Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 311–316 | Cite as

Transgenic plantlets of ‘Chancellor’ grapevine (Vitis sp.) from biolistic transformation of embryogenic cell suspensions

  • Julie R. Kikkert
  • Dominique Hébert-Soulé
  • Patricia G. Wallace
  • Michael J. Striem
  • Bruce I. Reisch


Transgenic plantlets of ‘Chancellor’ grapevine (Vitis L. complex interspecific hybrid) were produced via biolistic transformation. Embryogenic cell suspensions were bombarded with 1 μm tungsten particles coated with pBI426 which encodes a fusion peptide between β-glucuronidase (GUS) and neomycin phosphotransferase II (NPTII). The fusion peptide is under the control of a double 35S Cauliflower Mosaic Virus promoter and a leader sequence from Alfalfa Mosaic Virus. The cells were placed on kanamycin-containing media (10, 25 or 50 mg/l) 2 d after bombardment. Activated charcoal reduced cell browning. Embryos were first observed on selective media 14–29 weeks after bombardment. More than 1600 clusters of embryos were germinated and/or assayed for GUS. Of 621 embryos assayed for GUS expression, 182 (29.3%) were positive. PCR confirmed the presence of the NPTII gene in all 5 GUS-positive and 2 GUS-negative (bombarded) embryos tested. In germination experiments, 15% of the embryo clusters produced at least one plant with normal shoot growth. Of 164 normal plants assayed for GUS expression, 37 (22.6%) were positive. The NPTII gene was amplified by PCR in 1 (of 1) GUS-positive and 4 (of 5) GUS-negative bombarded plants, but not in non-bombarded control plants. Southern blotting confirmed integration of the NPTII gene in all 3 of the GUS and PCR-NPTII positive plants tested. Biolistics is an efficient method for transformation of ‘Chancellor’ and should be applicable to other important grape cultivars.


Activate Charcoal NPTII Gene Fusion Peptide Tungsten Particle Grape Cultivar 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



activated charcoal




2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid




α-naphthalene acetic acid




neomycin phosphotransferase II




Murashige and Skoog (1962) medium


Woody Plant Medium of Lloyd and McCown (1980)


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baribault TJ, Skene KGM, Scott NS (1989) Plant Cell Rep 8:137–140Google Scholar
  2. Baribault TJ, Skene KGM, Cain PA, Scott NS (1990) J Exp Bot 1:1045–1049Google Scholar
  3. Berres R, Otten L, Tinland B, Malgarini-Clog E, Walter B (1992) Plant Cell Rep 11:192–195Google Scholar
  4. Bouquet A (1993) Progrés Agricole et Viticole 110:327–330Google Scholar
  5. Bovey R, Martelli GP (1986) Vitis 25:227–275Google Scholar
  6. Broglie K, Chet I, Holliday M, Cressman R, Biddle P, Knowlton S, Mauvais CJ, Broglie R (1991) Science 254:1194–1197Google Scholar
  7. Colby SM, Juncosa AM, Stamp JA, Meredith CP (1991) J Amer Soc Hort Sci 116:356–361Google Scholar
  8. Dada RSS, Hammerlindl JK, Pelcher LE, Crosby WL, Selvaraj G (1991) Gene 101:239–246Google Scholar
  9. Deloire A (1993) Le Vigneron Champenois 4:25–26Google Scholar
  10. Feinberg AP, Vogelstein B (1983) Anal Biochem 132:6–13PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Guellec V, David C, Branchard M, Tempé J (1990) Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 20:211–215Google Scholar
  12. Hébert D, Kikkert JR, Smith FD, Reisch BI (1993) Plant Cell Rep 12:585–589Google Scholar
  13. Jaynes JM, Nagpala P, Destefano-Beltran L, Huang JH, Kim J, Denny T, Cetiner S (1993) Plant Sci 89:43–53Google Scholar
  14. Kikkert JR (1993) Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 33:221–226Google Scholar
  15. Lloyd G, McCown B (1980) Proc Int Plant Prop Soc 30:421–427Google Scholar
  16. Lodhi MA, Ye GN, Weeden NF, Reisch BI (1994) Plant Mol Biol Rep 12:6–13Google Scholar
  17. Lund P, Dunsmuir P (1992) Plant Mol Biol 18:47–53Google Scholar
  18. McCabe DE, Swain WF, Martinell BJ, Christou P (1988) Bio/Technology 6:923–926Google Scholar
  19. Mullins MG, Tang FCA, Facciotti D (1990) Bio/Technology 8:1041–1045Google Scholar
  20. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) Physiol Plant 15:473–497Google Scholar
  21. Pearson RC, Goheen AC (eds) (1988) Compendium of grape diseases, APS Press, St. Paul, MNGoogle Scholar
  22. Russell JA, Roy MK, Sanford JC (1992) In Vitro Cell Devel Biol 28P:97–105PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Saiki RK, Scharf S, Faloona F, Mullis KB, Horn GT, Erlich HA, Amheim N (1985) Science 230:1350–1354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual, 2nd ed, Cold Spring Harbor, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. Sanford JC, DeVnit MJ, Russell JA, Smith FD, Harpending PR, Roy MK, Johnston SA (1991) Technique 3:3–16Google Scholar
  26. Sanford JC, Smith FD, Russell JA (1993) Methods Enzymol 217:483–509Google Scholar
  27. Scorza R, Cordts JM, Ramming DW, Emershad RL (1995) Plant Cell Rep (In press)Google Scholar
  28. Southern EM (1975) J Mol Biol 98:503–517PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Trudel J, Potvin C, Asselin A (1992) Plant Sci 87:55–67Google Scholar
  30. Vaeck M, Reynaerts A, Höfte H, Jansens S, De Beuckeleer M, Dean C, Zabeau M, Van Montagu M, Leemans J (1987) Nature 328:33–37Google Scholar
  31. Weatherhead MA, Burdon J, Henshaw GG (1978) Z Pflanzenphysiol 89:141–147Google Scholar
  32. Wilson TMA (1993) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 90:3134–3141Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie R. Kikkert
    • 1
  • Dominique Hébert-Soulé
    • 2
  • Patricia G. Wallace
    • 1
  • Michael J. Striem
    • 1
  • Bruce I. Reisch
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Horticultural SciencesNew York State Agricultural Experiment Station, Cornell UniversityGenevaUSA
  2. 2.Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Station de Génétique et d'Amélioration des Plantes de MontpellierMauguioFrance

Personalised recommendations