Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 307–311 | Cite as

Isolation, culture, and regeneration of plants from potato protoplasts

  • Heddwyn Jones
  • Angela Karp
  • Michael G. K. Jones


A technique is described for the routine isolation of protoplasts from storage parenchyma cells of potato tubers grown in vitro. The protoplasts typically contained many starch grains. On culture, most of the starch grains were metabolised during the first 7 days, after which the cells began to divide. Following further culture, protoplast-derived colonies and calli were obtained, from which shoots and intact plants were regenerated. Cytological study of regenerated plants showed that the majority were octaploid or aneuploid at the octaploid level. This aspect is compared with plants regenerated from mesophyll protoplasts of potato. The use of tuber protoplasts for studies on tissue-specific transient gene expression of chimeric gene constructs, following their introduction into the protoplasts by electroporation, is discussed, together with the uses of tuber protoplasts in fundamental physiological and biochemical studies.


Gene Expression Starch Regenerate Plant Potato Tuber Parenchyma Cell 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Carlberg I, Glimelius K, Eriksson T (1983) Plant Cell Rep 2: 223–225Google Scholar
  2. Carlberg I, Glimelius K, Eriksson T (1984) Plant Sci Lett 35: 225–230Google Scholar
  3. Fish N, Karp A, Jones MGK (1987) In Vitro 23: 575–580Google Scholar
  4. Foulger D, Jones MGK (1986) Plant Cell Rep 5: 72–76Google Scholar
  5. Frearson EM, Power JB, Cocking EC (1973) Devl Biol 33: 130–137Google Scholar
  6. Haberlach GT, Cohen BA, Reichert NA, Baer MA, Towill LE, Helgeson JP (1985) Plant Sci 39: 67–74Google Scholar
  7. Hoekma A, Huisman MJ, Molendijk L, van den Elzen PJM, Cornelissen BJC (1989) Bio/Technol 7: 273–278Google Scholar
  8. Hussey G, Stacey NJ (1984) Ann Bot 53: 565–578Google Scholar
  9. Jones H, Ooms G, Jones MGK (1989) Plant Mol Biol, in press.Google Scholar
  10. Karp A, Nelson RS, Thomas E, Bright SWJ (1982). Theor Appl Genet 63: 265–272Google Scholar
  11. Lorenzini M (1973) CR Acad Sci Paris 276: 1839–1842Google Scholar
  12. Racusen D (1984) Can J Bot 62: 1640–1644Google Scholar
  13. Scott NS, Tymms MJ, Possingham JV (1984) Planta 161: 12–19Google Scholar
  14. Shepard JF, Totten RE (1977) Plant Physiol 60: 313–316Google Scholar
  15. Sheerman S, Bevan MW (1988) Plant Cell Rep 7: 13–16Google Scholar
  16. Sree Ramulu K, Dijkhuis P, Roest S, Bokelmann Gs, De Groot B (1984) Plant Sci Lett 36: 79–86Google Scholar
  17. Sree Ramulu K, Dijkhuis P (1986) Plant Cell Rep 3: 234–237Google Scholar
  18. Stiekema WJ, Heidekamp F, Louwerse JD, Verhoeven HA, Dijkhuis P (1988) Plant Cell Rep 7: 47–50Google Scholar
  19. Wheeler VA, Evans NE, Foulger D, Webb KJ, Karp A, Franklin J, Bright SW J (1985) Ann Bot 55: 309–320Google Scholar
  20. Widholm JM (1972) Stain Tech 47: 189–194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Heddwyn Jones
    • 1
  • Angela Karp
    • 1
  • Michael G. K. Jones
    • 1
  1. 1.Rothamsted Experimental Station, Biochemistry DepartmentAFRC Institute of Arable Crops ResearchHarpendenUK

Personalised recommendations