In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant

, Volume 49, Issue 6, pp 699–709 | Cite as

Mineral nutrition influences physiological responses of pear in vitro

  • Barbara M. Reed
  • Sugae Wada
  • Jeanine DeNoma
  • Randall P. Niedz
Micropropagation

Abstract

Abnormal physiological responses of plant cultures such as shoot tip necrosis, callus, and hyperhydricity are some of the most difficult challenges in shoot micropropagation, and their causes are not well understood. Five Murashige and Skoog mineral salt factors, which influence the growth of pear shoot cultures, were tested in a five-dimensional surface response experimental design. Pyrus communis ‘Old Home × Farmingdale 87,’ ‘Horner 51,’ and ‘Winter Nelis’; Pyrus dimorphophylla; and Pyrus ussuriensis ‘Hang Pa Li’ shoot cultures were grown on 43 computer-designed treatments to represent the design space of all possible treatment combinations. Analysis of shoot response to these treatments identified the factors that both contributed to physiological disorders and remedied them. Undesirable callus formation was common for pear shoots cultured on standard medium and decreased on formulations with increased NH4NO3, Fe, and mesos (CaCl2, KH2PO4, and MgSO4) for most genotypes. Shoot tip necrosis varied with the genotype, but low mesos or low nitrogen concentrations contributed to the necrosis. Hyperhydricity was more prominent with low mesos or low NH4NO3. Hooked and upwardly curled new leaves were seen in most genotypes and resulted from use of low mesos in P. communis and low nitrogen for ‘Hang Pa Li’ and P. dimorphophylla. Fasciation and hypertrophy were seen infrequently and resulted from wide imbalances in several nutrients simultaneously. In general, standard concentrations of Murashige and Skoog iron and micros combined with high mesos and moderate nitrogen compounds produced normal shoots without physiological disorders.

Keywords

Mesos Micropropagation Mineral nutrition Nitrogen Pyrus 

References

  1. Abousalim A.; Mantell S. H. A practical method for alleviating shoot-tip necrosis symptoms in in vitro shoot cultures of Pistacia vera cv. Mateur. J Hortic Sci 69: 357–365; 1994.Google Scholar
  2. Bairu M. W.; Stirk W. A.; Van Staden J. Factors contributing to in vitro shoot-tip necrosis and their physiological interactions. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 98: 239–248; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bosela M. J.; Michler C. H. Media effects on black walnut (Juglans nigra L.) shoot culture growth in vitro: evaluation of multiple nutrient formulations and cytokinin types. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol - Plant 44: 316–329; 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bottcher I.; Zohlauer K.; Goring H. Induction and reversion of vitrification of plants cultured in vitro. Physiol Plant 72: 560–564; 1988.Google Scholar
  5. Chauhan M.; Kothari S. L. Optimization of nutrient levels in the medium increases the efficiency of callus induction and plant regeneration in recalcitrant Indian barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) in vitro. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol - Plant 40: 520–527; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Debergh P.; Aitken-Christie J.; Cohen D.; Grout B.; Von Arnold S.; Zimmerman R.; Ziv M. Reconsideration of the term ‘vitrification’ as used in micropropagation. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 30: 135–140; 1992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Design-Expert. Stat-Ease, Inc., Minneapolis, MN; 2010Google Scholar
  8. Epstein E.; Bloom A. (eds). Mineral nutrition of plants: principles and perspectives. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, pp 1–380; 2005.Google Scholar
  9. Evens T. J.; Niedz R. P. ARS-Media: ion solution calculator. U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory, Ft. Pierce; 2008.Google Scholar
  10. Grigoriadou K.; Leventakis N.; Vasilakakis M. Effects of various culture conditions on proliferation and shoot tip necrosis in the pear cultivars ‘Williams’ and ‘Highland’ grown in vitro. Acta Hortic 520: 03–108; 2000.Google Scholar
  11. Hamant O.; Traas J. The mechanics behind plant development. New Phytol 185: 369–385; 2010.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hazarika B. N. Morpho-physiological disorders in in vitro culture. Scientia Hortic 108: 105–120; 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iliev I.; Kitin P. Origin, morphology, and anatomy of fasciation in plants cultured in vitro and in vivo. Plant Growth Regul 63: 115–129; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ishida T.; Anno T.; Matsukawa S.; Nagano T. Hydraulic conductivity and diffusion coefficient in gels for plant tissue culture. Environ Cont Biol 38: 165–171; 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ivanova M.; Van Staden J. Nitrogen source, concentration, and NH4 +:NO3 - ratio influence shoot regeneration and hyperhydricity in tissue cultured Aloe polyphylla. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 99: 167–174; 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kintzios S.; Drossopoulos J. B.; Lymperopoulos C. Effect of vitamins and inorganic micronutrients on callus growth and somatic embryogenesis from leaves of chilli pepper. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 67: 55–62; 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kintzios S.; Stavropoulou E.; Skamneli S. Accumulation of selected macronutrients and carbohydrates in melon tissue cultures: association with pathways of in vitro dedifferentiation and differentiation (organogenesis, somatic embryogenesis). Plant Sci 167: 655–664; 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Leyser H.; Ottoline M.; Furner I. J. Characterisation of three shoot apical meristem mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana. Development 116: 397–403; 1992.Google Scholar
  19. Lloyd G.; McCown B. Commercially feasible micropropagation of mountain laurel, Kalmia latifolia, by use of shoot-tip culture. Comb Proceed Int Plant Propag Soc 30: 421–427; 1980.Google Scholar
  20. Martin K. P.; Zhang C.-L.; Slater A.; Madassery J. Control of shoot necrosis and plant death during micropropagation of banana and plantains (Musa spp.). Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 88: 51–59; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Murashige T.; Skoog F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15: 473–497; 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Niedz R. P.; Evens T. J. A solution to the problem of ion confounding in experimental biology. Nat Methods 3: 417; 2006.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Niedz R. P.; Evens T. J. Regulating plant tissue growth by mineral nutrition. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol - Plant 43: 370–381; 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paques M. Vitrification and micropropagation: causes, remedies and prospects. Acta Hortic 289: 283–290; 1991.Google Scholar
  25. Piagnani C.; Eccher T. Factors affecting the proliferation and rooting of chestnut in vitro. Acta Hortic 227: 384–386; 1988.Google Scholar
  26. Podwyszynska M.; Goszczynska D. M. Effect of inhibitors of ethylene biosynthesis and action, as well as calcium and magnesium on rose shoot rooting, shoot-tip necrosis and leaf senescence in vitro. Acta Physiol Plant 20: 91–89; 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reed B. M. Screening Pyrus germplasm for in vitro rooting response. HortScience 30: 1292–1294; 1995.Google Scholar
  28. Reed B. M.; DeNoma J.; Luo J.; Chang Y.; Towill L. Cryopreservation and long-term storage of pear germplasm. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol - Plant 34: 256–260; 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Reed B. M.; Wada S.; DeNoma J.; Niedz R. P. Improving in vitro mineral nutrition for diverse pear germplasm. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol - Plant 49: 343–355; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Singha S.; Townsend E.; Oberly G. Relationship between calcium and agar on vitrification and shoot-tip necrosis of quince (Cydonia oblonga Mill.) shoots in vitro. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 23: 135–142; 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thakur A.; Kanwara J. S. Effect of phase of medium, growth regulators and nutrient supplementations on in vitro shoot-tip necrosis in pear. New Zealand J Crop Hort Sci 39: 131–140; 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wada S.; Niedz R. P.; DeNoma J.; Reed B. M. Mesos components (CaCl2, MgSO4, KH2PO4) are critical for improving pear micropropagation. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol - Plant 49: 356–365; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yadav M. K.; Gaur A. K.; Garg G. K. Development of suitable protocol to overcome hyperhydricity in carnation during micropropagation. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 72: 153–156; 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ziv M. Quality of micropropagated plants—vitrification. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol - Plant 27: 64–69; 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society for In Vitro Biology 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbara M. Reed
    • 1
  • Sugae Wada
    • 2
  • Jeanine DeNoma
    • 1
  • Randall P. Niedz
    • 3
  1. 1.United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research ServiceNational Clonal Germplasm RepositoryCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Horticulture, 4017 Agriculture and Life SciencesOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  3. 3.Horticulture and Breeding Unit, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research ServiceU.S. Horticultural Research LaboratoryFt. PierceUSA

Personalised recommendations