4.7 Article

Evaluation of selection strategies alternative to nptII in genetic transformation of citrus

期刊

PLANT CELL REPORTS
卷 27, 期 6, 页码 1005-1015

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00299-008-0523-z

关键词

citrange; inducible promoter; ipt; manA; marker-free transgenic plants; marker gene; sweet orange; tree biotechnology

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The neomycin phosphotransferase (nptII) selection system has proved successful in citrus transformation; however, it may be recommendable to replace it given the pressure exerted against antibiotic-resistance selectable marker genes in transgenic plants. The present work investigates three different selection alternatives, comparing them to nptII selection in two citrus genotypes, Carrizo citrange and Pineapple sweet orange. The first method used the beta-glucuronidase (uidA) reporter marker gene for selection; the second attempted to generate marker-free plants by transforming explants with a multi-auto-transformation (MAT) vector, combining an inducible R/RS-specific recombination system with transgenic-shoot selection through expression of isopentenyl transferase (ipt) and indoleacetamide hydrolase/tryptophan monooxygenase (iaaM/H) marker genes; while the third exploited the phosphomannose isomerase (PMI)/mannose conditional positive selection system. Firstly, GUS screening of all regenerated shoots in kanamycin-free medium gave 4.3% transformation efficiency for both genotypes. Secondly, workable transformation efficiencies were also achieved with the MAT system, 7.2% for citrange and 6.7% for sweet orange. This system affords an additional advantage as it enables selectable marker genes to be used during the in vitro culture phase and later removed from the transgenic plants by inducible recombination and site-specific excision. Thirdly, the highest transformation rates were obtained with the PMI/mannose system, 30% for citrange and 13% for sweet orange, which indicates that this marker is also an excellent candidate for citrus transformation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据