Regeneration and transformation of sugarbeet by Agrobacterium tumefaciens

  • Keith Lindsey
  • Patrick Gallois
  • Colin Eady


Sugarbeet, Beta vulgaris L., is of significant commercial importance as the major sucrose producer in temperate climates and world-wide currently contributes about 35% of the total sucrose yield [1]. Sugarcane, a monocot, is limited to warmer climates, and so the two species can be considered complementary in their global distribution. Sugarbeet has also attracted further attention, by virtue of the potential to accumulate novel or valuable specific metabolites in the storage tissues: in other words, to use beets, as ‘green bioreactors’ for the synthesis of products other than sucrose. Sugarbeet is a natural cross-pollinator, and so modern cultivars are highly heterozygous. It is also a biennial species, and both these features contribute to a slow rate of progress in the generation of new varieties by conventional breeding. A genetic engineering strategy for sugarbeet therefore would be expected to aid the breeder in introducing specific traits directly into ‘elite’ (commercially valuable) genotypes and also would open up the possibility of using sugarbeet to produce metabolites novel to that species.


Shoot Culture Calcium Hypochlorite Genetic Engineering Strategy Nurse Culture Transgenic Sugar Beet 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Atanassov, AI (1986) Sugar beet. In: Handbook of Plant Cell Culture Vol 4 Eds. DA Evans, WR Sharp, P V Ammirato, pp 652–680Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bhat, S, Ford—Lloyd, BV, Callow, JA (1986) Isolation and culture of mesophyll protoplasts of garden, fodder and sugar beets using a nurse culture system: callus formation and embryogenesis. J. Plant Physiol. 124: 419–423Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Freytag, AH, Anand, SC, Rao—Ardelli, AP, Owens, LD (1988) An improved method for adventitious shoot formation and callus induction in Beta vulgaris L. in vitro. Plant Cell Rep. 7: 30–34Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hooker, MP, Nabors, MW (1977) Callus initiation, growth and organogenesis in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.). Z. Pflanzenphysiol. 84: 237–246Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Horsch, RB, Fry, J, Hoffman, N, Neidermeyer, J, Rogers, SG, Fraley, RT (1988) Leaf disc transformation. Plant Molec. Biol. Manual A5: 1–9 (eds. Gelvin, SB, Schilperoort, RA).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krens, FA, Jamar, D, Rouwendal, GJA, Hall, RD (1990) Transfer of cytoplasm from new Beta CMS sources to sugar beet by asymmetric fusion. 1. Shoot regeneration from mesophyll protoplasts and characterization of regenerated plants. Theor. Appl. Genet. 79: 390–396Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lindsey, K, Gallois, P (1990) Transformation of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. J. Exp. Bot. 41: 529–536Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lindsey, K, Jones, MGK (1989) Stable transformation of sugarbeet protoplasts by electroporation. Plant Cell Rep. 8: 71–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ritchie, GA, Short, KC, Davey, MR (1989) In vitro shoot regeneration from callus, leaf axils and petioles of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) J. Exp. Bot. 40: 277–283Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rogozinska, J, Goska, M (1978) Induction of differentiation and plant formation in isolated sugar beet leaves. Bull. Acad. Polon. Sci. 26: 343–345Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Saunders, JW, Daub, ME (1984) Shoot regeneration from hormone-autonomous callus from shoot cultures of several sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) genotypes. Plant Sci. Lett. 34: 219–223Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tetu, T, Sangwan, RS, Sangwan—Norreel, BS (1987) Hormonal control of organogenesis and somatic embryogenesis in Beta vulgaris callus. J. Exp. Bot. 38: 506–517Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Van Geyt, JPC, Jacobs, M (1985) Suspension culture of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) Induction and habituation of dedifferentiated and self-regenerating cell lines. Plant Cell Rep. 4: 66–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • Keith Lindsey
    • 1
  • Patrick Gallois
    • 2
  • Colin Eady
    • 3
  1. 1.Leicester BiocentreUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
  2. 2.Laboratoire de Physiologie VegetaleUniversite de PerpignanPerpignanFrance
  3. 3.Dept of BotanyUniversity of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations