Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 5, pp 396–399 | Cite as

Genetic transformation of flax (Linum usitatissimum) by Agrobacterium tumefaciens: regeneration of transformed shoots via a callus phase

  • Nazir Basiran
  • Philip Armitage
  • Roderick John Scott
  • John Draper


Genetic transformation of flax (Linum usitatissimum) has been achieved using an A. tumefaciens strain carrying a non-oncogenic Ti plasmid-derived vector containing a chimaeric npt-II gene and a wild type nopaline synthase gene. Fertile, transformed shoots were most easily obtained from Kmr callus developing on hypocotyl sections. The totipotency of the Kmr callus was dependent upon its origin. T-DNA was visualised by Southern blotting in all Kmr tissues. Efficient expression of nopaline synthase and the chimaeric npt-II gene was found in transformed Kmr callus and regenerated shoots.


Southern Blotting Genetic Transformation Regenerate Shoot Agrobacterium Tumefaciens Nopaline 
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.



neomycin phosphotransferase II gene


neomycin phosphotransferase II


nopaline synthase gene promoter


kanamycin resistant




α-naphthaleneacetic acid


medium D4×2 based on Murashige & Skoog medium (see Scott & Draper, 1987)


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barakat M.N., Cocking E.C. (1983) Plant Cell Reports 2: 314–317.Google Scholar
  2. Bennet M.D., Smith J.B. (1976) Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 274: 227–273.Google Scholar
  3. Gamborg O.L., Shyluk J.P. (1976) Bot. Gaz. 137: 301–306.Google Scholar
  4. Gamborg O.L., Miller R.A., Ojima K. (1968) Exp. Cell Res. 50: 151–158.Google Scholar
  5. Hain, R., Stabel, P., Czernilofsky, A.P., Steinbiss, H.H., Herrera-Estrella, L. Schell, J. (1985) Mol. Gen. Genet. 199: 161–168.Google Scholar
  6. Hepburn A.G., Clarke L.E., Blundy K.S., White J. (1983) J. Mol. Appl. Genet. 2: 211–224.Google Scholar
  7. Johnson C.M., Stout R.R., Broyer T.C., Carlton A.B. (1957) Plant and Soil 8: 337–353.Google Scholar
  8. Link G.K., Eggers V. (1946) Bot. Gaz. 107: 441–454.Google Scholar
  9. McHughen A., Swartz M. (1984) J. Plant Physiol. 117: 109–117.Google Scholar
  10. Murray B.E., Handyside R.J., Keller W.A. (1977) Can. J. Genet. 19: 177–186.Google Scholar
  11. Rybczynski J.J. (1975) Genet. Pol. 16: 161–172.Google Scholar
  12. Scott R.J., Draper J. (1987) Plant Mol. Biol. 8: 265–274.Google Scholar
  13. Zambryski P., Joos H., Genetello C., Leemans J., Van Montagu M., Schell J. (1983) EMBO J. 2: 2143–2150.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nazir Basiran
    • 1
  • Philip Armitage
    • 1
  • Roderick John Scott
    • 1
  • John Draper
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BotanyUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations