Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC)

, Volume 139, Issue 3, pp 547–561 | Cite as

The influential role of polyamines on the in vitro regeneration of pea (Pisum sativum L.) and genetic fidelity assessment by SCoT and RAPD markers

  • Chandrasekaran Ajithan
  • Venkatachalam Vasudevan
  • Dorairaj Sathish
  • Selvam Sathish
  • Veda Krishnan
  • Markandan ManickavasagamEmail author
Original Article


A proficient and reliable in vitro plant regeneration protocol was established for pea by utilizing cotyledonary node as an explants, which excised from 3-days old imbibed seeds. The present research work explains the positive role of polyamines (PAs) accompanied by plant growth regulators (PGRs) on the multiple shoot induction and rooting in pea plant regeneration. The highest multiple shoots (65.1 shoots/explant) was attained from the cotyledonary node explant on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium accompanied with 20 mg l−1 spermidine (SPD) along with 1.5 mg l−1 6-benzyladenine (BA). Moreover, the highest elongation of multiplied shoots (10 cm length/shoot) was noted on MS medium enriched with 1 mg l−1 of gibberellic acid (GA3). The elongated shoots produced the highest number of roots (33.66 roots/shoot) on MS medium augmented with 30 mg l−1 putrescine (PUT) along with 0.6 mg l−1 1-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA). Rooted plants were hardened and acclimatized in the greenhouse with an existence rate of 98%. The standardized procedure with the use of PAs has enhanced the multiple shoot induction to threefold higher than the plants raised from PGRs treatments. The regenerated pea plants revealed the fivefold enhanced photosynthetic pigment, twofold enhanced antioxidant profile and the substantial growth in chloroplast count have been achieved in optimized SPD and BA supplemented MS medium compared to control plant. Start Codon Targeted polymorphism and Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA molecular markers recognized the genetic purity of the in vitro regenerated pea plants for their true type of nature.

Key message

An enhanced and consistence in vitro regeneration protocol was established for pea, by the application of polyamines along with PGRs, which significantly improved the multiple shooting, shoot elongation, rooting, total chlorophyll and antioxidant profile of regenerated plants, further not hampering their genetic fidelity.


Antioxidant Chlorophyll Chloroplast Genetic fidelity Molecular marker Pea Polyamines Regeneration 





Plant growth regulators








Gibberellic acid


1-Naphthaleneacetic acid


Indole-3-acetic acid


Indole-3-butyric acid








Start Codon Targeted polymorphism


Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA



The first author is thankful to the University Grants Commission, India for the award of Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (F1-17.1/2016-17-SC-TA,-3517/SA-III/Website-Date: 01.09.2016).


  1. Agarwal T, Gupta AK, Patel AK, Shekhawat NS (2015) Micropropagation and validation of genetic homogeneity of Alhagi maurorum using SCoT, ISSR and RAPD markers. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 120:313–323Google Scholar
  2. Amirmoradi B, Talebi R, Karami E (2012) Comparison of genetic variation and differentiation among annual Cicer species using start codon targeted (SCoT) polymorphism, DAMD-PCR, and ISSR markers. Plant Syst Evol 298:1679–1688Google Scholar
  3. Aremu AO, Bairu MW, Szüčová L, Finnie JF, Van Staden J (2012) The role of meta-topolins on the photosynthetic pigment profiles and foliar structures of micropropagated ‘Williams’ bananas. J Plant Physiol 169:1530–1541PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Arun M, Subramanyam K, Theboral J, Ganapathi A, Manickavasagam M (2014) Optimized shoot regeneration for Indian soybean: the influence of exogenous polyamines. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 117:305–309Google Scholar
  5. Baryla A, Carrier P, Franck F, Coulomb C, Sahut C, Havaux M (2001) Leaf chlorosis in oilseed rape plants (Brassica napus) grown on cadmium-polluted soil: causes and consequences for photosynthesis and growth. Planta 212:696–709PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bean SJ, Gooding PS, Mullineaux PM, Davies JL (1997) A simple system for pea transformation. Plant Cell Rep 16:513–519PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Besford RT, Richardson CM, Campos JL, Tiburcio AF (1993) Effect of polyamines on stabilization of molecular complexes in thylakoid membranes of osmotically stressed oat leaves. Planta 189(2):201–206Google Scholar
  8. Bhojwani S, Dantu P (2013) Somaclonal variation. In: Plant tissue culture: an introductory text, India, Springer, pp 141–142Google Scholar
  9. Casey R, Davies DR (1993) Peas: genetics, molecular biology and biotechnology. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 1–60Google Scholar
  10. Christou P (1997) Biotechnology applied to grain legumes. Field Crop Res 53:83–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Çiftçi CY, Türkan AD, Khawar KM et al (2006) Use of gamma rays to induce mutations in four pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars. Turkish J Biol 30:29–37Google Scholar
  12. Cohen AS, Popovic RB, Zalik S (1979) Effects of polyamines on chlorophyll and protein content, photochemical activity, and chloroplast ultrastructure of barley leaf discs during senescence. Plant Physiol 64:717–720PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Collard BCY, Mackill DJ (2009) Start codon targeted (SCoT) polymorphism: a simple, novel DNA marker technique for generating gene-targeted markers in plants. Plant Mol Biol Rep 27:86–93Google Scholar
  14. Couée I, Hummel I, Sulmon C, Gouesbet G, El Amrani A (2004) Involvement of polyamines in root development. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 76(1):1–10Google Scholar
  15. Das A, Kumar S, Nandeesha P, Yadav IS, Saini J, Chaturvedi SK, Datta S (2014) An efficient in vitro regeneration system of fieldpea (Pisum sativum L.) via. shoot organogenesis. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol 23:184–189Google Scholar
  16. Di R, Purcell V, Collins GB, Ghabrial SA (1996) Production of transgenic soybean lines expressing the bean pod mottle virus coat protein precursor gene. Plant Cell Rep 15:746–750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Drolet G, Dumbroff EB, Legge RL, Thompson JE (1986) Radical scavenging properties of polyamines. Phytochemistry 25:367–371Google Scholar
  18. Duclercq J, Sangwan-Norreel B, Catterou M, Sangwan RS (2011) De novo shoot organogenesis: from art to science. Trends Plant Sci 16:597–606PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Durieu P, Ochatt SJ (2000) Efficient intergeneric fusion of pea (Pisum sativum L.) and grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) protoplasts. J Exp Bot 51:1237–1242PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. El Ghachtouli N, Martin-Tanguy J, Paynot M, Gianinazzi S (1996) First report of the inhibition of arbuscular mycorrhizal infection of Pisum sativum by specific and irreversible inhibition of polyamine biosynthesis or by gibberellic acid treatment. FEBS Lett 358:189–192Google Scholar
  21. Espósito MA, Almirón P, Gatti I, Cravero VP, López Anido FS, Cointry EL (2012) A rapid method to increase the number of F1 plants in pea (Pisum sativum) breeding programs. Genet Mol Res 11:2729–2732PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Galston AW, Kaur-Sawhney R, Altabella T, Tiburcio AF (1997) Plant polyamines in reproductive activity and response to abiotic stress. Bot Acta 110:197–207Google Scholar
  23. Geneve RL, Hackett WP (1990) Ethylene evolution and endogenous polyamine levels during adventitious root formation in English ivy. Curr Topics Plant Physiol 5:332–334Google Scholar
  24. Gill SS, Tuteja N (2010) Polyamines and abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Plant Signal Behav 5:26–33PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Griga M, Novák FJ (1990) Pea (Pisum sativum L.). In: Bajaj YPS (ed) Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry. Legumes and oil seed crops, vol 10. Springer, Berlin, pp 65–99Google Scholar
  26. Griga M, Tejklova E, Nova FJ, Kubalakova M (1986) In vitro clonal propagation of Pisum sativum L. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 6:95–104Google Scholar
  27. Guo DL, Zhang JY, Liu CH (2012) Genetic diversity in some grape varieties revealed by SCoT analyses. Mol Biol Rep 39:5307–5313PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamidi H, Talebi R, Keshavarzi F (2014) Comparative efficiency of functional gene-based markers, start codon targeted polymorphism (SCoT) and conserved DNA-derived polymorphism (CDDP) with ISSR markers for diagnostic fingerprinting in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Cereal Res Commun 42:558–567Google Scholar
  29. He L, Nada K, Kasukabe Y, Tachibana S (2002) Enhanced susceptibility of photosynthesis to low-temperature photoinhibition due to interruption of chill-induced increase of S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase activity in leaves of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.). Plant Cell Physiol 43:196–206PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Hu L, Xiang L, Zhang L, Zhou X, Zou Z, Hu X (2014) The photoprotective role of spermidine in tomato seedlings under salinity-alkalinity stress. PLoS ONE 9:110855Google Scholar
  31. Jackson JA, Hobbs SLA (1990) Rapid multiple shoot production from cotyledonary node explants of pea (Pisum sativum L.). In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 26:835–838Google Scholar
  32. Jasin´ska Z, Kotecki A (1993) Ros´liny stra˛czkowe. WN PWNGoogle Scholar
  33. Jayaprakasha GK, Jaganmohan Rao L, Sakariah KK (2004) Antioxidant activities of flavidin in different in vitro model systems. Bioorg Med Chem 12:5141–5146Google Scholar
  34. Jordan MC, Hobbs SLA (1993) Evaluation of a cotyledonary node regeneration system for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of pea (Pisum sativum). In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 29P:77–82Google Scholar
  35. Kakkar RK, Nagar PK (1996) Polyamines and senescence of maintenance foliage of tea Camellia sinensis L. Biol Plant 38:153–157Google Scholar
  36. Kakkar RK, Sawhney VK (2002) Polyamine research in plants—a changing perspective. Physiol Plant 116:281–292Google Scholar
  37. Kaur-Sawhney R, Galston AW (1979) Interaction of polyamines and light on biochemical processes involved in leaf senescence. Plant Cell Environ 2:189–196Google Scholar
  38. Kuhen GD, Phillips GC (2005) Role of polyamines in apoptosis and other recent advances in plant polyamines. Crit Rev Plant Sci 24:123–130Google Scholar
  39. Lee MM, Lee SH, Park KY (1997) Characterization and expression of two members of the S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase gene family in carnation flower. Plant Mol Biol 34:371–382PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Malik KA, Saxena PK (1992) Thidiazuron induces high frequency shoot regeneration in intact seedlings of Pea (Pisum sativum) and lentil (Lens culinaris). Aust J Plant Physiol 19:731–740Google Scholar
  41. Martin-Tanguy J (2001) Metabolism and function of polyamines in plants: recent development (new approaches). Plant Growth Regul 34:135–148Google Scholar
  42. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497Google Scholar
  43. Nauerby B, Madsen M, Christiansen J, Wyndaele R (1991) A rapid and efficient regeneration system for pea (Pisum sativum), suitable for transformation. Plant Cell Rep 9:676–679PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ochatt SJ (2011) Immature seeds and embryos of Medicago truncatula cultured in vitro. Methods Mol Biol 710:39–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ochatt SJ, Pontécaille C, Rancillac M (2000) The growth regulators used for bud regeneration and shoot rooting affect the competence for flowering and seed set in regenerated plants of protein pea. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plants 36:188–193Google Scholar
  46. Ochatt SJ, Atif RM, Patat-Ochatt EM, Jacas L, Conreux C (2010) Competence versus recalcitrance for in vitro regeneration. Not Bot Hort Agrobot Cluj 38(2):102–108Google Scholar
  47. Ochatt S, Conreux C, Mcolo RM, Despierre G, Magnin-Robert J, Raffiot B (2018) Phytosulfokine-alpha, an enhancer of in vitro regeneration competence in recalcitrant legumes. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 135:189–201Google Scholar
  48. Özcan S, Barghchi M, Firek S, Draper J (1993) Efficient adventitious shoot regeneration and somatic embryogenesis in pea. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 34:271–277Google Scholar
  49. Pavek PLS (2012) Plant guide for pea (Pisum sativum L). USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Pullman, WA, pp 1–6Google Scholar
  50. Pjon CJ, Kim SD, Pak JY (1990) Effects of spermidine on chlorophyll content, photosynthetic activity and chloroplast ultrastructure in the dark and under light. Bot Mag Tokyo 103:43–48Google Scholar
  51. Plačková L, Hrdlička J, Smýkalová I, Cvečková M, Novák O, Griga M, Doležal K (2015) Cytokinin profiling of long-term in vitro pea (Pisum sativum L.) shoot cultures. Plant Growth Regul 77:125–132Google Scholar
  52. Pniewski T, Kapusta J (2005) Efficiency of transformation of Polish cultivars of pea (Pisum sativum L.) with various regeneration capacity by using hypervirulent Agrobacterium tumefaciens strains. J Appl Genet 46:139–147PubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Puonti-Kaerlas J, Eriksson T, Engström P (1990) Production of transgenic pea (Pisum sativum L.) plants by Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated gene transfer. Theor Appl Genet 80:246–252PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Samec P, Našinec V (1996) The use of RAPD technique for the identification and classification of Pisum sativum L. genotypes. Euphytica 89:229–234Google Scholar
  55. Sathish D, Vasudevan V, Theboral J, Elayaraja D, Appunu C, Siva R, Manickavasagam M (2018) Efficient direct plant regeneration from immature leaf roll explants of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) using polyamines and assessment of genetic fidelity by SCoT markers. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 54:399–412Google Scholar
  56. Scowcroft WR, Ryan SA (1986) Tissue culture and plant breeding. In Yeoman MM (ed) Plant cell culture technology Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, pp 29–58Google Scholar
  57. Shen Q, Zhang B, Xu R, Wang Y, Ding X, Li P (2010) Antioxidant activity in vitro of the selenium-contained protein from the Se-enriched Bifidobacterium animalis 01. Anaerobe 16:380–386PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Shu S, Guo SR, Sun J, Yuan LY (2012) Effects of salt stress on the structure and function of the photosynthetic apparatus in Cucumis sativus and its protection by exogenous putrescine. Physiol Plant 146:285–296PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Shu S, Yuan LY, Guo SR, Sun J, Yuan YH (2013) Effects of exogenous spermine on chlorophyll fluorescence; antioxidant system and ultrastructure of chloroplasts in Cucumis sativus L. under salt stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 63:209–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Singh SR, Dalal S, Singh R, Dhawan AK, Kalia RK (2013) Evaluation of genetic fidelity of in vitro raised plants of Dendrocalamus asper (Shult. & Shult. F.) Backer ex K. Heyne using DNA-based markers. Acta Physiol Plant 35:419–430Google Scholar
  61. Sivanandhan G, Mariashibu TS, Arun M, Rajesh M, Kasthurirengan S, Selvaraj N, Ganapathi A (2011) The effect of polyamines on the efficiency of multiplication and rooting of Withania somnifera (L.) Dunal and content of some with anolides in obtained plants. Acta Physiol Plant 33:2279–2288Google Scholar
  62. Smýkal P (2014) Pea (Pisum sativum L.) in biology prior and after Mendel’s discovery. Czech J Genet Plant Breed 50:52–64Google Scholar
  63. Smýkal P, Valledor L, Rodríguez R, Griga M (2007) Assessment of genetic and epigenetic stability in long-term in vitro culture of pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Cell Rep 26:1985–1998PubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Sonawane LL, Nirmal SA, Dhasade VV, Rub RA, Mandal SC (2010) Antioxidant effect of Tephrosia purpurea L. roots. Int J Pharm Sci Res 1(5):57–60Google Scholar
  65. Supe U, Roymon MG (2011) Micropropagation of radiated seeds of Pisum sativum. Indian J Fundam Appl Life Sci 1:203–208Google Scholar
  66. Tayeh N, Aubert G, Pilet-Nayel M-L, Lejeune-Hénaut I, Warkentin TD, Burstin J (2015) Genomic tools in pea breeding programs: status and perspectives. Front Plant Sci 6:1037PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  67. Thiruvengadam M, Chung IM (2015) Phenolic compound production and biological activities from in vitro regenerated plants of gherkin (Cucumis anguria L.). Electron J Biotechnol 18:295–301Google Scholar
  68. Tiburcio AF, Besford RT, Capell T, Borrel A, Testillano PS, Risueño MC (1994) Mechanisms of polyamine action during senescence responses induced by osmotic stress. J Exp Bot 45:235–269Google Scholar
  69. Tun NN, Santa-Catarina C, Begum T et al (2006) Polyamines induce rapid biosynthesis of nitric oxide (NO) in Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings. Plant Cell Physiol 47:346–354PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Türkan AD, Khawar KM, Özcan CY, Ciftici S (2006) Effects of mutagenic sodium azide (NaN 3) on in vitro development of four Pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars. Int J Agric Biol 3:349–353Google Scholar
  71. Tzitzikas EN, Bergervoet M, Raemakers K, Vincken JP, Lammeren AV, Visser RGF (2004) Regeneration of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) by a cyclic organogenic system. Plant Cell Rep 23:453–460PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Vasudevan A, Selvaraj N, Ganapathi A, Kasthurirengan S, Ramesh Anbazhagan V, Manickavasagam M, Choi C (2008) Leucine and spermidine enhance shoot differentiation in cucumber (Cucumis sativusl.). In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 44(4):300–306Google Scholar
  73. Vasudevan V, Subramanyam K, Elayaraja D, Karthik S, Vasudevan A, Manickavasagam M (2017) Assessment of the efficacy of amino acids and polyamines on regeneration of watermelon (Citrullus lanatus Thunb.) and analysis of genetic fidelity of regenerated plants by SCoT and RAPD markers. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 130:681–687Google Scholar
  74. Venkatachalam L, Bhagyalakshmi N (2008) Spermine induced morphogenesis and effect of partial immersion system on the shoot cultures of banana. Appl Biochem Biotechnol 151:502–511PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Yamasaki H (2005) The NO world for plants: achieving balance in an open system. Plant Cell Environ 28:78–84Google Scholar
  76. Zhang RH, Li J, Guo SR, Tezuka T (2009) Effects of exogenous putrescine on gas-exchange characteristics and chlorophyll fluorescence of NaCl-stressed cucumber seedlings. Photosynth Res 100:155–162PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyBharathidasan UniversityTiruchirappalliIndia
  2. 2.Division of BiochemistryICAR- Indian Agricultural Research InstituteNew DelhiIndia

Personalised recommendations