4.7 Article

Histological study of organogenesis in Cucumis melo L. after genetic transformation: why is it difficult to obtain transgenic plants?

期刊

PLANT CELL REPORTS
卷 30, 期 11, 页码 2001-2011

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00299-011-1108-9

关键词

Cucumis melo L.; Agrobacterium tumefaciens; Genetic transformation; NptII and uidA genes

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Melon (Cucumis melo L.) is widely considered as a recalcitrant species for genetic transformation. In this study, we developed different regeneration and transformation protocols and we examined the regeneration process at different steps by histological studies. The highest regeneration rate (1.13 +/- 0.02 plants per explant) was obtained using cotyledon explants of the 'Vedrantais' genotype on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium supplemented with 0.2 mg/l 6-benzylaminopurine (BAP) and 0.2 mg/l dimethylallylaminopurine (2-iP). Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformations with the uidA reporter gene were realized on cotyledon explants cultivated in these conditions: 70-90% of explants expressed a transient GUS activity during the early stages of regeneration, however, only few transgenic plants were obtained (1.8-4.5% of stable transformation with the GV2260pBI101 strain). These results revealed a low capacity of melon GUS-positive cells to regenerate transgenic plants. To evaluate the influence of the Agrobacterium infection on plant regeneration, histological analyses were conducted on explants 2, 7, 15, and 28 days after co-culture with the GV2260pBI101 strain. Genetic transformation occurred in epidermal and sub-epidermal cells and reached the meristematic structures expressing a high level of GUS activity during 14 days of culture; but after this period, most of the meristematic structures showed premature cell vacuolization and disorganization. This disruption of the GUS-positive meristematic areas could be responsible of the difficulties encountered to regenerate melon plants after genetic 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