Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 133–136 | Cite as

Genotype specificity of the somatic embryogenesis response in cotton

  • Norma L. Trolinder
  • Chen Xhixian


Thirty eight cultivars, strains, and races ofGossypium were screened for somatic embryogenesis with the protocols developed as a model forG. hirsutum L. cv. Coker 312. Four classes of response were identified; high, moderate, low, and non-embryogenic. Four cultivars were further screened with 13 growth regulator regimes to determine if culture environment could change the classification or induce a higher level of response. The classification or level of response did not change. Screening of individual seedlings within a cultivar indicated that genotypic variation for embryogenesis existed. Highly embryogenic individuals were selected from cvs. Coker 312 and Paymaster 303 for use as germplasm sources for transfer of the embryogenic trait to other cultivars and genetic stocks. Only genetically responsive genotypes are amenable to the model developed for Coker 312.

Key words

Cotton somatic embryogenesis cultivar 



2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (Carolina Biological)


N6-(2-iso-pentenyl) adenine (Sigma)


A-naphthaleneacetic acid (Sigma)


kinetin (Sigma)


Index of embryogenesis


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Chen Z, Tony HH, Morowitch J (1987a) Screening ofMedicago falcato Germplasm forin vitro Regeneration. J Plant Physiol 128:271–277.Google Scholar
  2. Chen Z, Zhixian L, Trolinder NL, Goodin JR (1987b) Some Characteristics of Somatic Embryogenesis and Plant Regeneration in Cotton Cell Suspension Culture. Scientia Agricultura Sinica 20(5):6–11.Google Scholar
  3. Davidonis GH, Hamilton RH (1983) Plant Regeneration from Callus Tissue ofGossypium hirsutum L. Plant Sci 32:89–93.Google Scholar
  4. Felsenburg T, Feldman M, Galun E (1987) Aneuploid and alloplasmic lines as tools for the study of nuclear and cytoplasmic control of culture ability and regeneration of scutellar calli from common wheat. Theor Appl Genet 74:802–810.Google Scholar
  5. Koornneef M, Hanart C, Jorgsma M, Toma I, Weide R, Zabel P, Hille J (1986) Breeding of Tomato Genotype Readily Accessible to Genetic Manipulation. Plant Sci 45:201–208.Google Scholar
  6. Powell W, Caligari PDS (1987) Thein vitro genetics of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.): detection and analysis of reciprocal differences for culture response to 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Heredity 59:293–299.Google Scholar
  7. Shoemaker RC, Couche LJ, Galbraith DW (1986) Characterization of somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration in cotton. Plant Cell Rep 3:178–181.Google Scholar
  8. Tomes DL (1985) Revlevance to Agriculture in the Eighties. In: Zaitlin M, Day P, Hollandew (eds) Biotechnology in Plant Science. Academic Press, Inc. N.Y. pp. 3–14.Google Scholar
  9. Trolinder NL, Goodin JR (1987) Somatic Embryogenesis and Plant Regeneration inGossypium hirsutum L. Plant Cell Rep 6:231–234.Google Scholar
  10. Trolinder NL, Goodin JR (1988a) Somatic Embryogenesis in Cotton(Gossypium): I. Effects of Source of Explant and Hormone Regime. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 12:31–42.Google Scholar
  11. Trolinder NL, Goodin JR (1988b) Somatic Embryogenesis in Cotton (Gossypium): II. Requirements for Embryo Development and Plant Regeneration. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 12:43–53.Google Scholar
  12. Umbeck P, Johnson G, Barton K, Swain W (1987) Genetically transformed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants. Biotech 5:263–266.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Norma L. Trolinder
    • 1
  • Chen Xhixian
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant Physiologist and Visiting ScientistUSDA-ARSLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations