Russian Journal of Plant Physiology

, Volume 64, Issue 6, pp 919–929 | Cite as

24-epibrassinolide effects on in vitro callus tissue formation, growth, and regeneration in wheat varieties with contrasting drought resistance

  • O. A. Seldimirova
  • M. V. Bezrukova
  • I. R. Galin
  • A. R. Lubyanova
  • F. M. Shakirova
  • N. N. Kruglova
Research Papers


Effects were investigated of kinetin replacement on 24-epibrassinolide (24-EB) in the in vitro cultured embryonic explants that were obtained from two varieties of spring soft wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)— Bashkirskaya 26 (drought resistant) and Salavat Yulaev (weakly resistant), differing in drought resistance, on the calli formation, its growth indices, contents of ABA and cytokinins, morphological and histological parameters, as well as their regenerative capacity. The resistant Bashkirskaya 26 variety, in contrast to the Salavat Yulaev variety, was characterized by a significantly higher frequency of calli formation in the culture of immature embryos on the 24-EB induction medium, higher increase in fresh and dry weights, and a large number of morphogenetic centers. On the medium containing kinetin, the Salavat Yulaev calli were characterized by an increased level of ABA throughout the experiment with a maximum of 15–25 days, whereas, in the Bashkirskaya 26 calli, the maximum ABA accumulation occurred on the seventh to 11th day of cultivation, after which a decrease in the hormone content was observed. It was found that calli of both varieties cultivated on the 24-EB medium against the background of absence in the ABA content changes were characterized by an increased content of endogenous cytokinins, especially significant in Bashkirskaya 26 calli. Calli of both varieties were characterized by a high regenerative capacity in all the studied variants of the regeneration medium. At the same time, the maximum capacity for regeneration and formation of regenerants with a single callus were revealed by replacing kinetin with 24-EB, especially pronounced in a resistant variety. The combination of the results obtained demonstrates the efficacy of 24-EB introducing instead of kinetin into the in vitro culture medium for explants of two varieties of spring soft wheat that differ in drought resistance, as evidenced by an increase in the frequency of callus formation from immature embryos, as well as the number of morphogenetic centers in the resulting calli.


Triticum aestivum callus ABA 24-epibrassinolide kinetin cytokinins drought resistance 







morphogenetic centers


Murashige and Skoog nutrient medium


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Phytohormones and Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants, Khan, R., Nazar, N., Iqbal, N., and Anjum, N.A., Eds., Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 2012.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Vardhini, B.V. and Anjum, N.A., Brassinosteroids make plant life easier under abiotic stresses mainly by modulating major components of antioxidant defense system, Front. Plant Sci., 2015, vol. 2, p. 67. doi 10.3389/fenvs.2014.00067Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vriet, C., Russinova, E., and Reuzeau, C., Boosting crop yields with plant steroids, Plant Cell, 2012, vol. 24, pp. 842–857.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shakirova, F.M. and Bezrukova, M.V., Effect of 24-epibrassinolide and salinity on the levels of ABA and lectin, Russ. J. Plant Physiol., 1998, vol. 45, pp. 388–391.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Avalbaev, A.M., Yuldashev, R.A, Fatkhutdinova, R.A., Urusov, F.A., Safutdinova, Yu.V., and Shakirova, F.M., The influence of 24-epibrassidinolide on the hormonal status of wheat plants under sodium chloride, Appl. Biochem. Microbiol., 2010, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 99–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Yuldashev, R., Avalbaev, A., Bezrukova, M., Vysotskaya, L., Khripach, V., and Shakirova, F., Cytokinin oxidase is involved in the regulation of cytokinin content by 24-epibrassinolide in wheat seedlings, Plant Physiol. Biochem., 2012, vol. 55, pp. 1–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Batygina, T.B., Biologiya razvitiya rastenii. Simfoniya zhizni (Developmental Biology of Plants: Symphony of Life), St. Petersburg: Dean, 2014.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soboleva, M.I. and Loginov, I.V., Statistical parameters reflecting morphogenetic capacity of soft spring wheat calluses, Russ. J. Plant Physiol., 2004, vol. 51, pp. 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun, L., Wu, Y., Zou, H., Su, Sh., Li, Sh., Shan, X., Xi, J., and Yuan, Y., Comparative proteomic analysis of the H99 inbred maize (Zea mays L.) line in embryogenic and non-embryogenic callus during somatic embryogenesis, Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult., 2013, vol. 113, pp. 103–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kruglova, N.N. and Katasonova, A.A., Immature wheat embryo as the morphogenetically competent explant, Fiziol. Biokhim. Kult. Rast., 2009, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 124–131.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kruglova, N.N. and Seldimirova, O.A., Regeneratsiya pshenitsy in vitro i ex vitro: tsito-gistologicheskie aspekty (Wheat Regeneration In Vitro and Ex Vitro: Cytological and Histological Aspects), Ufa: Gilem, 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ren, J.P., Wang, X.G., and Yin, J., Dicamba and sugar effects on callus induction and plant regeneration from embryo culture of wheat, Agr. Sci. China, 2010, vol. 9, pp. 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Yadav, T., Kothari, S.L., and Kachhwaha, S., Evaluation of regeneration potential of mature embryo derived callus in Indian cultivars of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.), J. Plant Biochem. Biotechnol., 2011, vol. 20, pp. 166–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rosseyev, V.M., Belan, I.A., and Rosseyeva, L.P., In vitro testing of spring soft wheat and barley for resistance to unfavorable abiotic environmental factors, Russ. Agric. Sci., 2010, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 166–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheon, J., Park, S.Y., Schulz, B., and Choe, S., Arabidopsis brassinosteroid biosynthetic mutant dwarf7-1 exhibits slower rates of cell division and shoot induction, BMC Plant Biol., 2010, vol. 10, p. 270. doi 10.1186/1471-2229-10-270CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gaudinová, A., Süssenbeková, H., Vojtechová, M., Kamínek, M., Eder, J., and Kohout, L., Different effects of two brassinosteroids on growth, auxin and cytokinin content in tobacco callus tissue, Plant Growth Regul., 1995, vol. 17, pp. 121–126.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lu, Z., Huang, M., Ge, D.P., Yang, Y.H., Cai, X.N., Qin, P., and She, J.M., Effect of brassinolide on callus growth and regeneration in Spartina patens (Poaceae), Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult., 2003, vol. 73, pp. 87–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nezhadahmadi, A., Hossain, P.Z., and Faruq, G., Drought tolerance in wheat, Sci. World J., 2013, art. ID 610721. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bajguz, A. and Hayat, S., Effect of brassinosteroids on the plant responses to environmental stresses, Plant Physiol. Biochem., 2009, vol. 47, pp. 1–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shakirova, F., Allagulova, Ch., Maslennikova, D., Fedorova, K., Yuldashev, R., Lubyanova, A., Bezrukova, M., and Avalbaev, A., Involvement of dehydrins in 24-epibrassinolide-induced protection of wheat plants against drought stress, Plant Physiol. Biochem., 2016, vol. 108, pp. 539–548.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Janeczko, A., Gruszka, D., Pociecha, E., Dziurka, M., Filek, M., Jurczyk, B., Kalaji, H.M., Kocurek, M., and Waligórski, P., Physiological and biochemical characterization of watered and drought-stressed barley mutants in the HvDWARF gene encoding C6-oxidase involved in brassinosteroid biosynthesis, Plant Physiol. Biochem., 2016, vol. 99, pp. 126–141.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Murashige T., Skoog, F., A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco cultures, Physiol. Plant., 1962, vol. 15, pp. 473–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kruglova, N.N., Egorova, O.V., Seldimirova, O.A., Zaitsev, D.Yu., and Zinatullina, A.E., Svetovoi mikroskop kak instrument v biotekhnologii rastenii (The Light Microscope as a Tool in Plant Biotechnology), Ufa: Gilem, 2013.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Plant Hormones: Biosynthesis, Signal Transduction, Action, Davies, P.J., Ed., New York: Springer-Verlag, 2010.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aydin, Y., Talas-Ogras, T., Ipekçi-Altas, Z., and Gözükirmizi, N., Effects of brassinosteroid on cotton regeneration via somatic embryogenesis, Biologia (Bratislava), 2006, vol. 61, pp. 289–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hu, Y.X., Bao, F., and Li, J.Y., Promotive effect of brassinosteroids on cell division involves a distinct Cyc D3-induction pathway in Arabidopsis, Plant J., 2000, vol. 24, pp. 693–701.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shakirova, F.M., Bezrukova, M.V., Aval’baev, A.M., and Gimalov, F.R., Stimulation of wheat germ agglutinin gene expression in root seedlings by 24-epibrassinolide, Russ. J. Plant Physiol., 2002, vol. 49, pp. 225–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Seldimirova, O.A. and Kruglova, N.N., Properties of the initial stages of embryoidogenesis in vitro in wheat calli of various origin, Biol. Bull., 2013, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 447–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Slesak, H., Goralski, G., Pawlowska, H., Skucinska, B., Popielarska-Konieczna, M., and Joachimiak, A.J., The effect of genotype on a barley scutella culture. Histological aspects, Cent. Eur. J. Biol., 2013, vol. 8, pp. 30–37.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. A. Seldimirova
    • 1
  • M. V. Bezrukova
    • 2
  • I. R. Galin
    • 1
  • A. R. Lubyanova
    • 2
  • F. M. Shakirova
    • 2
  • N. N. Kruglova
    • 1
  1. 1.Ufa Institute of BiologyRussian Academy of SciencesUfaRussia
  2. 2.Institute of Biochemistry and Genetics, Ufa Scientific CenterRussian Academy of SciencesUfaRussia

Personalised recommendations