Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 12, Issue 9, pp 491–495 | Cite as

Enhanced GUS gene expression in cereal/grass cell suspensions and immature embryos using the maize uhiquitin-based plasmid pAHC25

  • M. G. Taylor
  • V. Vasil
  • I. K. Vasil
Article

Abstract

Transient GUS (β-glucuronidase) expression was visualized in cell suspensions of Triticum aestivum, Zea mays, Pennisetum glaucum, Saccharum officinarum, Pennisetum purpureum and Panicum maximum after microprojectile bombardment with pBARGUS and pAHC25 plasmid DNAs. pBARGUS contains the GUS (UidA) gene coding region driven by the Adh1 promoter and the Adh1 intron 1, as well as the BAR gene coding region driven by the CaMV 35S promoter and the Adh1 intron 1. pAHC25 contains the GUS and BAR gene coding regions driven by the maize ubiquitin promoter, first exon and first intron (Ubi1). The effectiveness of the constructs was first compared in cell suspension cultures by counting blue expression units (b.e.u.). The expression of construct pAHC25 ranged from 3 to 50 fold greater than pBARGUS in different species. In addition, the two plasmids were quantitatively compared in Triticum aestivum and Zea mays by using the more sensitive GUS fluorometric assay to determine the amount of methylumbellyferride (MU) produced. There was more than a 30 fold increase in MU production with pAHC25 than with pBARGUS in the wheat suspension, while the maize suspension showed only a 2.5 fold increase with the pAHC25 construct. Transient GUS expression was also visualized in immature embryos of Pennisetum glaucum following bombardment with pBARGUS and pAHC25 DNA. Expression of plasmid pAHC25 was twice as high as pBARGUS. A comparison of two DNA/gold preparation methods, as well as repeated sonications of the DNA/gold mixture, had no effect on the number of b.e.u.

Keywords

Saccharum Immature Embryo Microprojectile Bombardment Pennisetum Glaucum Saccharum Officinarum 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bowers R, Birch RG (1992) The Plant J 2:409–416Google Scholar
  2. Callis J, Fromm M, Walbot V (1987) Genes Dev 1:1183–1200Google Scholar
  3. Christensen AH, Sharrock RA, Quail PH (1992) Plant Mol Biol 18:675–689PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Christou P, Ford TL, Kofron M (1991) Bio/Technology 9:957–962Google Scholar
  5. Freeling M (1973) Molec Gen Genet 127:215–227Google Scholar
  6. Fromm M, Morrish F, Armstrong C, Williams R, Thomas J, Klein TM (1990) Bio/Technology 8:833–839Google Scholar
  7. Fromm M, Taylor LP, Walbot V (1985) Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 82:5824–5828Google Scholar
  8. Gordon-Kamm WJ, Spencer TM, Mangano ML, Adams TR, Daines RJ, Start WG, O'Brien JV, Chambers SA, Adams WR Jr., Willets NG, Rice TB, Mackey CJ, Krueger RW, Kausch AP, Lemaux PG (1990) The Plant Cell 2:603–618.Google Scholar
  9. Hauptmann RM, Ozias-Akins P, Vasil V, Tabaeizadeh Z, Rogers SG, Horsch RB, Vasil IK, Fraley RT (1987) Plant Cell Rep 6:265–270Google Scholar
  10. Ho WJ, Vasil IK (1983) Ann Bot 51:719–726Google Scholar
  11. Jefferson RA, Kavanagh TA, Bevan MW (1987) EMBO J 6:3901–3907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Karlsson SB, Vasil IK (1984) J Plant Physiol 123:211–227Google Scholar
  13. Klein TM, Gradziel T, Fromm ME, Sanford JC (1988) Bio/Technology 6:559–563Google Scholar
  14. Kyozuka J, Izawa T, Nakajima M, Shimamoto K (1990) Maydica 35:353–357Google Scholar
  15. Last DI, Brettell RIS, Chamberlain DA, Chaudhury AM, Larkin PJ Marsh EL, Peacock WJ, Dennis ES (1991) Theor Appl Genet 81:581–588Google Scholar
  16. Lee BT, Murdoch K, Topping J, Both MTJ de, Wu QS, Karp A, Steele gnS, Symonds C, Kreis M, Jones MGK (1987) In: Puite KJ, Dons JJM, Huizing HJ, Kool AJ, Koornneef M, Krens FA (eds) Progress in Plant Protoplast Research. Proc 7th Int Protoplast Symp, Wageningen, The Netherlands, December 6–11, 1987, pp 343–346Google Scholar
  17. Lu C, Vasil IK (1981) Ann Bot 47:543–548Google Scholar
  18. Luehrson KR, Walbot V (1991) Molec Gen Genet 225:81–93Google Scholar
  19. Maas C, Laufs J, Grant S, Korfhage C, Werr W (1991) Plant Mol Biol 16:199–207Google Scholar
  20. McElroy D, Zhang W, Cao J, Wu R (1990) The Plant Cell 2:163–171Google Scholar
  21. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) Physiol Plant 15:473–497Google Scholar
  22. Oard JH, Paige DF, Simmonds JA, Gradziel TM (1990) Plant Physiol 92:334–339Google Scholar
  23. Paul A-L, Ferl RJ (1991) Maydica 36:129–134Google Scholar
  24. Redway FA, Vasil V, Vasil IK (1990) Plant Cell Rep 8:714–717Google Scholar
  25. Reggiardo MI, Arana JL, Orsaria LM, Permingeat HR, Spitteler MA, Vallejos RH (1991) Plant Science 75:237–243Google Scholar
  26. Russell JA, Mihir KR, Sanford JC (1992) In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 28P:97–105Google Scholar
  27. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular Cloning: A Laboratory Manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. Cold Spring Harbor, NYGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanford JC, Devit MJ, Russell JA, Smith FD, Harpending PR, Roy MK, Johnston SA (1991) Technique 3:3–16Google Scholar
  29. Taylor MG, Vasil IK (1991) Plant Cell Rep 10:120–125Google Scholar
  30. Vasil V, Castillo A, Fromm ME, Vasil IK (1992) Bio/Technology 6:667–672Google Scholar
  31. Vasil V, Clancy M, Ferl RJ, Vasil IK, Hannah LC (1989) Plant Physiol 91:1575–1579Google Scholar
  32. Vasil V, Vasil IK (1981) Ann Bot 47:669–678Google Scholar
  33. Vasil V, Vasil IK (1986) J Plant Physiol 124:399–408Google Scholar
  34. Zhang W, Wu R (1988) Theor Appl Genet 76:835–840Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. G. Taylor
    • 1
  • V. Vasil
    • 1
  • I. K. Vasil
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Plant Cell and Molecular Biology, Department of Horticultural SciencesUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations