Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Both quantitative and qualitative immunochemical methods were used for studying the mutual relationships of several spocies and the subspecies of the genusPhaseolus: Ph. vulgaris L. ssp.vulgaris, Ph. vulgaris L. ssp.aborigineus Burk.,Ph. coccineus L.,Ph. acutifolius A. Gray,Ph. lunatus L. (American endemites) andPh. aureus L. (a typical Asian bean). Protein characters of cotyledons (i.e., „storage” proteins) of the above species were compared with the aid of antisera prepared against seed (cotyledon) proteins ofPh. vulgaris L. ssp.vulgaris, cv. Veltruská Saxa, using Our results are in agreement with the morphological and genetic data ofBurkart andBrücher on the close relationship betweenPh. vulgaris L. ssp.vulgaris andPh. vulgaris L. ssp.aborigineus (both contain a character designated asPh. vulgaris protein 1 which is lacking in the others, both contain an identical phaseolin and exhibit only negligible differences in the specificity of proteins). The closest to these two species isPh. coccineus (almost identical phaseolin, small differences in the albumin and globulin fractions, a greater quantitative difference in protein specificity).Ph. acutifolius contains a somewhat different phaseolin, exhibits greater deviations in the albumin and globulin fractions and a greater quantitative difference in protein specificity.Ph. lunatus andPh. aureus are quite different in all the above respects. These data are in good agreement with genetic data (crossability).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kloz et al. (1966) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: