Advertisement

pp 1-15 | Cite as

Impact of Plant Tissue Culture on Agricultural Sustainability

  • Nahla A. El-Sherif
Chapter
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series

Abstract

Plant tissue culture is an important agricultural biotechnological tool that contributes in the production of crops with improved food, fiber, fuel, and feed. It is one way toward commercialization to face the food availability challenge in developing countries and allow them to cope with their fast-growing population in a restricted area of land. In addition, plant tissue culture enables some rare and nearly extinct plant species to be rescued and propagated. Conventional methods of propagation thus need to be supplemented with modern breeding techniques. In this way, higher levels of agriculture, afforestation, plant improvement as well as in vitro production of metabolites and plant secondary products can be reached and fulfilled on a year-round basis and under disease-free conditions. The main applications of plant tissue culture in the agricultural field, plant micropropagation, inducing new varieties and constrains of plant tissue culture and challenges this technique is facing as an industry helping the agricultural field, are discussed in this chapter.

Keywords

Agriculture Biotechnology In vitro propagation Industry New varieties Plant tissue culture 

References

  1. 1.
    Vasil IK, Vasil V (1972) Totipotency and embryogenesis in plant cell and tissue cultures. In Vitro 8:117–125Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sathyanarayana BN (2007) Plant tissue culture: practices and new experimental protocols. I.K. International, p 106. ISBN 978-81-89866-11-2
  3. 3.
    Bhojwani SS, Razdan MK (1996) Plant tissue culture: theory and practice, revised edn. Elsevier, New York, ISBN 0-444-81623-2
  4. 4.
    Skoog F, Miller CO (1957) Chemical regulation of growth and organ formation in plant tissue cultures in vitro. Symp Soc Exp Biol 11:118–131Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Su Y-H, Liu Y-B, Zhang X-S (2011) Auxin–cytokinin interaction regulates meristem development. Mol Plant 4:616–625.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/ssr007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Goldberg RB, de Paiva G, Yadegari R (1994) Plant embryogenesis: zygote to seed. Science 266:605–614Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Quiroz-Figueroa FR, Rojas-Herrera R, Galaz-Avalos RM, Loyola-Vargas VM (2006) Embryo production through somatic embryogenesis can be used to study cell differentiation in plants. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 86:285–301Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ronald J, Newton WT, Mohan Jain S (2005) Slash pine (Pinus elliottii Engelm) protocol for somatic embryogenesis in woody plants. In: Jain SM, Gupta K (eds) Series: forestry sciences, vol 77. Springer, New York, pp 243–248. ISBN: 978-1-4020-2984-4 (Print) 978-1-4020-2985-1 (Online)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Tomar UK, Dantu PK (2010) Protoplast culture and somatic hybridization. In: Tripathi G (ed) Cellular and biochemical science, 1st edn. I.K. International House Pvt Ltd., New Delhi, pp 876–891Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Titouh K, Nazim B, Lakhdar K (2017) Microcalli induction in protoplasts isolated from embryogenic callus of date palm. In: JM AK, Jain SM, Johnson DV (eds) Date palm biotechnology protocols volume I. Part of the methods in molecular biology book series (MIMB, volume 1637). Springer, New York, pp 227–237. ISBN: 978-1-4939-7155-8 (Print) 978-1-4939-7156-5 (Online)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Carlson P, Smith HH, Dearing RD (1972) Parasexual interspecific plant hybridization. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 69:2292–2294Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Renneberg R (2008) Biotechnology for beginners, Elsevier, San Diego, CA, p 210. 9780123735812Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kumar P, Srivastava DK (2016) Biotechnological advancement in genetic improvement of broccoli (Brassica oleracea L. var. italica), an important vegetable crop. Biotechnol Lett 38:1049.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10529-016-2080-9Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2011) “Biotechnologies for agricultural development” proceedings of the FAO international technical conference on “Agricultural biotechnologies in developing countries: options and opportunities in crops, forestry, livestock, fisheries and agro-industry to face the challenges of food insecurity and climate change (ABCD-10),” FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Teeken B, Edwin N, Marina PT, Florent O, Alfred M, Paul CS, Paul R (2012) Maintaining or abandoning African Rice: lessons for understanding processes of seed innovation. Hum Ecol 40(6):879–892Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ogero KO, Mburugu GN, Mwangi M, Ombori O, Ngugi M (2012) In vitro micropropagation of cassava through low cost tissue culture. Asian J Agr Sci 4(3):205–209Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahuja MR, Ramawat KG (eds) (2014) “Biotechnology and biodiversity” sustainable development and biodiversity, vol 4, Springer International Publishing, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chavarriaga-Aguirre P, Brand A, Medina A, Prías M, Escobar R, Martinez J et al (2016) The potential of using biotechnology to improve cassava: a review. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 52(5):461–478Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Khaled SM, Fatma AS, Mona BH (2010) Banana-growing tissue and its impact on the economic return per Fedden in Egypt. Nat Sci 8(10):267–273Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bekheet S (2013) Date palm biotechnology in Egypt. Appl Sci Rep 3(3):144–152Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Krishna H, Alizadeh M, Singh D, Singh U, Chauhan N, Eftekhari M, Sadh RK (2016) Somaclonal variations and their applications in horticultural crops improvement. Biotech 6(1):54Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Butiuc Keul A, Farkas A, Cristae V (2016) Genetic stability assessment of in vitro plants by molecular markers, Studia Universitatis Babeş-Bolyai Biologia, LXI 1:107–114Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation – a novel source of variability from cell-cultures for plant improvement. Theor Appl Genet 60:197–214Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sahijram L, Jaya RS, Bollamma KT (2003) Analyzing somaclonal variation in micropropagated bananas (Musa spp.) In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 39:551–556Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Etienne H, Bertrand B (2003) Somaclonal variation in Coffea arabica: effects of genotype and embryogenic cell suspension age on frequency and phenotype of variants. Tree Physiol 23:419–426Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rival A, Ilbert P, Labeyrie A, Torres E, Doulbeau S, Personne A, Dussert S, Beule T, Durand-Gasselin T, Tregear JW, Jaligot E (2013) Variations in genomic DNA methylation during the long term in vitro proliferation of oil palm embryogenic suspension cultures. Plant Cell Rep 32:359–368Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Arnhold-Schmitt B (1993) Rapid changes in amplification and methylation pattern of genomic DNA in cultured carrot root explants (Daucus carota L.) Theor Appl Genet 85:793–800Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    LoSchiavo F, Pitto L, Giuliano G, Torti G, Nuti-Ronchi V, Marazziti D, Vergara R, Orselli S, Terzi M (1989) DNA methylation of embryogenic carrot cell cultures and its variations as caused by mutation, differentiation, hormones and hypomethylating drugs. Theor Appl Genet 77:325–331Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Peraza-Echeverria S, Herrera-Valencia VA, Kay A-J (2001) Detection of DNA methylation changes in micropropagated banana plants using methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphism (MSAP). Plant Sci 161:359–367Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Jaligot E, Rival A, Beule T, Dussert S, Verdeil JL (2000) Somaclonal variation in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.): the DNA methylation hypothesis. Plant Cell Rep 19:684–690Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Matthes M, Singh R, Cheah S-C, Karp A (2001) Variation in oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq.) tissue culture-derived regenerants revealed by AFLPs with methylation-sensitive enzymes. Theor Appl Genet 102:971–979Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Morcillo F, Gagneur C, Richaud AH, Singh F, Cheah SC, Rival A (2006) Somaclonal variation in micropropagated oil palm. Characterization of two novel genes with enhanced expression in epigenetically abnormal cell lines and in response to auxin. Tree Physiol 26:585–594Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Varga A, Thoma LH, Bruinsma J (1988) Effects of auxins and cytokinins on epigenetic instability of callus-propagated Kalanchoe blossfeldiana Pollen. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 15:223–231Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miguel C, Marum L (2011) An epigenetic view of plant cells cultured in vitro: somaclonal variation and beyond. J Exp Bot 62:3713–3725Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rodríguez López CM, Wetten AC, Wilkinson MJ (2010) Progressive erosion of genetic and epigenetic variation in callus-derived cocoa (Theobroma cacao) plants. New Phytol 186:856–868Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Saxena S, Dhawan B (1999) Regeneration and large scale propagation of bamboo (Dendrocalamus strictus Nees) through somatic embryogenesis. Plant Cell Rep 18:438–443Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hazarika BN (2003) Acclimatization of tissue cultured plants. Curr Sci 85:1704–1712Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Synkova H (1997) Sucrose affects the photosynthetic apparatus and the acclimation of transgenic tobacco to ex vitro culture. Photosynthetica 33:403–412Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Agnihotri S, Singh SK, Jain M, Sharma M, Sharma AK, Chaturvedi HC (2004) In vitro cloning of female and male Carica papaya through tips of shoots and inflorescences. Indian J Biotechnol 3:235–240Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Gill NK, Gill R, Goshal SS (2004) Factors enhancing somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) Indian J Biotechnol 3:119–123Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Deb CR, Imchen T (2010) An effective in vitro hardening technique of tissue culture raised plants. Biotechnology 9(1):79–83Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cytology and Genetics Unit, Botany Department, Faculty of ScienceAin Shams UniversityCairoEgypt
  2. 2.Biology Department, Faculty of ScienceTaibah UniversityMadinahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations