Advertisement

Sugar Tech

, Volume 10, Issue 3, pp 243–247 | Cite as

Response of sugarcane (Saccharum species hybrid) genotypes to embryogenic callus induction and in vitro salt stress

  • O. M. BadawyEmail author
  • M. I. Nasr
  • R. A. Alhendawi
Research Article

Abstract

The present research work has been carried out to study the response of three genotypes of sugarcane (Saccharum species hybrids) for callus induction, embryogenic callus production and their in vitro salt tolerance.For callus induction and embryogenic callus production, leaf base segments were subjected to in vitro culture on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium supplemented with 3 mg l−1 2,4 Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid for 4 weeks. To evaluate salt tolerance of the varieties, cultured calli were exposed after two subsequent subcultures (4 weeks each) to different concentrations of NaCl (0, 17, 34, 68 and 102 mM) added to the culture medium for 4 weeks. Comparison of genotypes was based on callus induction percentage, embryogenic callus production percentage and relative fresh weight growth. For salt tolerance, necrosis percentage and relative fresh weight growth of callus were used. The three genotypes responded well to callus induction with about 82, 84 and 100 percentage of induction for GT 54-9(C9), NCo310 and Co 413, respectively. The high per cent of embryogenic callus obtained for the three varieties indicated that these genotypes have a high capacity for embryogenic callus production. Relative fresh weight growth of callus was about 1.076, 1.282 and 0.925 for GT 54-9, NCo310 and Co413, respectively. The effects of NaCl resulted in calli necrosis and a reduction of their growth. Growing calli derived from genotypes GT 54-9 and NCo310 showed less necrosis percentage and less relative fresh weight growth reduction under salt stress. They appeared to be more salt tolerant in vitro than Co 413.The finding of superior genotypes GT 54-9 and NCo 310 and inferior one Co 413 for salt tolerance together with their high potential for embryogenic callus induction may be a model varities to study physiological mechanisms associated with in vitro salt tolerance and in vitro selection for salt tolerance in sugarcane.

Key words

Callus induction embryogenic callus culture in vitro salt tolerance sugarcane 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abe T, Futsuhara Y (1984) Varietal difference of plant regeneration from root callus tissues in rice. Japan J. Breed. 34: 147–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alvarez I, Tomaro LM, Benavides PM (2003) Changes in polyamines, proline and ethylene in sunflower calluses treated with NaCl. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 62:1–9.Google Scholar
  3. Arzani A, Mirodjagh SS (1999) Response of durum wheat cultivars to immature embryo culture, callus induction and in vitro salt stress. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Cult. 58:67–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ashraf M (1994) Breeding for salinity tolerance in plants. Critical Rev. Plant Sci. 13:17–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barakat MN, Abdel-Latif TH (1996). In vitro selection of wheat callus tolerant to high levels of salt and plant regeneration. Euphytica 91:127–140.Google Scholar
  6. Basu S, Gangopadhyay G, Mukherjee BB (2002). Salt tolerance in rice in vitro: Implication of accumulation of Na+, K+ and proline. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 69: 55–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bommineni VR, Jauhar PP (1996) Regeneration of plantlets through isolated scutellum culture of durum wheat. Plant Sci. 116: 197–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burner MD (1992) Regeneration and phenotypic variability of plants cultured in vitro from mature sugarcane caryopses. J. Am. Soc. Sugar Cane Technol. (ASSCT), Vol. 12: Florida and Louisiana Divisions: 82–90.Google Scholar
  9. Dix PJ (1993) The role of mutant cell lines in studies on environmental stress tolerance: an assessment. Plant J. 3:309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonzalez V, Castroni S, Fuchs M (1995) Evaluacion de la reaccion de genotipos de ca_a de azucar a diferentes concentraciones de NaCl. Agronomia Tropical 46(2): 219–232.Google Scholar
  11. Guiderdoni E (1986) L’embryogenèse somatique des explants foliaires de canne à sucre (Saccharum sp.) cultivés in vitro. I- Initiation des cultures. L’Agronomie Tropicale 41(1): 50–58.Google Scholar
  12. Hess JR, Carman JG (1998) Embryogenic competence of immature wheat embryos: genotype, donor plant environment, and endogenous hormone levels. Crop Sci. 38: 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Karadimova M, Djambova G (1993) Increased NaCl-tolerance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L. and T. durum Desf.) through in vitro selection. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. 29: 180–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation- a novel source of variability from cell culture for plant improvement. Theor. Appl. Genet. 60: 197–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lutts S, Kinet JM, Bouharmont J (1996) Effects of various salts and of mannitol on ion and proline accumulation in relation to osmotic adjustment in rice (Oryza sativa L.) callus cultures. J. Plant Physiol. 149: 186–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lutts S, Bouharmont J, Kinet JM (1999) Physiological characterization of salt-resistant rice (Oryza sativa) somaclones. Aust. J. Bot. 47:835–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mackinnon C, Gunderson G, Nabors MW (1986) Plant regeneration by somatic embryogenesis from callus cultures of sweet sorghum. Plant Cell Rep. 5: 349–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mikami T, Kinoshita T (1988) Genotypic effects on the callus formation from different explants of rice, Oryza sativa L. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 12(3): 311–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol. Plant. 15:473–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ozgen M, Turet M, Ozcan S, Sancak C (1996) Callus induction and plant regeneration from immature and mature embryos of winter durum wheat genotypes. Plant Breeding 115: 455–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sabbah S, Tal M (1990) Development of callus and suspension cultures of potato resistant to NaCl and mannitol and their response to stress. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 21:119–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. SAS Institute (1992) SAS/STAT user’s guide, Vol. 1; Release 6.03, ed. SAS Institute Inc. Cary, NC. USA.Google Scholar
  23. Sibi ML, Fakiri M (2000) Androgenèse et gynogenèse, sources de vitrovariation et de tolérance à la salinité chez l’orge Hordeum vulgare? Sécheresse. 11(2): 125–132.Google Scholar
  24. Van Sint Jan V, Skali-Senhaji N, Bouharmont J (1990) Comparaison de différentes variétés de riz (Oryza sativa L.) pour leur aptitude à la culture in vitro. Belg. J. Bot. 123(1/2): 36–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Sugar Research & Promotion 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Breeding and Genetics, Agriculture Research Station, SabbahiaSugar Crops Research Institute, Agriculture Research CentreAlexandriaEgypt
  2. 2.Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology Research Institute (GEBRI), and Molecular Biology departmentMenofia UniversitySadat CityEgypt
  3. 3.Faculty of Natural ResourceUniversity of Omar Al-MukhtarEl-BiedaLibya

Personalised recommendations