Advertisement

Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 3, pp 248–251 | Cite as

In vitro somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration of cassava

  • László Szabados
  • Rodrigo Hoyos
  • William Roca
Article

Abstract

An efficient and reproducible plant regeneration system, initiated in somatic tissues, has been devised for cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Somatic embryogenesis has been induced from shoot tips and immature leaves of in vitro shoot cultures of 15 cassava genotypes. Somatic embryos developed directly on the explants when cultured on a medium containing 4–16 mg/l 2,4-D. Differences were observed with respect to the embryogenic capacity of the explants of different varieties. Secondary embryogenesis has been induced by subculture on solid or liquid induction medium. Long term cultures were established and maintained for up to 18 months by repeated subculture of the proliferating somatic embryos. Plantlets developed from primary and secondary embryos in the presence of 0.1 mg/l BAP, 1mg/l GA3, and 0.01 mg/l 2,4-D. Regenerated plants were transferred to the field, and were grown to maturity.

Keywords

Somatic Embryo Somatic Embryogenesis Plant Regeneration Induction Medium Shoot Culture 
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. Ammirato PV (1983). In: DA Evans, WE Sharp, PV Ammirato, Y Yamada (eds.), Handbook of Plant Cell Culture Vol 1, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, pp. 82–123.Google Scholar
  2. Brown DCW, Atanassov A (1985) Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 4: 111–122.Google Scholar
  3. FAO (1979) Agriculture Commodity Projections 1975–1985. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations. Rome.Google Scholar
  4. Haydu Z, Vasil IK (1981) Theor.Appl.Genet. 59: 269–273.Google Scholar
  5. Kartha KK, Gamborg OL, Constabel F, Shyluk JP (1974) Plant Sci. Lett. 2: 107–113.Google Scholar
  6. Luna LG (1968) Manual of Histologic Staining Methods of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. McGraw Hill Book Company, New York, p.32.Google Scholar
  7. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) Physiol. Plant. 15: 473–497.Google Scholar
  8. Roca WM. (1984) In: WR Sharp, DA Evans, PV Ammirato, Y Yamada (eds.), Handbook of Plant Cell Culture vol. 2, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, pp. 269–301.Google Scholar
  9. Shahin EA and Shepard JF (1980) Plant Sci. Lett. 17: 459–465.Google Scholar
  10. Stamp JA and Henshaw GG (1982) Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 105: 183–187.Google Scholar
  11. Stamp JA and Henshaw GG (1986) In: LA Withers, PG Anderson (eds.) Plant Tissue Culture and its Agricultural Applications, pp. 149–157.Google Scholar
  12. Stamp JA (1984) Ph.D. thesis, University of Birmingham U.K., 1984.Google Scholar
  13. Tilquin JP (1979) Can.J.Bot. 57: 1761–1763.Google Scholar
  14. Vasil IK (1982) In: IK Vasil, WR Scowcroft, KJ Frey (eds.) Plant Improvement and Somatic Cell Genetics, Academic Press, New York, p.179–204.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • László Szabados
    • 1
  • Rodrigo Hoyos
    • 1
  • William Roca
    • 1
  1. 1.Biotechnology Research Unit, CIATCaliColombia

Personalised recommendations