4.7 Article

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of oat (Avena sativa L.) cultivars via immature embryo and leaf explants

期刊

PLANT CELL REPORTS
卷 27, 期 11, 页码 1721-1729

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00299-008-0593-y

关键词

Oat; Polyploid cereals; Agrobacterium; Binary vectors; Transgene expression

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [PBZ-KBN_089/P06/ 2003]
  2. IHAR [1-1-01-4-04]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper reports on the successful Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of oat, and on some factors influencing this process. In the first step of the experiments, three cultivars, two types of explant, and three combinations of strain/vectors, which were successfully used for transformation of other cereals were tested. Transgenic plants were obtained from the immature embryos of cvs. Bajka, Slawko and Akt and from leaf base explants of cv. Bajka after transformation with A. thumefaciens strain LBA4404(pTOK233). The highest transformation rate (12.3%) was obtained for immature embryos of cv. Bajka. About 79% of the selected plants proved to be transgenic; however, only 14.3% of the T-0 plants and 27.5% of the T-1 showed GUS expression. Cell competence of both types of explant differed in terms of their transformation ability and transgene expression. The next step of the study was to test the suitability for oat transformation of the pGreen binary vector combined with different selection cassettes: nptII or bar under the nos or 35S promoter. Transgenic plants were selected in combinations transformed with nos::nptII, 35S::nptII and nos::bar. The highest transformation efficiency (5.3%) was obtained for cv. Akt transformed with nos::nptII. A detailed analysis of the T-0 plants selected from a given callus line and their progeny revealed that they were the mixture of transgenic, chimeric-transgenic and non-transgenic individuals. Southern blot analysis of T-0 and T-1 showed simple integration pattern with the low copy number of the introduced transgenes.

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