@Plazbo; Thank you! This really seems an interesting publication. And the supplementary tables are great as well.
The supplementary table states clearly “RoKSN copia allele present” in column G and “RoKSN G181A allele present” in column F. The values of column F can be ‘copia’, ‘wt’, ‘ltr’ or a combination of these three. The paper states the following:
"Five genotypic profiles were observed at the RoKSN locus (Supplementary Table 1): homozygous for the wild allele RoKSN_WT (77 individuals) or for the RoKSN_copia allele (53 individuals), and heterozygous RoKSN_copia/RoKSN_LTR (five individuals), RoKSN_copia/RoKSN_WT (128 individuals), and RoKSN_copia/RoKSN_LTR/RoKSN_WT (one individual). […] Even if the rose collection presented different ploidy levels, the copy number of each allele (RoKSN_copia, RoKSN_LTR, and RoKSN_wt) was not determined given that they were scored as co-dominant (presence/absence) because of technical limitations’
The suppl.table.1 cleary states for Blush Noisette “RoKSN_copia, RoKSN_wt”. The rose tested here originated from Jardin botanique de la Tête d’Or de Lyon in France. But in the the paper Plazbo mentions above, from Kawamura et al. (2022), this rose, but now from the Gifu World Rose Garden in Japan, was tested as well, and they found the same results.
I agree this is definitely something that the scientific world will have to investigate on further. So hopefully more papers will follow to resolve this. I really think the whole theory about rebloom is in need for some new and refreshing ideas. Actually, the authors do state something simular:
“However, we observed lots of genotypes (96 out of 117) that were able to rebloom with different intensities (Supplemantary Table 1). These results suggest that the recessive hypothesis may be wrong. Other elements should be taken into account as: (1) other loci can interfere with the RoKSN locus as proposed, (2) other alleles can be present at the RoKSN locus which were not considered, as the RoKSN_null allele, (3) we should consider the dose of the allele in a polyploid context which is known to modify the expression of the phenotype as shown in Brassica for flowering date, and (4) we cannot exclude that the RoKSN_copia allele can interfere with the RoKSN_wt allele by modifying its expression as described for the paramutation where one allele (paramutagenic) can silence the other allele (paramutated) with a high variability in the penetrance and heribility. Further analyses should be necessary to verify these hypotheses.”
I regret it though that they only say this at the end of the paper, and did not already mention some of this information while discussing table 1. Maybe the authors didn’t want to elaborate too much on this table but they actually should have since these findings are really of huge importance.