Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC)

, Volume 108, Issue 2, pp 229–236 | Cite as

Adventitious shoot regeneration of pear (Pyrus spp.) genotypes

  • Richard L. BellEmail author
  • Ralph Scorza
  • Delores Lomberk
Original Paper


Adventitious shoot regeneration of twenty-four pear genotypes was compared in a common in vitro shoot induction and development protocol. This study also compared cultures newly established from scionwood with cultures that been in long-term cold storage. In vitro cultures of 13 Pyrus genotypes and budwood from 23 Pyrus genotypes were obtained from the National Clonal Germplasm Repository (NCGR) in Corvallis, Oregon. With the exception of one genotype of P. elaeagrifolia Pall., and ‘Ya Li’ (P. pyrifolia var. sinensis Teng & Tanabe), all were P. communis L. cultivars. The basal shoot induction media consisted of Chevreau and Leblay (CL) basal nutrients, vitamins, and organics (Chevreau and Leblay in Acta Hortic 336: 263–268, 1993). The analysis of variance indicated that differences among genotypes were highly significant and the main effect of culture origin was non-significant. However, there was a significant interaction between genotype and culture origin, with percentage regeneration of ‘Abate Fetel’ from new budwood significantly greater than that from long-term in vitro cultures, while ‘Jesinji Vodenac’ cultures derived from the old NCGR cultures regenerated significantly more adventitious shoots. The ranges of mean regeneration frequency were similar for both in vitro (0–87.7%) and scionwood-derived cultures (0–70.7%). Maximum regeneration was observed for ‘Conference’, followed by ‘Magness’, ‘Dr. Jules Guyot’, and Packham’s Triumph’. The range of number of adventitious shoots was relatively narrow, with the minimum of 1.0 for seven genotypes to 2.2 for ‘Conference’.


Biotechnology Morphogenesis Pyrus ×bretschneideri Pyrus pyrifolia var. sinensis Pyrus communis Pyrus elaeagrifolia 



We thank Ceil Muller for technical assistance. Mention of a trademark, proprietary product, or vendor does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by the US Department of Agriculture and does not imply its approval to the exclusion of other products or vendors that also may be suitable. USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.


  1. Abdollahi H, Muleo R, Rugini E (2006) Optimization of regeneration and maintenance of morphogenic callus in pear (Pyrus communis L.) by simple and double regeneration techniques. Scientia Hort 108:352–358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abu-Qaoud H, Skirvin RM, Below FE (1991) Influence of nitrogen form and NH4 +-N/:NO3 -N ratios on adventitious shoot formation from pear (Pyrus communis) leaf explants in vitro. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 27:315–319Google Scholar
  3. Bell RL (2003) Interactions of genotype and auxin affecting regeneration of pear. Hortscience 38:750Google Scholar
  4. Bell RL, Scorza R, Srinivasan C, Webb K (1999) Transformation of ‘Beurre Bosc’ pear with the rolC gene. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 124:570–574Google Scholar
  5. Caboni E, Tonelli MG, Lauri P, D’Angeli S, Damiano C (1999) In vitro shoot regeneration from leaves of wild pear. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 59:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cheng TY (1979) Micropropagation of clonal fruit tree rootstocks. Compact Fruit Tree 12:127–137Google Scholar
  7. Chevreau E, Bell RL (2005) Pyrus spp. pear and Cydonia spp. quince. In: Litz RE (ed) Biotechnology of fruit and nut crops. CABI Publishing, Wallingford, pp 543–565CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chevreau E, Leblay C (1993) The effect of mother plant pretreatment and explant choice on regeneration from in vitro pear leaves. Acta Hortic 336:263–268Google Scholar
  9. Chevreau E, Skirvin RM (1992) Pear biotechnology. In: Hammerschlag FA, Litz R (eds) Biotechnology of perennial fruit crops. C.A.B. Int., Wallingford, pp 263-276Google Scholar
  10. Chevreau E, Mourgues F, Neveu M, Chevalier M (1997) Effect of gelling agents and antibiotics on adventitious bud regeneration from in vitro leaves of pear. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 33:173–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christianson ML, Warnick DA (1983) Competence and determination in the process of in vitro shoot organogenesis. Dev Biol 95:288–293PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Christianson ML, Warnick DA (1984) Phenocritical times in the process of in vitro shoot organogenesis. Dev Biol 101:382–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christianson ML, Warnick DA (1985) Temporal requirement for phytohormone balance in the control of organogenesis in vitro. Dev Biol 112:494–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gamborg OL, Mioller RA, Ojima K (1968) Nutrient requirements of suspension cultures of soybean root cells. Exp Cell Res 50:150–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gao M, Matsuda N, Murayama H, Toyomasu T, Mitsuhashi W, Dandekar AM, Tao R, Nishimura K (2007) Gene expression and ethylene production in transgenic pear (Pyrus communis cv. ‘La France’) with sense or antisense cDNA encoding ACC oxidase. Plant Sci 173:32–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hennayake CK, Dissanayake K, Matsuda N, Takasaki T, Nakanishi T (2003) An efficient and reproducible in vitro plant regeneration from leaf discs in pear cultivars (Pyrus spp.). Plant Biotechnol 20:283–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kadota M, Niima Y (2003) Effects of cytokinin types and their concentrations on shoot proliferation and hyperhydricity in in vitro pear cultivar shoots. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 72:261–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lane WD, Iketani H, Hayashi T (1998) Shoot regeneration from cultured leaves of Japanese pear (Pyrus pyrifolia). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 54:9–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lebedev VG, Dolgov SV (2000) The effect of selective agents and a plant intron on transformation efficiency and expression of heterologous genes in pear Pyrus communis L. Plant Genet 36:650–655Google Scholar
  20. Leblay C, Chevreau E, Raboin LM (1991) Adventitious shoot regeneration from in vitro leaves of several pear cultivars (Pyrus communis L.). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 25:99–105Google Scholar
  21. Lee C-H, Kim CS, Kim S-B, Noh Y-M, Han D-H, Ban S-J, Kang S-K, Kang S-J (2002) Development of efficient regeneration system for Pyrus pyrifolia. J Korean Soc Hortic Sci 43:271–274Google Scholar
  22. Linsmaier EM, Skoog F (1965) Organic growth factor requirements of tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 18:100–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD (1996) SAS® system for mixed models. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  24. Malnoy M, Venisse J-S, Brisset M-N, Chreaveau E (2003) Expression of bovine lactoferrin cDNA confers resistance to Erwinia amylovora in transgenic pear. Mol Breed 12:231–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Martinelli F, Busconi M, Fogher C, Sebastiani L (2009) Development of an efficient regeneration protocol for pear rootstock Pyrodwarf and assessment of SSR variability in regenerating shoots. Caryologia 62:62–68Google Scholar
  26. Matsuda N, Gao M, Isuzugawa K, Takashina T, Nishimura K (2005) Development of an Agrobacterium-mediated transformation method of pear (Pyrus communis L.) with leaf-section and axillary shoot-meristem explants. Plant Cell Rep 24:45–51Google Scholar
  27. Mourgues F, Chevreau E, Lambert C, De Bondt A (1996) Efficient Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and recovery of transgenic plants from pear (Pyrus communis L.). Plant Cell Rep 16:245–249Google Scholar
  28. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nacheva LR, Gercheva PS, Dzhuvinov VT (2009) Efficient shoot regeneration system of pear rootstock OHF 333 (Pyrus communis L.) leaves. Acta Hortic 839:195–201Google Scholar
  30. Nitsch JP, Nitsch C (1969) Haploid plants from pollen grains. Science 163:854–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Predieri S, Fasolo F, Malavasi F, Passey AJ, Ridout MS, James D (1989) Regeneration from in vitro leaves of ‘Conference’ and other pear cultivars (Pyrus communis L.). J Hortic Sci 64:553–560Google Scholar
  32. Quoirin M, Lepoivre P (1977) Improved media for in vitro culture of Prunus sp. Acta Hortic 78:437–442Google Scholar
  33. SAS Institute Inc. (1990) SAS procedures guide, version 6, 3rd edn. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  34. Shibli RA, Ajouni MMA, Obeidat AA (2000) Direct regeneration from wild pear (Pyrus syriaca) leaf explants. Adv Hortic Sci 14:12–18Google Scholar
  35. Sun Q, Sun H (1999) Shoot regeneration from in vitro leaf explants of ‘Fertility’ (Pyrus communis L.). Deciduous Fruits 4:9–10Google Scholar
  36. Sun QR, Liu QZ, Zhao RH (2003) Somatic embryogenesis from in vitro leaves of pear. Acta Hortic Sinica 30:85–86Google Scholar
  37. Sun Q, Wei W, Hammond RW, Davis RE, Zhao Y (2006) Genetic transformation of pear cultivar ‘Old Home’ and regeneration of transgenic plants for potential disease resistance. Phytopathology 96(Suppl. S):S191–S192Google Scholar
  38. Sun Q, Sun H, Bell RL, Li H, Xin L (2011) Variation of phenotype, ploidy level, and organogenic potential of in vitro retgenerated polyploids of Pyrus communis. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. doi: 10.1007/s11240-011-9965-z
  39. Tang H, Luo Y, Liu C (2008) Plant regeneration from in vitro leaves of four commercial Pyrus species. Plant Soil Environ 54:140–148Google Scholar
  40. Yancheva SD, Golubowicz S, Fisher E, Lev-Yadun S, Flaishman MA (2003) Auxin type and timing of application determine the activation of the developmental program during in vitro organogenesis in apple. Plant Sci 165:299–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Yancheva SD, Shlizerman LA, Golubowicz S, Yabloviz Z, Perl A, Hanania U, Flaischman MA (2006) The use of greenfluroescent protein (GFP) improves Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of ‘Spadona’ pear (Pyrus communis). Plant Cell Rep 25(3):183–189Google Scholar
  42. Zhu LH, Welander M (2000) Adventitious shoot regeneration of two dwarfing pear rootstocks and the development of a transformation protocol. J Hortic Sci Biotechnol 75:745–752Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. (outside the USA) 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard L. Bell
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ralph Scorza
    • 1
  • Delores Lomberk
    • 2
  1. 1.US Department of AgricultureAgricultural Research ServiceKearneysvilleUSA
  2. 2.US Department of AgricultureAgricultural Research Service, EPCOT ScienceLake Buena VistaUSA

Personalised recommendations