American Potato Journal

, Volume 66, Issue 10, pp 669–684 | Cite as

Variability in potato tissue culture

  • A. Karp
  • M. G. K. Jones
  • D. Foulger
  • N. Fish
  • S. W. J. Bright


Tissue culture systems in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) that involve a callus phase, such as regeneration of plants from protoplasts or expiants, can be accompanied by phenotypic variability, or somaclonal variation. The extent of this variability appears to be greatest in protoplast-derived potato plants. Cytological studies have shown that some of the variation observed in regenerated potato plants arises from numerical and structural chromosome variation. Aneuploidy is particularly a problem in regeneration from protoplasts. Factors affecting the degree of chromosome instability include the genotype and ploidy of the starting material, the regeneration system adopted, the source of the plant cells and the composition of the tissue culture media. Studies at the molecular level have indicated that changes in the potato genome, other than those associated with chromosomes, also occur. The implications of somaclonal variation in potato, particularly with regard to its potential usefulness for plant breeding are discussed.


Potato Plant AMERICAN Potato Journal Solanum Tuberosum Potato Cultivar Somaclonal Variation 
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.


Los sistemas de cultivo de tejidos de papa (Solanum tuberosum L.) que incluyen una fase de callo, tal como la regeneración de plantas a partir de protoplastos o tejidos vivos de plantas, pueden ser acompañados por una variación del fenotipo, o variación somaclonal. El grado de esta variación parece ser máximo en plantas de papa obtenidas de protoplastos. Los estudios citológicos han demostrado que algunas de las variaciones observadas en las plantas regeneradas surgen de una variación en el número y estructura de los cromosomas. La aneuploidia es particularmente un problema en la regeneración a partir de protoplastos. Los factores que afectan el grado de inestablilidad de los cromosomas incluyen el genotipo y la ploidia del material inicial, el sistema de regeneracion adoptado, la fuente de células vegetales y la composición del medio de cultivo para los tejidos. Estudios al nivel molecular han indicado que también ocurren cambios en el genoma de papa, diferentes a los asociados con los cromosomas. Se discuten las implicancias de la variación somaclonal en papa, principalmente en lo referente a su uso potencial en el mejoramiento de plantas.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Balzan, R. 1978. Karyotype instability in tissue cultures derived from the mesocotyl ofZea mays seedlings. Caryologia 31: 75–87.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bayliss, M.W. 1975. The effects of growthin vitro on the chromosome complement ofDaucus carota (L.) suspension cultures. Chromosoma 51: 401–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Carlberg, I., K. Glimelius and T. Eriksson. 1984. Nuclear DNA content during the initiation of callus formation from isolated protoplasts ofSolanum tuberosum L. Plant Sci Lett 35: 225–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Creissen, G.P. and A. Karp. 1985. Karyotypic changes in potato plants regenerated from protoplasts. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 4: 171–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    D’Amato, F. 1952. Polyploidy in the differentiation and function of tissues and cells in plants. A critical examination of literature. Caryologia 4: 311–357.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Denton, I.R., R.J. Westcott and B.V. Ford-Lloyd. 1977. Phenotypic variation ofSolanum tuberosum L. cv. Dr. McIntosh regenerated directly from shoot-tip culture. Potato Res 20: 131–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    de Paepe, R., D. Bleton and F. Gnangbe. 1981. Basis and extent of genetic variability among doubled haploid plants obtained by pollen culture inNicotiana sylvestris. Theo Appl Genet 59: 177–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    de Paepe, R., D. Prat and T. Huguet. 1982. Heritable nuclear DNA changes in doubled haploid plants obtained by pollen culture ofNicotiana sylvestris. Plant Sci Lett 18: 11–28.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dhillon, S.S., E.A. Wernsman and J.P. Miksche. 1983. Evaluation of nuclear DNA content and heterochromatin changes in anther-derived dihaploids of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum) cv. Coker 139. Can J Genet Cytol 25: 169–173.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dhillon, S.S., E.A. Wernsman, J.P. Miksche and L. Henry. 1984. Relationship between nuclear changes and plant productivity in anther-derived doubled haploids of tobacco. Plant Physiol Suppl 75: 120.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dolezel, J. and F.J. Novak. 1984. Effect of plant tissue culture media on the frequency of somatic mutations inTradescantia stamen hairs. Z Pflanzenphysiol 114: 51–58.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Evans, N.E., D. Foulger, L. Farrer and S.W.J. Bright. 1986. Somaclonal variation in explant-derived potato clones over three tuber generations. Euphytica 35: 115–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Evans, D.A. and O.L. Gamberg. 1982. Chromosome stability of cell suspension cultures ofNicotiana spp. Plant Cell Reports 1: 104–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fish, N. and A. Karp. 1986. Improvements in regeneration from protoplasts of potato and studies on chromosome stability. I. The effect of initial culture media. Theor Appl Genet 72: 405–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Foulger, D. and M.G.K. Jones. 1986. Improved efficiencies of genotype-dependent regeneration from protoplasts of important potato cultivars. Plant Cell Reports 5: 72–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ghosh, A. and V.N. Gadgil. 1979. Shift in ploidy of callus tissue: A function of growth substances. Indian J Exp Biol 17: 562–564.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gunn, R.E., G.J. Jellis and N.C. Starling. 1985. Improved resistance to common scab (Streptomyces scabies) in protoplast-derived potato somaclones previously selected for high yield. Tests of Agrochem and Cult, No. 6 (Ann appl Biol 106, suppl):162–163.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Jacobsen, E. 1982. Polyploidization in leaf callus tissue and in regenerated plants of diploid potato. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 1: 77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johansson, L. 1986. Improved methods for induction of embryogenesis in cultures ofSolanum tuberosum. Potato Res 29: 179–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Karp, A., R.S. Nelson, E. Thomas and S.W.J. Bright. 1982. Chromosome variation in protoplast-derived potato plants. Theor Appl Genet 63: 265–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Karp, A. and S.E. Maddock. 1984. Chromosome variation in wheat plants regenerated from cultured immature embryos. Theor Appl Genet 67: 249–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Karp, A., R. Risiott, M.G.K. Jones and S.W.J. Bright. 1985. Chromosome doubling in monohaploid and dihaploid potatoes by regeneration from cultured leaf expiants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 3: 363–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Karp, A. and S.W.J. Bright. 1985. On the causes and origins of somaclonal variation.In Miflin, B.J. (Ed.) Oxford surveys of plant molecular and cell biology, vol. 2. Cambridge, University Press pp. 199–234.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karp, A., M.G.K. Jones, G. Ooms and S.W.J. Bright. 1987. Potato protoplasts and tissue culture in crop improvement.In Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews 5: 1–32.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kasperbauer, M.J. and G.B. Collins. 1972. Reconstitution of diploids from leaf tissue of anther-derived haploids in tobacco. Crop Sci 12: 98–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kemble, R.J. and J.F. Shepard. 1984. Cytoplasmic DNA variation in a potato protoclonal population. Theor Appl Genet 69: 211–216.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kowalczyk, T.P., I.A. Mackenzie and E.C. Cocking. 1983. Plant regeneration from organ expiants and protoplasts of the medicinal plantSolanum khasianum C.B. Clarke var.chatterjeeanum Sengupta (syn.Solanum viarum Dunal). Z Pflanzenphysiol 111: 55–68.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Krishnamurthi, M. 1974. Notes on disease resistance of tissue culture sub-clones and fusion of sugar cane protoplasts. Sugar Cane Breeders Newslett 35: 24–36.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Landsmann, J. and H. Uhrig. 1985. Somaclonal variation inSolanum tuberosum detected at the molecular level. Theor Appl Genet 71: 500–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larkin, P.J. and W.K. Scowcroft. 1983. Somaclonal variation — a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theor Appl Genet 60: 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Larkin, P.J., S.A. Ryan, R.I.S. Brettell and W.R. Scowcroft. 1984. Heritable somaclonal variation in wheat. Theor Appl Genet 67: 433–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nelson, R.S. 1983. Plant regeneration from protoplastsof Solanum tuberosum andSolanum brevidens. Ph.D. Thesis (Bath).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Nelson, R.S., A. Karp and S.W.J. Bright. 1986. Ploidy variation inSolanum brevidens plants regenerated from protoplasts using an improved culture system. J Exp Bot 37: 253–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    National Institute of Agricultural Botany. 1975. Guide to the identification of potato varieties. Cambridge U.K.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ooms, G., A. Karp, M.M. Burrell, D. Isell and J. Roberts. 1985. Genetic modification of potato development using Ri T-DNA, Theor Appl Genet 70: 440–446.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Phillips, M.S., J.M.S. Forrest and L.A. Wilson. 1980. Screening for resistance to potato cyst nematode using closed containers. Ann Appl Biol 96: 317–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pirrie, A. and J.B. Power. 1986. The production of fertile, triploid somatic hybrid plants (Nicotiana glutinosa (n) +N. tabacum (2n) via gametic: somatic protoplast fusion. Theor Appl Genet 72: 48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Sanford, J.C., N.F. Weeden and Y.S. Chyi. 1984. Regarding the novelty and breeding value of protoplast-derived variants of Russet Burbank (Solanum tuberosum L.). Euphytica 33: 709–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Secor, G.A. and J.F. Shepard. 1981. Variability of protoplast-derived potato clones. Crop Sci 21: 102–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Shepard, J.F., D. Bidney and E. Shahin. 1980. Potato protoplasts in crop improvement. Science 208: 17–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Simmonds, D.H. and G. Setterfield. 1986. Aberrant microtubule organization can result in genetic abnormalities in protoplasts cultures ofVicia hajastana Grossh. Planta 167: 460–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sree, Ramulu, K., P. Dijkhuis and S. Roest. 1983. Phenotypic variation and ploidy level of plants regenerated from protoplasts of tetraploid potato (Solanum tuberosum L. cv. ‘Bintje’). Theor Appl Genet 65: 329–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Sree, Ramulu, K., P. Dijkhuis and S. Roest. 1984. Genetic instability in protoclones of potato (Solanum tuberosum L. cv. ‘Bintje’): new types of variation after vegetative propagation. Theor Appl Genet 68: 515–519.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Sree, Ramulu, K., P. Dihkhuis, S. Roest, G.S. Bokelmann and B. de Groot. 1984. Early occurrence of genetic instability in protoplast cultures of potato. Plant Sci Lett 36: 79–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Sree, Ramulu, K., P. Dijkhuis, S. Roest, G.S. Bokelman and B. de Groot. 1986. Variation in phenotype and chromosome number of plants regenerated from protoplasts of dihaploid and tetraploid potato. Plant Breeding 97: 119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tempelar, M.J., E. Jacobsen, M.A. Ferwerda and M. Hartogh. 1985. Changes of ploidy clones of potato. A. Pflanzenzuchtg 95: 193–200.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Thomas, E. 1981. Plant regeneration from shoot-culture-derived protoplasts of tetraploid potato (Solanum tuberosum cv. Maris Bard). Plant Sci Lett 23: 84–88.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Thomas, E., S.W.J. Bright, J. Franklin, V. Lancaster, BJ. Miflin and R. Gibson. 1982. Variation amongst protoplast-derived potato plants (Solanum tuberosum cv. Maris Bard). 62: 65–68.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Thomson, A.J., R.E. Gunn, G.J. Jellis, R.E. Boulton and C.N.D. Lacey. 1986. The evaluation of potato somaclones. Proc. of an EEC-sponsored meeting on “Somaclonal variation and crop improvement.” Gembloux, Belgium Sept. 1985. p.236–243.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thomson, A.J. 1987. The potential value of somaclonal variants in potato improvement.In (Ed.) Jellis G.J. and D.E. Richardson. Production of new potato varieties: technological advances. Cambridge University Press, p.327–330.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Uhrig, H. 1983. Breeding forGlobodera pallida resistance in potatoes. I. Improvement of androgenetic capacity in some resistant dihaploid clones. Z Pflanzenzucht 91: 211–218.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    van Harten, A.M., H. Bouter and C. Broertjes. 1981.In vitro adventitious bud techniques for vegetative propagation and mutation breeding of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). II. Significance for mutation breeding. Euphytica 30: 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vanzulli, L., E. Magnien and L. Olivi. 1980. Caryological stability of Datura innoxia calli analyzed by cytophotometry for 22 hormonal combinations. Plant Sci Lett 17: 181–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wenzel, G., O. Schieder, T. Przewozny, S.K. Sopory and G. Melchers. 1979. Comparison of single cell culture derivedSolanum tuberosum L. plants and a model for their application in breeding programs. Theor Appl Genet 55: 49–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wheeler, V.A., N.E. Evans, D. Foulger, K.J. Webb, A. Karp, J. Franklin and S.W.J. Bright. 1985. Shoot formation from explant cultures of fourteen potato cultivars and study of cytology and morphology of regenerated plants. Ann Bot 55: 309–320.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wright, N.S. 1983. Uniformity among virus-free clones of ten potato cultivars. Am Potato J 60: 381–388.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Karp
    • 1
  • M. G. K. Jones
    • 1
  • D. Foulger
    • 1
  • N. Fish
    • 1
  • S. W. J. Bright
    • 1
  1. 1.Biochemistry DepartmentRothamsted Experimental StationHarpendenEngland

Personalised recommendations