Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture

, Volume 85, Issue 1, pp 115–121 | Cite as

Variation in leaf structures of micropropagated rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum L.) PC49

Research note

Abstract

Alterations in leaf trichomes, stomatal characteristics and epidermal cellular features were investigated in micropropagated rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum L.) PC49. The results showed that micropropagated regenerants had produced significantly lower stomatal index, but larger epidermal cell size than conventional plants. In addition, altered trichome morphology and abnormal stomata, e.g. twin-stomata were constantly noted only in micropropagated plants. The microscopic observation demonstrated a substantially larger intercellular space in palisade and mesophyll only in leaves of micropropagated plants. But the results showed no difference in chloroplast number and chlorophyll content between micropropagated and conventional plants. All the abnormalities suggest somaclonal variation may have occurred in micropropagated rhubarb PC49.

Keywords

cellular structure somaclonal variation trichome twin-stomata 

Abbreviations

CP

conventional plant

MP

micropropagated plant

SD

standard deviation

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anu A, Babu KN, Peter KV, (2004) Variations among somaclones and its seedling progeny in Capsicum annum Plant Cell, Tissue Organ Cult. 76:261–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouman H, De Klerk GJ, (2001) Measurement of the extent of somaclonal variation in begonia plants regenerated under various conditions. Comparison of three assays Theor. Appl. Genet. 102:111–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cutter EG, (1978) Plant Anatomy, Part I Cells and Tissues (2), Edward Arnold LondonGoogle Scholar
  4. D’Amato F, (1985) Cytogenetics of plant cell and tissue cultures and their regenerates CRC Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 3:73–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. De Klerk GJ, (1990) How to measure somaclonal variation Acta Bot. Neerl. 39:129–144Google Scholar
  6. De Klerk GJ, Ter Brugge J, Bouman H, (1990) An assay to measure the extent of variation in micropropagated plants of Begonia × hiemalis Acta Bot. Neerl. 39:145–151Google Scholar
  7. Duncan RR, (1997) Tissue culture-induced variation and crop improvement Adv. Agron. 58:201–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evans DA, Sharp WR, (1986) Somaclonal and gametoclonal variation In: Evans DA, Sharp WR, Ammirato PV, (eds). Handbook of Plant Cell Culture Vol. 4: Techniques and Application Macmillan Pub. Co. New York, (pp. 97–132)Google Scholar
  9. Grout BWW, (1975) Wax development on leaf surface of Brassica oleracea var. Currawong regenerated from meristem culture Plant Sci. Lett. 5:401–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Grout BWW, Aston MJ, (1978) Modified leaf anatomy of cauliflower plantlets regenerated from meristem culture Ann. Bot. 42:993–995Google Scholar
  11. Hipkins MF, Baker NR, (1986) Spectroscopy In: Hipkins MF, Baker NR, (eds). Photosynthesis Energy Transduction: a practical approach IRL Press Oxford (pp. 63–64)Google Scholar
  12. Haughn GW, Somerville CR, (1988) Genetic control of morphogenesis in Arabidopsis Dev. Genet. 9:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jain SM, (2001) Tissue culture-derived variation in crop improvement Euphytica 118:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jenkins GI, Schuch W, (1991) Molecular Biology of Plant Development The Company of Biologists Limited CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Jonathan D, Weyers B, Lawson T, (1997) Heterogeneity in stomatal characteristics Adv. Botanical Res. 26:317–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaeppler SM, Kaeppler HF, Rhee Y, (2000) Epigenetic aspects o somaclonal variation in plants Plant Mol. Biol. 43:179–188PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Larkin PJ, Banks PM, Bhati R, Berttell RIS, Davies PA, Ruan SA, Scowcroft WR, Spindler LH &Tanner GJ, (1989) From somatic variation to variant plant: mechanisms and application Genome 31:705–711Google Scholar
  18. Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR, (1981) Somaclonal variation – a novel source of variability from cell culture for plant 281 improvement Theor. Appl. Genet. 60:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lassus C, Viopio I, (1994) Micropropagation of rhubarb with special reference to weaning stage and subsequent growth Agricult. Sci. Finland 3:189–194Google Scholar
  20. Marin JA, Gella R, Herrero M, (1988) Stomatal strucure and functioning as a response to environmental changes in acclimatized micropropagated Prunus cerasus L. Ann. Bot. 62:663–670Google Scholar
  21. Norman B, (1978) Forced rhubarb revival urged by Stockbridge House EHS Grower 89:229–239Google Scholar
  22. Phillips RL, Kaeppler SM, Olhoft P, (1994) Genetic instability of plant tissue cultures: breakdown of normal controls Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 91:5222–5226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rain V, Raina SN, (2000) Genetic fidelity of organized meristem-derived micropropagated plants: a critical reappraisal In vitro Cell Dev. Biol.Plant 36:319–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Roggemans J, Boxus P, (1988) Rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum L.) In: Bajaj YPS, (eds). Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, Vol. 6 Crop II. Springer-Verlag Heidelberg (pp. 339–350)Google Scholar
  25. Skirvin RM, McPheeters KD, Norton M, (1994) Source and frequency of somaclonal variation HortScience 29:1232–1237Google Scholar
  26. Scowcroft WR, (1985) Somaclonal variation: the myth of clonal uniformity In: Hohn B, Dennis ES, (eds). Plant Gene Research: genetic flux in plants Springer-Verlag New York (pp. 215–245)Google Scholar
  27. Zhao Y, Grout BWW, Crisp P, (2003) Inadvertent selection for unwanted morphological forms during micropropagation adversely affects field performance of European rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum L.) Acta Hort. 616:301–308Google Scholar
  28. Zhao Y, Grout BWW, Crisp P, (2004) Unexpected susceptibility of novel breeding lines of European rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum L.) to leaf and petiole spot disease Acta Hort. 637:139–144Google Scholar
  29. Zhao Y, Grout BWW, Crisp P, (2005a) Variation in morphology and disease susceptibility of micropropagated rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum) PC49, compared to conventional plants Plant Cell, Tissue Organ Cult. 82:357–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zhao Y, Grout BWW, Roberts AV, (2005b) Abnormal chromosomes and DNA content in micropropagated rhubarb (Rheum rhaponticum L.) PC49 Plant Cell, Tissue Organ Cult. 83:335–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Horticultural DepartmentHenan Institute of Science and Technology,XinxiangChina
  2. 2.Department of Plant Science and TechnologyHenan Institute of Science and TechnologyXinxiangChina
  3. 3.Postgraduate SchoolWrittle College,ChelmsfordUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations