Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 4, pp 238–242 | Cite as

High efficiency transformation ofBrassica napus usingAgrobacterium vectors

  • Maurice M. Moloney
  • Janis M. Walker
  • Kiran K. Sharma
Article

Abstract

An efficient procedure for obtaining transgenicBrassica napus plants usingAgrobacterium binary vectors is described. The target tissue for the transformation is the cut end of cotyledonary petioles. These tissues, when cultured with their lamina intact, show a regeneration frequency of more than 80%. The cells of this cut surface, which undergo organogenesis, are very susceptible to topical infection byAgrobacterium. The cocultivation method used does not require feeder layers or use of exogenously applied promoters of virulence. After 72h of infection withAgrobacterium the explants were transferred to selective regeneration medium. Using kanamycin (15μg cm−3) for selection, transgenic plantlets emerged within 3 weeks. These plantlets which appeared on over half the explants were excised and rooted for a further 7–10 days. When the plants were large enough, leaves were taken for assay of NPT II activity using dot blots. Most of the plants surviving the selection showed substantial NPT II activity. The frequency of transformation and yield of transgenic plants was higher than in previously reported methods with this species. Southern blotting revealed that integration of the T-DNA frequently occurred in multiple copies and at multiple loci in the genome. The transgenicB. napus plants all grew normally and developed fertile flowers. The transgenic plants were self-pollinated and their progeny studied by two methods. The first was a single-embryo NPT II assay performed on developing seeds of these selfed-plants. The second was a leaf bleaching assay performed by selection of germinating seedlings of the selfed progeny. Both assays yielded segregation ratios consistent with the number of integration events indicated by Southern blots. The method should have broad application in studies of gene expression in theBrassicaceae and will be a cost-effective alternative to those seeking to improveBrassica crops by introduction of foreign genes.

Abbreviations

NPT II

neomycin phosphotransferase

MS

Murashige-Skoog

CTAB

cetyl trimethyl ammonium bromide

CaMV

cauliflower mosaic virus

NOS

nopaline synthetase

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Bibliography

  1. Bevan M (1984) Nucleic Acids Research12 8711–8718Google Scholar
  2. Charest PJ, Holbrook LA, Gabard J, Iyer VN, Miki BL (1988) Theor. Appl. Genet.75 438–445Google Scholar
  3. Chuong PV, Deslauriers C, Kott LS, Beversdorf WD (1987) Can. J. Bot.66 1653–1657.Google Scholar
  4. Crouch ML, Tenbarge K, Simon A, Finkelstein R, Scofield S, Solberg L (1985)in Molecular Form and Function of the Plant Genome. eds. Van Vloten-Doting, Groot and Hall. Plenum Press, pp. 555–566.Google Scholar
  5. Feinberg AP, Vogelstein B (1984) Anal. Biochem. 137, 266–267.Google Scholar
  6. Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (F.A.O.) Commodity review and outlook, 1986–87. F.A.O. Economic and Social Dev. Series no. 43. F.A.O., Rome, Italy pp. 41–47.Google Scholar
  7. Fry J, Barnason A, Horsch RB (1987) Plant Cell Reports6 321–325Google Scholar
  8. Garfinkel DJ, Nester EW (1980) J Bacteriol144 732–743Google Scholar
  9. Gleba YY, Hoffmann F (1980) Planta149 112–117.Google Scholar
  10. Guerche P, Charbonnier M, Jouanin L, Tourneur C, Paszkowski J, Pelletier G (1987) Plant Sci.52 111–116.Google Scholar
  11. Harada JJ, Baden CS, Comai L (1988) Mol. Gen Genet.212 466–473Google Scholar
  12. Hood EE, Helmer GL, Fraley RT, Chilton M-D (1986) J Bacteriol168 1291–1301Google Scholar
  13. Jefferson RA, Harkins KR, Bevan MW, Kavanaugh TA, Galbraith DW (1987) Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA83 8447–8451Google Scholar
  14. Kay R, Chan A, Daly M, McPherson J (1987) Science236 1299–1302Google Scholar
  15. Keller WA, Armstrong KC (1978) Z. Pflanzenzucht.80 100–108.Google Scholar
  16. Kilmaszweska K, Keller WA (1985) Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Cult.4 183–197Google Scholar
  17. Maniatis T, Fritsch EF, Sambrook J (1982) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbour Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  18. Neuhaus G, Spangenberg G, Mittelsten-Scheid O, Schweiger H-G (1987) Theor. Appl. Genet.75 30–36.Google Scholar
  19. Newell CA, Rhoads ML, Bidney DL (1984) Can. J. Genet. Cytol.2 752–761.Google Scholar
  20. Pelletier G, Primard C, Vedel F, Chetrit P, Remy R, Renard R, Renard M (1983) Mol. Gen. Genet.191 244–250.Google Scholar
  21. Pua E-C, Mehra-Palta A, Nagy F, Chua N-H (1987) Bio/Technology5 815–817.Google Scholar
  22. Radke SE, Andrews BM, Moloney MM, Crouch ML, Kridl, JC, Knauf VC (1988) Theor. Appl. Genet.75 685–694.Google Scholar
  23. Rogers SO, Bendich AJ (1988)in “Plant Molecular Biology Manual” A6 1–10 eds Gelvin SB, Schilperoort RA, Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
  24. Schmidt R, Willmitzer L (1988) Plant Cell Reports7 583–586Google Scholar
  25. Sharma KK (1987)Ph.D. Thesis “Control of organ differentiation from somatic tissues and pollen embryogenesis in anther cultures ofB juncea” Dept of Botany, University of Dehli.Google Scholar
  26. Stachel SE, Messens E, Van Montagu M, Zambryski P (1985) Nature318 624–629Google Scholar
  27. Stringham GR (1977) Plant Sci. Lett.9 115–119.Google Scholar
  28. U, N (1935) Japan J. Bot.7 389–452Google Scholar
  29. Watson B, Currier TC, Gordon MP, Chilton M-D, Nester EW (1975) J Bacteriol.123 255–264Google Scholar
  30. Williams PA, Hill CB (1986) Science232 1385–1389Google Scholar
  31. Willmitzer L, Dhaese P, Schreier PH, Schmalenbach W, Van Monatague M, Schell J (1983) Cell32 1045–1056Google Scholar
  32. Xu Z-H, Davey MR, Cocking EC (1982) Plant Sci. Lett.24 117–121.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maurice M. Moloney
    • 1
  • Janis M. Walker
    • 1
  • Kiran K. Sharma
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations