Frontiers of Agriculture in China

, Volume 5, Issue 4, pp 514–518 | Cite as

Induced chlorophyll mutations. I. Mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency of EMS, HZ and SA in mungbean

  • Mohd Rafiq Wani
  • Samiullah Khan
  • Mohammad Imran Kozgar
Research Article

Abstract

A systematic and comparative study on the frequency and spectrum of chlorophyll mutations induced by ethylmethane sulphonate (EMS) — an alkylating agent, hydrazine hydrate (HZ) — a base analogue and sodium azide (SA) — a respiratory inhibitor, was carried out in two mungbean varieties, namely, PDM-11 and NM-1. Awide spectrum of chlorophyll mutants was obtained in the M2 generation. All these chlorophyll-deficient mutants were lethal except maculata, viridis and virescent. Chlorina followed by xantha types were predominant in both the varieties. EMS treatments induced the highest frequency of chlorophyll mutations followed by HZ and SA. The frequency of chlorophyll mutations was dose-dependent and increased with the mutagen concentration. Based on effectiveness in both varieties, the order of mutagens was HZ > SA > EMS. Two criteria viz., pollen sterility (Mp/S) and seedling injury (Mp/I) were taken into consideration to determine the efficiency of the mutagens. EMS was found to be the most efficient mutagen followed by HZ and SA. Moderate concentrations of the mutagens were the most effective and efficient in inducing mutations.

Keywords

mungbean chemical mutagens chlorophyll mutations mutagenic effectiveness efficiency 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Arora R, Kaul M L H (1989). Mutagen induced chlorophyll deficiency in Pisum sativum. Cytobios, 57: 189–199Google Scholar
  2. Barshile J D, Auti S G, Dalve S C, Apparao B J (2006). Mutagenic sensitivity studies in chickpea employing SA, EMS and gamma rays. Indian Journal of Pulses Research, 19(1): 43–46Google Scholar
  3. Bevins M, Yang C M, Markwell J (1992). Characterization of chlorophyll deficient mutant of sweet clover (Melilotus alba). Plant Physiol Biochem, 30: 327–331Google Scholar
  4. Das P K, Kundagrami S (2000). Frequency and spectrum of chlorophyll mutations in grasspea induced by gamma rays. Indian J Genet Plant Breed, 62(3): 273–274Google Scholar
  5. Gaikward N B, Kothekar V S (2004). Mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency of ethylmethane sulphonate and sodium azide in lentil (Lens culinaris Medik). Indian J Genet Plant Breed, 64(1): 73–74Google Scholar
  6. Gautam A S, Sood K C, Richaria A K (1992). Mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency of gamma rays, ethylmethane sulphonate and their synergistic effects in black gram (Vigna mungo L.). Cytologia (Tokyo), 57: 85–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goud J V (1967). Induced mutations in bread wheat. Indian J Genet Plant Breed, 27: 40–45Google Scholar
  8. Gustafsson A (1940). A mutation system of chlorophyll apparatus. Lunds University Arsskr N F Avd, 2(36): 1–40Google Scholar
  9. John S A (1999). Mutation frequency and chlorophyll mutations in parents and hybrids of cowpea following gamma irradiation. Indian J Genet Plant Breed, 59(3): 357–361Google Scholar
  10. Khan M N (1999). Mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency of EMS, gamma rays and their combination in black gram (Vigna mungo (L.) Hepper). Advances in Plant Sciences, 12(1): 203–205Google Scholar
  11. Khan S, Wani M R, Bhat M, Parveen K (2005). Induced chlorophyll mutations in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 7(5): 764–767Google Scholar
  12. Kharkwal M C (1998). Induced mutations in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) II. Frequency and spectrum of chlorophyll mutations. Indian J Genet Plant Breed, 58(4): 465–474Google Scholar
  13. Konzak C F, Nilan R A, Wagner J, Foster R J (1965). Efficient chemical mutagenesis. Radiat Bot, 5(Suppl.): 49–70Google Scholar
  14. Kumar R, Mani S C (1997). Chemical mutagenesis in Manhar variety of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Indian J Genet Plant Breed, 57(2): 120–126Google Scholar
  15. Kumar S, Dubey D K (1998). Mutagenic efficiency and effectiveness of separate and combined treatments with gamma rays, EMS and DES in Khesari (Lathyrus sativus L.). Journal of Indian Botanical Society, 77: 1–4Google Scholar
  16. Kumar D S, Nepolean T, Gopalan A (2003). Effectiveness and efficiency of the mutagens; gamma rays and ethylmethane sulphonate on limabean (Phaseolus lunatus L.). Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, 37(2): 115–119Google Scholar
  17. Nadarajan W, Sathupati R, Shivaswamy N (1982). Investigation on induced macromutations in Cajanus cajan. Madras Agricultural Journal, 69: 713–717Google Scholar
  18. Ratnam S V, Rao K V M (1993). Mutagenic efficiency of gamma ray irradiation in sunflower. Journal of Indian Botanical Society, 72: 315–316Google Scholar
  19. Reddy V R K (1992). Mutagenic parameters in single and combined treatments of gamma rays, EMS and sodium azide in triticale, barley and wheat. Advances in Plant Sciences, 5(2): 542–553Google Scholar
  20. Singh V P, Singh M, Pal J P (1999). Mutagenic effects of gamma rays and EMS on frequency and spectrum of chlorophyll and macromutations in urdbean ((Vigna mungo L.) Hepper). Indian J Genet Plant Breed, 59(2): 203–210Google Scholar
  21. Smith H H (1972). Comparative genetic effects of different physical mutagens in higher plants. In: Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Atomic Energy in Food and Agriculture, ed. Induced Mutations and Plant Breeding Improvement IAEA. Vienna, 75–93Google Scholar
  22. Swaminathan M S, Chopra V L, Bhaskaran S (1962). Chromosome aberrations and frequency and spectrum of mutations induced by EMS in barley and wheat. Indian J Genet Plant Breed, 22: 192–207Google Scholar
  23. Vanniarajan C, Vivekanandan P, Ramalingam J (1993). Spectrum and frequency of chlorophyll and viable mutations in M2 generation of black gram. Crop Improvement, 20(2): 215–218Google Scholar
  24. Waghmare V N (2001). Induced mutations in grasspea (Lathyrus sativus L.) II Frequency and spectrum of chlorophyll mutations. Advances in Plant Sciences, 14(1): 249–253Google Scholar
  25. Waghmare V N, Mehra R B (2001). Induced chlorophyll mutations, mutagenic effectiveness and efficiency in Lathyrus sativus L. Indian J Genet Plant Breed, 61(1): 53–56Google Scholar
  26. Wani M R, Khan S (2003). Chlorophyll mutations in lentil. Tropical Agriculturist, 154: 21–26Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Higher Education Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mohd Rafiq Wani
    • 1
  • Samiullah Khan
    • 2
  • Mohammad Imran Kozgar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of BotanyGovt. Degree College (Boys)AnantnagIndia
  2. 2.Mutation Breeding Laboratory, Department of BotanyAligarh Muslim UniversityAligarhIndia

Personalised recommendations