Advertisement

Thidiazuron in Micropropagation of Small Fruits

  • Samir C. Debnath
Chapter

Abstract

Strawberry, raspberry, grape, blueberry, and cranberry are major small fruit crops cultivated widely across the world. They are highly appreciated and have long been enjoyed enormous popularity among consumers. Their superior nutritive components play a significant dietary role in maintaining human health that has led to a dramatic increase of their global production. There has been an immense progress in small fruit micropropagation using semisolid gelled and liquid media containing different plant growth regulators (PGRs). Thidiazuron [1-phenyl-3-(1,2,3-thiadiazol-5-yl)urea (TDZ)] is a PGR and with its cytokinin- and auxin-like effects, has significant role in in vitro propagation of small fruit crops. Bioreactor micropropagation containing liquid media with TDZ has resulted in significant progresses not only in reducing micropropagation cost but also in speeding up the process significantly for these crop species. However, the optimal plant production depends upon a number of factors including genotype, media types, types and concentration of PGR, and culture environment. The chapter deals with the progress in-depth of various aspects of small fruit micropropagation in semisolid and liquid media containing TDZ and use of TDZ in a bioreactor micropropagation for commercial production. Somaclonal variation can be a major concern in small fruit micropropagation using TDZ. Although strategies have been developed to reduce these variations, DNA-based molecular markers are promising tools to monitor clonal fidelity of TDZ-induced micropropagated small fruit plants. The chapter also describes the use of molecular markers for the assessment of genetic fidelity, stability, and true-to-typeness in small fruit tissue culture plants.

Keywords

Bioreactors Genetic fidelity Micropropagation Molecular markers Plant growth regulators Small fruits 

References

  1. Ames BN, Shigena MK, Hegen TM (1993) Oxidants, antioxidants and the degenerative diseases of aging. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 90:7915–7922PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammirato PV (1985) Patterns of development in culture. In: Henke RR, Hughes KW, Constantin MJ, Hollaender A (eds) Tissue culture in forestry and agriculture. Plenum Press, New York, pp 9–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson WC (1975) Propagation of rhododendrons by tissue culture. Part I: development of a culture medium for multiplication of shoots. Comb Proc Int Plant Prop Soc 25:129–135Google Scholar
  4. Arndt FR, Rusch R, Stillfried HV, Hanisch B, Martin WC (1976) SN 49537, a new defoliant. Plant Physiol 57:s-99. AbstrGoogle Scholar
  5. Biswas MK, Islam R, Hossain M (2007) Somatic embryogenesis in strawberry (Fragaria sp.) through callus culture. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 90:49–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bollmark M, Kubat B, Eliasson L (1988) Variation in endogenous cytokinin content during adventitious root formation in pea cuttings. J Plant Physiol 132:262–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouamama B, Ben Salem-Fnayou A, Ben Jouira H, Ghorbel A, Mliki A (2007) Influence of the flower stage and culture medium on the induction of somatic embryogenesis from anther culture in Tunisian grapevine cultivars. J Int Sci Vigne Vin 41(4):185–192Google Scholar
  8. Boxus P (1974) The production of strawberry plants by in vitro micropropagation. J Hort Sci 49:209–210Google Scholar
  9. Cao X, Hammerschlag FA (2000) Improved shoot organogenesis from leaf explants of highbush blueberry. Hortscience 35:945–947Google Scholar
  10. Childers NF (1980) Foreward. In: Childers NF (ed) The strawberry: cultivars to marketing. Hort Publ, Gainesville, p ixGoogle Scholar
  11. Cordenunsi BR, do Nascimento JRO, Genovese MI, Lajolo FM (2002) Influence of cultivar on quality parameters and chemical composition of strawberry fruits grown in Brazil. J Agr Food Chem 50:2581–2586CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dale A, Hughes BR, Donnelly D (2008) The role of micropropagation in producing specific pathogen-tested plants. Hortscience 43:74–77Google Scholar
  13. Dalman P, Malata V (1997) The effect of cultivation practices on the overwintering and yield of strawberry. Acta Hort 439:881–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Daubeny HA (1996) Brambles. In: Janick J, Moore JN (eds) Fruit breeding, Vine and small fruit crops, vol Vol II. Wiley, New York, pp 109–190Google Scholar
  15. Debnath SC (2003a) Micropropagation of small fruits. In: Jain SM, Ishii K (eds) Micropropagation of woody trees and fruits. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 465–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Debnath SC (2003b) Improved shoot organogenesis from hypocotyl segments of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) In Vitro Cell Dev Biol – Plant 39:490–495CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Debnath SC (2005a) Micropropagation of lingonberry: influence of genotype, explant orientation, and overcoming TDZ-induced inhibition of shoot elongation using zeatin. Hortscience 40:185–188Google Scholar
  18. Debnath SC (2005b) Strawberry sepal: another explant for thidiazuron-induced adventitious shoot regeneration. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 41:671–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Debnath SC (2005c) A two-step procedure for adventitious shoot regeneration from in vitro-derived lingonberry leaves: shoot induction with TDZ and shoot elongation using zeatin. Hortscience 40:189–192Google Scholar
  20. Debnath SC (2005d) Morphological development of lingonberry as affected by in vitro and ex vitro propagation methods and source propagule. Hortscience 40:760–763Google Scholar
  21. Debnath SC (2006a) Propagation of Vaccinium in vitro: a review. Int J Fruit Sci 6:47–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Debnath SC (2006b) Zeatin overcomes thidiazuron-induced inhibition of shoot elongation and promotes rooting in strawberry culture in vitro. J Hort Sci Biotechnol 81:349–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Debnath SC (2006c) Influence of propagation method and indole-3-butyric acid on growth and development of in vitro- and ex vitro-derived lingonberry plants. Can J Plant Sci 86:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Debnath SC (2007a) Strategies to propagate Vaccinium fruit nuclear stocks for Canadian industry. Can J Plant Sci 87:911–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Debnath SC (2007b) A two-step procedure for in vitro multiplication of cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus L.) shoots using bioreactor. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 88:185–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Debnath SC (2007c) Influence of indole-3-butyric acid and propagation method on growth and development of in vitro- and ex vitro-derived lowbush blueberry plants. Plant Growth Regul 51:245–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Debnath SC (2008a) Developing a scale-up system for the in vitro multiplication of thidiazuron-induced strawberry shoots using a bioreactor. Can J Plant Sci 88:737–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Debnath SC (2008b) Zeatin-induced one-step in vitro cloning affects the vegetative growth of cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) micropropagules over stem cuttings. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 93:231–240Google Scholar
  29. Debnath SC (2009a) A two-step procedure for adventitious shoot regeneration on excised leaves of lowbush blueberry. In Vitro Cell Develop Biol – Plant 45:122–128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Debnath SC (2009b) Characteristics of strawberry plants propagated by in vitro bioreactor culture and ex vitro propagation method. Eng Life Sci 9:239–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Debnath SC (2010) A scaled-up system for in vitro multiplication of thidiazuron-induced red raspberry shoots using a bioreactor. J Hort Sci Biotechnol 85:94–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Debnath SC (2011a) Bioreactors and molecular analysis in berry crop micropropagation – a review. Can J Plant Sci 91:147–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Debnath SC (2011b) Adventitious shoot regeneration in a bioreactor system and EST-PCR based clonal fidelity in lowbush blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium Ait.) Sci Hort 128:124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Debnath SC (2013) Propagation strategies and genetic fidelity in strawberries. Int J Fruit Sci 13:3–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Debnath SC (2014a) Strawberry micropropagation and somaclonal variation. In: Malone N (ed) Strawberries: cultivation, antioxidant properties and health benefits. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, New York, pp 93–108Google Scholar
  36. Debnath SC (2014b) Bioreactor-induced adventitious shoot regeneration affects genotype-dependent morphology but maintains clonal fidelity in red raspberry. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol – Plant 50:777–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Debnath SC (2016a) Genetic diversity and erosion in berries. In: Ahuja MR, Jain SM (eds) Genetic diversity and erosion in plants. Springer Int Publ, Switzerland, pp 75–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Debnath SC (2016b) Corrigendum: bioreactors and molecular analysis in berry crop micropropagation – a review. Can J Plant Sci 96:382–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Debnath SC (2017) Molecular approaches for monitoring clonal fidelity and epigenetic variation in in vitro-derived strawberry plants. Acta Hort 1156:83–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Debnath SC, McRae KB (2001) An efficient in vitro shoot propagation of cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) by axillary bud proliferation. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 37:243–249Google Scholar
  41. Debnath SC, McRae KB (2001b) In vitro culture of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.): the influence of cytokinins and media types on propagation. Small Fruits Rev 1:3–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Debnath SC, Vyas P, Goyali JC, Igamberdiev AU (2012) Morphological and molecular analyses in micropropagated berry plants acclimatized under ex vitro condition. Can J Plant Sci 92:1065–1073CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Debnath SC, McKenzie D, Bishop G, Percival D (2016) Strategic approaches to propagate berry crop nuclear stock using a bioreactor. Acta Hort 1113:47–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Detrez C, Ndiaye S, Dreyfus B (1994) In vitro regeneration of the tropical multipurpose leguminous tree Sesbania grandiflora from cotyledon explants. Plant Cell Rep 14(2–3):87–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Dijkstra J (1993) Research on strawberries focuses on healthy plant material. Expensive cultural method requires excellent material. Fmitteelt – Den-Haag 83:14–15Google Scholar
  46. Donnoli R, Sunseri F, Martelli G, Greco I (2001) Somatic embryogenesis, plant regeneration and genetic transformation in Fragaria spp. Acta Hort 560:235–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Etienne H, Berthouly M (2002) Temporary immersion systems in plant micropropagation. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 69:215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Finn C (1999) Temperate berry crops. In: Janick J (ed) Perspectives on new crops and new uses. ASHS Press, Alexandria, pp 324–334Google Scholar
  49. Foley SL, Debnath SC (2007) Influence of in vitro and ex vitro propagation on anthocyanin content and antioxidant activity of lingonberries. J Hort Sci Biotechnol 82:114–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Galletta GJ, Bringhurst RS (1990) Strawberry management. In: Galletta GJ, Himelrick DG (eds) Small fruit crop management. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 83–156Google Scholar
  51. Galletta GJ, Himelrick DG (1990) The small fruit crop. In: Galletta GJ, Himelrick DG (eds) Small fruit crop management. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp 1–13Google Scholar
  52. Gaspar T (1991) Vitrification in micropropagation. In: Bajaj YPS (ed) Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry, high-tech and micropropagation I, vol vol 17. Springer Verlag, Berlin, pp 116–126Google Scholar
  53. Gaspar TH, Coumans M (1987) Root formation. In: Bonga JM, Durzan DJ (eds) Cell and tissue culture in forestry, vol. 2. Specific principles and methods: growth and developments. Martinus Nijhoff Publ, Dordrecht, pp 202–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. George EF (1993) Plant propagation by tissue culture. Part 1. The technology. Exegetics Ltd, Edington. 574 ppGoogle Scholar
  55. George EF, Sherrington PD (1984) Plant propagation by tissue culture. Exegetics Ltd, ReadingGoogle Scholar
  56. Ghosh A, Igamberdiev AU, Debnath SC (2017) Detection of DNA methylation pattern in thidiazuron-induced blueberry callus using methylationsensitive amplification polymorphism. Biol Plant 61:511–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Goyali GC, Igamberdiev AU, Debnath SC (2015) Propagation methods affect fruit morphology and antioxidant properties but maintain clonal fidelity in lowbush blueberry. Hortscience 50:888–896Google Scholar
  58. Graham J (2005) Fragaria strawberry. In: Litz R (ed) Biotechnology of fruit and nut crops. Biotechnology in agriculture series no. 29. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 456–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Gustavsson BA, Stanys V (2000) Field performance of ‘Sanna’ lingonberry derived by micropropagation vs. stem cuttings. Hortscience 35:742–744Google Scholar
  60. Haberlandt G (1902) Kulturversuche mit isolierten Pflanzenzellen. Sitzungsber Math Naturwiss Kl Kais Akad Wiss Wien 111:69–92Google Scholar
  61. Haddadi F, Aziz MA, Kamaladini H, Ravanfar SA (2013) Thidiazuron- and zeatin-induced high-frequency shoot regeneration from leaf and shoottip explants of strawberry. HortTechnology 23:276–281Google Scholar
  62. Häkkinen SH, Törrönen AR (2000) Content of flavonols and selected phenolic acids in strawberries and Vaccinium species: influence of cultivars, cultivation site and technique. Food Res Int 33:517–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Hancock JF, Maas JL, Shanks CH, Breen PJ, Luby JJ (1991) Strawberries (Fragaria). Acta Hort 290:491–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Hanhineva K, Kokko H, Kärenlampi S (2005) Shoot regeneration from leaf explants of five strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) cultivars in temporary immersion bioreactor system. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol – Plant 41:826–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Hannig E (1904) Zur physiologie pflanzlicher embryonen. I. Ueber die cultur von cruciferenembryonen ausserhalb des embryosacks. Bot Ztg 62:45–80Google Scholar
  66. Hare PD, Staden J, Van Staden J (1994) Inhibitory effect of TDZ on the activity of cytokinin oxidase isolated from soybean callus. Plant Cell Physiol 35:1121–1125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Harris GK, Gupta A, Nines RG, Kresty LA, Habib SG, Frankel WL, LaPerle K, Gallaher DD, Schwartz SJ, Stoner GD (2001) Effects of lyophilized black raspberries on azoxymethane-induced colon cancer and 8-hydroxy-2#-deoxyguanosine levels in the Fischer 344 rat. Nutr Cancer 40:125–133PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Henry Y, Nato A, DeBuyser J (1998) Genetic fidelity of plants regenerated from somatic embryos in cereals. In: Jain SM, Brar DS, Ahloowalia BS (eds) Somaclonal variation and induced mutations in crop improvement. Kluwer Acad Publ, Dordrecht, pp 65–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Howell AB, Reed JD, Krueger CG, Winterbottom R, Cunningham DG, Leahy M (2005) A-type cranberry proanthocyanidins and uropathogenic bacterial anti-adhesion activity. Phytochemistry 66:2281–2291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Huetteman CA, Preece JE (1993) Thidiazuron: a potent cytokinin for woody plant tissue culture. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 33:105–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Husaini AM, Abdin MZ (2007) Interactive effect of light, temperature and TDZ on the regeneration potential of leaf discs of Fragaria × ananassa Duch. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 43:576–584Google Scholar
  72. Husaini AM, Aquil S, Bhat M, Qadri T, Kamaluddin MZ, Abdin MZ (2008) A high-efficiency direct somatic embryogenesis system for strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) cultivar Chandler. J Crop Sci Biotech 11:107–110Google Scholar
  73. Husaini AM, Mercado JA, da Silva JAT, Schaart JG (2011) Review of factors affecting organogenesis, somatic embryogenesis and agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of strawberry. Gen Genom Genomics (Spec Issue I) 5:1–11Google Scholar
  74. Jain SM (2001) Tissue culture-derived variation in crop improvement. Euphytica 118:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Kaeppler SM, Phillips RL, Olhoft P (1998) Molecular basis of heritable tissue culture induced variation in plants. In: Jain SM, Brar DS, Ahloowalia BS (eds) Somaclonal variation and induced mutations in crop improvement. Current plant science and biotechnology in agriculture, vol 32. Kluwer Acad Publ, Dordrecht, pp 465–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Kaldmäe H, Starast M, Karp K, Paal T (2006) Effect of donor plant physiological condition on in vitro establishment of Vaccinium angustifolium shoot explants. Acta Hort 715:433–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Kaushal K, Nath AK, Kaundal P, Sharma DR (2004) Studies on somaclonal variation in strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) cultivars. Acta Hortic 662:269–275Google Scholar
  78. Keßler M, ten Hoopen HJG, Heijnen JJ, Fumsaki S (1997) O2 uptake rate measurements as a novel tool to study shear effects on suspended strawberry cells. Biotechnol Tech 11:507–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Kohlenbach HW (1959) Streckungs- und Teilungswachstum isolerter Mesophyllzellen von Macleaya cordata. Naturwissenschaft 46:116–117Google Scholar
  80. Kordestani GK, Karami O (2008) Picloram-induced somatic embryogenesis in leaves of strawberry (Fragaria Ananassa L.) Acta Biol Cracov Ser Bot 50:69–72Google Scholar
  81. Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation – a novel source of variability from cell culture for plant improvement. Theor Appl Genet 60:197–214PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Macheix JJ, Sapis JC, Fleuriet A (1991) Phenolic compounds and polyphenoloxidase in relation to browning in grapes and wines. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 30:441–486PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Marcotrigiano M, McGlew SP, Hackett G, Chawla B (1996) Shoot regeneration from tissue-cultured leaves of the American cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 44:195–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Mazur WM, Uehara M, Wahala K, Adlercreutz H (2000) Phyto-oestrogen content of berries, and plasma concentrations and urinary excretion of enterolactone after a single strawberry-meal in human subjects. Br J Nutr 83:381–387PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. McCown BH, Zeldin EL (2005) Vaccinium spp. cranberry. In: Litz RE (ed) Biotechnology of fruit and nut crops. CABI Publ, Wallingford, pp 247–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Minocha SC (1987) Plant growth regulators and morphogenesis in cell and tissue culture of forest trees. In: Bonga JM, Durzan DJ (eds) Cell and tissue culture in forestry, vol. I. Martinus Nijhoff Publ, Dordrecht, pp 50–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Mok MC, Mok DWS, Armstrong DJ, Shudo K, Isogal Y, Okamoto T (1982) Cytokinin activity of N-phenyl-N’-1,2,3-thiadiazol-5-urea (thidiazuron). Phytochemistry 21:1509–1511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Mok MC, Mok DWS, Turner JE, Mujer CV (1987) Biological and biochemical effects of cytokinin active phenylurea derivatives in tissue culture systems. Hortscience 22:1194–1196Google Scholar
  89. Mullin RH, Schlegel DE (1976) Cold storage maintenance of strawberry meristem plantlets. Hortscience 11:100–101Google Scholar
  90. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Murthy BNS, Murch SJ, Saxena PK (1998) Thidiazuron: a potent regulator of in vitro plant morphogenesis. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 34:267–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Murti RH, Debnath SC, Yeoung YR (2012) Effect of high concentration of thidiazuron (TDZ) combined with 1H-indole-3-butanoic acid (IBA) on Albion strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) cultivar plantlets induction. Afr J Biotechnol 11:14696–14702Google Scholar
  93. Nakajima I, Matsuda N (2003) Somatic embryogenesis from filaments of Vitis vinifera L, Vitis labruscana Bailey. Vitis 42:53–54Google Scholar
  94. Neto CC (2007) Review – cranberry and blueberry: evidence for protective effects against cancer and vascular diseases. Mol Nutr Food Res 51:652–664PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Novelli S (2003) Developments in berry production and use. Bi-weekly Bull Agric Agri-Food Can 16(21):5–6Google Scholar
  96. Oláh R, Szegedi E, Ruthner S, Korbuly J (2003) Thidiazuron-induced regeneration and genetic transformation of grapevine rootstocks varieties. Vitis 42:133–136Google Scholar
  97. Paek KY, Han BH (1989) Physiological, biochemial and morphological characteristics of vitrified shoot regenerated in vitro. J Kor Soc Plant Tiss Cult 18:151–162Google Scholar
  98. Paek KY, Chakrabarty D, Hahn EJ (2005) Application of bioreactor systems for large scale production of horticultural and medicinal plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 81:287–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Passey AJ, Barrett KJ, James DJ (2003) Adventitious shoot regeneration from seven commercial strawberry cultivars (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) using a range of explant types. Plant Cell Rep 21:397–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Pedroso MC, Oliveira MM, Pais MSS (1992) Micropropagation and simultaneous rooting of Actinidia deliciosa var. deliciosa ‘Hayward’. Hortscience 27:443–445Google Scholar
  101. Piola F, Rohr R, Heizmann P (1999) Rapid detection of genetic variation within and among in vitro propagated cedar (Cedrus libani Loudon) clones. Plant Sci 141:159–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Popescu AN, Isac VS, Coman MS, Radulescu MS (1997) Somaclonal variation in plants regenerated by organogenesis from callus culture of strawberry (Fragaria Ananassa). Acta Hort 439:89–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Preece JE, Huetteman CA, Ashby WC, Roth PL (1991) Micro- and cutting propagation of silver maple. II. Genotype and provenance affect performance. J Am Soc Hort Sci 116:149–155Google Scholar
  104. Preil W (2005) General introduction: a personal reflection on the use of liquid media for in vitro culture. In: Hvoslef-Eide AK, Preil W (eds) Liquid culture systems for in vitro plant propagation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  105. Qu L, Polashock J, Vorsa N (2000) A high efficient in vitro cranberry regeneration system using leaf explants. Hortscience 35:948–952Google Scholar
  106. Rancillac M, Nourrisseau JG (1989) Micropropagation and strawberry plant quality. Acta Hort 265:343–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Rissanen T, Voutilainen S, Virtanen J, Venho B, Vanharante M, Mursu J, Salonen J (2003) Low intake of fruits, berries and vegetables is associated with excess mortality in men: the Kuopio Ischaemic heart disease risk factor (KIHD) study. J Nutr 133:199–204PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Rowland LJ, Hammerschlag FA (2005) Vaccinium spp. blueberry. In: Litz RE (ed) Biotechnology of fruit and nut crops. CABI Publ, Wallingford, pp 222–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Sandal I, Bhattacharya A, Ahuja PS (2001) An efficient liquid culture system for tea shoot proliferation. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 65:75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Scott TK (1972) Auxins and roots. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 23:235258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Shibli RA, Smith MAL (1996) Direct shoot regeneration from Vaccinium pahalae (ohelo) and V. myrtillus (bilberry) leaf explants. Hortscience 31:1225–1228Google Scholar
  112. Simon S (1908) Experimentelle untersuchungen über die differenzierungsvorgange im callusgewebe von holzgewachsen. Jahrb Wiss Bot 45:351–478Google Scholar
  113. Skirvin RM, Motoike S, Coyner M, Norton MA (2005) Rubus spp. cane fruit. In: Litz RE (ed) Biotechnology of fruit and nut crops. CABI Publ, Wallingford, pp 566–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Soneji JR, Rao PS, Mhatre M (2002) Somaclonal variation in micropropagated dormant axillary buds of pineapple (Ananas comosus L., Merr.) J Hort Sci Biotechnol 77:28–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Steward FC, Ammirato PV, Mapes MD (1970) Growth and development of totipotent cells: some problems, procedures and prospectives. Ann Bot 34:761–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Swartz HJ, Bors R, Mohamed F, Naess SK (1990) The effect of in vitro pretreatments on subsequent shoot organogenesis from excised Rubus and Malus leaves. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 21:179–184Google Scholar
  117. Thiem B (2003) Rubus chamaemorus L. – a boreal plant rich in biologically active metabolites: a review. Biol Lett 40:3–13Google Scholar
  118. Thomas JC, Katterman FR (1986) Cytokinin activity induced by thidiazuron. Plant Physiol 18(1):681–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Trehane J (2004) Blueberries, cranberries and other Vacciniums. Timber Press, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  120. Vander Kloet SP (1988) The genus Vaccinium in North America. Agr Can Publ, 1828, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  121. Vander Kloet SP, Dickinson TA (2009) A subgeneric classification of the genus Vaccinium and the metamorphosis of V. section Bracteata Nakai: more terrestrial and less epiphytic in habit, more continental and less insular in distribution. J Plant Res 122:253–268PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Visser C, Qureshi JA, Gill R, Saxena PK (1992) Morphoregulatory role of thidiazuron: substitution of auxin and cytokinin requirement for the induction of somatic embryogenesis in geranium hypocotyl cultures. Plant Physiol 99:1704–1707PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Vujović T, RužićĐ CR, Momirović GŠ (2010) Adventitious regeneration in blackberry (Rubus fruticosus L.) and assessment of genetic stability in regenerants. Plant Growth Regul 61(61):265–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Vyas P, Debnath SC, Igamberdiev AU (2013) Metabolism of glutathione and ascorbate in lingonberry cultivars during in vitro and ex vitro propagation. Biol Plant 57:603–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. Vyas P, Curran NH, Igamberdiev AU, Debnath SC (2015) Antioxidant properties of lingonberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.) leaves within a set of wild clones and cultivars. Can J Plant Sci 95:663–669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Weising K, Nybom H, Wolff K, Meyer W (1995) DNA fingerprinting in plants and fungi. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  127. Yau MH, Che CT, Liang SM, Kong YC, FongWP (2002) An aqueous extract of Rubus chingii fruits protects primary rat hepatocytes against tert-butyl hydroperoxide induced oxidative stress. Life Sci 72:329–338PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Yonghua Q, Shanglong Z, Asghar S, Lingxiao Z, Qiaoping Q, Kunsong C, Changjie X (2005) Regeneration mechanism of Toyonokastrawberry under different color plastic films. Plant Sci 168:1425–1431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Zhang Q, Folta KM, Thomas M, Davis TM (2014) Somatic embryogenesis, tetraploidy, and variant leaf morphology in transgenic diploid strawberry (Fragaria vesca subspecies vesca ‘Hawaii 4’). BMC Plant Biol 14:23. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-14-23 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. Ziv M (1991a) Quality of micropropagated plants – vitrification. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 27:64–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Ziv M (1991b) Vitrification: morphological and physiological disorders of in vitro plants. In: Debergh PC, Zimmerman RH (eds) Micropropagation. Kluwer AcadPubl, Dordrecht, pp 45–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Ziv M (2005) Simple bioreactors for mass propagation of plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 81:277–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Ziv M, Chen J, Vishnevetsky J (2003) Propagation of plants in bioreactors: prospects and limitations. Acta Hort 616:85–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.St. John’s Research and Development CentreAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaSt. John’sCanada

Personalised recommendations