrids.
It would certainly be useful to study this phenomenon more broadly among roses.
For instance, in the late 19th century Profs. Budd and Hansen crossed the very hardy and drought-resistant Russian Rugosa with various garden roses. Among these, âGeneral Jacqueminotâ was the most successful pollen-parent. Some interesting hybrids were raised, but subsequent reports indicated that the hardiness and drought resistance of the Rugosa were not fully expressed.
I wonder whether it might be possible to enhance this drought resistance by budding or grafting a mature form of Russian Rugosa (R. rugosa rubra, Germanica, Hansa) onto the seedlings. If the root habit of the Rugosa is impressed on the seedlings, the modified habit may become âfixedâ (as occurs in apples) and perpetuated by root cuttings. These cuttings could then be left to develop canes of their own.
It would be helpful to learn in advance whether self-seedlings of âGeneral Jacqueminotâ, or other prospective pollen parents, could be influenced by being top-grafted with one of these Rugosas.
Karl
1 Like
He also raised Nutneyron, which further led to Ernie Pyle and Pink Glory. 'Nutneyron' Rose
There were also studies done on petunias, where it was found that grafting onto male-sterile rootstock would render the plant male-sterile, and permanently so, i.e., if cuttings were taken from it, they would be male-sterile. If used as mother plants, they could confer male sterility to their descendants. The author remarked how the trait moved around much as a virus would.
Although Iâd rather not think about how many confusing and sometimes harmful clonal variations grafts may have produced in the past, I do think thereâs a lot of potential benefit to explore. Using it to fight viral infections is the most obvious, since retroactively giving such resistance to existing perennial cultivars (as with Gala apples) may be the only way to save them in the long run. Genetically engineered rootstock might do the trick, but I donât see it happening (for roses) any time soon.
Meanwhile, Iâm thinking about trying new roses on various stocks, to see if I can notice any useful changes that might be induced. If something more pleasant than male sterility can be passed between plants in an almost viral fashion â especially if itâs a trait from a plant I canât breed or donât want to breed with â Iâd like to give it to my roses before calling them finished.
1 Like
Lucien Daniel, a French scientist, did some of the early work aimed specifically at learning what kinds of modifications could be transmitted and inherited.
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Daniel/DanielBiblio.html
Frankel: Graft-induced cytoplasmic sterlity in Petunia (1956)
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Frankel56/Frankel56.html
And hereâs one that may be of particular value:
Botanical Gazette 82: 438-442 (1926)
LEGUME INOCULATION AS INFLUENCED BY STOCK AND SCION
THOMAS E. RICHMOND
http://bulbnrose.x10.mx/Heredity/Bacteria/RichmondBeans1926/RichmondBeans1926.html
There are a few members of the Rosaceae that form symbiotic associations with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, in case someone wants to try some intergeneric grafting.
Subfamily Dryadoideae: Fruits are achenes with hairy styles, and includes five genera (Dryas, Cercocarpus, Chamaebatia, Cowania, and Purshia), most species of which form root nodules which host the nitrogen-fixing bacteria Frankia spp.
Karl
âThere are a few members of the Rosaceae that form symbiotic associations with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, in case someone wants to try some intergeneric grafting.â
Sure! Might as well see what other types of viruses and virus-like pathogens we can introduce into Rosa.
[quote=âroseseekâ]âThere are a few members of the Rosaceae that form symbiotic associations with nitrogen-fixing bacteria, in case someone wants to try some intergeneric grafting.â
Sure! Might as well see what other types of viruses and virus-like pathogens we can introduce into Rosa.[/quote]
A self-feeding rose would be nice.
Peter
Iâm working on increasing the natural levels of die-back to be marketed as the âself pruningâ series. I already have several seedlings which refuse to flower. Those are my âNever needs dead-headingâ line.
Iâm sure your self-pruning cultivars will be a cut below their competition. Among older growers with aching backs and hips the âNo Deadheadsâ line will be gratefully received. You may start a revolution.
The very interesting things that Karl and Hardy have referred to above (what this thread is about) make it seem that we canât really be sure that the traits of our seedlings are entirely the result of the combination of fixed traits. It might be simpler, but the genetic transmission of traits seems to be pretty sloppy, and the influence of various environmental conditions makes it even tougher in some ways. Still, the influences probably work for us as much as they work against us, and we should be grateful for whatever help we get.
Peter
The possibility of convincing roses to tolerate nitrogen-fixing bacteria is very slight. Even if it could be done, I fear that some fool would start with the Japanese form of R. multiflora. Then that pesky beauty could compete with Kudzu, the vine that ate the South.
Frankel succeeded in transferring cytoplasmic male sterility from a male-sterile clone to the seeds of âRosy Mornâ.
C. M. Rick (1959) reported that he had tried the same petunia clone in an effort to raise male-sterile tomatoes.
It didnât work. Whatever was being transmitted in the petunias was either blocked or ignored in the tomato.
Karl
Iâd be happy to know what we could do with roses alone. Iâd love to be able to (for example) sneak a little healthy setigera goodness into some plants without making them dioecious.
The first specimen of R. setigera I saw (at K-State, many years ago) was a bit rusty. But that was in Kansas, where the âwhite prairie roseâ was a little beyond its preferred range. In Tennessee it seems much happier and healthier.
Iâm still puzzled by the distinction between the two races, one was formerly known as R. rubifolia. There is supposed to be a difference in the leaves, rubifolia having leaves that resemble Rubus more than Rosa. In fact, when I first noticed the one on the K-State campus, I thought it was a Rubus of some kind. But those in TN are not like that.
Anyway, one of the races ranges further south, while the other ranges further north. I read a couple of old descriptions that did not clarify the matter.
Would dioecious-ness be an advantage if one were breeding for âPark Rosesâ that didnât need so much dead-heading? Keep the âfemaleâ specimens for breeding; distribute the âmalesâ for planting in public gardens.
Karl