Skip to main content
Log in

Factors affecting anther culturability of recalcitrant barley genotypes

  • Published:
Plant Cell Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One major problem encountered with cereal anther culture is that some genotypes are low or non-responders to the technique. The objective of this study was to improve anther culture efficiency of recalcitrant barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) genotypes. Reciprocal F1s between the two low responsive cultivars, Morex and Steptoe, were used. These were chosen because doubled haploids (DH) were required from these genotypes for the North American Barley Genome Mapping project. Ficoll 400 at 200 g l−1 in the induction medium significantly increased green plant production compared to four other media formations containing different gelling/viscosity modifying agents. Cold pretreatment of donor spikes of 28 vs 14 d resulted in an increase in embryoid, total plant and green plant production. Anther culture response in these experiments was little influenced by donor plant growth conditions. Indole-3-acetic acid (1 mg l−1) or 1-naphthaleneacetic acid (2 mg l−1) in the induction medium did not affect anther culturability or plant regeneration. Based on this research, the negative genotypic effect for doubled haploid production could be diminished, which is desirable for practical application.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

BAP:

6-benzylaminopurine

IAA:

Indole-3-acetic acid

LS:

Linsmaier & Skoog

NAA:

1-naphthaleneacetic acid

DH:

doubled haploid

References

  • Brown SC, Devaux P, Marie D, Bergounioux C, Petit PX (1991) Biofutur, Le Technoscope 105: 1–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmet G, Bernard S (1984) Theor Appl Genet 69: 55–61

    Google Scholar 

  • Clapham D (1973) Z Pflanzenzuchtg 69: 142–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Devaux P (1992) In: Dattee Y, Dumas C, Gallais A (eds) Reproductive Biology and Plant Breeding. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 139–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Fadel F, Wenzel G (1990) Plant Breed 105: 278–282

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnie SJ, Forster BP, Chalmers KJ, Dyer AF, Waugh R, Powell W (1991) Genome 34:923–928

    Google Scholar 

  • Finnie SJ, Powell W, Dyer AK (1989) Plant Breed 103: 110–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Flehinghaus T, Deimling S, Geiger HH (1991) Plant Cell Rep 10: 397–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Foroughi-Wehr B, Mix G (1979) Env Exp Bot 19: 303–309

    Google Scholar 

  • Henry Y, De Buyser J (1981) Theor Appl Genet 60: 77–79

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou L (1992) PhD Dissert., Washington State Univ, Pullman

    Google Scholar 

  • Hou L, Ullrich SE, Kleinhofs A, Stiff CM (1993) Plant Cell Rep 12:334–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang B, Sunderland N (1982) Ann Bot 49: 77–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunter CP (1988) Plant regeneration from microspores of barley, Hordeum vulgare L. PhD Thesis, Wye College, Univ of London

  • Kasha KJ (1989) In: Maluszynski M (ed) Current Options for Cereal Improvement: Doubled Haploids, Mutants and Heterosis. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 71–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Kao KN (1981) Z Pflanzenphysiol 103: 437–443

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleinhofs A, Kilian A, Saghai Maroof MA, Biyoshev RM, Hayes PM, Chen F, Lapitan N, Fenwick A, Blake TK, Kanazin A, Ananiev E, Dahleen L, Kudrna D, Bollinger J, Knapp SJ, Liu B, Sorrells M, Heun M, Franckowiak JD, Hoffman D, Skadsen K, Steffenson BJ (1993) Theor Appl Genet 86:705–712

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Knudsen S, Due IK, Andersen SB (1989) Plant Breed 103: 241–246

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen ET, Tuvesson KD, Andersen SB (1991) Theor Appl Genet 82:417–420

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckett DJ, Darvey NL (1992) Aus J Bot 40:807–828

    Google Scholar 

  • Luckett DJ, Smithard RA (1992) Aus J Agric Res 43: 67–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyne RL, Bennett RI, Hunter CP (1986) In: Withers LA, Alderson PG (eds) Plant Tissue Culture and its Agricultural Applications. Univ of Nottingham, Butterworth, Guildford, pp 405–411

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen FL (1987) Carlsberg Res Comm 52: 393–404

    Google Scholar 

  • Pickering RA, Devaux P (1992) In: Shewry PR (ed) Barley: Genetics, Molecular Biology and Biotechnology. CAB Internat, Wallingford, pp 511–539

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell W (1988) Genome 30: 152–157

    Google Scholar 

  • SAS (1988) SAS Institute Inc, Cary, NC

  • Snape JW (1981) In: Broertjes C (ed) Induced variability in plant breeding. Pudoc, Wageningen, pp 52–58

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorvari S (1986) Ann Agric Fenn 25: 249–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou H (1990) Influence of the physical condition of induction media on the culture response of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) anthers. M.S. Thesis. Washington State Univ, Pullman

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Communicated by G. C. Phillips

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Devaux, P., Hou, L., Ullrich, S.E. et al. Factors affecting anther culturability of recalcitrant barley genotypes. Plant Cell Reports 13, 32–36 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00232311

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00232311

Keywords

Navigation