Organogenesis response of six selected half-sibling families of stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) has been evaluated, showing genotype-dependent behaviour. The caulogenic phase was characterized by high values of Survival and Organogenesis, while the rooting phase (the bottleneck of many coniferous species) showed great variability among families. Provenance influence was also studied, and the rhizogenesis protocol was optimized for the selected families. The highest values were obtained with family 36, with 100% of Organogenesis, a Bud Formation Capacity (BFC) Index of 6.54 and 38.44% of Rooted Shoots; on the other hand, family 61 presented the worst results, with 83.64% Organogenesis, a BFC Index of 3.01 and a 29.69% Rooting Rate. According to these results, both families will be used in further experiments looking for the underlying bases of the different organogenic behaviour between both families under the same culture conditions. In addition to this, and for the first time in this species, random amplified polymorphism DNA (RAPD) analysis has been carried out to determine whether somaclonal variation had occurred. The results suggested an absence of variation during the whole in vitro process, although more thorough studies would be required for a conclusive answer.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Bud formation capacity index
Cotyledons with caulogenic response
Random amplified polymorphism DNA
Shoot elongation capacity index
Alonso P, Moncaleán P, Fernández B, Rodríguez A, Centeno ML, Ordás RJ (2006) An improved micropropagation protocol for stone pine (Pinus pinea L.). Ann For Sci 63:879–885. doi:10.1051/forest:2006071
Bergmann BA, Stomp AM (1992) Influence of taxonomic relatedness and medium composition on meristematic nodule and adventitious shoot formation in nine pine species. Can J For Res 22:750–755. doi:10.1139/x92-101
Compton ME (1994) Statistical methods suitable for analysis of plant tissue culture data. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 37:217–242. doi:10.1007/BF00042336
Capuana M, Giannini R (1995) In vitro plantlet regeneration from embryonic explants of Pinus pinea L. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 31:202–206. doi:10.1007/BF02632022
Carneros E, Hernández I, Jiménez J, López-Vels D, Alegre J, Toribio M, Celestino C (2007) Maduración de embriones somáticos de Pinus pinea L. In: Toribio M, Sánchez MC, González JM, Alegre J (eds) VII Reunión Sociedad Española de Cultivo In Vitro de Tejidos Vegetales, Alcalá de Henares, Junio 2007
DeVerno LL, Mosseler A (1997) Genetic variation in red pine (Pinus resinosa) revealed by RAPD and RAPD-RFLP analysis. Can J For Res 27:1316–1320. doi:10.1139/cjfr-27-8-1316
Dumas E, Monteuuis O (1995) In vitro rooting of micropropagated shoots from juvenile and mature Pinus pinaster explants: influence of activated charcoal. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 40:231–235. doi:10.1007/BF00048128
Evaristo I, Seabra RC, Baeta J, Pais MS (2002) Caracterizaçao molecular de proveniências de Pinus pinea L. por RAPD (Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA). Silva Lusit 10(1):53–61
Fallour D, Fady B, Lefevre F (1997) Study on isozyme variation in Pinus pinea L.: evidence for low polymorphism. Silvae Genet 46(4):201–207
Fourré JL, Berger P, Niquet L, André P (1997) Somatic embryogenesis and somaclonal variation in Norway spruce: morphogenetic, cytogenetic and molecular approaches. Theor Appl Genet 94:159–169. doi:10.1007/s001220050395
González MV, Rey M, Tavazza R, La Malfa S, Cuozzo L, Ancora G (1998) In vitro adventitious shoot formation on cotyledons of Pinus pinea. Hortsci 33(4):749–750
Goto S, Thakur RC, Ishii K (1998) Determination of genetic stability in long-term micropropagated shoots of Pinus thunbergii Parl using RAPD markers. Plant Cell Rep 18:193–197. doi:10.1007/s002990050555
Hammann A (1998) Adventitious root formation in cuttings of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda): developmental sequence and effects of maturation. Trees (Berl) 12:175–180
Miguel C, Gonçalves S, Tereso S, Marum L, Maroco J, Oliveira M (2004) Somatic embryogenesis from 20 open-pollinated families of Portuguese plus trees of maritime pine. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 76:121–130. doi:10.1023/B:TICU.0000007253.91771.e3
Mutke S, Gordo J, Gil L (2000) The stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) breeding programme in Castile-Leon (Central Spain). FAO-Nucis-Newsletter 9:50–55
Sul IW, Korban S (2004) Effects of salt formulations, carbon sources, cytokinins, and auxin on shoot organogenesis from cotyledons of Pinus pinea L. Plant Growth Regul 43:197–205. doi:10.1023/B:GROW.0000046013.47892.4f
Tang W (2001) In vitro regeneration of loblolly pine and random amplified polymorphic DNA analyses of regenerated plantlets. Plant Cell Rep 20:163–168. doi:10.1007/s002990000297
Tang W, Guo Z (2001) In vitro propagation of loblolly pine via direct somatic organogenesis from mature cotyledons and hypocotyls. Plant Growth Regul 33:25–31. doi:10.1023/A:1010764816523
The authors thank E. Cires Rodríguez and N. Fernández Villacorta for reviewing the English of this manuscript. This work was supported by the Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (AGL 2002-00867). C. Cuesta is supported by a predoctoral grant by Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia (FPU AGL-2003-2838).
About this article
Cite this article
Cuesta, C., Ordás, R.J., Fernández, B. et al. Clonal micropropagation of six selected half-sibling families of Pinus pinea and somaclonal variation analysis. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 95, 125–130 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-008-9412-y
- Stone pine
- Vegetative propagation
- Somaclonal variation