Organic nitrogen composition of the tissue culture medium influences Agrobacterium tumefaciens growth and the recovery of transformed Pinus radiata embryonal masses after cocultivation

  • Regis Le-Feuvre
  • Claudia Triviño
  • Ana M. Sabja
  • Michèle Bernier-Cardou
  • Michael R. Moynihan
  • Krystyna Klimaszewska
Biotechnology/Genetic Transformation/Functional Genomics


Repeated attempts to genetically transform Pinus radiata embryonal masses through cocultivation with Agrobacterium tumefaciens on MSG medium were unproductive due to Agrobacterium overgrowth. Timentin at either 200 or 400 mg l−1 was ineffective in inhibiting bacterial growth after cocultivation. In this study, the causes of the abundant bacterial growth were investigated by comparing MSG medium with two other media (mLV and DCR) commonly used in conifer somatic embryogenesis. Statistical analysis of the growth data (optical density and number of cell-forming units) showed that bacterium grew significantly more on MSG than on mLV or DCR during the 48-h cocultivation. This enhanced growth was attributed to the higher concentration of L-glutamine in MSG. Lowering the concentration of L-glutamine in MSG to 0.5 g l−1 resulted in similar growth of Agrobacterium compared with the other two media. MSG was also superior for the growth of radiata pine cells, with a statistically significant difference after 14 d of culture. Hence, to avoid bacterial overgrowth during and after cocultivation, a two-medium protocol was developed in which cocultivation was carried out on mLV, followed by 5 d on mLV with 400 mg l−1 Timentin. Selection for transformed cells and further control of bacterial growth was then performed using MSG with Timentin and Geneticin. By sequential application of these two media, 2,096 cell colonies were selected; of these, 94 were analyzed and 49 were transgenic. These results highlight yet another factor that might be critical for the success of transformation experiments but has not been sufficiently studied until now: the growth dynamics and ability to eliminate A. tumefaciens on various plant tissue culture media.


Agrobacterium Genetic transformation L-glutamine Radiata pine Somatic embryogenesis 


  1. Becwar M, Nagmani R, Wann S (1990) Initiation of embryogenic cultures and somatic embryo development in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Can J Forest Res 20:810–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chambers JM, Hastie TJ (eds) (1992) Statistical models in S. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole, Pacific Grove, California, 608 pGoogle Scholar
  3. Charity JL, Holland L, Grace LJ, Walter C (2005) Consistent and stable expression of the nptII, uidA and bar genes in transgenic Pinus radiata after Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation using nurse culture. Plant Cell Rep 23:606–616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Charity JL, Klimaszewska K (2005) Persistence of Agrobacterium tumefaciens in transformed conifers. Environ Biosafety Res 4:167–177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng ZM, Schnurr JA, Kapaun JA (1998) Timentin as an alternative antibiotic for suppression of Agrobacterium tumefaciens in genetic transformation. Plant Cell Rep 17:646–649CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gleeson D, Lelu-Walter MA, Parkinson M (2005) Overproduction of proline in transgenic hybrid larch (Larix x leptoeuropaea (Dengler)) cultures renders them tolerant to cold, salt and frost. Mol Breed 15:21–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grace LJ, Charity JA, Gresham B, Kay N, Walter C (2005) Insect resistant transgenic Pinus radiata. Plant Cell Rep 24:103–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grant JE, Cooper PA, Dale TM (2004) Transgenic Pinus radiata from Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of cotyledons. Plant Cell Rep 22:894–902PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta P, Durzan D (1985) Shoot multiplication for mature trees of Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) and sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana). Plant Cell Rep 4:177–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hargreaves CL, Reeves CB, Find JI, Gough K, Josekutty P, Skudder DB, van der Maas SA, Sigley MR, Menzies MI, Low CB, Mullin TJ (2009) Improving initiation, genotype capture, and family representation in somatic embryogenesis of Pinus radiata by a combination of zygotic embryo maturity, media, and explant preparation. Can J Forest Res 39:1566–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klimaszewska K, Lachance D, Pelletier G, Lelu MA, Séguin A (2001a) Regeneration of transgenic Picea glauca, P. mariana, and P. abies after cocultivation of embryogenic tissue with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 37:748–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klimaszewska K, Park YS, Overton C, Maceacheron I, Bonga J (2001b) Optimized somatic embryogenesis in Pinus strobus L. Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 37:392–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Klimaszewska K, Sutton B, Polonenko D, Cyr D, Stodola T (2001c) Maturation of somatic embryos. US Patent 6,200,809 B1Google Scholar
  14. Koncz C, Schell J (1986) The promoter of TL-DNA gene 5 controls the tissue-specific expression of chimeric genes carried by a novel type of Agrobacterium binary vector. Mol Gen Genet 204:383–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Levee V, Lelu MA, Jouanin L, Cornu D, Pilate G (1997) Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation of hybrid larch (Larix kaempferii x L. decidua) and transgenic plant regeneration. Plant Cell Rep 16:680–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lin YJ, Zhang Q (2005) Optimizing the tissue culture conditions for high efficiency transformation of indica rice. Plant Cell Rep 23:540–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Littell RC, Milliken GA, Stroup WW, Wolfinger RD, Schabenberger O (2006) SAS for mixed models, 2nd edn. SAS Institute Inc., CaryGoogle Scholar
  18. Litvay J, Verma D, Johnson M (1985) Influence of a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) culture medium and its components on growth and somatic embryogenesis of the wild carrot (Daucus carota L.). Plant Cell Rep 4:325–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mohammed GH, Dunstan DI (1986) Influence of nutrient medium upon shoot initiation on vegetative explants excised from 15- to 18-year-old Picea glauca. New Zeal J Forest Sci 16:297–305Google Scholar
  20. Montalbán IA, De Diego N, Moncaleán P (2010) Bottlenecks in Pinus radiata somatic embryogenesis: improving maturation and germination. Trees 24:1061–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Quoirin M, Lepoivre P (1977) Improved media for in vitro culture of Prunus sp. Acta Hortic 78:437–442Google Scholar
  23. Smith D (1996) Growth medium. US Patent 5:565,355Google Scholar
  24. Starr MP (1946) The nutrition of phytopathogenic bacteria: the genus Agrobacterium. J Bacteriol 52:187–194Google Scholar
  25. Tereso S, Miguel C, Zoglauer K, Valle-Piquera C, Oliveira MM (2006) Stable Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of embryogenic tissue from Pinus pinaster Portuguese genotypes. Plant Growth Regul 50:57–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Trontin JF, Walter C, Klimaszewska K, Park YS, Lelu-Walter MA (2007) Recent progress in genetic transformation of four Pinus spp. Transgenic Plant J 1:314–329Google Scholar
  27. Zimmerman TW (1995) Effect of Timentin for controlling Agrobacterium tumefaciens following cocultivation on select plant species. Vitro Cell Dev Biol 31:70AGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for In Vitro Biology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Regis Le-Feuvre
    • 1
  • Claudia Triviño
    • 2
  • Ana M. Sabja
    • 2
  • Michèle Bernier-Cardou
    • 3
  • Michael R. Moynihan
    • 4
  • Krystyna Klimaszewska
    • 3
  1. 1.Genomica Forestal S.A., Centro de Biotecnología Universidad de ConcepciónConcepciónChile
  2. 2.Genfor S.A., Fundación Chile, sucursal ValdiviaValdiviaChile
  3. 3.Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, Laurentian Forestry CentreQuebecCanada
  4. 4.HarrisonburgUSA

Personalised recommendations