Genotype specificity of the somatic embryogenesis response in cotton
Received: 14 December 1988 Revised: 08 April 1989 DOI:
10.1007/BF00716824 Cite this article as: Trolinder, N.L. & Xhixian, C. Plant Cell Reports (1989) 8: 133. doi:10.1007/BF00716824 Summary
Thirty eight cultivars, strains, and races of
Gossypium were screened for somatic embryogenesis with the protocols developed as a model for G. hirsutum L. cv. Coker 312. Four classes of response were identified; high, moderate, low, and non-embryogenic. Four cultivars were further screened with 13 growth regulator regimes to determine if culture environment could change the classification or induce a higher level of response. The classification or level of response did not change. Screening of individual seedlings within a cultivar indicated that genotypic variation for embryogenesis existed. Highly embryogenic individuals were selected from cvs. Coker 312 and Paymaster 303 for use as germplasm sources for transfer of the embryogenic trait to other cultivars and genetic stocks. Only genetically responsive genotypes are amenable to the model developed for Coker 312. Key words Cotton somatic embryogenesis cultivar Abbreviations 2,4-D
2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (Carolina Biological)
6-(2-iso-pentenyl) adenine (Sigma) NAA
A-naphthaleneacetic acid (Sigma)
Index of embryogenesis
Communicated by J. M. Widholm
Chen Z, Tony HH, Morowitch J (1987a) Screening of
Regeneration. J Plant Physiol 128:271–277.
Chen Z, Zhixian L, Trolinder NL, Goodin JR (1987b) Some Characteristics of Somatic Embryogenesis and Plant Regeneration in Cotton Cell Suspension Culture. Scientia Agricultura Sinica 20(5):6–11.
Davidonis GH, Hamilton RH (1983) Plant Regeneration from Callus Tissue of
L. Plant Sci 32:89–93.
Felsenburg T, Feldman M, Galun E (1987) Aneuploid and alloplasmic lines as tools for the study of nuclear and cytoplasmic control of culture ability and regeneration of scutellar calli from common wheat. Theor Appl Genet 74:802–810.
Koornneef M, Hanart C, Jorgsma M, Toma I, Weide R, Zabel P, Hille J (1986) Breeding of Tomato Genotype Readily Accessible to Genetic Manipulation. Plant Sci 45:201–208.
Powell W, Caligari PDS (1987) The
genetics of barley (
L.): detection and analysis of reciprocal differences for culture response to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Heredity 59:293–299.
Shoemaker RC, Couche LJ, Galbraith DW (1986) Characterization of somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration in cotton. Plant Cell Rep 3:178–181.
Tomes DL (1985) Revlevance to Agriculture in the Eighties. In: Zaitlin M, Day P, Hollandew (eds) Biotechnology in Plant Science. Academic Press, Inc. N.Y. pp. 3–14.
Trolinder NL, Goodin JR (1987) Somatic Embryogenesis and Plant Regeneration in
L. Plant Cell Rep 6:231–234.
Trolinder NL, Goodin JR (1988a) Somatic Embryogenesis in Cotton
: I. Effects of Source of Explant and Hormone Regime. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 12:31–42.
Trolinder NL, Goodin JR (1988b) Somatic Embryogenesis in Cotton (Gossypium): II. Requirements for Embryo Development and Plant Regeneration. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 12:43–53.
Umbeck P, Johnson G, Barton K, Swain W (1987) Genetically transformed cotton (
L.) plants. Biotech 5:263–266.