Advertisement

Comparison of two different micropropagation systems of Saccharum officinarum L. and expression analysis of PIP2;1 and EIN3 genes as efficiency system indicators

  • Evelyn A. Carrillo-Bermejo
  • Miguel A. Herrera-Alamillo
  • Víctor M. González-Mendoza
  • Alejandro Pereira-Santana
  • Miguel A. Keb-Llanes
  • Enrique Castaño
  • Manuel L. Robert
  • Luis C. Rodríguez-Zapata
Research Note
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

In sugarcane commercial plantations, seedlings are obtained by vegetative propagation from stem segments. However, this form of seedling production has a downside as it is responsible for spreading various pathogens that accumulate in plants during the cultivation cycle. The development of a disease-free and pathogen-free large-scale production protocol is useful to help minimize the spread of such diseases in commercial plantations. For this reason, a plant tissue culture methodology such as in vitro micropropagation offers the best alternative. In vitro micropropagation protocols using bioreactors based on the temporary immersion system such as BioMINT II™ is a cost-effective design. Our aim was to evaluate the efficiency of two different systems of in vitro micropropagation for sugarcane seedlings; semi-solid and BioMINT II™ in terms of biomass production, morphological and physiological parameters. Beside this, we tested by RT-qPCR two genes (PIP2;1 and EIN3) involved in plant development, as possible molecular markers for quality analysis of development during the tested in vitro micropropagation conditions. At 28 days we obtained more shoots and better quality physiological parameters in the BioMINT II than in the semi-solid system. On the other hand, we characterized and correlated the expression of PIP2;1 and EIN3 with the morphological parameters of the two systems. Our results give a better option for biomass production with the BioMINT II™ and suggest additional experiments of the PIP2;1 and EIN3 genes to be considered as molecular markers for quality analysis of physiological parameters during in vitro micropropagation.

Keywords

Sugarcane BioMINT II (Bioreactor Modular Temporary Immersion) Micropropagation system Magenta box 6-Benzylaminopurine (BAP) RT-qPCR 

Abbreviations

MS

Murashige and Skoog

BAP

6-Benzylaminopurine

TIS

Temporary immersion system

BioMINT II

Modular immersion bioreactor

RAM

Root apical meristem

GDP

Gross domestic product

SAM

Shoot apical meristem

AQPs

Aquaporin genes.

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank “Colegio de Posgraduados (Colpos)” Campus Campeche, Mexico, for providing plant material. The authors would also like to thank the Centro de Investigación Científica de Yucatán, Mexico, for supporting this research. We thank the anonymous referees for their constructive comments and suggestions.

Author contributions

EACB, MAHA, and LCRZ, conceived and designed the research; APS and EACB performed sample preparation and total RNA extraction; APS performed bioinformatic analysis from the sugarcane transcriptome to obtain the candidate sequences for the RT-qPCR experiment. VMGM designed the primers of RT-qPCR. MAHA performed the morphological evaluations and the massive micropropagation of the plants; MAKL in vitro adaptation of sugarcane plants; EACB and VMGM performed the RT-qPCR experiment and analysed the data; MAHA and EACB wrote the document. LCRZ, MLR, APS, and EC participated in the critical review of important intellectual content and reviewed the final version of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the SEP-CONACYT (No.: 215098). EACB received the financial support of a scholarship (462859) from CONACYT to obtain her Master degree and perform the experiments during her studies.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have not competing interests.

Supplementary material

11240_2018_1508_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (4 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 4051 KB)

References

  1. Aguilar-Rivera N, Rodríguez LDA, Enríquez RV et al (2012) The Mexican sugarcane industry: overview, constraints, current status and long-term trends. Sugar Tech 14:207–222.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-012-0151-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ali A, Naz S, Siddiqui FA, Iqbal J (2008) An efficient protocol for large scale production of sugarcane through micropropagation. Pakistan J Bot 40:139–149Google Scholar
  3. Aroca R, Porcel R, Ruiz-lozano JM (2012) Regulation of root water uptake under abiotic stress conditions. J Experim Bot 63:43–57.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baiges I, Schäffner AR, Affenzeller MJ, MA (2002) Plant aquaporins. Physiol Plant 115:175–182.  https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1399-3054.2002.1150201.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bello-Bello JJ, Canto-Flick A, Balam-Uc E et al (2010) Improvement of in vitro proliferation and elongation of habanero pepper shoots (Capsicum chinense jacq.) by temporary immersion. HortScience 45:1093–1098Google Scholar
  6. Chang KN, Zhong S, Weirauch MT et al (2013) Temporal transcriptional response to ethylene gas drives growth hormone cross-regulation in Arabidopsis. Elife 2013:1–20.  https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clark DG, Gubrium EK, Barrett JE et al (1999) Root formation in ethylene-insensitive plants. Plant Physiol 121:53–60.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.121.1.53 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. De Andrade LM, Nobile PME, Ribeiro RV et al (2016) Characterization of PIP2 aquaporins in Saccharum hybrids. Plant Gene 5:31–37.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plgene.2015.11.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Godoy-hernández G, Vázquez-flota FA (2006) Growth measurements. Plant Cell Cult Protoc 318:51–58Google Scholar
  10. Hake S, Smith HMS, Holtan H et al (2004) The role of knox genes in plant development. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol 20:125–151.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.cellbio.20.031803.093824 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Houllou LM, De Souza RA (2015) Protocol optimization for in vitro sugarcane establishment from stem cuttings shoot tips. Res Biotechnol 6:42–48Google Scholar
  12. Le J, Vandenbussche F, Van Der Straeten D et al (2001) In the early response of Arabidopsis roots to ethylene, cell elongation is up- and down- regulated and uncoupled from differentiation. Plant Physiol 125:519–522CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2–∆∆CT method. Methods 25:402–408.  https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Menossi M, Silva-Filho MC, Vincentz M et al (2008) Sugarcane functional genomics: gene discovery for agronomic trait development. Int J Plant Genomics.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2008/458732 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Monja-Mio KM, Robert ML (2013) Direct somatic embryogenesis of Agave fourcroydes Lem. through thin cell layer culture. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 49:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Monja-Mio KM, Herrera-Alamillo M, Robert ML (2016) Somatic embryogenesis in temporary immersion bioreactors. In: Monja-Mio KM, Herrera-Alamillo MÁ, Robert ML (eds) Somatic embryogenesis: fundamental aspects and applications. Springer, Cham, pp 435–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Peña-Ramírez YJ, Juárez-Gómez J, Gómez-López L et al (2010) Multiple adventitious shoot formation in Spanish Red Cedar (Cedrela odorata L.) cultured in vitro using juvenile and mature tissues: an improved micropropagation protocol for a highly valuable tropical tree species. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 46:149–160.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-010-9280-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pereira-Santana A, Alvarado-Robledo EJ, Zamora-Briseño JA, Ayala-Sumuano JT, González-Mendoza VM, Espadas-Gil F, Alcaráz LD, Castaño E, Keb-Llanes MA, Sanchez-Teyer F, Rodriguez-Zapata LC (2017) Transcriptional profiling of sugarcane leaves and roots under progressive osmotic stress reveals a regulated coordination of gene expression in a spatiotemporal manner. PlosOne 12(12):e0189271.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189271 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Péret B, Li G, Zhao J et al (2012) Auxin regulates aquaporin function to facilitate lateral root emergence. Nat Cell Biol 14:991–998.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncb2573 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Pitts RJ, Cernac A, Estelle M (1998) Auxin and ethylene promote root hair elongation in Arabidopsis. Plant J 16:553–560.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1998.00321.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Ramgareeb S, Snyman SJ, van Antwerpen T, Rutherford RS (2010) Elimination of virus and rapid propagation of disease-free sugarcane (Saccharum spp. cultivar NCo376) using apical meristem culture. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 100:175–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Raz V, Koornneef M (2001) Cell division activity during apical hook development. Plant Physiol 125:219–226.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.125.1.219 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. Robert ML, Herrera-Herrera JL, Castillo E et al (2006a) An efficient method for the micropropagation of Agave species. Methods Mol Biol 318:165–178.  https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-959-1:165 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Robert ML, Herrera-Herrera JL, Herrera-Herrera G et al (2006b) A new temporary immersion bioreactor system for micropropagation. Methods Mol Biol 318:121–129.  https://doi.org/10.1385/1-59259-959-1:121 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Rodríguez H, Ana M, Castillo C, Marco A, Flores BEP (2005) Genetic diversity of the most important sugar cane cultivars in Mexico. e-Gnosis 3:1–10Google Scholar
  27. Silva M (2016) In vitro propagation in temporary immersion system of sugarcane plants variety ‘RB 872552’ derived from somatic embryos. Biotecnología Vegetal 15:187–191Google Scholar
  28. Smalle J, Haegman M, Kurepa J et al (1997) Ethylene can stimulate Arabidopsis hypocotyl elongation in the light. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 94:2756–2761.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.94.6.2756 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. United States Department of Agriculture (2017) Sugar: world markets and trade. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  30. Van de Poel B, Smet D, Van Der Straeten D (2015) Ethylene and hormonal cross talk in vegetative growth and development. Plant Physiol 169:61–72.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.00724 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Vives K, Andújar I, Lorenzo JC et al (2017) Comparison of different in vitro micropropagation methods of Stevia rebaudiana B. including temporary immersion bioreactor (BIT®). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 131:195–199.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-017-1258-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Zamir R, Khalil SA, Shah ST et al (2012) Efficient in vitro regeneration of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) from bud explants. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 26:3094–3099.  https://doi.org/10.5504/bbeq.2012.0049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ziv M (2010) Bioreactor technology for plant micropropagation. Hortic Rev 24:1–30.  https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470650776.ch1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Evelyn A. Carrillo-Bermejo
    • 1
  • Miguel A. Herrera-Alamillo
    • 1
  • Víctor M. González-Mendoza
    • 2
  • Alejandro Pereira-Santana
    • 2
  • Miguel A. Keb-Llanes
    • 1
  • Enrique Castaño
    • 2
  • Manuel L. Robert
    • 1
  • Luis C. Rodríguez-Zapata
    • 1
  1. 1.Unidad de BiotecnologíaCentro de Investigación Científica de YucatánMéridaMexico
  2. 2.Unidad de Bioquímica y Biología Molecular de PlantasCentro de Investigación Científica de YucatánMéridaMexico

Personalised recommendations