Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 139–142 | Cite as

Alkaloid production in Catharanthus roseus cell cultures

XII. Biosynthetic capacity of callus from original explants and regenerated shoots
  • F. Constabel
  • P. Gaudet-LaPrairie
  • W. G. W. Kurz
  • J. P. Kutney
Article
Received:

Abstract

Callus derived from hypocotyls of periwinkle, Catharanthus roseus, responded to culture on nutrient media supplementedwith IAA, BA, and zeatin with shoot formation at low frequencies. However, shoot regenerating callus could be very successfully propagated and subcultured. Alkaloid profiles of callus derived from the original explants (hypocotyls) as well as callus derived from regenerated shoots were almost identical. Subcultures of old callus (initiated in 1978) failed completely to grow shoots. In programs for long-term preservation of alkaloid producing cell lines by regeneration and storage of shoots, selection for ability to form shoots would have to precede selection for alkaloid production.

Keywords

Cell Culture Alkaloid Nutrient Medium Zeatin Shoot Formation 
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.

Abbreviations

IAA

indolyl-3-acetic acid

IIAA

1-naphthaleneacetic acid

2,4-D

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

BA

benzyladenine

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abou-Mandour AA, Fischer S, Czygan FC (1979) Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 91:83–88Google Scholar
  2. Barz W, Ellis BE (1981) Ber. Deutsch. Bot. Ges. 94:1–26Google Scholar
  3. Constabel F, Rambold S, Chatson KB, Kurz WGW, Kutney JP (1981) Plant Cell Rep. 1:3–5Google Scholar
  4. Dhoot GK, Henshaw GG (1977) Ann. Bot. 41:943–949Google Scholar
  5. Gamborg OL, Miller RA, Ojima K (1968) Exp. Cell Res. 50:151–158Google Scholar
  6. Hiraoka N, Tabata M (1974) Phytochem. 13:1671–1675Google Scholar
  7. Kao KN, Michayluk MR (1980) Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 96:135–141Google Scholar
  8. Kao, KN, Michayluk MR (1981) In Vitro 17:645–648Google Scholar
  9. Kartha KK, Leung NL, Gaudet-LaPrairie P, Constabel F (Submitted Plant Cell Rep.)Google Scholar
  10. Kurz WGW, Chatson KB, Constabel F, Kutney JP, Choi LSL, Kolodziejczyk P, Sleigh SK, Stuart KL, Worth BR (1980) Phytochem. 19:2583–2587Google Scholar
  11. Kurz WGW, Chatson KB, Constabel F, Kutney JP, Choi LSL, Kolodziejczyk P, Sleigh SK, Stuart KL, Worth BR (1981) Planta med. 42:22–31Google Scholar
  12. Ramawat KG, Bhansali RR, Arya HC (1978) Current Sci. 47:93–94Google Scholar
  13. Reinert J, Bajaj YPS, Zbell B (1977) In: Street H (ed) Plant Tissue and Cell Culture. Univ. California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp 389–428Google Scholar
  14. Tabata M, Yamamoto N, Hiraoka N, Marumoto Y, Konoshima M (1971) Phytochem. 10:723–729Google Scholar
  15. Tabata M, Ogino T, Yoshioka K, Yoshikawa N, Hiraoka N (1978) In: Thorpe TA (ed) Frontiers of Plant Tissue Culture 1978. Internatl. Ass. Plant Tissue Culture, Univ. Calgary, Calgary pp 213–222Google Scholar
  16. Zenk MH, ElShagi H, Arens H, Stöckigt J, Weiler EW, Deus B (1977) In: Barz W, Reinhard E, Zenk MH (eds) Springer Verlag Berlin Heidelberg — New York pp 27–43Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Constabel
    • 1
  • P. Gaudet-LaPrairie
    • 1
  • W. G. W. Kurz
    • 1
  • J. P. Kutney
    • 2
  1. 1.Prairie Regional LaboratoryNational Research CouncilSaskatoonCanada
  2. 2.Department of ChemistryUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations