Genetic transformation of grape varieties and rootstocks via organogenesis
- 627 Downloads
A protocol was standardized to regenerate six grape cultivars through meristematic bulk (MB) induction, which was used for genetic transformation. Meristematic bulk induction worked best with Vitis vinifera ‘Thompson Seedless’ (98.4 %), followed by ‘Chardonnay’ (97.6 %), ‘Redglobe’ (90.2 %) and ‘Cabernet Sauvignon’ (86.2 %), and was less successful with Vitis rupestris ‘St. George’ (85.4 %) and ‘101-14 Millardet et de Grasset (Vitis riparia × V. rupestris)’ (79.6 %). Benzylaminopurine and naphthaleneacetic acid was the most effective combination of cytokinin and auxin for MB formation. 100 µg/ml kanamycin was a better antibiotic selection agent than 2.0 µg/ml hygromycin during transformation. The expression of green fluorescent protein was evaluated with in vitro leaves and roots. Transformation efficiency using meristematic slices was a function of the genotype. Transformation efficiency was greatest in Chardonnay (51.7 %), followed by Thompson Seedless (42.3 %), St. George (41.6 %), Redglobe (40 %), Cabernet Sauvignon (35.6 %) and 101-14 Mgt (29.9 %). This study found that MB induction was a fast and simple alternative for genetic transformation of grape cultivars.
KeywordsGrape Meristematic bulk Regeneration Genetic transformation
This work was supported by the Key Laboratory of Horticultural Plant Biology and Germplasm Innovation in Northwest China in conjunction with the assistantship of the Department of Viticulture and Enology at University of California, Davis.
The research was done with the grant of the National Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 31372039).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Conceived and designed the experiments: CBA MAW. Performed the experiments: XX CBA. Analyzed the data: XX. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: YW MAW. Wrote the paper: XX CBA YW MAW. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
- Agüero CB, Meredith CP, Dandekar AM (2006) Genetic transformation of Vitis vinifera L. cvs Thompson Seedless and Chardonnay with the pear PGIP and GFP encoding genes. Vitis 45:1–8Google Scholar
- Bouquet A, Torregrosa L, Iocco P, Thomas MR (2007) Grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). In: Wang K (ed) Agrobacterium protocols, vol 2. Springer, New York, pp 273–285Google Scholar
- Favre J (1977) Premiers resultats concernant l’obtention in vitro de neoformations caulinaires chez la vigne. Annales de l’Amélioration des Plantes 27:151–169Google Scholar
- Kurmi U, Sharma D, Tripathi M, Tiwari R, Baghel B, Tiwari S (2011) Plant regeneration of Vitis vinifera (L) via direct and indirect organogenesis from cultured nodal segments. J Agric Technol 7:721–737Google Scholar
- Maqsood A, Khan N, Hafiz IA, Abbasi NA, Anjum MA, Hussain S (2015) Effect of various factors on the efficiency of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of grape (Vitis vinifera L.). Vegetos Int J Plant Res 28:171–178Google Scholar
- Mulwa R, Norton M, Farrand S, Skirvin R (2015) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and regeneration of transgenic’Chancellor’wine grape plants expressing the tfd A gene. Vitis 46:110–115Google Scholar
- Rajasekaran K, Mullins MG (1981) Organogenesis in internode explants of grapevines. Vitis 20:218–227Google Scholar
- Reisch BI, Martens MH, Cheng ZM (1990) High frequency regeneration from grapevine petioles: extension to new genotypes. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Symposium on Grape Breeding, Pfalz, Germany, pp 419–422Google Scholar
- Scorza R, Cordts J, Gray D, Gonsalves D, Emershad R, Ramming D (1996) Producing transgenic ‘Thompson Seedless’ grape (Vitis vinifera L.) plants. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 121:616–619Google Scholar
- Stamp JA, Colby SM, Meredith CP (1990b) Improved shoot organogenesis from leaves of grape. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 115:1038–1042Google Scholar
- Torregrosa L, Iocco P, Thomas M (2002) Influence of Agrobacterium strain, culture medium, and cultivar on the transformation efficiency of Vitis vinifera L. Am J Enol Vitic 53:183–190Google Scholar
- Wang Q, Li P, Hanania U, Sahar N, Mawassi M, Gafny R, Sela I, Tanne E, Perl A (2005) Improvement of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation efficiency and transgenic plant regeneration of Vitis vinifera L. by optimizing selection regimes and utilizing cryopreserved cell suspensions. Plant Sci 168:565–571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Zhang P, Yu Z-Y, Cheng Z-M, Zhang Z, Tao J-M (2011) In vitro explants regeneration of the grape ‘Wink’(Vitis vinifera L. ‘Wink’). J Plant Breed Crop Sci 3:276–282Google Scholar