Transgenic Tropical Maize with cryLAb and cryLAc Genes from Microprojectile Bombardment of Immature Embryos

Part of the Current Plant Science and Biotechnology in Agriculture book series (PSBA, volume 36)


Maize has been one of the prime targets for genetic manipulation in monocotyledonous grains. The first demonstrations of progress were the successful production of transgenic plants by microprojectile bombardment (Klein et al. 1989; Fromm et al. 1990; Gordon-Kamm et al. 1990; Genovesi et al. 1992; Walter et al. 1992; Frame et al. 1994; Wan et al. 1995, Brettschneider et al. 1997); then successful hygromycin (Walters et al. 1992), bialaphos (Spencer et al. 1990), and glyphosate (Howe et al. 1992) selection of stable transformants, and recent Agrtobacterium — mediated gene insertion in maize plants (Ishida et al. 1996). Most studies on maize transformation have utilized genotypes adapted to temperate zones (Fromm et al. 1990; Gordon-Kamm et al. 1990; Walter et al. 1992; Armstrong et al. 1995) and plants regenerated from these lines were shown to transmit the recombinant DNA to their progeny. Little or no attention, however, has been focused on the transformation potential of maize germplasm and inbred lines adapted to tropical and subtropical regions. Production of genetically transformed plants depends both on the ability to integrate foreign genes into target cells and the efficiency with which plants are regenerated from genetically transformed cells. Embryogenic calli and plant regeneration were obtained from 50% of tropical and subtropical lines, 87% of midaltitude lines, and 75% of highland lines tested (Bohorova et al. 1995) and type II callus with high potential for plant regeneration from tropical maize was produced (Prioli and Silva 1989; Carvalho et al. 1997). These studies serve as the basis for developing transgenic technology for maize inbreds adapted to tropical conditions.


Transgenic Plant Immature Embryo Transgenic Maize Microprojectile Bombardment Tropical Maize 
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. Armstrong CL et al (1995) Crop Sci. 35:550–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohorova NB et al (1995) Maydica, 40/3 p. 275–281.Google Scholar
  3. Bohorova NB et al (1996) Entomophaga, v.41, 2, 153–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bohorova NB et al (1997) Journ of Econ Entom Micr. Control.90 (2): 412–415.Google Scholar
  5. Brettschneider R et al (1997) Theor Appl Genet 94:737–748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carvalho CHS et al (1997) Plant Cell Reports 17:73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frame BR et al (1994) The Plant Journal 6:941–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fromm ME et al (1990) Bio/Technology 8:833–839.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Genovesi D et al (1992) In vitro Cell Dev Biol 28, 124 AGoogle Scholar
  10. Gordon-Kamm WJ et al (1990). The Plant Cell 2:603–618.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hoisington D et al (1994). Lab.Prot.:AMGL. Mexico, D.F. CIMMYT.Google Scholar
  12. Howe AR et al (1992) In vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. 28(3):124 A.Google Scholar
  13. Ishida Y et al (1996) Nuture Biotechnology v.14, June, 745–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Klein TM et al (1989) Plant Physiol. 91, 440–444.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Koziel M et al (1993) Bio/technology 11, 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. McCabe E et al (1988) Bio/technology, vol. 6,923–926.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Prioli LM, Silva WJ (1989) Rev Bras Genet 12:553–566.Google Scholar
  18. Spencer TM et al (1992) Plant Mol Biol 18: 201–210CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Walter DA et al (1992) Plant Mol Biol 18:189–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wan Y et al (1995) Planta 196: 7–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CIMMYTMexico D.F.Mexico

Personalised recommendations