Plant Regeneration System Optimization of Ramie Somatic Cells

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb19010025

Abstract

Abstract:

This experiment aims at exploring the optimization scheme of plant regeneration system of ramie somatic cell and provide theoretical and technical basis for tissue culture and variety improvement of ramie. In this experiment, ‘Xiangzhu 3’ was used as the test material to optimize the plant regeneration system of ramie callus induction, and then the optimized regeneration system was applied to the other four germplasms of materials, and the callus induction rate, the bud induction rate and the regenerated seedling rooting rate of the five germplasms were obtained. Differences of plant regeneration rates of somatic cells were compared among different genotypes. The results showed that the optimum callus induction medium for ‘Xiangzhu 3’ was MS medium supplemented with 2,4-D (0.1 mg/L) and 6-BA (2.5 mg/L); the callus induction rate of ‘Xiangzhu 3’, ‘Xianfeng Dayelv’, ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘Zhongzhu 1’ was 83.3%, 80.0%, 76.7%, 70.0% and 53.3%, respectively. The optimum bud induction medium for ‘Xiangzhu 3’ was 1/2MS medium supplemented with TDZ (0.5 mg/L), 2,4-D (0.02 mg/L) and IAA (0.03 mg/L); the bud induction rate of ‘Xiangzhu 3’, ‘Xianfeng Dayelv’, ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘Zhongzhu 1’ was 28.4%, 21.2%, 12.8%, 8.9% and 4.9%, respectively. The optimum rooting medium of ‘Xiangzhu 3’ was MS medium supplemented with TDZ (0.02 mg/L) + NAA (0.05 mg/L) + IAA (0.02 mg/L). The rooting rate of ‘Xiangzhu 3’, ‘Xianfeng Dayelv’, ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘Zhongzhu 1’ were all 100%.

Key words: ramie, somatic cell, tissue culture, callus, plant regeneration

CLC Number:

S563.1

He Pengliang, Jiang Meiyan, Deng Shuqiong, Wu Xudong, Jie Yucheng, Xing Hucheng. Plant Regeneration System Optimization of Ramie Somatic Cells[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2020, 36(12): 104-110.

Figures/Tables 4

References 42

[1]	汪波, 彭定祥 . 苎麻组织培养及遗传转化研究进展[J]. 中国麻业科学, 2007,29(1):9-15.
[2]	孔华, 郭安平, 章霄云 , 等. 苎麻遗传转化再生体系的建立[J]. 分子植物育种, 2006,4(2):233-237.
[3]	秦红霞, 刘鑫 . 苎麻组织培养研究进展[J]. 江西棉花, 2007,29(6):6-9.
[4]	伍旭东, 揭雨成, 徐庆国 . 苎麻再生体系的建立及转基因研究进展[J]. 作物研究, 2007,21(S1):685-689.
[5]	伍旭东, 邢虎成, 揭雨成 , 等. 苎麻叶片组织培养再生植株的研究[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009,25(23):86-89.
[6]	易自力, 李祥, 蒋建雄 , 等. 苎麻再生体系的建立及抗虫转基因苎麻的获得[J]. 中国麻业, 2006,28(2):61-66.
[7]	曹雅琴, 刘峰, 陈建荣 , 等. 苎麻叶片高效再生体系的建立[J]. 湖南农业大学学报:自然科学版, 2009,35(2):116-122.
[8]	曹雅琴 . 苎麻高效再生体系的建立及相关生理指标的研究[D]. 长沙:湖南农业大学, 2009.
[9]	郭运玲, 郭安平, 刘恩平 , 等. 苎麻茎尖的组织培养及其诱导植株的再生[J]. 热带作物学报, 2006,27(1):73-76.
[10]	王晓玲, 彭定祥 . 不同基因型对苎麻愈伤组织诱导及分化的影响[J]. 长江大学学报:自然科学版, 2005,2(8):64-66.
[11]	潘昌立, 李树川, 李育君 . 苎麻体细胞植株再生及其影响因素的研究[J]. 中国麻作, 1995,17(1):1-6.
[12]	胡凌红, 李同建, 韩兴杰 , 等. 苎麻品种“赣苎3号”下胚轴愈伤组织诱导及分化的研究[J]. 南方林业科学, 2015(1):4-7.
[13]	Sgarbi E, Fornasiero R B, Lins A P , et al. Phenol metabolism is differentially affected by ozone in two cell lines from grape(Vitis vinifera L.) leaf[J]. Plant science: An International Journal of Experimental Plant Biology, 2003(5):951-957.
[14]	韩琳, 佟珊珊, 崔喜艳 . 植物组织培养的三大难题及解决方法[J]. 吉林农业, 2012(11):142-143.
[15]	符真珠, 杜君, 何松林 , 等. 酚类物质与牡丹试管苗褐变关系的初步分析[J]. 核农学报, 2016,30(01):201-207.
[16]	江昌俊, 余有本 . 苯丙氨酸解氨酶的研究进展[J]. 安徽农业大学学报, 2001,28(4):425-430.
[17]	Beckman C H . Phenolic-storing cells:keys to programmed cell death and peridermformation in wilt disease resistance and in general defence responses inplants?[J]. Physiological and Molecular Plan-t Pathology, 2000(3):101-110.
[18]	Lankkanen H, Kontunen-soppela S, Hohtola A , et al. Tissue browning of in vitro cultures of scots pine:role of peroxidase and polyphenol oxidase[J]. Physiologia Plantarum, 1999(3):337-343.
[19]	Badiani M, De Biasi M G, Felici M . Soluble peroxidase from winter wheat seedlings with phenoloxidase-Like activity[J]. Plant Physi-ology., 1990(2):489-494. doi: 10.1104/pp.93.2.489 URL pmid: 16667493
[20]	Henriksen A, Smith T, Gajihede M . The structures of the horseradish peroxidase C-Ferulic acid complex and the ternary complex with cyanide suggest how peroxidases oxidize small phenolic substrates[J]. The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1999,274:35005. doi: 10.1074/jbc.274.49.35005 URL pmid: 10574977
[21]	Peiser G, Lopez Galvez G, Cantwell M , et al. Phenylalanine ammonialyase inhibitors control browning of cut lettuce[J]. Postharvest biology and technology, 1998(2):171-177.
[22]	姚洪军, 罗晓芳, 田砚亭 . 植物组织培养外植体褐变的研究进展[J]. 北京林业大学学报, 1999,21(3):78-84.
[23]	王关林, 方宏筠, 胡风庆 , 等. 东北矮紫杉组织、细胞培养及其紫杉醇生成的研究[J]. 中国农业科学, 2001,34(4):373-378.
[24]	刘兰英 . ‘薄壳香’核桃组培中的褐化及防止措施研究[J]. 园艺学报, 2002,29(2):171-172.
[25]	张明文, 陈力耕 . 银杏组织培养中控制褐化的研究[J]. 中国南方果树, 2003,32(3):51-52.
[26]	杨博, 韩振海, 张永 , 等. 不同光照强度对玫瑰组织培养中初代培养物褐化的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2003,19(6):194-196.
[27]	Das S, Jha S, Jha T B . In vitro propagation of cashewnut[J]. Plant Cell Reports, 1996(8):615-619. doi: 10.1007/BF00232464 URL pmid: 24178529
[28]	付凤玲, 李晚忱, 刘玉贞 . 桑树茎尖培养外植体褐化的防止[J]. 中国蚕业, 2001(1):10.
[29]	吴晓玲, 胡海英, 邓光存 , 等. 黄芩愈伤组织诱导条件的研究[J]. 生物技术, 2005,15(2):77-79.
[30]	潘刚, 魏泽兰, 石淑稳 , 等. 预处理对冬油菜遗传转化外植体褐化的影响[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2004,26(2):81-83.
[31]	郎玉涛, 罗晓芳 . 牡丹愈伤组织的诱导及愈伤褐化抑制的研究[J]. 河南林业科技, 2007,27(1):4-6,29.
[32]	李世君 . 芜菁油菜叶肉原生质体再生植株[J]. 浙江农业大学学报, 1995(1):47.
[33]	Duan J X, Chen H, Yazawa S . In vitro propagation of phalaenopsis via culture of cytokinin-Induced nodes[J]. Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 1996(3):133-137.
[34]	Robert Ernst . Effects of thidiazuron on in vitro propagation of phalaenopsis and doritaenopsis (Orchidaceae)[J]. Plant Cell, Tissue & Organ Culture, 1994(3):273-275.
[35]	郑丽屏, 王玲, 李宗菊 . 蝴蝶兰的组织培养快速繁殖技术[J]. 资源开发与市场, 1998(1):11.
[36]	郭维明, 赵云鹏, 文方德 . 花烛愈伤组织不同继代培养的再分化差异[J]. 园艺学报, 2004,31(1):69-72.
[37]	杨涛, 陈德海, 吴荔萍 . 安祖花组织培养及其细胞和叶绿体发育过程的电镜观察[J]. 亚热带植物通讯, 1998,27(1):1-7.
[38]	刘瑛, 黄小英, 赖小萍 , 等. 苎麻组织培养再生植株主要影响因素的研究[J]. 江西农业学报, 2002,14(1):11-15.
[39]	Li X Q, Krasnyanski S F, Korban S S . Somatic embryogenesis, secondary somatic embryogenesis, and shoot organogenesis in rosa[J]. Journal of Plant Physiology, 2002(3):313-319. URL pmid: 6293435
[40]	崔德才, 徐培文 . 植物组织培养与工厂化育苗[M]. 北京: 化学工业出版社, 2003.
[41]	桂耀林, 马诚 . 植物组织培养[M]. 北京: 科学出版社, 1985.
[42]	黄学林, 徐九龙, 高东微 , 等. MGBG对苜蓿愈伤组织生长、体细胞胚胎诱导及其乙烯生物合成的影响[J]. 植物学报, 1998(7):635.

编号	2,4-D/(mg/L)	6-BA/(mg/L)	接种数	诱导数	愈伤诱导率/%	愈伤生长量	愈伤质量	颜色和形状
C1	0.1	1.5	30	21	70.0	++	+++	淡绿,米粒状
C2	0.1	2.5	30	25	83.3	+++	+++	淡绿,米粒状
C3	0.1	3.5	30	22	73.3	++	+++	淡绿,小突起
C4	0.2	1.5	30	24	80.0	++	+++	淡黄绿,米粒状
C5	0.2	2.5	30	22	73.3	++	++	淡黄绿,小突起
C6	0.2	3.5	30	23	76.7	++	++	淡黄绿,米粒状
C7	0.3	1.5	30	18	60.0	++	+	淡黄褐,较疏松
C8	0.3	2.5	30	17	56.7	++	+	淡黄褐,较疏松
C9	0.3	3.5	30	19	63.3	+	++	淡黄褐,较疏松

编号	2,4-D/(mg/L)	6-BA/(mg/L)	接种数	诱导数	愈伤诱导率/%	愈伤生长量	愈伤质量	颜色和形状
C1	0.1	1.5	30	21	70.0	++	+++	淡绿,米粒状
C2	0.1	2.5	30	25	83.3	+++	+++	淡绿,米粒状
C3	0.1	3.5	30	22	73.3	++	+++	淡绿,小突起
C4	0.2	1.5	30	24	80.0	++	+++	淡黄绿,米粒状
C5	0.2	2.5	30	22	73.3	++	++	淡黄绿,小突起
C6	0.2	3.5	30	23	76.7	++	++	淡黄绿,米粒状
C7	0.3	1.5	30	18	60.0	++	+	淡黄褐,较疏松
C8	0.3	2.5	30	17	56.7	++	+	淡黄褐,较疏松
C9	0.3	3.5	30	19	63.3	+	++	淡黄褐,较疏松

种质	接种数	诱导数	愈伤诱导率	愈伤生长量	愈伤质量	颜色和形状
咸丰大叶绿	30	24	80.0%	+++	++	淡绿,小突起
品种A	30	23	76.7%	+	+	淡黄,米粒状
品种B	30	21	70.0%	+	+	淡黄,米粒状
中苎1号	30	16	53.3%	–	–	淡黄,有点褐化

种质	接种数	诱导数	愈伤诱导率	愈伤生长量	愈伤质量	颜色和形状
咸丰大叶绿	30	24	80.0%	+++	++	淡绿,小突起
品种A	30	23	76.7%	+	+	淡黄,米粒状
品种B	30	21	70.0%	+	+	淡黄,米粒状
中苎1号	30	16	53.3%	–	–	淡黄,有点褐化

种质	愈伤数	变褐数	芽诱导情况	芽诱导率/%
湘苎3号	67	8	长苗和芽	28.4
咸丰大叶绿	33	9	愈伤转白	21.2
A	39	17	愈伤转白	12.8
B	45	14	启动慢,有芽	8.9
中苎1号	41	16	启动慢,芽弱小	4.9