Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture

, Volume 78, Issue 1, pp 75–81

Regeneration from Phylloclade Explants and Callus Cultures of Schlumbergera and Rhipsalidopsis

  • Sridevy Sriskandarajah
  • Margrethe Serek


Phylloclade explants of Schlumbergera and Rhipsalidopsis were cultured in vitro to produce axillary and adventitious shoots. The explants of both species, taken from greenhouse-grown plants, produced only axillary shoots. There was a pronounced improvement in adventitious shoot formation in phylloclade explants of cultivar CB4 of Rhipsalidopsis by increasing numbers of subcultures of axillary shoots used as donor plants. The axillary shoots generated from the explants were either subcultured to produce successive generations of axillary shoot cultures or made into phylloclade explants and tested for adventitious shoot formation at each subculture. The duration of each subculture varied from 6 to 12 weeks. After the first subculture, sporadic adventitious shoot formation began, and after the third subculture 87% explants of cultivar CB4 produced adventitious shoots at a frequency of about 12 shoots per explant. In contrast, there was no improvement in regenerative ability in explants of cultivar Thor-Olga of Schlumbergera up to third subculture. Adventitious shoots could be produced by callus culture too. Cultivar CB4 was highly regenerative, producing as many as 10 adventitious shoots per square cm of callus. In vitro grown plantlets, when transferred to pots continued to show prolific growth.

adventitious shoots Christmas cactus Easter cactus in vitro culture subculture 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Batista D, Sousa MJ & Pais MS (1996) Plant regeneration from stem and petiole-derived callus of humulus lupulus (hop) clone Braganca and var. Brewers Gold. In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Plant 32: 37-41Google Scholar
  2. Boyle TH & Marcotrigiano M (1997) Influence of benzyladenine and gibberellic acid on organogenesis in ‘Crimson Giant’ Easter cactus. Plant Growth Reg. 22: 131-136Google Scholar
  3. Bramwell D (1990) The role of in vitro cultivation in the conservation of endangered species. In: Hernandez Bermejo JE, Clemntne M & Heywood V (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress of Conservation Techniques in Botanic Gardens (pp. 3-15). Koeltz Scientific BooksGoogle Scholar
  4. Clayton PW, Hubstenberger JF & Phillips GC (1990) Micropropagation of members of the Cactaceae subtribe Cactinae. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 115: 337-343Google Scholar
  5. Evans DA (1989) Somaclonal variation - genetic basis and breeding application. Trends Genet. 5: 46-50CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Fillipini R, Caniato R, Capelleti EM, Piova A, Innocenti G & Cassina G (1994) In vitro regeneration of Haplophyllum patavinum (L.) G. Don fil., a rare and endangered plant. Bot. Garden Micropropagation News 1(7): 87-90Google Scholar
  7. George EF (1996) Plant propagation by tissue culture. Part 11. In practice. 2nd edn. Exegetics Ltd., Baringstoke, UKGoogle Scholar
  8. Gurriaran MJ, Revilla MA & Tames RS (1999) Adventitious shoot regeneration in cultures of Humulus lupinus L. (hop) cvs. Brewers Gold and Nugget. Plant Cell Rep. 18: 1007-1011Google Scholar
  9. Hubstenberger JF, Clayton PW & Phillips GC (1992) Micropropagation of Cacti (Cactaceae). In: Bajaj YPS (ed) Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry. High-tech and Micropropagation IV Vol. 20 (pp. 49-68). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Jain MS & De Klerk GJ (1998) Somaclonal variation in breeding and propagation of ornamentals. Plant Tiss. Cult. Biotechnol. 4: 63-75Google Scholar
  11. Johnson RT, Koenigsberg SS & Langhans RW (1976) Tissue culture propagation of Christmas and Easter cactus. HortScience 11(3): 70Google Scholar
  12. Larkin PJ & Scowcroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation - a novel source of variability from cell culture for plant improvement. Theoret. Appl. Genet. 60: 197-214Google Scholar
  13. Malda G, Backhaus RA & Martin C (1999a) Alterations in growth and crassulacean acid metabolism (CAM) activity of in vitro cultured cactus. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult. 58: 1-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Malda G, Suzan H & Backhaus R (1999b) In vitro culture as a potential method for the conservation of endangered plants possessing crassulacean acid metabolism. Sci. Hort. 81: 71-87Google Scholar
  15. Murashige T & Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 15: 473-497Google Scholar
  16. Paek KY, Lee CH, Choi JK & Kwack (1984) Mass propagation of Nephrolepis exaltata by runner tips in vitro. J. Korean Soc. Hort. Sci. 25: 313-312Google Scholar
  17. Perez JC, Flores R & Ortiz G (1999) Reproduction in vitro del ‘Cactus de Navidad’ Schlumbergera truncat (Haworth) Moran. Cactaceas y Suculentas Mexicannas Tomo XLIV Ano. 44 3: 79-83Google Scholar
  18. Sriskandarajah S (1984) Induction of adventitious roots in some scion cultivars of apple (Malus pumila Mill). PhD Thesis, University of Sydney, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  19. Sriskandarajah S, Mullins MG & Nair Y (1982) Induction of adventitious rooting in vitro in difficult-to-propagate cultivars of apple. Plant Sci. Lett. 24: 1-9Google Scholar
  20. Staba JE (1969) Plant tissue culture as a technique for the phytochemist. Recent Adv. Phytochem. 2: 80Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sridevy Sriskandarajah
    • 1
  • Margrethe Serek
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Agricultural Sciences, HorticultureThe Royal Veterinary and Agricultural UniversityFrederiksberg CDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Horticulture, Institute of Floriculture, Tree Nursery Science and Plant BreedingUniversity of HanoverHanoverGermany

Personalised recommendations