Evaluation of orange-fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) genotypes for salt tolerance through shoot apex culture under in vitro NaCl mediated salinity stress conditions

  • M. Dasgupta
  • M. R. Sahoo
  • P. C. Kole
  • A. Mukherjee
Original Paper

Abstract

Fifteen genotypes of sweet potato were evaluated for salinity stress tolerance under in vitro NaCl mediated salinity stress conditions (MS, MS + 0.5% and MS + 1.0% NaCl). The growth parameters such as number of leaves, number of shoots, number of roots, length of plantlets and length of roots decreased significantly among the genotypes with increase in level of salinity. Of the 15 genotypes tested, six genotypes (108X1, 90/606, 90/696, CIP 8, S-30X15 and SP-61) were unable to sprout even at 0.5% NaCl and were characterized as susceptible to salt stress, three genotypes (CIP 6, 90/774 and CIP 3) which could tolerate 0.5% NaCl as moderately tolerant and six genotypes (CIP 12, CIP 13, JO 14, JP 13, SB-198/115 and Gouri) as tolerant to salinity at 1.0% NaCl. Amongst the six genotypes showing tolerance to 1.0% NaCl, the exotic genotypes––JP 13, CIP 12 and indigenous one SB-198/115 continued to exhibit significant higher values for growth parameters over the susceptible one. Based on the performance under NaCl mediated salinity stress (1.0%), the pattern of salinity tolerance in the genotypes through shoot apex culture was JP 13 > SB-198/115 > JO 14 > Gouri > CIP 12 > CIP 13. The effect of salt stress on the activity of antioxidative enzymes was studied in leaves of 8-week-old plantlets of those six genotypes, which responded at higher NaCl stress along with a susceptible genotype 90/606. In leaves of salt stressed plants, superoxide dismutase (SOD), guaiacol peroxidase (GPX) and catalase (CAT) activities increased when compared with the stress free control. The increase was more pronounced in the tolerant genotypes than that in the susceptible one. These results indicate that oxidative stress may play an important role in salt stressed sweet potato plants and that the greater protection of tolerant plants from salt induced oxidative damage results, at least in part, through the increase in the activity of antioxidant enzymes.

Keywords

Antioxidative enzymes In vitro Salt tolerance Shoot apex Sodium chloride Sweet potato 

Abbreviations

BA

Benzyl adenine

CAT

Catalase

EDTA

Ethylene diamine tetra acetic acid

GA3

Gibberellic acid

GPX

Guaiacol peroxidase

MS

Murashige and Skoog

NAA

α-Naphthalene acetic acid

NBT

Nitroblue tetrazolium chloride

ROS

Reactive oxygen species

SOD

Superoxide dismutase

References

  1. Aebi HE (1983) Catalase. In: Bergmeyer HU, Bergmeyer J, Bl Gra M (eds) Methods of enzymatic analysis, 3rd edn, vol 3. VCH, Weinheim, pp 273–286Google Scholar
  2. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of proteins utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254. doi:10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cano AE, Perez-Alfocea F, Moreno V, Caro M, Bolarin MC (1998) Evaluation of salt tolerance in cultivated and wild tomato species through in vitro shoot apex culture. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 53:19–26. doi:10.1023/A:1006017001146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandler SF, Paek KY, Pua EC, Ragolsky E, Mandal BB, Thorpe TA (1988) The effectiveness of selection for salinity tolerance using in vitro shoot culture. Bot Gaz 149:166–172. doi:10.1086/337704 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dasgupta M, Mukherjee A, Sahoo MR, Naskar SK, Kole PC (2006) Physiological response of orange fleshed sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) under salt stress conditions. J Root Crops 32:53–58Google Scholar
  6. Dasgupta M, Sahoo MR, Kole PC, Mukherjee A (2007) Relationship of yield contributing characters in sweet potato (Ipomoea batatas L.) under salinity stress. Orissa J Hortic 35:27–31Google Scholar
  7. Dionisio-Sese ML, Tobita S (1998) Antioxidant responses of rice seedlings to salinity stress. Plant Sci 135:1–9. doi:10.1016/S0168-9452(98)00025-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Ekanayake IJ, Dodds JH (1993) In vitro testing for the effects of salt stress on growth and survival of sweet potato. Sci Hortic (Amsterdam) 55:239–248. doi:10.1016/0304-4238(93)90035-O CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giannopolitis CN, Ries SK (1977) Superoxide dismutases. I. Occurrence in higher plants. Plant Physiol 59:309–314PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gomez KA, Gomez AA (1984) Statistical procedures for agricultural research. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Gosal SS, Bajaj YPS (1984) Isolation of sodium chloride resistant cell lines in some grain legumes. Indian J Exp Biol 22:209–214Google Scholar
  12. Halliwell B, Gutteridge JMC (1984) Oxygen toxicity, oxygen radicals, transition metals and disease. Biochem J 219:1–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hernandez J, Jimeenez A, Mullineaux P, Sevilla F (2000) Tolerance of pea plants (Pisum sativum) to long term salt stress is associated with induction of antioxidant defences. Plant Cell Environ 23:853–862. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.2000.00602.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Martinez CA, Maestri M, Lani EG (1996) In vitro salt tolerance and proline accumulation in andean potato (Solanum spp.) differing in frost resistance. Plant Sci 116:177–184. doi:10.1016/0168-9452(96)04374-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mercado JA, Sancho-Carrascosa MA, Jimenez-Bermudez S, Peran-Quesada R, Pliego-Alfaro F, Quesada MA (2000) Assessment of in vitro growth of apical stem sections and adventitious organogenesis to evaluate salinity tolerance in cultivated tomato. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 62:101–106. doi:10.1023/A:1026503603399 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mills D, Tal M (2004) The effect of ventilation on in vitro response of seedlings of the cultivated tomato and its wild salt-tolerant relative Lycopersicon pennellii to salt stress. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 78:209–216. doi:10.1023/B:TICU.0000025642.20704.51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mittler R (2002) Oxidative stress, antioxidants and stress tolerance. Trends Plant Sci 7:405–410. doi:10.1016/S1360-1385(02)02312-9 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Mittova V, Tal M, Volokita M, Guy M (2003) Up-regulation of the leaf mitochondrial and peroxisomal antioxidative systems in response to salt induced oxidative stress in the wild salt-tolerant tomato species Lycopersicon pennellii. Plant Cell Environ 26:845–856. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.2003.01016.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mukherjee A (2001) Effect of NaCl on axillary shoot proliferation in sweet potato. Ann Trop Res 23:1–10Google Scholar
  20. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassay with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant 15:473–497. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1962.tb08052.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Nabors MW, Dykes TA (1985) Biotechnology in international agricultural research. International Rice Research Institute, Manila, pp 121–138Google Scholar
  22. Roussos PA, Tsantilli E, Pontikis CA (2006) Response of jojoba explants to different salinity levels during the proliferation stage in vitro. Ind Crops Prod 23:65–72. doi:10.1016/j.indcrop. 2005.04.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rout NP, Shaw BP (2001) Salt tolerance in aquatic macrophytes: possible involvement of the antioxidative enzymes. Plant Sci 160:415–423. doi:10.1016/S0168-9452(00)00406-4 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sairam RK, Srivastava GC (2002) Changes in antioxidant activity in sub cellular fractions of tolerant and susceptible wheat genotypes in response to long term salt stress. Plant Sci 162:897–904. doi:10.1016/S0168-9452(02)00037-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tewary PK, Sharma A, Raghunath MK, Sarkar A (2000) In vitro response of promising mulberry (Morus sp.) genotypes for tolerance to salt and osmotic stresses. Growth Regul 30:17–21. doi:10.1023/A:1006297830318 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Urbanek H, Kuzniak-Gebarowska E, Herka K (1991) Elicitation of defense responses in bean leaves by Botrytis cinerea polygalacturonase. Acta Physiol Plant 13:43–50Google Scholar
  27. Vijayan K, Chakraborti SP, Ghosh DP (2003) In vitro screening of mulberry (Morus spp.) for salinity tolerance. Plant Cell Rep 22:350–357. doi:10.1007/s00299-003-0695-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Villa-Castorena M, Ulery AL, Valencia EAC, Remmenga MD (2003) Division S-4––soil fertility and plant nutrition. Soil Sci Soc Am J 67:1781–1789Google Scholar
  29. Watanabe S, Kojima K, Ide Y, Sasaki S (2000) Effects of saline and osmotic stress on proline and sugar accumulation in Populus euphratica in vitro. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 63:199–206. doi:10.1023/A:1010619503680 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Dasgupta
    • 1
    • 3
  • M. R. Sahoo
    • 1
  • P. C. Kole
    • 1
  • A. Mukherjee
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Crop Improvement, Horticulture and Agricultural Botany, Institute of AgricultureVisva-BharatiSriniketanIndia
  2. 2.Regional Centre of Central Tuber Crops Research InstituteBhubaneswarIndia
  3. 3.Centre for Cellular and Molecular BiologyHyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations