Euphytica

, Volume 174, Issue 1, pp 73–82 | Cite as

Embryo rescue and plant regeneration following interspecific crosses in the genus Hylocereus (Cactaceae)

Article

Abstract

The aim of this study was to develop an efficient methodology to rescue embryos following interspecific crosses in the genus Hylocereus. Crosses between the diploids Hylocereus polyrhizus and H. undatus in both directions were performed. Fertilized ovules carrying embryos at very early pro-embryonic stages were excised from ovaries 5 days after pollination (DAP) and placed on half-strength basal MS medium containing 680 μM glutamine, 0.55 μM α-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA), 0.45 μM thidiazuron (TDZ) and various concentrations of sucrose. After 30 days in culture, ovules were isolated from the surrounding tissue and transferred to the same fresh medium. Significant differences were found between the main effects (cross and sucrose concentration) in ovule response, i.e., increased ovule size and callus formation. The best responses were obtained in the cross: H. polyrhizus × H. undatus; and sucrose concentration of 0.09 M. In terms of embryo conversion, polyembryony and number of regenerated plants, the highest responses were observed on the culture medium supplemented with 0.17 M sucrose in both interspecific crosses. All tested plants were found to be diploid by flow cytometric analyses. Fluorescent amplified—fragment length polymorphism (fAFLP) confirmed the hybrid origin of the regenerated plants. This study reports on the success of a three-step embryo rescue procedure for Hylocereus species. The procedure developed here provides the means for producing plants from very-early embryo stage, thus expanding the prospects for vine-cactus breeding programs.

Keywords

Cactaceae Embryo rescue Flow cytometry Fluorescent AFLP α-Naphthaleneacetic Ovule culture Thidiazuron 

Abbreviations

CPO

Ratio between total number of callus divided by the number of ovules

DAP

Days after pollination

fAFLP

Fluorescent amplified fragment length polymorphism

NAA

α-Naphthaleneacetic acid

TDZ

Thidiazuron

References

  1. Ahmad F, Slinkard AE (2004) The extent of embryo and endosperm growth following interspecific hybridization between Cicer arietinum L. and related annual wild species. Genet Resour Crop Evol 51:765–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benega-Garcia R, Cisneros A, Schneider B, Tel-Zur N (2009) Gynogenesis in the vine cacti Hylocereus and Selenicereus (Cactaceae). Plant Cell Rep 28:719–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Doležel J, Bartoš J (2005) Plant DNA flow cytometry and estimation of nuclear genome size. Ann Bot 95:99–110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Doležel J, Binarova P, Lucretti S (1989) Analysis of nuclear DNA content in plant cells by flow cytometry. Biol Plant 31:113–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Galović V, Mladenović-Drinić S, Jelovac D, Navalušić J (2004) Application possibilities of AFLP fingerprinting technique in maize DNA profiling and plant variety protection. Genetika 36:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. George EF (2009) Plant tissue culture procedure—background. In: George EF, Hall MA, De Klerk G-J (eds) Plant propagation by tissue culture, vol 1, 3rd edn. Springer, New York, p 520Google Scholar
  7. Hayashi M, Kanoh K, Serizawa Y, Yoon E (1986) Ovary slice culture of Lilium formosanum Wallace. Jpn J Breed 36:304–308Google Scholar
  8. Honjo R, Ikeda T, Taji A, Uragami A (2009) Effects of various sucrose concentration and ancymidol on shoot elongation and water status of Asparagus in vitro. Acta Hort 829:299–303Google Scholar
  9. Ikeda T, Iwaya-Inoue M, Fukuyama T, Nonami H (2000) Trehalose changes hydraulic conductance of tissue-cultured soybean embryos. Plant Biotechnol 17:119–125Google Scholar
  10. Ikeda N, Niimi Y, Han D-S (2003) Production of seedling from ovules excised at the zygote stage in Lilium spp. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 73:159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koeleman JGM, Stoof J, Biesmans DJ, Savelkoul PHM, Vandenbroucke-Grauls CMJE (1998) Comparison of amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis, random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis, and amplified fragment length polymorphism fingerprinting for identification of Acinetobacter genomic species and typing of Acinetobacter baumannii. J Clin Microbiol 36:2522–2529PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kumlehn J, Lörz H, Kranz E (1998) Differentiation of isolated wheat zygotes into embryos and normal plants. Planta 205:327–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lichtenzveig J, Abbo S, Nerd A, Tel-Zur N, Mizhrahi Y (2000) Cytology and mating systems in the climbing cacti Hylocereus and Selenicereus. Am J Bot 87:1058–1065CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Mc Gregor CE, Lambert CA, Greyling MM, Loue JH, Warnich L (2000) A comparative assessment of DNA fingerprinting techniques (RAPD, ISSR. AFLP and SSR) in tetraploid potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) germplasm. Euphytica 113:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merten S (2003) A review of Hylocereus production in the United States. J PACD 5:98–105Google Scholar
  16. Miyajima D (2006) Ovules that failed to form seeds in zinnia (Zinnia violacea Cav). Sci Hortic 107:176–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mizrahi Y, Nerd A (1999) Climbing and columnar cacti. In: Janick J (ed) New arid land fruit crops. Perspective in new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, VA, pp 358–366Google Scholar
  18. Mohamed-Yasseen Y (2002) Micropropagation of pitaya (Hylocereus undatus Britton et Rose). In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 38:427–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bio-assays with tobacco tissues cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nobel PS, de la Barrera E (2004) CO2 uptake by the cultivated hemiepiphytic cactus, Hylocereus undatus. Ann Appl Biol 144:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Okawai Y, Ikeda T, Taji A (2009) Growth and water status of tissue-cultured strawberry plants as affected by salt stress and different sugar concentration in media. Acta Hortic 829:417–421Google Scholar
  22. Ortiz Y (1999) Pitahaya a new crop for Mexico. Editorial LIMUSA, S.A. de C.V. Grupo Noriega Edit. ISBN 968-18-5775-5Google Scholar
  23. Pelah D, Kaushik RA, Mizrahi Y, Sitrit Y (2002) Organogenesis in the vine cactus Selenicereus megalanthus using thidiazuron. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 71:81–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pérez-Tornero O, Porras I (2008) Assessment of polyembryony in lemon: rescue and in vitro culture of immature embryos. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 93:173–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raveh E, Nerd A, Mizrahi Y (1998) Responses of two hemiepiphytic fruit crop cacti to different degrees of shade. Sci Hortic 73:151–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Reed S (2004) Embryo rescue. In: Trigiano RN, Gray DJ (eds) Plant development and biotechnology. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Fl, pp 235–239Google Scholar
  27. Sage TL, Strumas F, Cole WW, Barret SCH (1999) Differential ovule development following self and cross pollination: The basis of self sterility in Narcissus triandrus (Amaryllidaceae). Am J Bot 86:855–870CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Schryer PA, Lu Q, Vandenberg A, Bett KE (2005) Rapid regeneration of Phaseolus angustissimus and P. vulgaris from very young zygotic embryos. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 83:67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sharma DR, Kaur R, Kumar K (1996) Embryo rescue in plants—a review. Euphytica 89:325–337Google Scholar
  30. Tel-Zur N, Abbo S, Bar-Zvi D, Mizhrahi Y (2004) Genetic relationships among Hylocereus and Selenicereus vine cacti (Cactaceae): evidence from hybridization and cytological studies. Ann Bot 94:527–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Tel-Zur N, Abbo S, Mizrahi Y (2005) Cytogenetics of semi-fertile triploid and aneuploid intergeneric vine cacti hybrids. J Hered 6:124–131Google Scholar
  32. Tomasz PW, Hamerska M, Wróblewska M (2006) Organogenesis of vegetative shoots from in vitro cultured flower buds of Mammillaria albicoma (Cactaceae). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 87:27–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Vos P, Hogers R, Bleeker M, Reijans M, van de Lee T, Hornes M, Frijters A, Pot J, Peleman J, Kuiper M, Zabeau M (1995) AFLP: a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucleic Acids Res 23:4407–4414CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wang J, Huang L, Bao M, Liu G (2009) Production of interspecific hybrids between Lilium longiflorum and L. lophophorum var linearifolium via ovule culture at early stage. Euphytica 167:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Yang C, Zhang J, Xu Q, Xiong C, Bao M (2005) Establishment of AFLP technique and assessment of primer combinations for Mei flower. Plant Mol Biol Rep 23:79a–79lCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.A. Katz Department of Dryland Biotechnologies, Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert ResearchBen-Gurion University of the NegevSede-Boqer CampusIsrael
  2. 2.French Associates Institute for Agriculture and Biotechnology of Drylands, The Jacob Blaustein Institutes for Desert ResearchBen-Gurion University of the NegevSede-Boqer CampusIsrael

Personalised recommendations