Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 359–368 | Cite as

Variations in genomic DNA methylation during the long-term in vitro proliferation of oil palm embryogenic suspension cultures

  • Alain Rival
  • Pascal Ilbert
  • Axel Labeyrie
  • Esperanza Torres
  • Sylvie Doulbeau
  • Aline Personne
  • Stéphane Dussert
  • Thierry Beulé
  • Tristan Durand-Gasselin
  • James W. Tregear
  • Estelle Jaligot
Original Paper


Key message

The long-term proliferation of embryogenic cell suspensions of oil palm is associated with changes in both genomic methylation rates and embryogenic capacities.


In the aim of exploring the relationship between epigenetic stability and the long-term in vitro proliferation of plant tissues, we have studied changes in genomic DNA methylation levels in embryogenic suspensions of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). Five embryogenic callus lines were obtained from selected hybrid seeds and then proliferated as suspension cultures. Each clonal line obtained from a single genotype was subdivided into three independent subclonal lines. Once established, cultures proliferated for 12 months and genomic DNA was sampled at 4 months intervals for the estimation of global DNA methylation rates through high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) quantitation of deoxynucleosides. Our results show that in vitro proliferation induces DNA hypermethylation in a time-dependent fashion. Moreover, this trend is statistically significant in several clonal lines and shared between subclonal lines originating from the same genotype. Interestingly, the only clonal line undergoing loss of genomic methylation in the course of proliferation has been found unable to generate somatic embryos. We discuss the possible implications of genome-wide DNA methylation changes in proliferating cells with a view to the maintenance of genomic and epigenomic stability.


Arecaceae DNA methylation Elaeis guineensis Epigenetic stability Somaclonal variation Somatic embryogenesis 



2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid






Fresh Weight




Global Methylation Rate


High Performance Liquid Chromatography


Pro-Embryogenic Mass


Plant Growth Regulator


Transposable Element


  1. Alexandre C, Moller-Steinbach Y, Schonrock N et al (2009) Arabidopsis MSI1 is required for negative regulation of the response to drought stress. Mol Plant 2:675–687PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade GM, Nairn CJ, Le HT, Merkle SA (2009) Sexually mature transgenic American chestnut trees via embryogenic suspension-based transformation. Plant Cell Rep 28:1385–1397PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bairu MW, Fennell CW, van Staden J (2006) The effect of plant growth regulators on somaclonal variation in Cavendish banana (Musa AAA cv. “Zelig”). Sci Hortic 108:347–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bairu MW, Aremu AO, Van Staden J (2010) Somaclonal variation in plants: causes and detection methods. Plant Growth Regul 63:147–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bourc’his D, Voinnet O (2010) A small-RNA perspective on gametogenesis, fertilization, and early zygotic development. Science 330:617–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyko A, Kovalchuk I (2011) Genome instability and epigenetic modification—heritable responses to environmental stress? Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:260–266PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruce TJA, Matthes MC, Napier JA, Pickett JA (2007) Stressful “memories” of plants: evidence and possible mechanisms. Plant Sci 173:603–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen L, Zhang S, Beachy RN, Fauquet CM (1998) A protocol for consistent, large-scale production of fertile transgenic rice plants. Plant Cell Rep 18:25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinnusamy V, Zhu J-K (2009) Epigenetic regulation of stress responses in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:133–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cochard B, Amblard P, Durand-Gasselin T (2005) Oil palm genetic improvement and sustainable development. Oléagineux Corps gras Lipides 12:141–147Google Scholar
  11. Côte FX, Domergue R, Monmarson S et al (1996) Embryogenic cell suspensions from the male flower of Musa AAA cv Grand nain. Physiol Plant 97:285–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. de Touchet B, Duval Y, Pannetier C (1991) Plant regeneration from embryogenic suspension cultures of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). Plant Cell Rep 10:529–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dowen RH, Pelizzola M, Schmitz RJ et al (2012) Widespread dynamic DNA methylation in response to biotic stress. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 109:E2183–E2191PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eeuwens CJ, Lord S, Donough CR et al (2002) Effects of tissue culture conditions during embryoid multiplication on the incidence of “mantled” flowering in clonally propagated oil palm. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 70:311–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Etienne H, Bertrand B (2001) Trueness-to-type and agronomic characteristics of Coffea arabica trees micropropagated by the embryogenic cell suspension technique. Tree Physiol 21:1031–1038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Etienne H, Bertrand B (2003) Somaclonal variation in Coffea arabica: effects of genotype and embryogenic cell suspension age on frequency and phenotype of variants. Tree Physiol 23:419–426PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Feng S, Jacobsen SE, Reik W (2010) Epigenetic reprogramming in plant and animal development. Science 330:622–627PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finer JJ (1988) Plant regeneration from somatic embryogenic suspension cultures of cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Cell Rep 7:399–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Finer JJ, Nagasawa A (1988) Development of an embryogenic suspension culture of soybean (Glycine max Merrill.). Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 15:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fki L, Masmoudi R, Drira N, Rival A (2003) An optimised protocol for plant regeneration from embryogenic suspension cultures of date palm, Phoenix dactylifera L., cv Deglet Nour. Plant Cell Rep 21:517–524PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Fraga H, Vieira L, Caprestano C et al (2012) 5-Azacytidine combined with 2,4-D improves somatic embryogenesis of Acca sellowiana (O. Berg) Burret by means of changes in global DNA methylation levels. Plant Cell Rep. doi:10.1007/s00299-012-1327-8 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Fu C, Li L, Wu W et al (2012) Assessment of genetic and epigenetic variation during long-term Taxus cell culture. Plant Cell Rep 31:1321–1331PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gehrke CW, McCune RA, Gama-Sosa MA et al (1984) Quantitative reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography of major and modified nucleosides in DNA. J Chromatogr 301:199–219PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grafi G (2004) How cells dedifferentiate: a lesson from plants. Dev Biol 268:1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Grafi G, Chalifa-Caspi V, Nagar T et al (2011) Plant response to stress meets dedifferentiation. Planta 233:433–438PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Grandbastien M-A (1998) Activation of plant retrotransposons under stress conditions. Trends Plant Sci 3:181–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. He C, Chen X, Huang H, Xu L (2012) Reprogramming of H3K27me3 Is Critical for Acquisition of Pluripotency from Cultured Arabidopsis Tissues. PLoS Genet 8:e1002911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hirochika H (1993) Activation of tobacco retrotransposons during tissue culture. EMBO J 12:2521–2528PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Huang H, Han S, Wang Y et al (2012) Variations in leaf morphology and DNA methylation following in vitro culture of Malus xiaojinensis. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult. doi:10.1007/s11240-012-0179-9 Google Scholar
  30. Ito H, Gaubert H, Bucher E et al (2011) An siRNA pathway prevents transgenerational retrotransposition in plants subjected to stress. Nature 472:115–119PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jacob Y, Martienssen RA (2011) Chromatin reprogramming: gender equality during Arabidopsis germline differentiation. Curr Biol 21:R20–R22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Jaligot E, Rival A, Beulé T et al (2000) Somaclonal variation in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.): the DNA methylation hypothesis. Plant Cell Rep 19:684–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jaligot E, Beulé T, Rival A (2002) Methylation-sensitive RFLPs: characterisation of two oil palm markers showing somaclonal variation-associated polymorphism. Theor Appl Genet 104:1263–1269PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jaligot E, Beulé T, Baurens FC et al (2004) Search for methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphisms associated with the “mantled” variant phenotype in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). Genome 47:224–228PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jaligot E, Adler S, Debladis E et al (2011) Epigenetic imbalance and the floral developmental abnormality of the in vitro-regenerated oil palm Elaeis guineensis. Ann Bot 108:1463–1475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kaeppler SM, Kaeppler HF, Rhee Y (2000) Epigenetic aspects of somaclonal variation in plants. Plant Mol Biol 43:179–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kramut P, Te-chato S (2010) Effect of culture media, plant growth regulators and carbon sources on establishment of somatic embryo in suspension culture of oil palm. J Agri Technol 6:159–170Google Scholar
  38. Krogan NT, Long JA (2009) Why so repressed? Turning off transcription during plant growth and development. Curr Opin Plant Biol 12:628–636PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kubis SE, Castilho AMM, Vershinin AV, Heslop-Harrison JS (2003) Retroelements, transposons and methylation status in the genome of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) and the relationship to somaclonal variation. Plant Mol Biol 52:69–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Li W, Liu H, Cheng ZJ et al (2011) DNA Methylation and Histone Modifications Regulate De Novo Shoot Regeneration in Arabidopsis by Modulating WUSCHEL Expression and Auxin Signaling. PLoS Genet 7:e1002243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lippman Z, Gendrel A-V, Black M et al (2004) Role of transposable elements in heterochromatin and epigenetic control. Nature 430:471–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. LoSchiavo F, Pitto L, Giuliano G et al (1989) DNA methylation of embryogenic carrot cell cultures and its variations as caused by mutation, differentiation, hormones and hypomethylating drugs. Theor Appl Genet 77:325–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ma J, He Y, Hu Z et al (2012) Characterization and expression analysis of AcSERK2, a somatic embryogenesis and stress resistance related gene in pineapple. Gene 500:115–123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Matthes M, Singh R, Cheah SC, Karp A (2001) Variation in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) tissue culture-derived regenerants revealed by AFLPs with methylation-sensitive enzymes. Theor Appl Genet 102:971–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. McCue AD, Nuthikattu S, Reeder SH, Slotkin RK (2012) Gene Expression and Stress Response Mediated by the Epigenetic Regulation of a Transposable Element Small RNA. PLoS Genet 8:e1002474PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miguel C, Marum L (2011) An epigenetic view of plant cells cultured in vitro: somaclonal variation and beyond. J Exp Bot 62:3713–3725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mirouze M, Paszkowski J (2011) Epigenetic contribution to stress adaptation in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:267–274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Monteuuis O, Doulbeau S, Verdeil J-L (2008) DNA methylation in different origin clonal offspring from a mature Sequoiadendron giganteum genotype. Trees 22:779–784CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Morcillo F, Gagneur C, Adam H et al (2006) Somaclonal variation in micropropagated oil palm. Characterization of two novel genes with enhanced expression in epigenetically abnormal cell lines and in response to auxin. Tree Physiol 26:585–594PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Neelakandan A, Wang K (2012) Recent progress in the understanding of tissue culture-induced genome level changes in plants and potential applications. Plant Cell Rep 31:597–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Ngezahayo F, Xu C, Wang H et al (2009) Tissue culture-induced transpositional activity of mPing is correlated with cytosine methylation in rice. BMC Plant Biol 9:91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ooi S-E, Choo C-N, Ishak Z, Ong-Abdullah M (2012) A candidate auxin-responsive expression marker gene, EgIAA9, for somatic embryogenesis in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.). Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 110:201–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ozeki Y, Davies E, Takeda J (1997) Somatic variation during long term subculturing of plant cells caused by insertion of a transposable element in a phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) gene. Mol Gen Genet 254:407–416PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pannetier C, Arthuis P, Lievoux D (1981) Néoformation de jeunes plantes d’Elaeis guineensis à partir de cals primaires obtenus sur fragments foliaires cultivés in vitro. Oléagineux 36:119–122Google Scholar
  55. Peredo EL, Arroyo-García R, Revilla MÁ (2009) Epigenetic changes detected in micropropagated hop plants. J Plant Physiol 166:1101–1111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Peschke VM, Phillips RL, Gengenbach BG (1987) Discovery of transposable element activity among progeny of tissue culture—derived maize plants. Science 238:804–807PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reuveni O, Israeli Y (1990) Measures to reduce somaclonal variation in in vitro propagated bananas. Acta Horticulturae 275:307–314Google Scholar
  58. Richards EJ (2011) Natural epigenetic variation in plant species: a view from the field. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:204–209PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rigal M, Mathieu O (2011) A “mille-feuille” of silencing: epigenetic control of transposable elements. Biochim Biophys Acta 1809:452–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Rival A, Jaligot E (2011) Epigenetics and plant breeding. CAB reviews: perspectives in agriculture, veterinary science, nutrition and natural resources 6:048Google Scholar
  61. Rival A, Beulé T, Barre P et al (1997) Comparative flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA content in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq) tissue cultures and seed-derived plants. Plant Cell Rep 16:884–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Rodriguez APM, Wetzstein HY (1998) A morphological and histological comparison of the initiation and development of pecan (Carya illinoinensis) somatic embryogenic cultures induced with naphthaleneacetic acid or 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Protoplasma 204:71–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Roowi SH, Ho C-L, Alwee SSRS et al (2010) Isolation and Characterization of Differentially Expressed Transcripts from the Suspension Cells of Oil Palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) in Response to Different Concentration of Auxins. Mol Biotechnol 46:1–19PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Schoëpke C, Taylor N, Carcamo R et al (1996) Regeneration of transgenic cassava plants (Manihot esculenta Crantz) from microbombarded embryogenic suspension cultures. Nat Biotechnol 14:731–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Smulders M, de Klerk G (2011) Epigenetics in plant tissue culture. Plant Growth Regul 63:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Smýkal P, Valledor L, Rodríguez R, Griga M (2007) Assessment of genetic and epigenetic stability in long-term in vitro shoot culture of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Cell Rep 26:1985–1998PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Suzuki MM, Bird A (2008) DNA methylation landscapes: provocative insights from epigenomics. Nat Rev Genet 9:465–476PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Tang X, Lim M-H, Pelletier J et al (2012) Synergistic repression of the embryonic programme by SET DOMAIN GROUP 8 and EMBRYONIC FLOWER 2 in Arabidopsis seedlings. J Exp Bot 63:1391–1404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tanurdzic M, Vaughn MW, Jiang H et al (2008) Epigenomic consequences of immortalized plant cell suspension culture. PLoS Biol 6:2880–2895PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Vasil V, Redway F, Vasil IK (1990) Regeneration of plants from embryogenic suspension culture protoplasts of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Nat Biotechnol 8:429–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Verhoeven KJF, Jansen JJ, van Dijk PJ, Biere A (2010) Stress-induced DNA methylation changes and their heritability in asexual dandelions. New Phytol 185:1108–1118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang Q-M, Wang L (2012) An evolutionary view of plant tissue culture: somaclonal variation and selection. Plant Cell Rep 31:1535–1547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Yaish MW, Colasanti J, Rothstein SJ (2011) The role of epigenetic processes in controlling flowering time in plants exposed to stress. J Exp Bot 62:3727–3735PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Yang J, Bi H-P, Fan W-J et al (2011) Efficient embryogenic suspension culturing and rapid transformation of a range of elite genotypes of sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas [L.] Lam.). Plant Sci 181:701–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Yao Y, Bilichak A, Golubov A, Kovalchuk I (2012) ddm1 plants are sensitive to methyl methane sulfonate and NaCl stresses and are deficient in DNA repair. Plant Cell Rep 31:1549–1561PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Zeng F, Zhang X, Jin S et al (2007) Chromatin reorganization and endogenous auxin/cytokinin dynamic activity during somatic embryogenesis of cultured cotton cell. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 90:63–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Zhang C–C, Yuan W-Y, Zhang Q-F (2012) RPL1, a Gene Involved in Epigenetic Processes Regulates Phenotypic Plasticity in Rice. Mol Plant 5:482–493PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alain Rival
    • 1
  • Pascal Ilbert
    • 1
  • Axel Labeyrie
    • 2
    • 5
  • Esperanza Torres
    • 3
  • Sylvie Doulbeau
    • 4
  • Aline Personne
    • 1
  • Stéphane Dussert
    • 4
  • Thierry Beulé
    • 1
  • Tristan Durand-Gasselin
    • 2
  • James W. Tregear
    • 4
  • Estelle Jaligot
    • 1
  1. 1.CIRADUMR DIADE (IRD, UMSF)MontpellierFrance
  2. 2.PalmElit SASMontferrier sur LezFrance
  3. 3.Universidad Nacional de ColombiaBogotá DCColombia
  4. 4.IRDUMR DIADE (IRD, UMSF)MontpellierFrance
  5. 5.CIRADUMR AGAPMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations