Table 2.
Source | Number of M2 plants phenotype | ||||
cpr1 | Intermediate | Wild-type | |||
Treatment | Phenotype in M1 | Family | |||
Experiment #1 | |||||
Mock3A | cpr1 | c1 | 99 | 0 | 0 |
Mock | cpr1 | c2 | 98 | 0 | 0 |
30 mM EMS | cpr1 | c3 | 66 | 9 | 0 |
30 mM EMS3B | cpr1 | c4 | 51 | 3 | 0 |
30 mM EMS3C | Chimeric | c5* | 42 | 0 | 43 |
30 mM EMS | Chimeric | c6 | 21 | 0 | 18 |
Experiment #2 | |||||
Treatment | |||||
Mock | cpr1 | c7 | 85 | 0 | 0 |
Mock | cpr1 | c8 | 96 | 0 | 0 |
30 mM EMS | cpr1 | c9 | 50 | 3 | 0 |
30 mM EMS | cpr1 | c10 | 28 | 0 | 0 |
30 mM EMS | Chimeric | c11 | 4 | 0 | 31 |
30 mM EMS | Chimeric | c12 | 31 | 0 | 74 |
Plants with slightly curled leaves that were wider than cpr1 were called intermediate in phenotypic categorization. Chimeric M1 plants were those that developed chimeric sectors of wild type-looking leaves and stems. 3A, 3B, and 3C: Lines for which representative M2 plants are shown in Figure 3A to 3C.
*: P < 0.05 by chi square test with expected ratio of 5:3 or 1:3 and degree of freedom = 1.