Screening genetically diverse pear species for in vitro CaCl2, MgSO4 and KH2PO4 requirements

  • Sugae Wada
  • Shinya Maki
  • Randall P. Niedz
  • Barbara M. Reed
Original Paper


Conservation of important plant germplasm is often difficult due to the specific growth requirements of genetically diverse species including in vitro culture collections. Recently the mesos components (CaCl2, MgSO4, KH2PO4) of Murashige and Skoog medium were identified as one of the most influential groups of nutrients for five pear genotypes. To determine if this requirement also applied to a larger germplasm collection, 18 genotypes in six species were screened. Shoot quality, shoot length, leaf spots and leaf color were the most affected responses. Seven of nine Pyrus communis cultivars had improved shoot quality, five had significantly longer shoots, better leaf color and fewer leaf spots while two had more shoots. Two of the four Pyrus pyrifolia cultivars had improved shoot quality while three had better leaf color and fewer leaf spots. Pyrus calleryana ‘Capital’, Pyrus cordata and Pyrus ussuriensis ‘Harbin’ had longer shoots while Pyrus koehnei had less callus. P. ussuriensis ‘Hang Pa Li’ was the only genotype where shoot quality declined at high mesos concentrations. Quantitative ion analysis detected substantially higher concentrations of Ca, Mg and K, but significantly less Fe, in the shoots cultured on increased mesos compared to controls. This study confirms that increased mesos improved growth of P. communis and P. pyrifolia cultivars, but produced fewer significantly improved responses for four other species.


Growth medium Mesos components Micropropagation Mineral nutrition Pyrus 



Components CaCl2·2H2O, MgSO4·7H2O, KH2PO4 (monobasic)


Murashige and Skoog Medium



We thank NCGR lab personnel for assistance with collection of the data. This project was funded by a grant from the Oregon Association of Nurseries and the Oregon Department of Agriculture and by USDA-ARS CRIS project 5358-21000-0-38-00D.

Supplementary material

11738_2014_1754_MOESM1_ESM.docx (1.1 mb)
ESM 1. Trend lines of the interaction graph for additional responses of nine P. communis genotypes. Ratings: shoot multiplication (shoots counted), leaf color (1 green 2 yellow 3 red or brown), leaf spotting/necrosis (rated 1 absent, 2 minor, 3 major), callus (1 absent, 2 ≤ 3 mm, 3 > 3 mm) and leaf size (1 small, 2 medium, 3 large).ESM 2. Trend lines of the interaction graph for additional responses of four P. pyrifolia genotypes. Ratings: shoot multiplication (shoots counted), leaf color (1 green 2 yellow 3 red or brown), leaf spotting/necrosis (rated 1 absent, 2 minor, 3 major), callus (1 absent, 2 ≤ 3 mm, 3 > 3 mm) and leaf size (1 small, 2 medium, 3 large).ESM 3. Trend lines of the interaction graph for additional responses of P. koehnei, P. calleryana ‘Capital’, P. cordata, P. ussuriensis ‘Hang Pa Li’ and ‘Harbin’. Ratings: shoot multiplication (shoots counted), leaf color (1 green 2 yellow 3 red or brown), leaf spotting/necrosis (rated 1 absent, 2 minor, 3 major), callus (1 absent, 2 ≤3 mm, 3 > 3 mm) and leaf size (1 small, 2 medium, 3 large). (DOCX 1104 kb)


  1. Bell RL, Reed BM (2002) In vitro tissue culture of pear: advances in techniques for micropropagation and germplasm preservation. Acta Hortic 596:412–418Google Scholar
  2. Bell RL, Srinivasan C, Lomberk D (2009) Effect of nutrient media on axillary shoot proliferation and preconditioning for adventitious shoot regeneration of pears. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 45:708–714Google Scholar
  3. Bondarev N, Reshetnyak O, Nosov A (2003) Effects of nutrient medium composition on development of Stevia rebaudiana shoots cultivated in the roller bioreactor and their production of steviol glycosides. Plant Sci 165:845–850CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bosela MJ, Michler CH (2008) 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 44:316–329Google Scholar
  5. Bucher M et al (2007) Molecular physiology of the mineral nutrition of the potato. Potato Biology and Biotechnology. Elsevier Science B.V, Amsterdam, pp 311–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Design-Expert (2010) Stat-Ease, Inc., MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  7. Driver JA, Kuniyuki AH (1984) In vitro propagation of Paradox walnut rootstock. HortScience 19:507–509Google Scholar
  8. Linsmaier EM, Skoog F (1965) Organic growth factor requirements of tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 18:100–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Lloyd G, McCown B (1980) Commercially feasible micropropagation of mountain laurel Kalmia latifolia, by use of shoot-tip culture. Comb Proc Int Plant Prop Soc 30:421–427Google Scholar
  10. Marschner H (1995) Mineral nutrition of higher plants 2edn. Academic Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  11. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures Physiol Plant 15:473–497Google Scholar
  12. Niedz RP, Evens TJ (2007) Regulating plant tissue growth by mineral nutrition. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 43:370–381Google Scholar
  13. Niedz RP, Hyndman SE, Evens TJ (2007) Using a Gestalt to measure the quality of in vitro responses. Sci Hortic 112:349–359Google Scholar
  14. Preece J (1995) Can nutrient salts partially substitute for plant growth regulators? Plant Tiss Cult Biotech 1:26–37Google Scholar
  15. Quoirin M, Lepoivre P (1977) Improved media for in vitro culture of Prunus. Acta Hortic 78:437–442Google Scholar
  16. Reed BM (1999) The in vitro genebank of temperate fruit and nut crops at the National Clonal Germplasm Repository-Corvallis. In: Engelmann F (ed) Management of Field and In Vitro Germplasm Collections. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, pp 132–135Google Scholar
  17. Reed BM, Paynter CL, DeNoma J, Chang Y (1998) Techniques for medium-and long-term storage of Pyrus L. genetic resources. Plant Gen Resour Newsl 115:1–4Google Scholar
  18. Reed BM, DeNoma JS, Wada S, Postman JD (2013a) Micropropagation of pear (Pyrus sp). In: Lambardi M, Ozudogru EA, Jain SM (eds) Protocols for micropropagation of selected economically important horticultural plants. Humana Press-Springer, NY, p 554Google Scholar
  19. Reed BM, Wada S, DeNoma J, Niedz RP (2013b) Improving in vitro mineral nutrition for diverse pear germplasm. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 49:343–355. doi: 10.1007/s11627-013-9504-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Reed BM, Wada S, DeNoma J, Niedz RP (2013c) Mineral nutrition influences physiological responses of pear in vitro. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 49:699–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Sallanon H, Isaka H, Dimon B, Ravel C, Chagvardieff P (1997) CO2 exchanges and nutrient uptake during multiplication and rooting of micropropagated Juglans regia plantlets. Plant Sci 124:107–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Singha S (1986) Propagation of fruit trees using tissue culture. Pomona 19:4–5Google Scholar
  23. Skirvin RM (1981) The tissue culture of fruit crops. In: Conger BV (ed) Cloning agricultural plants via in vitro techniques. So. Orchard, Urbana, pp 51–139Google Scholar
  24. Troyanos YE, Hipps NA, Moorby J, Kingswell G (2000) The effects of external potassium and magnesium concentrations on the magnesium and potassium inflow rates and growth of micropropagated cherry rootstocks, ‘F.12/1’ (Prunus avium L.) and ‘Colt’ (Prunus avium L.) x Prunus pseudocerasus L.). Plant Soil 225:73–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wada S, Niedz RP, DeNoma J, Reed BM (2013) Mesos components (CaCl2, MgSO4, KH2PO4) are critical for improving pear micropropagation. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 49:356–365Google Scholar
  26. Wada S, Niedz RP, Reed BM (2014) Determining nitrate and ammonium requirements for optimal in vitro response of diverse pear species. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant (in press). doi: 10.1007/s11627-015-9662-4
  27. Zhao H, Gu N (1990) Pear. In: Chen Z, Evans DA, Sharp WR, Ammirato PV, Sondahl MR (eds) Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, vol 6. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 264–277Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant Physiology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków (outside the USA) 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sugae Wada
    • 1
  • Shinya Maki
    • 2
  • Randall P. Niedz
    • 3
  • Barbara M. Reed
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of HorticultureOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.Department of Applied Chemistry and BiotechnologyNiihama National College of TechnologyNiihamaJapan
  3. 3.U.S. Horticultural Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureFort PierceUSA
  4. 4.National Clonal Germplasm Repository, Agricultural Research ServiceU.S. Department of AgricultureCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations