Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture

, Volume 87, Issue 3, pp 255–262 | Cite as

Dehydration-induced alterations in growth and osmotic potential of callus from six tepary bean lines varying in drought resistance

  • Mohamed F. Mohamed
  • Azza A. Tawfik
Original Paper


Growth and osmotic potential of calli induced from leaf- and root-derived tissues of six tepary bean lines (Phaseolus acutifolius) varying in drought resistance were assessed in vitro after polyethylene glycol-induced (10%, PEG-10,000) dehydration. Calli of resistant teparies were characterized by low initial osmotic potential (ψs) and relative growth rate (RGR) on medium lacking PEG (−0.30 MPa). However, calli of both resistant and sensitive lines were similar in dry matter percent (DM). Presence of PEG in the medium (−0.58 MPa) elevated DM in all teparies except one resistant line. Both leaf- and root-derived calli of sensitive teparies exhibited osmotic adjustment (OA) but reduced RGR that remained after rehydration in one line. We concluded that preexisting force of low cellular ψs rather than induced OA plays an important role in buffering adverse effects of dehydration and conditioning drought resistance of tepary beans. This information may aid Phaseolus breeders in screening for drought resistance among large number of accessions.


Germplasm In vitro Osmotic adjustment PEG Phaseolus acutifolius Relative growth rate 



The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. E. D. Earle (Cornell University, Ithaca, New York) for the critical reading of the manuscript.


  1. Bajji M, Lutts S, Kinet JM (2000) Physiological changes after exposure to and recovery from polyethylene glycol-induced water deficit in callus culture issued from durum wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) cultivars differing in drought resistance. J Plant Physiol 156:75–83Google Scholar
  2. Gomez ka, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research. 2nd edn, John Wily and Sons, NYGoogle Scholar
  3. Idouraine A, Webbed CW, Kohlhepp EA (1995) Composition of tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) of the southwestern U.S. and northern Mexico. Ecol Food Nutr 33:139–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kumar AS, Gamborg OL, Nabors MW (1988) Regeneration from long-term cell suspension cultures of tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) Plant Cell Rep 7:322–325Google Scholar
  5. Markhart AH (1985) Comparative water relation of Phaseolus vulgaris L. and Phaseolus acutifolius Gray. Plant Physiol 77:113–117PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. McElory jb (1985) Breeding dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) for common bacterial blight resistance derived from Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray. Ph.D. Diss., Cornell UnivGoogle Scholar
  7. Miklas PN, Rosas JC, Beaver JS, Freytag GF (1994) Tepary bean germplasm adapted to the tropics. Annu Rpt Bean Improv Coop 37:83–84Google Scholar
  8. Mohamed MF (1990) Improved recovery of interspecific hybrid plants in Phaseolus on medium supplemented with growth regulators. Assiut J Agric Sci 21(5):373–387Google Scholar
  9. Mohamed MF (1991) Salinity effects on emergency, vegetative growth and seed yield of tepary beans (Phaseolus acutifolius A. Gray). Assiut J Agric Sci 22(5):139–151Google Scholar
  10. Mohamed MF (1996) Response to gradient prolonged-intervals of irrigation under heat-stress conditions and interspecific hybridization for five tepary bean lines. Assiut J Agric Sci 27(4):107–123Google Scholar
  11. Mohamed MF (2000) Useful tepary and cowpea lines in rationalizing water use for pulse legume production in southern Egypt. Acta Hort 537(2):813–822Google Scholar
  12. Mohamed MF, Keutgen N, Tawfik AA, Noga G (2002) Dehydration-avoidance response of tepary bean lines differing in drought resistance. J Plant Physiol 159:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Morgan JM (1984) Osmoregulation and water stress in higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 35:299–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Munns R (1988) Why measure osmotic adjustment? Aust J Plant Physiol 15:717–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Horticulture, Faculty of AgricultureAssiut UniversityAssiutEgypt

Personalised recommendations