Somatic embryogenesis from stamen filaments in grapevine (Vitis vinifera L. cv. Mencía): changes in ploidy level and nuclear DNA content

  • Yosvanis Acanda
  • Maria Jesús Prado
  • María Victoria González
  • Manuel ReyEmail author
Developmental Biology/Morphogenesis


Somatic embryogenesis was induced from stamen filaments and an embryogenic suspension culture was established in the grapevine cultivar Mencía using thidiazuron and 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid. Four combinations of each growth regulator were assessed for somatic embryo induction in a basal medium containing Nitsch and Nitsch salts and Murashige and Skoog vitamins, and an embryogenic suspension was established in liquid medium containing 1 μM 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid plus 4.5 μM thidiazuron. By using thidiazuron instead of benzyladenine, induction rates were improved over those previously reported for this cultivar and were relatively high compared with previous results in other cultivars. Three combinations of indole-3-acetic acid and benzyladenine and two inoculum levels were tested in a differentiation medium containing activated charcoal. The size of the inoculum affected the developmental stage of the somatic embryos, whereas the type of growth regulator did not. Both the germination and plant conversion rates were high (87.8% and 88.2%, respectively). An analysis of plant ploidy levels by flow cytometry revealed that 5.6% of the somatic embryo-derived plants were tetraploid. The mean nuclear DNA content of the diploid somatic embryo-derived plants was, on average, 6.7% lower than that of diploid field-grown plants, indicating that this protocol produces low levels of somaclonal variation. The results obtained here indicate that such variations in grapevine can occur both through changes in the ploidy level and by loss of genetic material during somatic embryogenesis.


Grapevine Somatic embryogenesis Embryogenic cell suspension Flow cytometry Somaclonal variation 



This research was funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitivity (grant AGL2009-07488). This report is a contribution of the Interuniversity Research Group in Biotechnology and Reproductive Biology of Woody Plant (group code 08IDI1705). Yosvanis Acanda thanks the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation for its support through a MAEC-AECID scholarship. The authors thank Dr. Joao Loureiro (University of Aveiro, Portugal) for providing the S. lycopersicum cv. Stupicke seeds and María José Graña and Julián Benéitez for their invaluable help during plant material collection at the Centro de Formación y Experimentación de Viticultura y Enología de Ribadumia (Pontevedra, Spain), a viticultural facility owned by the regional government of Galicia.


  1. Baggiolini M (1952) Les stades repères dans le développement annuel de la vigne et leur utilisation pratique. Rev Romande Agric Vitic Arboric 8:4–6Google Scholar
  2. Bairu MW, Aremu AO, van Staden J (2011) Somaclonal variation in plants: causes and detection methods. Plant Growth Regul 63:147–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ben Amar A, Cobanov P, Boonrod K, Krczal G, Bouzid S, Ghorbel A, Reustle GM (2007) Efficient procedure for grapevine embryogenic suspension establishment and plant regeneration: role of conditioned medium for cell proliferation. Plant Cell Rep 26:1439–1447PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bouamama B, Jardak R, Ben Salem A, Ghorbel A, Mliki A (2009) Preservation of endangered Tunisian grapevine cultivars using embryogenic cultures. Electron J Biotechnol. doi: 10.2225/vol12-issue2-fulltext-3
  5. Deumling B, Clermont L (1989) Changes in DNA content and chromosomal size during cell culture and plant regeneration of Scilla siberica: selective chromatin diminution in response to environmental conditions. Chromosoma 97:439–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Doležel J, Bartoš J, Voglmayr H, Greilhuber J (2003) Nuclear DNA content and genome size of trout and human. Cytometry 51A:127–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Doležel J, Sgorbati S, Lucretti S (1992) Comparison of three DNA fluorochromes for flow cytometric estimation of nuclear DNA content in plants. Physiol Plant 85:625–631CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Faure O, Aarrouf J, Nougarede A (1996) Ontogenesis, differentiation and precocious germination in anther-derived somatic embryos of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.): proembryogenesis. Ann Bot 78:23–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gambino G, Di Matteo D, Gribaudo I (2009) Elimination of Grapevine fanleaf virus from Vitis vinifera cultivars by somatic embryogenesis. Eur J Plant Pathol 123:57–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gao LZ, Zhang CH, Jia JZ, Dong YS (2002) Assessment of population genetic structure in common wild rice Oryza rufipogon Griff. using microsatellite and allozyme markers. Theor Appl Genet 106:173–180PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Gribaudo I, Gambino G, Vallania R (2004) Somatic embryogenesis from grapevine anthers: the optimal developmental stage for collecting explants. Am J Enol Vitic 55:427–430Google Scholar
  12. Hebert D, Kikkert JR, Smith FD, Reisch BI (1993) Optimization of biolistic transformation of embryogenic grape cell suspensions. Plant Cell Rep 12:585–589CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Huetteman CA, Preece JE (1993) Thidiazuron: a potent cytokinin for woody plant tissue culture. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 33:105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ishigaki G, Gondo T, Suenaga K, Akashi R (2009) Induction of tetraploid ruzigrass (Brachiaria ruziziensis) plants by colchicine treatment of in vitro multiple-shoot clumps and seedlings. Grassl Sci 55:164–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jayasankar S, Gray DJ, Litz RE (1999) High-efficiency somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from suspension cultures of grapevine. Plant Cell Rep 18:533–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kikkert JR, Hebert-Soule D, Wallace PG, Streim MJ, Reisch BI (1996) Transgenic plantlets of “Chancellor” grapevine (Vitis sp.) from biolistic transformation of embryogenic cell suspension. Plant Cell Rep 15:311–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kikkert JR, Striem MJ, Vidal JR, Wallace PG, Barnard J, Reish BI (2005) Long-term study of somatic embryogenesis from anthers and ovaries of 12 grapevine (Vitis sp.) genotypes. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 41:232–239Google Scholar
  18. Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation: a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theor Appl Genet 60:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leal F, Loureiro J, Rodríguez E, Pais MS, Santos C, Pinto-Carnide O (2006) Nuclear DNA content of Vitis vinifera cultivars and ploidy level analyses of somatic embryo-derived plants obtained from anther culture. Plant Cell Rep 25:978–985PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maës O, Coutos-Thévenot P, Jouenne T, Boulay M, Guern J (1997) Influence of extracellular proteins, proteases and protease inhibitors on grapevine somatic embryogenesis. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 50:97–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martinelli L, Gribaudo I (2009) Strategies for effective somatic embryogenesis in grapevine: an appraisal. In: Roubelakis-Angelakis KA (ed) Grapevine molecular physiology and biotechnology, 2nd edn. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 461–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martinelli L, Gribaudo I, Bertoldi D, Candioli E, Poletti V (2001) High efficiency somatic embryogenesis and plant germination in grapevine cultivars Chardonnay and Brachetto a Grappolo Lungo. Vitis 40:111–115Google Scholar
  23. Mullins MG, Srinivasan C (1976) Somatic embryos and plantlets from an ancient clone of grapevine (cv. Cabernet Sauvignon) by apomixis in vitro. J Exp Bot 27:1022–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Neelakandan AK, Wang K (2011) Recent progress in the understanding of tissue culture-induced genome level changes in plants and potential applications. Plant Cell Rep 31:597–620PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nitsch JP, Nitsch C (1969) Haploid plants from pollen grains. Science 163:85–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Oumar D, Sama AE, Adiobo A, Zok S (2011) Determination of ploidy level by flow cytometry and autopolyploid induction in cocoyam (Xanthosoma sagittifolium). Afr J Biotechnol 10:16491–16494Google Scholar
  28. Petersen KK, Hagberg P, Kristiansen K (2003) Colchicine and oryzalin mediated chromosome doubling in different genotypes of Miscanthus sinensis. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 73:137–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prado MJ, Grueiro MP, González MV, Testillano PS, Domínguez C, López M, Rey M (2010a) Efficient plant regeneration through somatic embryogenesis from anthers and ovaries of six autochthonous grapevine cultivars from Galicia (Spain). Sci Hortic 125:342–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Prado MJ, Rodríguez E, Rey L, González MV, Santos C, Rey M (2010b) Detection of somaclonal variants in somatic embryogenesis-regenerated plants of Vitis vinifera by flow cytometry and microsatellite markers. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 103:49–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Predieri S (2001) Mutation induced and tissue culture in improving fruits. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 64:185–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rose JB, Kubba J, Tobutt KR (2000) Chromosome doubling in sterile Syringa vulgaris x S. pinnatifolia hybrids by in vitro culture of nodal explants. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 63:127–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Roy AT, Leggett G, Koutoulis A (2001) In vitro tetraploid induction and generation of tetraploids from mixoploids in hop (Humulus lupus L.). Plant Cell Rep 20:489–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Street HE (1977) Plant tissue and cell culture. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  35. Vidal JR, Rama J, Taboada L, Martín C, Ibañez M, Segura A, González-Benito ME (2009) Improved somatic embryogenesis of grapevine (Vitis vinifera) with focus on induction parameters and efficient plant generation. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 96:85–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wu JH, Mooney P (2002) Autotetraploid tangor plant regeneration from in vitro Citrus somatic embryogenic callus treated with colchicine. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 70:99–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for In Vitro Biology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yosvanis Acanda
    • 1
  • Maria Jesús Prado
    • 1
  • María Victoria González
    • 2
  • Manuel Rey
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Departamento de Biología Vegetal y Ciencia del SueloUniversidad de VigoVigoSpain
  2. 2.Departamento de Fisiología VegetalUniversidad de Santiago de CompostelaSantiago de CompostelaSpain

Personalised recommendations