Euphytica

, Volume 85, Issue 1–3, pp 295–302 | Cite as

Somaclonal variation as a tool for crop improvement

  • Angela Karp
Article

Summary

Somaclonal variation is a tool that can be used by plant breeders. The review examines where this tool can be applied most effectively and the factors that limit or improve its chances of success. The main factors that influence the variation generated from tissue culture are (1) the degree of departure from organised growth, (2) the genotype, (3) growth regulators and (4) tissue source. Despite an increasing understanding of how these factors work it is still not possible to predict the outcome of a somaclonal breeding programme. New varieties have been produced by somaclonal variation, but in a large number of cases improved variants have not been selected because (1) the variation was all negative, (2) positive changes were also altered in negative ways, (3) the changes were not novel, or (4) the changes were not stable after selfing or crossing. Somaclonal variation is cheaper than other methods of genetic manipulation. At the present time, it is also more universally applicable and does not require ‘containment’ procedures. It has been most successful in crops with limited genetic systems and/or narrow genetic bases, where it can provide a rapid source of variability for crop improvement.

Key words

tissue culture somaclonal variation plant breeding 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baillie A.M.R., B.G. Rossnagel & K.K. Kartha, 1992. Field evaluation of barley (Hordeum vulgare) L. genotypes derived from tissue culture. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72: 725–733.Google Scholar
  2. Bebeli P., A. Karp & P.J. Kaltsikes, 1988. Plant regeneration from cultured immature embryos of sister lines of rye and triticale differing in their content of heterochromatin 1. Morphogenetic response. Theor. Appl. Genet. 75: 929–936.Google Scholar
  3. Bebeli P.J., P.J. Kaltsikes & A. Karp, 1993a. Field evaluation of somaclonal variation in triticale lines differing in telomeric heterochromatin. J. Genet. Breed. 47: 248–249.Google Scholar
  4. Bebeli P.J., P.J. Kaltsikes & A. Karp, 1993b. Field evaluation of somaclonal variation in rye lines differing in telomeric heterochromatin. J. Genetics and Breed. 47: 15–22.Google Scholar
  5. Benzion G. & R.L. Phillips, 1988. Cytogenetic stability of maize tissue cultures: a cell line pedigree analysis. Genome 30: 318–325.Google Scholar
  6. Breiman A., D. Rotem, A. Karp & H. Shaskin, 1987. Heritable somaclonal variation in wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum). Theor. Appl. Genet. 74: 104–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown P.T.H., 1989. DNA methylation in plants and its role in tissue culture. Genome 31: 717–729.Google Scholar
  8. Buiatti, M. & F. Gimelli, 1993. Somaclonal variation in ornamentals. Proc. XVIIth Eucarpia Symposium Creating Genetic Variation in Ornamentals.Google Scholar
  9. Bush S.R., E.D. Earle & R.W. Langhans, 1976. Plantlets from petal epiderims and shoot tips of the periclinal chimera Chrysanthemum moriloium ‘Indianapolis’. Amer. J. Bot 63: 729–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Compton M.E. & R.E. Veilleux, 1991. Variation for genetic recombination among tomato plants regenerated from three tissue culture systems. Genome 34: 810–817.Google Scholar
  11. Corley R.H.V., C.H. Lee, I.H. Law & C.Y. Wong, 1986. Abnormal flower development in oil palm clones. Planter 62: 233–240.Google Scholar
  12. Croughan, S.S., 1989. Forage crop improvement through biotechnology. Proc. XVI International Grassland Congress, Nice, France, p. 414–441. Cullis, C.A. & W. Cleary, 1986. DNA variation in flax tissue culture. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 28: 247–252.Google Scholar
  13. Dahleen L.S., D.D. Stutham & H.W. Rines, 1991. Agronomic trait variation in oat lines derived from tissue culture. Crop Sci. 31: 90–94.Google Scholar
  14. D'Amato F., 1985. Cytogenetics of plant cell and tissue cultures and their regenerates. CRC. Critical Reviews in Plant Science 3: 73–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. D'Amato F., 1989. Polyploidy in cell differentiation. Caryologia 42: 183–211.Google Scholar
  16. Davies L.J. & D. Cohen, 1992. Phenotypic variation in somaclones of Paspalum dilatatum and their seedling offspring. Can. J. Plant Sci. 72: 773–784.Google Scholar
  17. De Jong J. & J.B.M. Custers, 1986. Induced changes in growth and flowering of chrysanthemums after irradiation and in vitro culture of pedicels and petal epidermis. Euphytica 35: 137–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dhillon S.S., E.A. Wernsman & J.P. Miksche, 1983. Evaluation of nuclear DNA content and heterochromatin changes in antherderived dihaploids of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) cv. Coker 139. Can. J. Genet. Cytol. 25: 169–173.Google Scholar
  19. Dolezel J. & F.J. Novak, 1984. Effect of plant tissue culture media on the frequency of somatic mutations in Tradescantia stamen hairs. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 114: 51–58.Google Scholar
  20. Dolezel J., S. Lucretti & F.J. Novak, 1987. The influence of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid on cell cycle kinetics and sisterchromatid exchange frequency in garlic (Allium sativum) meristem cells. Biologia Plantarum (Prague) 29: 253–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Earle E.D., V.E. Gracen & M.E. Smith, 1988. Somaclonal variation in corn. p. 257–269. In: F. Valentine (Ed). Forest and Crop Biotechnology: Progress and prospects. Spinger-Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, New York.Google Scholar
  22. Eastman P.A.K., F.B. Webster, A. Pitel & D.R. Roberts, 1991. Evaluation of somaclonal variation during somatic embryogenesis of interior spruce (Picea gauca engelmanii complex) using culture morphology and isozyme analysis. Plant Cell Rep. 10: 425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Elzenga G.C., 1989. Melotic analysis of tall fescue somaclones. Genome 32: 373–379.Google Scholar
  24. Evans D.A. & W.R. Sharp, 1986. Applications of somaclonal variation. Biotechnology 4: 528–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fowke L.C., S.M. Attree, H. Wang & D.I. Dunstan, 1990. Microtubule organization and cell-division in embryogenic protoplast cultures of white spruce (Picea gauca). Protoplasma 158: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghosh A. & V.N. Gadgil, 1979. Shift in ploidy level of callus tissue: A function of growth substances. Indian J. Exp. Biol. 17: 562–564.Google Scholar
  27. Gill B.S., L.N.W. Kam-Morgan & J.F. Shepard, 1986. Origin of chromosomal and phenotypic variation in potato protoclones. J. Hered. 77: 13–16.Google Scholar
  28. Gould A.R., 1984. Control of the cell cycle in cultured plant cells. C.R.C. Critical Rev. Plant Sci. 1: 315–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Green G.E., 1977. Prospects for crop improvement in the field of cell culture. HortSci. 12: 7–10.Google Scholar
  30. Heinz D.J., 1973. Sugar-cane improvement through induced mutations using vegetative propagules and cell culture techniques. p. 53–59. In: Induced Mutations in Vegetatively Propagated Plants. Int. Atomic Energy Ageacy, Vienna.Google Scholar
  31. Isabel N., L. Tremblay, M. Michaud, F.M. Tremblay & J. Bousquet, 1993. RAPDs as an aid to evaluate the genetic integrity of somatic embryogenesis-derived populations of Picea mariana (Mill). B.S.P. Theor. Appl. Genet. 86: 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jackson, M.B., A.J. Abbott, A.R. Belcher & K.C. Hall, 1987. Gas exchange in plant tissue cultures. p. 61–72. In: M.B. Jackson, S.H. Mantell & J. Blake (Eds). Advances in the Chemical Manipulation of Plant Tissue Cultures. British Plant Growth Regulator Group. Monograph 16.Google Scholar
  33. James M.G. & J. Stadler, 1989. Molecular characterization of mutator systems in maize embryogenic callus cultures indicates mu element activity in vitro. Theor. Appl. Genet. 77: 383–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johnson S.S., R.L. Phillips & H.W. Rines, 1987. Meiotic behaviour in progeny of tissue culture regenerated oat plants (Avena sativa L.) carrying near-telocentric chromosomes. Genome 29: 431–438.Google Scholar
  35. Kaeppler S.M. & R.L. Phillips, 1993. DNA methylation and tissue culture-induced variation in plants. In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. 29: 125–130.Google Scholar
  36. Kaltsikes P.J. & P.J. Bebeli, 1993. Somaclonal variation causes changes in the inter-relationships between traits in hexaploid Triticale. Japan. J. Breed. 43: 45–51.Google Scholar
  37. Karp A., S.H. Steele, N.A. Breiman, P.R.S. Shewry, S. Parmar & M.G.K. Jones, 1987. Minimal variation in barley plants regenerated from cultured immature embryos. Genome 29: 405–412.Google Scholar
  38. Karp, A., 1991. On the current understanding of somaclonal variation. p. 1–58. In: B.J. Miflin (Ed). Oxford Surveys of Plant Molecular and Cell Biology, Vol. 7. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Karp, A., 1992. The role of growth regulators in somaclonal variation. British Society for Plant Growth Regulation Annual Bulletin No. 2. May 1992, p. 1–9.Google Scholar
  40. Karp A., P. Owen, S.H. Steele, P.J. Bebeli & P.J. Kaltsikes, 1992. Variation in telomeric heterochromatin in somaclones of rye. Genome 35: 590–593.Google Scholar
  41. Krishnamurthi M. & J. Tlaskal, 1974. Fiji disease resistant Saccharum officinarum var Pindar subclones from tissue cultures. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. 15: 130–137.Google Scholar
  42. Larkin P.J. & W.R. Scowcroft, 1981. Somaclonal variation—a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theor. Appl. Genet. 60: 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lee M. & R.L. Phillips, 1988. The chromosomal basis of somaclonal variation. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 39: 413–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Linacero R. & A.M. Vazquez, 1992. Cytogenetic variation in rye regenerated plants and their progeny. Genome 35: 428–430.Google Scholar
  45. Luckett D.J., D. Rose & E. Knights, 1989. Paucity of somaclonal variation from immature embryo culture of barley. Australian J. Agric. Res. 40: 1155–1159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Marcotrigiano M. & L. Jagannathan, 1988. Paulownia tomentosa cultivar somaclonal Snowstorm. HortSci. 23: 226–227.Google Scholar
  47. Martinez, R.O., M. Monzote, R.S. Herrera, R. Cruz & V. Torrez, 1989. Obtention of king grass (Pennisetum purpureum) clones from tissue culture selection and evaluation of mutants. Proc. XVI International Grassland Congress, Nice, France, 1989.Google Scholar
  48. Mathur A.K., P.S. Ahuja, B. Pandey, A.K. Kukreja & S. Mandal, 1988. Screening and evaluation of somaclonal variation for quantitative and qualitative traits in an aromatic grass, Cymbopogon winterianus Jowitt. Plant Breed. 101: 321–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Oono K., 1978. Test tube breeding of rice by tissue culture. Trop. Agric. Res. Series 11: 109–123.Google Scholar
  50. Osifo E.O., J.K. Webb & G.G. Henshaw, 1989. Variation amongst callus-derived plant of Solanum brevidens. J. Plant Physiol. 134: 1–4.Google Scholar
  51. Peschke V.M. & R.L. Phillips, 1991. Activation of the maize transposable element suppressor-mutator (Spm) in tissue culture. Theor. Appl. Genet. 81: 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peschke V.M., R.L. Phillips & B.G. Gengenbach, 1991. Genetic and molecular analysis of tissue culture-derived AC elements. Theor. Appl. Genet. 82: 121–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pickering R.A., 1989. Plant regeneration and variants from calli derived from immature embryos of diploid barley (Hordeum vulgare) and H. vulgare×H. bulbosum L. crosses. Theor. Appl. Genet. 78: 105–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Planckaert F. & V. Walbot, 1989. Molecular and genetic characterization of Mu transposable elements in Zea mays. Behaviour in callus culture and regenerated plants. Genetics 123: 567–578.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Puolimatka M. & A. Karp, 1993. Meiotic disturbances resulting from tissue culture of inbred and outbred rye. Heredity 71: 138–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Qureshi J.A., P. Hucl & K.K. Kartha, 1992. Is somaclonal variation a reliable tool for spring wheat improvement? Euphytica 60: 221–228.Google Scholar
  57. Ray I.M. & E.T. Bingham, 1991. Inheritance of a mutable phenotype that is activated in alfalfa tissue culture. Genome 34: 35–40.Google Scholar
  58. Reed S.M. & E.A. Wernsmann, 1989. DNA amplification among anther-derived doubled haploid lines of tobacco and its relationship to agronomic performance. Crop Sci. 29: 1072–1076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Ruíz M.L., M.I. Rueda, F.J. Peláez, M. Espino, M. Candela, A.M. Sendino & A.M. Vázquez, 1992. Somatic embryogenesis, plant regeneration and somaclonal variation in barley. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 28: 97–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Shepard J.F., D. Bidney & E. Shahin, 1980. Potato protoplasts in crop improvement. Science 208: 17–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sibi M., M. Biglary & Y. Demarly, 1984. Increase in the rate of recombinants in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) after in vitro regeneration. Theor. Appl. Genet. 68: 317–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Singsit C., R.E. Veilleux & S.B. Sterret, 1990. Enhanced seed set and crossover frequency in regenerated potato plants following anther and callus culture. Genome 33: 50–56.Google Scholar
  63. Skirvin R.M. & J. Janick, 1976. Tissue culture induced variation in scented Pelargonium spp. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 101: 281–290.Google Scholar
  64. Söndahl M.R. & A. Bragin, 1991. Somaclonal variation as a breeding tool for coffee improvement. ASIC, 14e Coooque, San Francisco, 701–710.Google Scholar
  65. Springen K., 1987. Improving on mother nature. Newsweek 26: 3.Google Scholar
  66. Stieve S.M., D.P. Stimart & B.S., 1992. Heritable tissue culture induced variation in Zinnia marylandica. Euphytica 64: 81–89.Google Scholar
  67. Varga A., L.H. Thomas & J. Bruinsma, 1988. Effects of auxins on epigenetic instability of callus-propagated Kalanchoe blossfeldiana Poelln. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 15: 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Vuylsteke D. & R. Swennen, 1990. Somaclonal variation in African plantains. IITA Res. Vol. 1: 4–10.Google Scholar
  69. Williams M.E., A.G. Hepburn & J.M. Widholm, 1991. Somaclonal variation in a maize inbred line is not associated with changes in the number or location Ac-homologous sequences. Theor. Appl. Genet. 81: 272–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Winfield M., M.R. Davey & A. Karp, 1993. A comparison of chromosome instability in cell suspensions of diploid, tetraploid and hexaploid wheats. Heredity 70: 187–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Angela Karp
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural SciencesUniversity of Bristol, Institute of Arable Crops Research, Long Ashton Research StationBristolU.K.

Personalised recommendations