4.5 Article

Shoot regeneration capacity from roots and transgenic hairy roots of tomato cultivars and wild related species

Journal

PLANT CELL TISSUE AND ORGAN CULTURE
Volume 65, Issue 1, Pages 37-44

Publisher

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBL
DOI: 10.1023/A:1010631731559

Keywords

Agrobacterium rhizogenes; direct and indirect organogenesis; Lycopersicon species; rol genes; transformation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The organogenetic competence of roots and Agrobacterium rhizogenes-induced hairy roots of twelve Lycopersicon genotypes was investigated. Both roots and hairy roots of L. peruvianum, L. chilense, L. hirsutum and two L. peruvianum-derived genotypes regenerated shoots after 2-4 weeks of incubation on zeatin-contained medium. Anatomical analysis showed that shoot regeneration in roots could be direct or indirect, depending on the genotype considered. Hairy roots showed considerable differences in their morphogenetic responses, when compared to the corresponding non-transgenic roots. The differences observed may reflect the influence of the introduced rol genes on hormonal metabolism/sensitivity. Hairy root-derived T0 plants had shortened internodes, wrinkled leaves and abundant root initiation, and most produced flowers and fruits with viable seeds. The hairy root syndrome was detected early in germinating T1 seedlings as a strong reduction in the hypocotyl length. Our data point to the possibility of the use of A. rhizogenes, combined with regenerating Lycopersicon genotypes, in a very simple protocol, based on genetic capacity instead of special procedures for regeneration, to produce transgenic tomato plants expressing rol genes, as well as, genes present in binary vectors. Furthermore, the regeneration differences observed in each Lycopersicon genotype and in transgenic materials expressing rol genes open the possibility for their use in the analysis of both the biochemical and the genetic background of organogenetic competence.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available