Euphytica

, Volume 76, Issue 1–2, pp 101–106 | Cite as

Stability of bacterial leaf spot resistance in peach regenerants under in vitro, greenhouse and field conditions

  • F. A. Hammerschlag
  • D. J. Werner
  • D. F. Ritchie
Article

Summary

Phenotypic stability of bacterial leaf spot resistance in peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch) regenerants, either selected at the cellular level for insensitivity to a toxic culture filtrate of Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni or screened at the whole plant level for resistance to X. campestris pv. pruni, was investigated. A detached-leaf bioassay was used to evaluate the original regenerants again after three years in the greenhouse and also after a two to three year cycle of tissue culture propagation. Peach trees derived through micropropagation from the original regenerants were also evaluated after one to three years growth in the field. Although leaf spot resistance was retained in some regenerants over time in the greenhouse, following in vitro propagation, and under field conditions, resistance was either lost or not expressed in others. Regenerants # 19-1 and #156-6, derived from embryo callus of bacterial spot susceptible ‘Sunhigh’, were significantly more resistant than ‘Sunhigh’. High levels of resistance were exhibited in greenhouse plants and field-grown trees of regenerant #122-1, derived from embryo callus of moderately resistant ‘Redhaven’. This research provides additional evidence that selecting or screening for somaclonal variants with disease resistance is a feasible approach to obtaining peach trees with increased levels of bacterial spot resistance.

Key words

in vitro selection Prunus persica somaclonal variation Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni bacterial leaf spot of peach 

Abbreviations

TC

Tissue-Cultured

TF

Toxic culture Filtrate

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Behnke M., 1979. Selection of potato callus for resistance to culture filtrates of Phytophthora infestans and regeneration of resistant plants. Theor. Appl. Genet. 55: 69–71.Google Scholar
  2. Behnke M., 1980. General resistance to late blight of Solanum tuberosum plants regenerated form callus resistant to culture filtrates of Phytophthora infestans. Theor. Appl. Genet. 56: 151–152.Google Scholar
  3. Chaleff R.S., 1981. Genetics of Higher Plants. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  4. Daub M.E., 1986. Tissue culture and the selection of resistance to pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 24: 159–186.Google Scholar
  5. Hammerschlag F.A., 1982a. Factors affecting establishment and growth of peach shoot tips in vitro. HortScience 17: 85–86.Google Scholar
  6. Hammerschlag F.A., 1982b. Factors influencing in vitro multiplication and rooting of the plum rootstock Myrobalan (Prunus cerasifera Ehrh.). J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 107: 44–47.Google Scholar
  7. Hammerschlag F.A., 1984. In vitro approaches to disease resistance. In: G.B.Collins & J.G.Petolino (Eds.), Applications of Genetic Engineering to Crop Improvement, pp. 453–490. Martinus Nijhoff/Junk, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  8. Hammerschlag F.A., 1988. Selection of peach cells for insensitivity to culture filtrates of Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni and regeneration of resistant plants. Theor. Appl. Genet. 76: 865–869.Google Scholar
  9. Hammerschlag F.A., 1990. Resistance responses of plants regenerated from peach callus cultures to Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 115: 1034–1037.Google Scholar
  10. Hammerschlag F.A. G.Bauchan & R.Scorza, 1985. Regeneration of peach plants from callus derived from immature embryos. Theor. Appl. Genet. 70: 248–251.Google Scholar
  11. Hammerschlag F.A., G.Bauchan & R.Scorza, 1987. Factors influencing in vitro multiplication and rooting of peach cultivars. Plant Cell Tissue & Organ Culture 8: 235–242.Google Scholar
  12. Hartman C.L., T.J.McCoy & T.R.Knous, 1984. Selection of alfalfa (Medicago sativa) cell lines and regeneration of plants resistant to the toxin(s) produced by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. medicaginis. Plant Sci. Lett. 34: 183–194.Google Scholar
  13. Heath-Pagliuso S., J.Pullman & L.Rappaport, 1989. ‘UC-T3 somaclone’: Celery germplasm resistant to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. apii race 2. HortScience 24: 711–712.Google Scholar
  14. Krishnamurthi M. & J.Tlaskal, 1974. Fiji disease resistant Saccharum officinarum var. Pindar subclones from tissue cultures. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 15: 130–137.Google Scholar
  15. 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.Google Scholar
  16. Latunde-Dada A.O. & J.A.Lucas, 1988. Somaclonal variation and resistance to Verticilium wilt in lucerne, Medicago sativa L., plants regenerated from callus. Plant Science 58: 111–119.Google Scholar
  17. Lorz H., 1984. Variability in tissue culture derived plants. In: W.Arber (Ed.), Genetic Manipulation; Impact on Man and Society, pp. 103–114. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  18. Matthee F.N. & R.H.Daines, 1968. Effects of soil types and substrate aeration on stomatal activity, water diffusion, pressure deficit, water congestion, and bacterial infection of peach and pepper foliage. Phytopathology 58: 1298–1301.Google Scholar
  19. McCoy T.J., R.L.Phillips & H.W.Rines, 1982. Cytogenetic analysis of plants regenerated from oat (Avena sativa L.) tissue cultures and sectoring in some regenerated plants. Can J. Genet. Cytol 24: 559–565.Google Scholar
  20. Murashige T. & F.Skoog, 1962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 15: 473–497.Google Scholar
  21. Randhawa P.S. & E.L.Civerolo, 1985. A detached leaf bioassay for Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni. Phytopathology 75: 1060–1063.Google Scholar
  22. Ritchie D.F., D.J.Werner & F.A.Hammerschlag, 1993. Field evaluation of tissue culture-derived peach trees for susceptibility to bacterial spot (Xanthomonas campestris pv. pruni. Acta Hort 336: 155–163.Google Scholar
  23. Sacristan M.D., 1982. Resistance responses to Phoma lingam of plants regenerated from selected cell and embryogenic cultures of haploid Brassica napus. Theor. Appl. Genet. 61: 193–200.Google Scholar
  24. Werner D.J., D.F.Ritchie, D.W.Cain & E.I.Zehr, 1986. Susceptibility of peaches and nectarines, plant introductions, and other Prunus species to bacterial spot. HortScience 21: 127–130.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. A. Hammerschlag
    • 1
  • D. J. Werner
    • 2
  • D. F. Ritchie
    • 3
  1. 1.Plant Molecular Biology LaboratoryU.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research ServiceBeltsvilleUSA
  2. 2.Department of Horticultural ScienceNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  3. 3.Department of Plant PathologyNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA

Personalised recommendations