4.7 Article

A comparison study of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation methods for root-specific promoter analysis in soybean

Journal

PLANT CELL REPORTS
Volume 33, Issue 11, Pages 1921-1932

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00299-014-1669-5

Keywords

Soybean; Promoter analysis; Hairy root transformation; Whole plant transformation; Expression vector; Phosphorus treatment

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31372126]
  2. National Key Basic Research Special Funds of China [2011CB100301]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Both in vitro and in vivo hairy root transformation systems could not replace whole plant transformation for promoter analysis of root-specific and low-P induced genes in soybean. An efficient genetic transformation system is crucial for promoter analysis in plants. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation is the most popular method to produce transgenic hairy roots or plants. In the present study, first, we compared the two different Agrobacterium rhizogenes-mediated hairy root transformation methods using either constitutive CaMV35S or the promoters of root-preferential genes, GmEXPB2 and GmPAP21, in soybean, and found the efficiency of in vitro hairy root transformation was significantly higher than that of in vivo transformation. We compared Agrobacterium rhizogenes-mediated hairy root and Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated whole plant transformation systems. The results showed that low-phosphorous (P) inducible GmEXPB2 and GmPAP21 promoters could not induce the increased expression of the GUS reporter gene under low P stress in both in vivo and in vitro transgenic hairy roots. Conversely, GUS activity of GmPAP21 promoter was significantly higher at low P than high P in whole plant transformation. Therefore, both in vitro and in vivo hairy root transformation systems could not replace whole plant transformation for promoter analysis of root-specific and low-P induced genes in soybean.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available