4.3 Article

Regeneration of plants from Fraxinus americana hypocotyls and cotyledons

Journal

IN VITRO CELLULAR & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY-PLANT
Volume 47, Issue 2, Pages 250-256

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11627-011-9360-9

Keywords

Adventitious shoots; Fraxinus rooting; Shoot organogenesis; Tissue culture; White ash

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A plant regeneration protocol was developed for white ash (Fraxinus americana L.). Hypocotyls and cotyledons excised from embryos were cultured on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium supplemented with 6-benzylaminopurine (BA) plus thidiazuron (TDZ), and compared for organogenic potential. Sixty-six percent of hypocotyl segments and 10.4% of cotyledon segments produced adventitious shoots, with a mean number of adventitious shoots per explant of 3.5 +/- 0.9 and 2.5 +/- 1.5, respectively. The best regeneration medium (52% shoot formation; 47% shoot elongation) for hypocotyls was MS basal medium containing 22.2 mu M BA plus 0.5 mu M TDZ, producing a mean of 3.9 +/- 0.4 adventitious shoots. Adventitious shoots were established as proliferating shoot cultures following transfer to MS medium with Gamborg B5 vitamins supplemented with 10 mu M BA plus 10 mu M TDZ. For in vitro rooting, woody plant medium with indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) at 0, 2.9, 5.7, or 8.6 mu M in combination with 4.9 mu M indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) was tested for a 5- or 10-d dark culture period, followed by culture under a 16-h photoperiod. The best rooting (78% to 81%) of in vitro shoots was obtained with a 5 d dark culture treatment on medium containing 2.9 or 5.7 mu M IAA plus 4.9 mu M IBA, with an average of 2.6 +/- 0.4 roots per shoot. Rooted plants were successfully acclimatized to the greenhouse. This adventitious shoot regeneration and rooting protocol will be used as the basis for experimental studies to produce transgenic white ash with resistance to the emerald ash borer.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available