Comparison of Direct and Indirect Regeneration Methods in Producing Leaf Buds in Sugar Beet

Document Type : research

Authors

1 M.Sc. Student of Plant Breeding, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University, Khorramabad

2 Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy and Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Lorestan University, Khorramabad

Abstract

Sugar beet is an industrial important crop plant in Iran and the rest of the world. Leaf buds emerging on leaves are the most important explants used in the transformation of sugar beet. In order to study the production of leaf buds by direct and indirect organogenesis in sugar beet, an experiment was carried out as factorial in a randomized complete design with four replications. In direct regeneration method, Benzyl adenine (BA, 0.5 mgL-1) and Naphthalene Acetic Acid (NAA, 0.5 mgL-1), and in indirect method 2-4-D (0.5 mgL-1) and kinetin (Kin, 0.5 mgL-1) along with two sugar beet lines (SBSI-04 and SBSI-02), three types of leaf explants, including terminal bud, leaf and petiole, were used. Analysis of variance (Anova) showed that SBSI-02 line produced the highest rate of regeneration. Furthermore, the effect of explant type, line and regeneration method on plantlet regeneration was significant (P ≤ 0.01). Regeneration efficiency was also influenced by the line× explants interaction (P ≤ 0.01). The results of this experiment showed that although the regeneration method had a significant effect on the efficiency of regeneration, but there was no significant difference between direct and indirect regeneration methods.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Alt-Mörbe, J., Kühlmann, H. and Schröder, J. 1989. Differences in induction of Ti plasmid virulence genes virG and virD, and continued control of virD expression by four external factors. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interaction, 2: 301-308.
Bekheet, S. A. and Solliman, M. E. 2007. An efficient transformation system for sugar beet mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Journal of Food Agriculture and Environment, 5: 193-14.
Bidney, D., Scelong, C., Martich, J., Burus, M., Sims, L. and Huffman, G. 1992. Microprojectile bombardment of plant tissue increased transformation frequency of Agrobacterium tumefacens. Plant Molecular Biology, 18: 301-313.
Brears, T., Curtis, G. and Lonsdale, D. M. 1989. A specific rearrangement of mitochondrial DNA induced by tissue culture. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 77: 620-624.
Connor-Ward, D. and Hinchee, A. 2001. Sugar beet regeneration and transformation. Patent No WO 0142480.
Cooke, D. A. and Scott, R. K. 1993. The Sugar Beet Crop. Science into Practice: Chapman and Hall. 675 pp.
Ehlers, U., Commandeur, U. and Frank, R. 1991. Cloning of the coat protein gene from beet necrotic yellow vien virus and its expression in sugar beet hairy roots. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 71: 777-782.
Hiei, Y., Komari, T. and Kubo, T. 1997. Transformation of rice mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Molecular Biology, 35: 205-218.
Hisano, H., Kimoto, Y., Hayakawa, H., Takeichi, J., Domae, T., Hashimoto, R., Abe, J., Asano, S., Kanazawa, A. and Shimamoto, Y. 2004. High frequency Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and plant regeneration via direct shoot formation from leaf explants in Beta vulgaris and Beta maritima. Plant Cell Reports, 22: 910-918.
Hoekema, A., Hirsch, P. R., Hooykaa, P. J. and Schilperpoort, R. A. 1993. Binary plant vector strategy based on separation of vir-and t-region of the Agrobacterium tumefaciens Ti-plsmid. Nature, 303: 179-180.
Ivic-Haymes, S. D. and Smigocki, A. C. 2005. Biolistic transformation of highly regenerative sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) leaves. Plant Cell Reports, 23: 699-704.
Ivic, S., Sicher, R. and Smigocki, A. 2001. Growth habit and sugar accumulation in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) Transformed with a cytokinin biosynthesis gene. Plant Cell Reports, 20: 770-773.
Jacq, B., Lesobre, O., Sangwan, R. S. and Sangwan-Norreel, B. S. 1993. Factors influencing T-DNA transfer in Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of sugar beet. Plant Cell Reports, 12: 621-624.
Joersbo, M., Donaldson, I., Kreiberg, J., Petersen, S. G., Brunstedt, J. and Okkels, F. T. 1998. Analysis of mannose selection used for transformation of sugar beet. Molecular Breeding, 4: 111-117.
Khademi, M. and Nazarian-Firouzabadi, F. 2013. The influence of two types of hormones (BA and NAA) on appearance of shoot base explants in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Agricultural Biotechnology, 12: 47-52.
Klee, H. 2000. A guide to Agrobacterium binary Ti vectors. Trends in Plant Science, 5: 446-451.
Komari, T., Hiei, Y., Saito, H., Murai, N. and Kumashiro, T. 1996. Vector caring two separate T-DNA for co-transformation of higher plant mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens and segregation of transformation free from selective marker. Plant Journal, 10: 165-174.
Krens, F. and Jamar, D. 1989. The role of explant source and culture conditions on callus induction and shoot regeneration in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Journal of Plant Physiology, 134: 651-655.
Krens, F. A., Trifonova, A., Paul Keizer, L. and Hall, R. D. 1996. The effect of exogenously-applied phytohormones on gene transfer efficiency in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Plant Science, 116: 97-106.
Lindsey, K. and Gallois, P. 1990. Transformation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Journal of Experimental Botany, 41: 529-536.
Mezei, S., Kovacev, L. and Nagl, N. 2006. Sugar beet micropropagation. Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment, 20: 9-11.
Mishutkina, Y. V. and Gaponenko, A. K. 2006. Morphogenesis in vitro: Effects of phytohormone type and concentration in the culture medium, type of explants, and plant genotype on shoot regeneration frequency. Russian Journal of Genetika, 42: 210-218.
Mirzaie Asl, A., Moieni, A., Salmanian, A. H. and Jalali Javaran, M. 2009. Effects of hormonal pretreatments and genotype on in vitro induction of direct adventitious shoots on sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) leaves. Iranian Journal of Biology, 22: 719-429. 
Murashing, T. and Skoog, F. 1962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assay with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiology Plantarum, 15: 473-497.
Nauerby, B., Billing, K. and Wyndaele, R. 1997. Influence of the antibiotic timentin on plant regeneration compared to carbenicillin and cefotaxime in concentrations suitable for elimination of agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Science, 123: 169-177.
Nissen, D. 1989. Mstatc Users Guide. Michigan State University, 115 pp.
Norouzi, P., Malboobi, M. A., Zamani, K. and Yazdi-Samadi, H. 2005. Using a competent tissue for efficient transformation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). In vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology Plant, 41: 11-16.
Saunders, J. and Shin, K. 1986. Germplasm and physiologic effects on induction of high frequency hormone autonomous callus and subsequent shoot regeneration in sugar beet. Crop Science, 26: 1240-1245.
Snyder, G., Ingersoll, J., Smigocki, A. and Owens, L. 1999. Introduction of pathogen defense genes and a cytokinin biosynthesis gene into sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) by Agrobacterium or particle bombardment. Plant Cell Reports, 18: 829-834.
Wozniak, C. A. and Owens, L. D. 1994. Native β-glucuronidase activity in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris). Physiologia Plantarum, 90: 763-771.
Yazdi Samadi, B., Rezaei, A. and Valyzadeh, M. 2008. Statistical Designs in Agricultural Research (6th Ed). University of Tehran press, 764 pp.
Zhang, C., Chen, D., McCormac, A., Scott, N., Elliott, M. and Slater, A. 2001. Use of the gfp reporter as a vital marker for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Molecular Biotechnology, 17: 109-117.
Volume 7, Issue 1
June 2016
Pages 87-92

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics