Advertisement

Considerations of Developmental Biology for the Plant Cell Geneticist

  • R. S. Chaleff
Part of the Basic Life Sciences book series (BLSC, volume 26)

Abstract

Cultured plant cells offer many advantages for genetic manipulation of higher plants. But our efforts to select and characterize mutants in vitro remind us that cultured plant cells are not unicellular microorganisms, but components of highly complex developmental systems. First, many whole plant traits, especially agronomically important characteristics such as yield, are not expressed by cultured cells. Second, many novel phenotypes selected in cell culture are not expressed by regenerated plants. Epigenetic changes, the occurrence of developmentally regulated isozymes, and variation in the impact of selective conditions on plant cell growth and viability during development are considered as explanations for the failure of whole plants to manifest many phenotypic alterations that are expressed by cultured cells.

Keywords

Regenerate Plant Callus Culture Culture Plant Cell Resistant Cell Line Chilling Injury 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ashihara, H., T. Fujimura, and A. Komamine. 1981. Pyrimidine nucleotide biosynthesis during somatic embryogenesis in a carrot cell suspension culture. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 104: 129–137.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ashton, F.M., and A.S. Crafts. 1981. Mode of Action of Herbicides. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berlyn, M.B. 1980. Isolation and characterization of isonicotinic acid hydrazide-resistant mutants of Nicotiana tabacum. Theor. Appl. Genet. 58: 19–26.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Binns, A., and F. Meins. 1973. Habituation of tobacco pith cells for factors promoting cell division is heritable and potentially reversible. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 70: 2660–2662.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chaleff, R.S. 1981. Genetics of Higher Plants: Applications of Cell Culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chaleff, R.S. 1980. Further characterization of picloramtolerant mutants of Nicotiana tabacum. Theor. Appl. Genet. 58: 91–95.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chaleff, R.S., and M.F. Parsons. 1978a. Direct selection in vitro for herbicide-resistant mutants of Nicotiana tabacum. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 75: 5104–5107.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chaleff, R.S., and M.F. Parsons. 1978b. Isolation of a glycerol-utilizing mutant of Nicotiana tabacum. Genetics 89: 723–728.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Crosti, P. 1981. Effect of folate analogues on the activity of dihydrofolate reductases and on the growth of plant organisms. J. Exp. Bot. 32: 717–723.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dix, P.J. 1977. Chilling resistance is not transmitted sexually in plants regenerated from Nicotiana sylvestris cell lines. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 84: 223–226.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dix, P.J., and H.E. Street. 1976. Selection of plant cell lines with enhanced chilling resistance. Ann. Bot. ( London ) 40: 903–910.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dyson, W.H., and R.H. Hall. 1972. N6-(A2-Isopentenyl) adenosine: Its occurrence as a free nucleoside in an autonomous strain of tobacco tissue. Plant Physiol. 50: 616–621.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fox, J.E. 1963. Growth factor requirements and chromosome number in tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 16: 793–803.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gautheret, R.J. 1946. Comparaison entre l’action de l’acide indole-acetique et celle du Phytomonas tumefaciens sur la croissance des tissus vegetaux. C.R. Soc. Biol. 140: 169–171.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hovemann, B., and H. Follmann. 1979. Deoxyribonucleotide synthesis and DNA polymerase activity in plant cells (Vicia faba and Glycine max). Biochim, Biophys. Acta 561: 42–52.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kanamori-Fukuda, I., H. Ashihara, and A. Komamine. 1981. Pyrimidine nucleotide biosynthesis in Vinca rosea cells: Changes in the activity of the de novo and salvage pathways during growth in a suspension culture. J. Exp. Bot. 32: 69–78.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lazar, G.B., D. Dudits, and Z.R. Sung. 1981. Expression of cycloheximide resistance in carrot somatic hybrids and their segregants. Genetics 98: 347–356.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maliga, P. 1978. Resistance mutants and their use in genetic manipulation. In Frontiers of Plant Tissue Culture 1978, pp. 381–392. T.A. Thorpe, ed. Calgary: International Association for Plant Tissue Culture.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maliga, P., G. Lazar, Z. Svab, and F. Nagy. 1976. Transient cycloheximide-resistance in a tobacco cell line. Mol. Gen. Genet. 149: 267–271.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Maliga, P., L. Marton, and A. Sz. Breznovits. 1973. 5-Bromodeoxyuridine-resistant cell lines from haploid tobacco. Plant Sci. Lett. 1: 119–121.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marton, L., and P. Malaga. 1975. Control of resistance in tobacco cells to 5-bromodeoxyuridine by a simple Mendelian factor. Plant Sci. Lett. 5: 77–81.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Matthews, B.F., and J.M. Widholm. 1978. Regulation of lysine and threonine synthesis in carrot cell suspension cultures and whole carrot roots. Planta 141: 315–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Miller, O.K., and K.W. Hughes. 1980. Selection of paraquatresistant variants of tobacco from cell cultures. In Vitro 16: 1085–1091.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nabors, M.W., S.E. Gibbs, C.S. Bernstein, and M.E. Meis. 1980. NaCl-tolerant tobacco plants from cultured cells. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 97: 13–17.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nanney, D.L. 1958. Epigenetic control systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 44: 712–717.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Orton, T.J. 1980. Comparison of salt tolerance between Hordeum vulgare and H. jubatum in whole plants and callus cultures. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 98: 105–118.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Parker, N.F., and J.F. Jackson. 1981. Control of pyrimidine biosynthesis in synchronously dividing cells of Helianthus tuberosus. Plant Physiol. 67: 363–366.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Radin, D.N., and P.S. Carlson. 1978. Herbicide-tolerant tobacco mutants selected in situ and recovered via regeneration from cell culture. Genet. Res. 32: 85–89.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sacristan, M.D., and G. Melchers. 1969. The caryological analysis of plants regenerated from tumorous and other callus cultures of tobacco. Mol. Gen. Genet. 105: 317–333.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sacristan, M.D., and M.F. Wendt-Gallitelli. 1971. Transformation to auxin-autotrophy and its reversibility in a mutant line of Crepis capillaris callus culture. Mol. Gen. Genet. 110: 355–360.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sakano, K., and A. Komamine. 1978. Change in the proportion of two aspartokinases in carrot root tissue in response to in vitro culture. Plant Physiol. 61: 115–118.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Strogonov, B.P. 1970. Structure and Function of Plant Cells in Saline Habitats. 1973 Israel Program for Scientific Translations. New York: Halsted Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sung, Z.R., G.B. Lazar, and D. Dudits. 1981. Cycloheximide resistance in carrot culture: A differentiated function. Plant Physiol. 68: 261–264.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Zelitch, I., and M.B. Berlyn. 1982. Altered glycine décarboxylation inhibition in isonicotinic acid hydrazide-resistant mutant callus lines and in regenerated plants and seed progeny. Plant Physiol. 69: 198–204.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. S. Chaleff
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Central Research & Development Experimental StationE.I. du Pont de Nemours and CompanyWilmingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations