Skip to main content

Culture selected somaclonal variants showing low-ODAP and high protein content in nineteen grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) genotypes

Abstract

To develop low-ODAP grass pea genotypes with high protein content, in vitro tissue culture techniques were used for inducing somaclonal variation through internode explants that was cultured on B5 medium containing 2 mg L− l α-naphthaleneacetic acid and 1 mg L− l 6-benzylaminopurine of 19 grass pea genotypes. The selected somaclones (R3 and R4 generations) were evaluated for variation in ODAP, protein, and quantitative agronomic traits. The results showed statistically significant (P < 0.001) genotypic differences for ODAP %, Protein %, 100-seed weight (HSW) and pod width (PODW) in the R4 somaclones under field conditions. The somaclones showed broad-sense heritability estimate of 0.14 ± 0.064 for ODAP%, 0.87 ± 0.015 for protein, 0.78 ± 0.025 for HSW and 0.13 ± 0.062 for PODW. Among the 270 somaclones, Sel462-5 was significantly superior to the parent and other somaclones in terms of ODAP content (0.13%), protein content (28.47%) and pod width (1.43 cm). The correlation coefficients between parents and somaclones for pod width with 100-seed weight, ODAP-clones and protein-clones were positive and significant. The superiority of somaclones for ODAP, protein, 100-seed weight and pod width in R4 generation opened the possibility for grass pea improvement through somaclonal variation.

Key Message

Induction of somaclonal variation in grass pea is an alternate approach to introduce new and desirable genetic variability in the cultivated gene pool.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Abbreviations

BAP:

6-benzylaminopurine

IBA:

Indole-3-butyric acid

MS:

Medium – Murashige and Skoog’s (1962) medium

NAA:

α-Naphthaleneacetic acid

ODAP:

β-N-oxalyl-L-2,3diamino-propionic acid

References

  1. Adkins SW, Shiraish T, McComb TJA, Ratanopol S, Kupkanchanakul T, Armstrong LJ, Schultz AL (1990) Somaclonal variation from rice: submergence tolerance and other agronomic characters. Physiol Planta 80:647–654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahlowalia BS, Sherington Y (1985) Transmission of somaclonal variation in wheat. Euphytica 34:525–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Anil VS, Bennur S, Lobo S (2018) Somaclonal variations for crop improvement: selection for disease resistant variants in vitro. Plant Sci Today 5:44–54. https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.2018.5.2.382

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Arun B, Joshi AK, Chand R, Singh BD (2003) Wheat somaclonal variants showing earliness, improved spot blotch resistance and higher yield. Euphytica 132:235–241

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bairu MW, Aremu OA, Van-Staden J (2011) Somaclonal variation in plants: causes and detection methods. Plant Growth Regul 63:147–173

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Barik DP, Mohapatra U, Chand PK (2005) Transgenic grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.): factors influencing agrobacterium-mediated transformation and regeneration. Plant Cell Rep 24:523–531. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-005-0957-5

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Barpete S, Aasim M, Ozcan SF, Khawar KM, Ozcan S (2017) High frequency axillary shoots induction in grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Bangladesh J Bot 46:119–124

    Google Scholar 

  8. Barpete S, Gupta P, Khawar KM, Özcan S, Kumar S (2020) In vitro approaches for shortening generation cycles and faster breeding of low Β-N-oxalyl-L-Α, Β-diaminopropionic acid content of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Fresenius Environmental Bulletin 29:2698–2706

    Google Scholar 

  9. Barpete S, Khawar KM, Özcan S (2014b) Differential competence for in vitro adventitious rooting of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 119:39–50

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Barpete S, Özcan SF, Khawar KM, Özcan S (2016) Effect of plant growth regulators and physical factors on in vitro high frequency regeneration of grass pea. J Anim Plant Sci 26:1087–1093

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Barpete S, Sharma NC, Kumar S (2014) Assessment of somaclonal variation and stability in vitro regenerated grass pea plants using SDS-PAGE. Legume Res 37:345–352

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brettel RI, Dennis SES, Scowcrot WR, Peacock WJ (1986) Molecular analysis of a somaclonal mutant of maize alcohol dehydrogenase. Mol Gen Genet 202:235–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Barret P, Brinkman M, Becker M (2006) A sequence related to rice Pong transposable element displays transcriptional activation by in vitro culture and reveals somaclonal variations in maize. Genome 49:1399–1407

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Biswas MK, Dutt M, Roy UK et al (2009) Development and evaluation of in vitro somaclonal variation in strawberry for improved horticultural traits. Sci Hortic 122:409–416

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Borém A, Fritsche-Neto R (eds) (2014) Biotechnology and plant breeding: applications andapproaches for developing improved cultivars. Elsevier, London

    Google Scholar 

  16. Central Statistical Authority (1990–2009) Crop production and area statistics. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

  17. Chen THH, Lazar MD, Seoles GY, Gusta LV, Kartha KK (1987) Somaclonal variation in a population of winter wheat. J Plant Physiol 130:27–36

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Cheng XY, Gao MW, Liang ZQ, Liu GZ, Hu TC (1992) Somaclonal variation in winter wheat: frequency, occurrence and inheritance. Euphytica 64:1–10

    Google Scholar 

  19. Delgado-Paredes GE, Consuelo RI, Jorge CC, Eny ISF, Walter H (2017) Development and agronomic evaluation of in vitro somaclonal variation in sweet potato regenerated plants from direct organogenesis of roots. Asian J Plant Sci Res 7:39–48

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Dixit GP, Parihar AK, Bohra A, Singh NP (2016) Achievements and prospects of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) improvement for sustainable food production. Crop J 4:407–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2016.06.008

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Edallo S, Zucchinali C, Perenzin M. Salamini F (1981) Chromosomal variation and frequency of spontaneous mutation associated with in vitro culture and plant regeneration in maize. Maydica 26:39–56

    Google Scholar 

  22. Evans DA, Sharp WR (1983) Single gene mutations in tomato plants regenerated from tissue culture. Science 221:949–951

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Gamborg O, Miller A, Ojima K (1968) Nutrient requirements suspension culture of soybean root cells. Exp Cell Res 50:151–158

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Ivanov P, Zhirko A, Venetzyia M, Ludnila N (1998) Cultured selected somaclonal variation in five Triticum aestivum L. genotypes. Euphytica 104:167–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Joshi AK, Singh RH, Rai B (1997) Effect of three generations of back-crossing on maturity duration, grain yield and its attributes in intervarietal crosses of wheat. Malays Appl Biol 26:7–12

    Google Scholar 

  26. Karp A (1995) Somaclonal variation as a tool for crop improvement. Euphytica 85:295–302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Karp S, Steel H, Parmar S, Jones MGK, Shewry PR, Breyman A (1987) Relative stability among barely plant regenerated from cultured immature embryo. Genome 29:405–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kukreja AK, Dhawan OP, Ahuja PS, Sharma S, Mathur AK (1992) Genetic improvement of mints: on the qualitative traits of essential oil of in-vitro derived clones of Japanese mint (Mentha arvensis var. piperascens Holmes). J Essent Oil Res 4:623–629. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/10412905.1992.9698145

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Kumar S, Ali M (2006) GE interaction and its breeding implications in pulses. The Botanica 56:31–36

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kumar S, Bejiga G, Ahmed S, Nakkoul H, Sarkar A (2011) Genetic Improvement of grass pea for low neurotoxin (β-ODAP) content. Food Chem Toxicol 49:589–600

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kumar S, Gupta P, Barpete S, Sarker A, Amri A, Mathur PN, Baum M (2013) Grass pea. In: Singh M, Upadhyaya HD, Bisht IS (eds) Genetic and genomic resources of grain legume improvement. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 269–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-397935-3.00011-6

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Lambein F, Travella S, Kuo YH, Montagu MV, Heijde M (2019) Grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.): orphan crop, nutraceutical or just plain food? Planta 250:821–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-018-03084-0

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Larkin PY, Scowcroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation - a novel source of variability from cell culture for plant improvement. Theor Appl Genet 60:197–214

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Ochatt S, Durieu P, Jacas L, Pontécaille C (2001) Protoplast, cell and tissue cultures for the biotechnological breeding of grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Lathyrus Lathyrism Newsletter 2:35–38

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ochatt SJ, Conreux C, Jacas L (2013) Flow cytometry distinction between species and between landraces within Lathyrus species and assessment of true-to-typeness of in vitro regenerants. Plant Syst Evol 299:75–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00606-012-0704-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Rao SL, Adiga PR, Sarma PS (1964) The isolation and characterization of β-N- oxalyl-L-α, β-diaminopropionic acid, a neurotoxin from the seeds of Lathyrus sativus. Biochemistry 3:432–436

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Roy PK, Ali K, Gupta A, Barat GK, Mehta SL (1993) α-N-oxalyl-L-diaminopropionic acid in somaclones derived from internode explants of Lathyrus sativus. J Plant Biochem Biotech 2:9–13

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ribalta FM, Pazos-Navarro M, Edwards K, Ross JJ, Croser JS, Ochatt SJ (2019) Expression patterns of key hormones related to pea (Pisum sativum L.) embryo physiological maturity shift in response to accelerated growth conditions. Front Plant Sci 10:1154. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01154

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Saha S, Tullu A, Yuan HY et al (2015) Improvement of embryo rescue technique using 4-chloroindole-3 acetic acid in combination with in vivo grafting to overcome barriers in lentil interspecific crosses. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 120:109–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-014-0584-3

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Sahijram L, Soneji J, Bollamma K (2003) Analyzing somaclonal variation in micropropagated bananas (Musa spp.). In Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 39:551–556

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Somaroo BH, Grant NF (1972) Meiotic chromosome behaviour in tetraploid hybrids between synthetic Lotus amplidiploids and L. corniculatus. Can J Genet Cytol 14:57–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Santha IM, Mehta SL (2001) Development of low ODAP somaclones of Lathyrus sativus. Lathyrus Lathyrism Newslett 2:42

    Google Scholar 

  44. Sheidai M, Hamta A (2008) Cytogenetic analysis of somaclonal variation in regenerated plants of Berseem clover (Trifolium alexandrium L.). Caryologia 61:392–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Singh PK, Sadhukhan R, Kumar A (2017) Correlation studied on several quantitative traits in induced mutagenic population of grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Int J Curr Microbiol App Sci 6:612–619

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Talukdar D (2009) Development of cytogenetic stocks through induced mutagenesis in grass pea (Lathyrus sativus): Current status and future prospects in crop improvement. Grain Legume 54:30–31

    Google Scholar 

  47. Todorovska E, Tkikonova A, Pftrova M, Vitanova Z, Marinova E, Gkamatikova E, Valcmievai D, Zaprianov S, Mersinko N, Atanassov A (1997) Agronomic performance and molecular assessment of tissue culture-derived barley lines. Plant Breeding 116:511–517

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tripathy SK (2005) Genetic parameters and character association in grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Curr Agric Res 18:36–40

    Google Scholar 

  49. Tripathy SK, Panda A, Nayak PK, Dash S, Lenka D, Mishra DR, Kar RK, Senapati N, Dash GB (2016) Somaclonal variation for genetic improvement in grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.). Legume Res 39:329–335

    Google Scholar 

  50. Tsialtas IS, Theologidou GS, Bilias F, Irakli M, Lazaridou A (2020) Ex situ evaluation of seed quality and bruchid resistance in Greek accessions of red pea (Lathyrus cicera L.). Genet Resour Crop Evol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-020-00896-6(0123456789

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Van-Dorrestein B, Baum M, Abd-El-Moneim AM (1998) Use of somaclonal variation in Lathyrus sativus (grass pea) to select variants with low ODAP concentration. In: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Grain Legumes, Valladolid, Spain, p. 364

  52. Vaz Patto MC, Skiba B, Pang ECK, Ochatt SJ, Lambein F, Rubiales D (2006) Lathyrus improvement for resistance against biotic and abiotic stresses: from classical breeding to marker assisted selection. Euphytica 147:133–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-006-3607-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. VSN International (2015) The guide to the genstat command language (release 18), part 2 statistics. VSN International, Hemel Hempstead

    Google Scholar 

  54. Williams PC, Stevenson SG, Starkey PM, Hawtin GC (1978) The application of near infrared reflectance spectroscopy to protein-testing in pulse breeding programmes. J Sci Food Agric 29:285–292

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are thankful to International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas for providing the grass pea genotypes for present study and M. P. Govt. Bhopal, India (Madhya Pradesh Overseas Scholarship Scheme) for supporting the research work.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SB designed the study and conducted experiments and collected and organized the experimental data. GP and MS carried out the statistical analysis of data and prepared primary tables. SB and MS wrote the initial draft manuscript. SK supervised all research activities, read the manuscript critically and shaped it in its current form.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Surendra Barpete or Shiv Kumar.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest for the manuscript and agreed in the submission to Plant Cell, Tissue, and Organ Culture.

Additional information

Communicated by Amita Bhattacharya.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Barpete, S., Gupta, P., Singh, M. et al. Culture selected somaclonal variants showing low-ODAP and high protein content in nineteen grass pea (Lathyrus sativus L.) genotypes. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 142, 625–634 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-020-01889-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Grass pea
  • Lathyrus sativus L.
  • ODAP
  • Protein
  • Somaclonal variation
  • Tissue culture