Advertisement

Transformation in Pea (Pisum sativum L.)

  • A. de Kathen
  • H.-J. Jacobsen
Part of the Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry book series (AGRICULTURE, volume 23)

Abstract

Peas are distributed worldwide. Both the balanced composition (protein 20–30%, starch 20–50%, sugars 4–10%) and the negligible amounts of deleterious compounds like protease inhibitors or lectins make pea a good source of animal and human nutrition. Since pea, like the other relevant grain legumes, has the ability to undergo symbiosis with Rhizobia, protein production can be several times higher in legumes as compared to cereals. In addition, pea may well become an “industrial crop” due to some unique features of its starch, which can serve as a raw material, e.g., biodegradable plastics. It can be expected that the acreage will increase when certain breeding objectives like pathogen resistance and stress tolerance are achieved.

Keywords

Somatic Embryogenesis Coat Protein Transformation Efficiency Pisum Sativum Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 
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. Atkinson RG, Gardner RC (1991) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of pepino and regeneration of transgenic plants. Plant Cell Rep 10:208–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beachy R (1990) Coat protein mediated resistance against virus infection. Annu Rev Phytopathol 28:451–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binns AN, Thomashaw MF (1988) Cell biology of Agrobacterium infection and transformation of plants. Annu Rev Microbiol 42:575–606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broer I, Arnold W, Wohlleben W, Pühler (1989) The phosphinotricin N-acetyltransferase gene as a selectable marker for plant genetic engineering. In: Galling G (ed) Proc Braunschweig Symp on Applied molecular biology. Zentralstelle für Weiterbildung der TU Braunschweig, Germany, pp 240–246Google Scholar
  5. Byrne MC, McDonell RE, Wright MS, Carnes MG (1987) Strain and cultivar specificity in the Agrobacterium-soybean interaction. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 8:3–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chilton MD, Drummond MH, Merlo JM, Sciaky D, Montoya AI, Gordon MP, Nester EW (1977) Stable incorporation of plasmid DNA into higher plant cells: the molecular basis of crown gall tumorigenesis. Cell 11:263–271PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davies DR, Hamilton J, Mullineaux PM (1992) A progress report on pea transformation. Proc 1st Eur Conf on Grain legumes 1992, Angers. AEP, Paris, pp 123–124Google Scholar
  8. Eapen S, Köhler F, Gerdemann M, Schieder O (1987) Cultivar dependance of transformation rates in moth bean after co-cultivation of protoplasts with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Theor Appl Genet 75:207–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Farinelli L, Malnoe P, Collet GF (1992) Heterologous encapsidation of potato virus Y strain O (PVY°) with the transgenic coat protein of PVY strain N (PVYN) in Solanum tuberosum cv. Bintje. Bio/Technology 10: 1020–1025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gadani F, Mansky LM, Medici R, Miller WA, Hill JH (1990) Genetic engineering of plants for virus resistance. Arch Virol 115:1–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gamborg OL, Constabel F, Shyluk JP (1974) Organogenesis in callus from shoot apices of Pisum sativum L. Physiol Plant 30:125–128Google Scholar
  12. Griga M, Tejklova E, Novak FJ, Kubalakova M (1986) In vitro clonal propagation of Pisum sativum L. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 6:95–104Google Scholar
  13. Hebblethwaite PD, Heath MC, Dawkins TCK(1985) The pea crop. Butterworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobbs SLA, Jackson JA, Mahon JD (1989) Specificity of strain and genotype in the susceptibility of pea to Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Cell Rep 8:274–277Google Scholar
  15. Hobbs SLA, Jackson JA, Baliski DS, DeLong CMO, Mahon JD (1990) Genotype and promoter induced variability in transient β-glucuronidase expression in pea protoplasts. Plant Cell( Rep 9:17–20Google Scholar
  16. Hoekema A, Hirsch PR, Hooykaas PJJ, Schilperoort RA (1983) A binary plant vector strategy based on the separation of vir- and T-region of the Agrobacterium tumefaciens Ti-plasmid. Nature 303:179–180Google Scholar
  17. Hood EE, Fraley RT, Chilton MD (1987) Virulence of Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain A281 on legumes. Plant Physiol 83:529–534Google Scholar
  18. Hussey G, Gunn HV (1984) Plant production in pea (Pisum sativum L. cvs. Puget and Upton) from longterm callus with superficial meristems. Plant Sei Lett 37:143–148Google Scholar
  19. Hussey G, Johnson RD, Warren S (1989) Transformation of meristematic cells in the shoot apex of cultured pea shoots by Agrobacterium tumefaciens and A. rhizogenes. Protoplasma 148:101–105Google Scholar
  20. Jackson JA, Hobbs SLA (1990) Rapid multiple shoot production from cotyledonary node explants of pea (Pisum sativum L.). In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 26:835–838Google Scholar
  21. Janssen BJ, Gardner RC (1989) Localized transient expression of GUS in leaf discs following cocultivation with Agrobacterium. Plant Mol Biol 14:61–72Google Scholar
  22. Jordan MC, Rempel H, Hobbs SLA (1992) Genetic transformation of Pisum sativum L. via Agrobacterium tumefaciens or particle bombardment. Proc 1st Eur Conf on Grain legumes 1992, Angers. AEP, Paris, pp 115–116Google Scholar
  23. Kartha KK, Gamborg OL, Constabel F (1974) Regeneration of pea (Pisum sativum L.) plants from shoot apical meristems. Z Pflanzenphysiol 72:172–176Google Scholar
  24. Kathen A de, Jacobsen H-J (1990) Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of Pisum sativum L. using binary and cointegrate vectors. Plant Cell Rep 9:276–279Google Scholar
  25. Kathen A de, Jacobsen H-J, (1992) Induction of competence for transformation in Pisum sativum L. Proc 1st Eur Conf on Grain legumes 1992, Angers. AEP, Paris, pp 117–118Google Scholar
  26. Khetarpal RK, Maury Y (1987) Pea seed-borne mosaic virus: a review. Agronomie 7(4): 215–224Google Scholar
  27. Krens FA, Molendijk L, Wullems GJ, Schilperoort RA (1985) The role of bacterial attachment in the transformation of cell-wall-regenerating tobacco protoplasts by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Planta 166:300–308Google Scholar
  28. Kysely W, Myers JR, Lazzeri PA, Collins GB, Jacobsen H-J (1987) Plant regeneration via somatic embryogenesis in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Cell Rep 6:305–308Google Scholar
  29. Lazzeri PA, Brettschneider R, Liihrs R, Lorz H (1991) Stable transformation of barley via PEG-induced direct DNA uptake into protoplasts. Theor Appl Genet 81:437–444Google Scholar
  30. Lehminger-Mertens R, Jacobsen H-J (1989a) Protoplast regeneration and organogenesis from pea protoplasts. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 25:571–574Google Scholar
  31. Lehminger-Mertens R, Jacobsen H-J (1989b) Plant regeneration from pea protoplasts via somatic embryogenesis. Plant Cell Rep 8:379–382Google Scholar
  32. Lindbo J A, Dougherty WG (1992) Untranslatable transcripts of the tobacco etch virus coat protein gene sequence can interfere with tobacco etch virus replication in transgenic plants and protoplasts. Virology 189:725–733Google Scholar
  33. Lulsdorf MM, Rempel H, Jackson J, Baliski DS, Hobbs SLA (1991) Optimizing the production of transformed pea (Pisum sativum L.) callus using disarmed Agrobacterium tumefaciens strains. Plant Cell Rep 9:479–483Google Scholar
  34. Makasheva RK (1983) The pea Amerind, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  35. Malmberg R (1979) Regeneration of whole plants from callus culture of diverse genetic lines of Pisum sativum L. Planta 146:243–244Google Scholar
  36. Mroginski LA, Kartha KK (1981) Regeneration of pea (Pisum sativum L. cv. Century) plants by in vitro culture of immature leaflets. Plant Cell Rep 1:64–66Google Scholar
  37. Natali L, Cavallini A (1987) Regeneration of pea (Pisum sativum L.) plantlets by in vitro culture of immature embryos. Plant Breed 99:172–176Google Scholar
  38. Nauerby B, Madsen J, Christiansen J, Wyndaele R (1991) A rapid and efficient regeneration system for pea (Pisum sativum L.), suitable for transformation. Plant Cell Rep 9:676–679Google Scholar
  39. Nielsen SVA, Poulsen GB, Larsen ME (1991) Regeneration of shoots from pea hypocotyl explants. Physiol Plant 82:99–102Google Scholar
  40. Penza R, Lurquin PF, Fillipone E (1991) Gene transfer by cocultivation of mature embryos with Agrobacterium tumefaciens: application to cowpea (Vigna unguiculata Walp). J Plant Physiol 138:39–43Google Scholar
  41. Potrykus I (1990) Gene transfer to plants: assessment and perspectives. Physiol Plant 79:125–134Google Scholar
  42. Powell PA, Sanders PR, Turner N, Fraley RT, Beachy RN (1990) Protection against tobacco mosaic virus infection in transgenic plants requires accumulation of coat protein rather than coat protein RNA sequences. Virology 175:124–130Google Scholar
  43. Puonti-Kaerlas J, Eriksson T (1988) Improved protoplast culture and regeneration of shoots in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Cell Rep 7:242–245Google Scholar
  44. Pounti-Kaerlas J, Stabel P, Eriksson T (1989) Transformation of pea (Pisum sativum L.) by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Cell Rep 8:321–324Google Scholar
  45. Puonti-Kaerlas J, Ottosson A, Eriksson T (1992) Survival and growth of pea protoplasts after transformation by electroporation. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 30:141–148Google Scholar
  46. Robbs SL, Hawes MC, Lin H-J, Pueppke SG, Smith LY (1991) Inheritance of resistance to crown gall in Pisum sativum. Plant Physiol 95:52–57Google Scholar
  47. Sangwan RS, Bourgeois Y, Sangwan-Norreel BS (1991) Genetic transformation of Arabidopsis zygotic embryos and identification of critical parameters influencing transformation efficiency. Mol Gen Genet 230:475–485Google Scholar
  48. Sangwan RS, Bourgeois Y, Brown S, Vasseur G, Sangwan-Norreel B (1992) Characterization of competent cells and early events of Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Planta 188:439–456Google Scholar
  49. Schaerer S, Pilet P-E (1991) Roots, explants and protoplasts from pea transformed with strains of Agrobacterium tumefaciens and A. rhizogenes. Plant Sci 78:247–258Google Scholar
  50. Schlappi M, Hohn B (1992) Competence of immature maize embryos for Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer. Plant Cell 4:7–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Strauch E, Wohlleben W, Pühler A (1988) Cloning of a phosphinotricin N-acetyltransferase from Streptomyces viridochromogenes Tii494 and its expression in Streptomyces lividans and Escherichia coli. Gene 25:65–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tetu T, Sangwan RS, Sangwan-Norreel BS (1990) Direct somatic embryogenesis and organogenesis in cultured immature zygotic embryos of Pisum sativum L. J Plant Physiol 137:102–109Google Scholar
  53. Topfer R, Gronenborn B, Schell J, Steinbiss H-H (1989) Uptake and transient expression of chimeric genes in seed derived embryos. Plant Cell 1:133–139PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Vancanneyt G, Schmidt R, O’Connor-Sanchez A, Willmitzer L, Rocha-Sosa (1990) Construction of an intron-containing marker-gene: splicing of the intron in transgenic plants and its use in monitoring early events in Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation. Mol Gen Genet 220:245–250PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wilson TMA, Watkins PAC (1986) Influence of exogenous viral coat protein on the cotranslational disassembly of tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) particles in vitro. Virology 140:132–135Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. de Kathen
  • H.-J. Jacobsen
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Molecular GeneticsUniversity of HannoverHannoverGermany

Personalised recommendations