Factors influencing induction and maintenance of Vitis rotundifolia Michx. embryogenic cultures

  • S. A. Dhekney
  • Z. T. Li
  • D. J. GrayEmail author
Original Paper


Unopened leaves, petioles and fully opened leaves from micropropagation cultures of five Vitis rotundifolia Michx. varieties were cultured on induction medium to study their embryogenic response. Among the various explants tested, the maximum number of varieties produced embryogenic cultures from unopened leaves followed by fully opened leaves and petioles. Based on morphological differences, two types of embryogenic cultures were identified. Friable cultures typically arose as proembryonic masses (PEM) on induction medium, whereas somatic embryo production without an intervening PEM stage was observed in compact cultures. Of the five varieties tested, the highest frequency of embryogenic response was observed from fully opened leaves of ‘Supreme’ and unopened leaves and petioles of ‘Delicious’. Attempts to initiate suspension cultures from varieties resulted in proliferation and maintenance of ‘Alachua’ and ‘Carlos’ cultures in liquid medium for 16 weeks. Embryogenic potential of varieties was studied on cultures growing on embryo development medium. The maximum number of cotyledonary stage somatic embryos from 0.2 g proembryonic masses were observed in ‘Carlos’ (379.3) followed by ‘Alachua’ (350.0) and ‘Delicious’ (305.0). Cotyledonary stage somatic embryos germinated when cultured on Murashige and Skoog medium containing 1 μM Benzyladenine (BA). Although high embryo germination rates (80–100%) were observed in the varieties tested, plant recovery from germinated somatic embryos ranged from 6–47%. Embryogenic cultures could be maintained on X6 medium and used in genetic engineering studies.


Muscadine grape Somatic embryogenesis Plant tissue culture Plant regeneration 



2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid




Murashige and Skoog


Naphthaleneacetic acid



This research was supported by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services’ Viticulture Trust Fund and the Florida Agricultural Experiment Station. We thank Mary S. Brennan for assistance with statistical analyses.


  1. Dhekney SA, Li ZT, Dutt M, Gray DJ (2008) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of embryogenic cultures and regeneration of transgenic plants in Vitis routundifolia Michx. (muscadine grape). Plant Cell Rep 27:865–872PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Dhekney SA, Li ZT, Compton ME, Gray DJ (2009a) Optimizing initiation and maintenance of Vitis embryogenic cultures. HortScience 44:1400–1406Google Scholar
  3. Dhekney SA, Li ZT, Zimmerman TW, Gray DJ (2009b) Factors influencing genetic transformation and plant regeneration of Vitis. Amer J Enol Vitic 60:285–292Google Scholar
  4. Ector BJ, Magee JB, Hegwood CP et al (1996) Resveratrol concentration in muscadine berries, juice, pomace, purees, seeds and wine. Am J Enol Vitic 47:57–62Google Scholar
  5. Gamborg OL, Miller RA, Ojima K (1968) Nutrient requirement of suspension cultures of soybean root cells. Exp Cell Res 50:151–158PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gray DJ (1992) Somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from immature zygotic embryos of muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia) cultivars. Amer J Bot 79:542–546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gray DJ (1995) Somatic embryogenesis in grape. In: Jain SM, Gupta PK, Newton RJ (eds) Somatic embryogenesis in woody plants, vol 2. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 191–217Google Scholar
  8. Gray DJ, Benton CM (1991) In vitro micropropagation and plant establishment of muscadine grape cultivars (Vitis rotundifolia). Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 27:7–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gray DJ, Jayasankar S, Li Z (2005) Vitis spp grape, Chapt. 22. In: Litz RE (ed) Biotechnology of fruit and nut crops. Oxford CAB International Wallingford, Wallingford, pp 672–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Himelrick DG (2003) Handling, storage and post-harvest physiology of muscadine grapes: a review. Small Fruits Rev 2:45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jayasankar S, Gray DJ, Litz RE (1999) High frequency somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from suspension cultures of grapevine. Plant Cell Rep 18:533–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jayasankar S, Bondada BR, Li Z et al (2003) Comparative anatomy and morphology of Vitis vinifera (Vitaceae) somatic embryos from solid and liquid culture systems. Amer J Bot 90:973–979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li ZT, Dhekney S, Dutt M et al (2006) Optimizing Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of grapevine. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 42:220–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Li ZT, Dhekney SA, Dutt M, Gray DJ (2008) An improved protocol for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 93:311–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Merkle SA (1995) Somatic embryogenesis in Magnoliaceae (Liriodendron and Magnolia). In: Bajaj YPS (ed) Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry, somatic embryogenesis and synthetic seed I, vol 30. Springer, Berlin, pp 388–403Google Scholar
  16. Nitsch JP, Nitsch C (1969) Haploid plants from pollen grains. Science 163:85–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Patel GI, Olmo HP (1955) Cytogenetics of Vitis: I. the hybrid V. vinifera x V. rotundifolia. Amer J Bot 42:141–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Robacker C (1993) Somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from muscadine grape leaf explants. Hort Science 28:53–55Google Scholar
  19. Stamp JA, Meredith CP (1988) Somatic embryogenesis from leaves and anthers of grapevine. Sci Hortic 35:235–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Witjaksono, Litz RE (1999) Induction and growth characteristics of avocado embryogenic cultures. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 58:19–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Mid-Florida Research and Education CenterUniversity of Florida/IFASApopkaUSA

Personalised recommendations