Advertisement

Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture

, Volume 79, Issue 1, pp 31–38 | Cite as

Factors Affecting the Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Transformation of the Wetland Monocot, Typha latifolia

  • Rangaraj Nandakumar
  • Li Chen
  • Suzanne M.D. Rogers
Article

Abstract

An Agrobacterium-mediated transformation system, using transient transformation assays, was used to evaluate conditions influencing transformation for the wetland monocot Typha latifolia. These studies were aimed at the long-term objective of evaluating candidate genes for phytoremediation. The binary plasmid vector pCAMBIA1301/EHA105, containing the β-glucuronidase coding sequence, was used in combination with factors known to affect transformation. These included callus age at the time of cocultivation with Agrobacterium tumefaciens, type and concentration of auxin for explant growth, light or dark culture environment, the presence or absence of acetosyringone (AS), explant type, explant wounding and the number of days used for cocultivation. The number of days needed for the first detection of transient expression of the β-glucuronidase gene was also examined. Three days of Agrobacterium cocultivation of 50-day-old seedling-derived calluses, grown on 20.7 µM (5 mg l−1) picloram supplemented medium, in the dark, resulted in higher levels of transient β-glucuronidase expression than were seen in calluses cultured on 4.5 or 22.6 µM (1 or 5 mg l−1) 2,4-dichlorphenoxyacetic acid containing media. The addition of 100 µM acetosyringone significantly enhanced transient β-glucuronidase activity. Wounding of explants, by cutting into two or three pieces, 3 days before cocultivation, increased expression of β-glucuronidase only in calluses cultured under light conditions. Transient β-glucuronidase expression was observed as early as 24 h after cocultivation and increased as the days post cultivation increased. The developed transient system will be used for stable transformation of Typha species.

cattail GUS expression picloram phytoremediation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ainsley PJ, Collins GG & Sedgley M (2001) Factors affecting and selection of transgenic calli in paper shell almond (Pruns dulcis Mill.). J. Hort. Sci. Biotechnol. 76: 522–528Google Scholar
  2. Brooks RR & Malaisse F (1985) The Heavy Metal-tolerant Flora of South Central Africa -- A Multidisciplinary Approach. A.A. Balkema Publishers, BostonGoogle Scholar
  3. Curtis IS, Power JB, Hedden P, Ward DA, Phillip A, Lowe KC & Davey MR (1999) A stable transformation system for the ornamental plant Datura meteloides D.C. Plant Cell Rep. 18: 554–560Google Scholar
  4. Flathman PE & Lanza GR (1998) Phytoremediation: current views on an emerging technology. J. Soil Contam. 7: 415–432Google Scholar
  5. Hiei Y, Ohta S, Komiki T & Kumashiro T (1994) Efficient transformation of rice (Oryza sativa L.) mediated by Agrobacterium and sequence analysis of the boundaries of the T-DNA. Plant J. 6: 271–282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Hiei Y, Komari T & Kubo T (1997) Transformation of rice mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Mol. Biol. 35: 205–218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Hood EE, Gelvin S, Melchers LS & Hoekema A (1993) New Agrobacterium helper plasmid for gene transfer to plants. Trans. Res. 2: 208–218Google Scholar
  8. Ishida Y, Saito H, Ohta S, Hiei Y, Komari T & Kumashiro T (1996) High efficiency transformation of maize (Zea mays L.) mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Nat. Biotechnol. 14: 745–750PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Jefferson RA, Kavanagh TA & Bevan MW (1987) GUS fusions: β-glucuronidase as a sensitive and versatile gene fusion marker in higher plants. EMBO J. 6: 3901–3907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Khanna HK & Raina SK (1999) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of indica rice cultivars using binary and superbinary vectors. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 26: 311–324Google Scholar
  11. Le QV, Bogusz D, Gherbi H, Lappartient A, Duhoux E & Franche C (1996) Agrobacterium tumefaciens gene transfer to Casurina glauca, a tropical nitrogen-fixing tree. Plant Sci. 118: 57–69Google Scholar
  12. Meagher RB (2000) Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 3: 153–162PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Murashige T & Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant 15: 473–497Google Scholar
  14. Narasimhulu SB, Deng X-B, Sarria R & Gelvin SB (1996) Early transcription of Agrobacterium T-DNA genes in tobacco and maize. Plant Cell 8: 873–886PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Parker DR, Feist LJ, Varvel TW, Thomason DN & Zhang Y (2003) Selenium phytoremediation potential of Stanleya pinnata. Plant Soil 249: 157–165Google Scholar
  16. Pilon-Smits EAH & Pilon M (2002) Phytoremediation of metals using transgenic plants. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 21: 439–456Google Scholar
  17. Rashid H, Yokoi S, Toriyama K & Hinata K (1996) Transgenic plant production mediated by Agrobacterium in indica rice. Plant Cell Rep. 15: 727–730Google Scholar
  18. Rogers SD, Beech J & Sarma KS (1998) Shoot regeneration and plant acclimatization of the wetland monocot Cattail (Typha latifolia). Plant Cell Rep. 18: 71–75Google Scholar
  19. Rugh CL, Senecoff JF, Meagher RB & Merkle SA (1998) Development of transgenic yellow poplar for mercury phytoremediation. Nat. Biotechnol. 16: 925–928PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Skousen JG & Sencindiver J (1988) The latest word on wetlands. Green Lands 18: 25–27Google Scholar
  21. Stachel SE, Messens E, Van ontagu M & Zambryski P (1985) Identification of signal molecules produced by wounded plant cells that activate T-DNA transfer in Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Nature 318: 624–629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Suzuki S, Supaibulwatana K, Mii M & Nakano M (2001) Production of transgenic plants of the Liliaceous ornamental plant Agapanthus praecox ssp. orientalis (Leighton) Leighton via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of embryogenic calli. Plant Sci. 161: 89–97Google Scholar
  23. Taylor GJ & Crowder AA (1984) Copper and nickel tolerance in T. latifolia clones from contaminated and uncontaminated environment. Can. J. Bot. 62: 1304–1308Google Scholar
  24. Tzfira T & Citovsky V (2002) Partners-in-infection: host proteins involved in the transformation of plant cells by Agrobacterium. Trends Cell Biol. 12: 121–129PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Usami S, Morikawa S, Takebe Y & Machida (1987) Absence of monocotyledonous plants of the diffusible plant factors inducing T-DNA circulation and vir gene expression in Agrobacterium. Mol. Gen. Genet. 290: 221–226Google Scholar
  26. Wilson PC, Whitwell T & Klaine SJ (2000) Metalaxyl and simazine toxicity to and uptake by Typha latifolia. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 39: 282–288PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Wu H, Sparks C, Amoah B & Jones HD (2003) Factors influencing successful Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of wheat. Plant Cell Rep. 21: 659–668PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Ye ZH, Baker AJM, Wong MN & Willis AJ (1997a) Zinc, lead and cadmium tolerance and uptake and accumulation by Typha latifolia. New Phytol. 136: 469–480Google Scholar
  29. Ye ZH, Baker AJM, Wong MN & Willis AJ (1997b) Copper and nickel uptake, accumulation and tolerance in Typha latifolia with and without iron plaque on the root surface. New Phytol. 136: 481–488Google Scholar
  30. Yu C, Huang S, Chen C, Deng Z, Ling P & Gmitter FG (2002) Factors affecting Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and regeneration of sweet orange and citrange. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult. 71: 147–155Google Scholar
  31. Zhu YL, Pilon-Smits EAH, Jouanin L & Terry N (1999) Over expression of glutathione synthetase in Brassica juncea enhances cadmium tolerance and accumulation. Plant Physiol. 119: 73–79PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rangaraj Nandakumar
    • 1
  • Li Chen
    • 1
  • Suzanne M.D. Rogers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BioscienceSalem International UniversitySalemUSA

Personalised recommendations