Crop Breeding pp 191-202 | Cite as

Biolistic Transformation of Wheat with Centrophenoxine as a Synthetic Auxin

  • Ainur Ismagul
  • Gulnur Iskakova
  • John C. Harris
  • Serik Eliby
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1145)

Abstract

Cereal crops, including bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), are an important staple food worldwide. With a growing global population, it is evident that current crop production will not meet the rising demands being placed on modern agriculture. Efforts to improve crop yield and stress-tolerance by traditional breeding are labor intensive, time consuming, and highly dependent upon the ability to capture existing and novel genetic variation from a restricted genetic pool. Genetic engineering of crop species is one of several alternatives to traditional breeding for the introduction of novel genetic variation. This recently established technology has proved useful for the introduction of novel traits like pest resistance and herbicide tolerance. As a universal tool for genetic transformation, the Biolistic Gene Gun allows for the genomic integration of novel gene sequences from various sources into a whole host of living organisms.

In this chapter, we present a novel and detailed protocol for the Biolistic Transformation of bread wheat that uses the pharmaceutical compound, Centrophenoxine (CPX). The application of CPX as the main auxin-like plant growth regulator in cereal genetic transformation replaces the potent but more toxic herbicide 2,4-D.

Key words

Biolistic Cereals Centrophenoxine Microprojectile bombardment Transgenic Wheat 

References

  1. 1.
    Vasil V, Castillo AM, Fromm ME et al (1992) Herbicide resistant fertile transgenic wheat plants obtained by microprojectile bombardment of regenerable embryogenic callus. Bio/Technol 10:667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lambe P, Dinant M, Deltour R (2000) Transgenic pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum). In: Bajaj YPS (ed) Transgenic crops, vol 46, Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry. Springer, Berlin, pp 84–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klein TM, Fromm ME, Weissinger A et al (1988) Transfer of foreign gene into intact maize cells with high-velocity microprojectiles. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 85:4305–4309PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Casas AM, Kononowicz AK, Zehr UB et al (1993) Transgenic plants via microprojectile bombardment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 90:11212–11216PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang L, Hui YN, Wang YS et al (2011) Calcium overload is associated with lipofuscin formation in human retinal pigment epithelial cells fed with photoreceptor outer segments. Eye (Lond) 25:519–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nehra B, Verma R, Khanna P et al (2008) Behavioural alterations in rotenone model of Parkinson’s disease: attenuation by co-treatment of Centrophenoxine. Brain Res 1201:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Little EL, Magbanua ZV, Parrott WA (2000) A protocol for repetitive somatic embryogenesis from mature peanut epicotyls. Plant Cell Rep 19:351–357CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steintiz B, Küsek M, Tabib Y et al (2003) Pepper (Capsicum annuum L.) regenerants obtained by direct somatic embryogenesis fail to develop a shoot. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 39:296–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Srinivasan C, Scorza R (2006) The influence of genotype on the induction of somatic embryos from in vitro cultured zygotic embryos of peach. Acta Horticult 738:691–696Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bus JS, Hammond LE (2007) Regulatory progress, toxicology, and public concerns with 2,4-D: where do we stand after two decades? Crop Prot 26:266–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassay with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sanford JC, Smith FD, Russel JA (1993) Optimizing the biolistic process for different biological applications. In: Wu R (ed) Methods in enzymology. Elsevier Inc., New York, pp 483–509Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shimada T, Seki M, Morikawa H (1991) Transient expression of beta-glucuronidase (GUS) gene in wheat pollen embryos via microprojectile bombardment. Wheat Inf Serv 72:106–108Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vasil V, Srivastava V, Castillo AM et al (1993) Rapid production of transgenic wheat plants by direct bombardment of cultured immature embryos. Bio-Technol 11:1553–1558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rubtsova M, Kempe A, Ismagul A et al (2008) Expression of active Streptomyces phage phiC31 integrase in transgenic wheat plants. Plant Cell Rep 27:1821–1831PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morran S, Eini O, Pyvovarenko T et al (2011) Improvement of stress tolerance of wheat and barley by modulation of expression of DREB/CBF factors. Plant Biotechnol J 9:230–249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ortiz JPA, Reggiardo MI, Ravizzini RA et al (1996) Hygromycin resistance as an efficient selectable marker for wheat stable transformation. Plant Cell Rep 15:877–881PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Newyork 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ainur Ismagul
    • 1
    • 2
  • Gulnur Iskakova
    • 1
    • 2
  • John C. Harris
    • 1
    • 2
  • Serik Eliby
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Australian Centre for Plant Functional GenomicsUniversity of AdelaideGlen OsmondAustralia
  2. 2.School of Agriculture, Food and Wine, Waite Research Institute, University of AdelaideUrrbraeAustralia

Personalised recommendations