Impact Factor 4.298

The 1st most cited journal in Plant Sciences

Original Research ARTICLE Provisionally accepted The full-text will be published soon. Notify me

Front. Plant Sci. | doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00228

Anther Morphological Development and Stage Determination in Triticum aestivum

  • 1Animal, Plant, and Soil Sciences, La Trobe University, Australia
  • 2Melbourne Polytechnic, Australia
  • 3Agriculture & Food, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), Australia

Anther development progresses through 15 distinct developmental stages in wheat, and accurate determination of anther developmental stages is essential in anther and pollen studies. A detailed outline of the development of the wheat anther through its entire developmental program, including the 15 distinct morphological stages, is presented. In bread wheat (Triticum aestivum), anther developmental stages were correlated with five measurements, namely auricle distance, spike length, spikelet length, anther length and anther width. Spike length and auricle distance were shown to be suitable for rapid anther staging within cultivars. Anther length is an accurate measurement in determining anther stages and may be applicable for use between cultivars.
Tapetal Programmed Cell Death (PCD) in wheat begins between late tetrad stage (stage 8) and the early young microspore stage (stage 9) of anther development. Tapetal PCD continues until the vacuolate pollen stage (stage 11), at which point the tapetum fully degrades. The timing of tapetal PCD initiation is slightly delayed compared to that in rice, but is two stages earlier than in the model dicot Arabidopsis. The MYB80 gene, which encodes a transcription factor regulating the timing of tapetal PCD, reaches its peak expression at the onset of tapetal PCD in wheat.

Keywords: anther, Apoptosis-like PCD, developmental staging, MYB80, tapetum, Triticum aestivum, tapetal programmed cell death, anther development

Received: 06 Oct 2017; Accepted: 08 Feb 2018.

Edited by:

Sergio J. Ochatt, INRA UMR1347 Agroécologie, France

Reviewed by:

Ki-Hong Jung, Kyung Hee University, South Korea
DANIEL K. TAN, University of Sydney, Australia
Danny Geelen, Ghent University, Belgium  

Copyright: © 2018 Browne, Iacuone, Li, Dolferus and Parish. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Prof. Roger W. Parish, La Trobe University, Animal, Plant, and Soil Sciences, AgriBio, Centre for AgriBiosciences, 5 Ring Road, Melbourne, 3083, Victoria, Australia, R.Parish@latrobe.edu.au