DNA Analysis of Auxin-treated Jerusalem Artichoke Tuber Tissue as a Screen for the Evaluation of Substances Influencing Cell Division
The action of plant growth substances on induction, maintenance and inhibition of cell division is a relatively neglected field, as illustrated by the small number of papers on the topic presented at this Conference. This paper describes a simple system for detecting substances which promote or inhibit the division of plant cells, using tissue slices from Jerusalem artichoke tubers.
KeywordsEthyl Alkaloid Chloramphenicol Kinetin Racemate
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- ADAMSON, D., V.H.K. LOW and H. ADAMSON (1968). Transitions between different phases of growth in cells from etiolated pea stems, Jerusalem artichoke tubers and wheat coleoptiles, in “Biochemistry and Physiology of Plant Growth Substances” (Ed. F. Wightman and G. Setterfield) p. 505. Runge Press, Ottawa.Google Scholar
- EDELMAN, J and M.A. HALL (1965). Enzyme formation in higher plant tissues. Development of invertase and ascorbate-oxidase activities in mature storage tissue of Helianthus tuberosus L. Biochem. J. 95, 403–10.Google Scholar
- GALBRAITH, M.N., D.H.S. HORN, J.M. SASSE and D. ADAMSON (1970). The structures of podolactones A and B, inhibitors of expansion and division of plant cells. Chem. Communications 1970, 170–1.Google Scholar
- MITCHELL, J.P. (1967). DNA synthesis during the early division cycles of Jerusalem artichoke callus cultures. Ann. Bot. 31, 427–35.Google Scholar
- SASSE, J.M., M.N. GALBRAITH, D.H.S. HORN and D. ADAMSON (1972). Chemistry and Biological action of podolactones and other inhibitors of plant growth, in “Plant Growth Substances, 1970”. (Ed. D.J. Carr).Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
- SETTERFIELD, G. (1963). Growth regulation in excised slices of Jerusalem artichoke tuber tissue. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 98–126.Google Scholar
- YEOMAN, M.M., P.K. EVANS and G.G. NAIK (1967). Growth and differentiation of plant tissue cultures. II. Synchronous cell divisions in developing callus cultures. Ann. Bot. 31, 323–32.Google Scholar