Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Use of bioreactors for large-scale multiplication of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.), energy cane (Saccharum spp.), and related species

  • Plant Tissue Culture
  • Published:
In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The objective of this study was to set up a plant micropropagation facility to mass propagate sugarcane, energy cane, and related clonally propagated species. An efficient methodology for micropropagation of energy cane and perennial grasses using temporary immersion bioreactors was developed. Several different methods of tissue culture initiation, multiplication, and rooting were evaluated for several varieties of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) and sugarcane-related species such as Erianthus spp., Miscanthus spp., and Sorghum spp. × sugarcane hybrids, all from a germplasm collection. Apical meristem cultures were initiated for all genotypes that were micropropagated, when liquid or semisolid Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium was used, which was supplemented with 0.1–0.2 mg L−1 BAP, 0.1 mg L−1 kinetin, 0–0.1 mg L−1 NAA, and 0–0.2 μg L−1 giberellic acid. These cultures produced shoots between 4 and 8 wk after initiation. Shoot regeneration from leaf rolls or immature inflorescences was observed as early as 4 wk after initiation. Shoot multiplication was successful for all genotypes cultured in MS medium with 0.2 mg L−1 BAP and 0.1 mg L−1 kinetin. Energy cane had a significantly higher combined multiplication rate when grown under four or five LED lamps than when grown under three LED lamps, or under fluorescent lights in a growth chamber. The addition of 2 mg L−1 NAA produced faster and better rooting in all of the genotypes tested. Shoots produced well-developed roots after one cycle of 15–21 d in the bioreactors. The maximum number of plantlets produced per bioreactor was 1080. Plantlets developed a vigorous root system and were ready to be transplanted into the field after 2 mo. A protocol was standardized for different energy cane clones that were recommended for their biomass production and cell wall composition. Different tissues were used to speed up or facilitate tissue culture initiation. Visual assessment of micropropagated plants in the field did not show any off-types, based on gross morphological changes of plant morphology or disease reaction, compared to plants of the same genotype derived from a traditional propagation method (stem cuttings). This is the first report of energy cane and Miscanthus spp. micropropagation using the SETIS bioreactor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akdemir H, Suzerer V, Onay A, Tilkat E, Ersali Y, Ciftci Y (2014) Micropropagation of the pistachio and its rootstocks by temporary immersionsystem. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 117:65–76

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Akula A, Becker D, Bateson M (2000) High-yielding repetitive somatic embryogenesis and plant recovery in a selected tea clone, ‘TRI-2025’, by temporary immersion. Plant Cell Rep 19:1140–1145

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Albarran J, Bertrand B, Lartaud M, Etienne H (2005) Cycle characteristics in a temporary immersion bioreactor affect regeneration, morphology, water and mineral status of coffee (Coffea arabica) somatic embryos. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 81:27–36

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ali A, Naz S, Siddiqui FA, Iqbal J (2008) An efficient protocol for large scale production of sugarcane through micropropagation. Pak J Bot 40:139–149

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Alister BM, Finnie J, Watt MP, Blakeway F (2005) Use of the temporary immersion bioreactor system (RITA®) for production of commercial Eucalyptus clones in Mondi Forests (SA). In: Hvoslef-Eide AK, Preil W (eds) Liquid culture systems for in vitro plant propagation. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 425–445

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alvard D, Cote F, Teisson C (1993) Comparison of methods of liquid medium culture for banana micropropagation. Effects of temporary immersion of explants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 32:55–60

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aragón C, Escalona M, Capote I, Pina P, Cejas I, Rodríguez R (2005) Photosynthesis and carbon metabolism in plantain (Musa AAB) growing in temporary immersion bioreactor (TIB) and ex vitro acclimatization. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol - Plant 414:550–554

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arencibia AD, Vergara C, Quiroz K, Carrasco B, Garcia R (2013b) Establishment of photomixotrophic cultures for raspberry micropropagation in temporary immersion bioreactors (TIBs). Sci Hortic Amsterdam 160:49–53

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Arencibia AD, Vergara C, Quiroz K, Carrasco B, García R, Bravo C (2013a) An approach for micropropagation of blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) plants mediated by temporary immersion bioreactors (TIBs). Am J Plant Sci 4:1022–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berding N, Roach BT (1987) Germplasm conservation, collection, maintenance and use. In: Heinz DJ (ed) Sugarcane improvement through breeding. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 143–210

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cheong EJ, Mock R, Li R (2009) Optimizing culture medium for meristem tissue culture of several Saccharum species and commercial hybrids. J Am Soc Sugar Cane Technol 29:149–165

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheong EJ, Mock R, Li R (2012) Elimination of five viruses from sugarcane using in vitro culture of axillary buds and apical meristems. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 109:439–445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escalona M, Samson G, Borroto C, Desjardins Y (2003) Physiology of effects of temporary immersion bioreactors on micropropagated pineapple plantlets. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol--Plant 39:651–656

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Etienne H, Berthouly M (2002) Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 69:215–231. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015668610465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans SM, Brar DS, Newton RJ (1984) Somaclonal variation and induced mutation in crop improvement. Tiss Cell 26:149–158

    Google Scholar 

  • Gao M, Jiang W, Wei S, Lin Z, Cai B, Yang L, Luo C, He X, Tan J, Chen L (2015) High-efficiency propagation of Chinese water chestnut [Eleocharis dulcis (Burm. f.) Trin. ex Hensch] using a temporary immersion bioreactor system. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 121:761–772

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gill R, Malhotra PK, Gosal SS (2006) Direct plant regeneration from cultured young leaf segments of sugarcane. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 84:227–231

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hassannejad S, Bernard F, Mirzajani F, Gholami M (2012) SA improvement of hyperhidrosis reversion in Thymus daenensis shoots culture may be associated with polyamines changes. Plant Physiol Biochem 51:40–46

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hodnett GL, Hale AL, Packer DJ, Stelly DM, da Silva JA, Rooney WL (2010) Elimination of a reproductive barrier facilitates intergeneric hybridization of Sorghum bicolor and Saccharum. Crop Sci 50:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hogarth DM (1987) Genetics of sugarcane. In: Heinz DJ (ed) Sugarcane improvement through breeding. Elsevier, New York, pp 255–271

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Irvine JE (1984) The frequency of marker changes in sugarcane plants regenerated from callus culture. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 3:201–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lakshmanan P, Geijskes RJ, Wang L, Elliott A, Grof CP, Berding N, Smith GR (2006) Developmental and hormonal regulation of direct shoot organogenesis and somatic embryogenesis in sugarcane (Saccharum spp. interspecific hybrids) leaf culture. Plant Cell Rep 25:1007–1015

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lee TSG (1987) Micropropagation of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 10:47–432 55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lo CC, Chen YH, Huang YJ, Shih SC (1986) Recent progress in miscanthus nobilisation program. Proc XIX Congress ISSCT 1:514–521

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo JC, Gonzalez B, Escalona M, Teisson C, Espinosa P, Borroto C (1998) Sugarcane shoot formation in an improved temporary immersion system. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 54:197–200

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lorenzo JC, Ojeda E, Espinosa A, Borroto C (2001) Field performance of temporary immersion bioreactor-derived sugarcane plants. Cell Dev Biol--Plant 37:803–806

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Macrelli S, Nogensen J, Zacchi G (2012) Techo-economic evaluation of 2nd. Generation bioethanol production from sugar cane bagasse and leaves integrated with the sugar-based ethanol process. Biotechnol Biofuel 5:22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ming R, Moore PH, Wu KK, D’Hont A, Glaszmann JC, Tew TL, Mirkov TE, da Silva J, Jifon J, Rai M, Schnell RJ, Brumbley SM, Lakshmanan P, Comstock JC, Paterson AH (2006) Sugarcane improvement through breeding and biotechnology. Plant Breed Rev 27:15–118

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Mordocco AM, Brumbley JA, Lakshmanan P (2009) Development of a temporary immersion system (RITA®) for mass production of sugarcane (Saccharum spp. interspecific hybrids). In Vitro Cell Dev Biol--Plant 45:450–457

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Niemenak N, Saare-Surminski K, Rohsius C, Ndoumou DO, Lieberei R (2008) Regeneration of somatic embryos in Theobroma cacao L. in temporary immersion bioreactor and analyses of free amino acids in different tissues. Plant Cell Rep 27:667–676

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Ramasamy M, Damaj MB, Mora V, Padilla C, Ramos N, Gracia N, Vargas-Bautista C, Irigoyen S, da Silva J, Mirkov TE, Mandadi KK (2018) A high-efficiency biolistic-based genetic transformation system for sugarcane and energy cane. GM Crops Food 9:211–227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saher S, Piqueras A, Hellin E, Olmos E (2004) Hyperhydricity in micropropagated carnation shoots: the role of oxidative stress. Physiol Plant 120:152–161

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sajid M, Pervaiz S (2008) Bioreactor mediated growth, culture ventilation, stationary and shake culture effects on in vitro growth of sugarcane. Pak J Bot 40:1949–1956

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma V, Acuna G, Solis-Gracia N, Damaj MB, El-Hout NM (2010) Development of an efficient in vitro propagation system for miscane. J Subtrop Plant Sci Soc 62

  • Skinner JC, Hogarth DM, Wu KK (1987) Selection methods, criteria, and indices. pp409–454. In: Heinz DJ (ed) Sugarcane improvement through breeding. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 409–453

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Snyman SJ, Meyer GM, Koch AC, Banasiak M, Watt MP (2011) Applications of in vitro culture systems for commercial sugarcane production and improvement. In Vitro Cell and Dev Biol--Plant 47:234–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-011-9354-7I

  • Snyman SJ, Van Antwerpen T, Ramdeen V, Meyer GM, Richards JM, Rutherford RS (2005) Micropropagation by direct somatic embryogenesis: is disease elimination also a possibility? Proc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol 27:943–946

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevenson GC (1965) Genetics and breeding of sugar cane. Longman, London, p 284

    Google Scholar 

  • Ziv M (2005) Simple bioreactors for mass propagation of plants. Cell Tiss Organ Cult 81:277

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was conducted as part of the Sugarcane Variety Improvement Program, supported by Texas A&M AgriLife Research, Texas A&M University System, with funds from the Texas Governor’s Office, Emerging Technologies Fund—Bioenergy.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Texas A&M AgriLife Research and Extension Center, 2415 E Business 83, Weslaco, Texas, 78596, USA

    Jorge Alberto da Silva, Nora Solis-Gracia, John Jifon & Kranthi Kiran Mandadi

  2. Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Heep Center, Texas A&M University, 370 Olsen Blvd #434, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    Jorge Alberto da Silva

  3. Department of Horticultural Sciences, Horticulture/Forest Science Bldg, Suite 202, 2133 TAMU, 495 Horticulture Street, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    John Jifon

  4. Centro de Cana – Instituto Agronômico de Campinas, C.P. 206, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14001-970, Brazil

    Silvana Creste Souza

  5. Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology, Texas A&M University, 2132 TAMU, College Station, TX, 77843, USA

    Kranthi Kiran Mandadi

Authors
  1. Jorge Alberto da Silva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nora Solis-Gracia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. John Jifon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Silvana Creste Souza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kranthi Kiran Mandadi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Alberto da Silva.

Additional information

Editor: Charles Armstrong

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

da Silva, J.A., Solis-Gracia, N., Jifon, J. et al. Use of bioreactors for large-scale multiplication of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.), energy cane (Saccharum spp.), and related species. In Vitro Cell.Dev.Biol.-Plant 56, 366–376 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-019-10046-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-019-10046-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation