4.5 Article

Induction of somatic embryogenesis from female flower buds of elite Schisandra chinensis

期刊

PLANT CELL TISSUE AND ORGAN CULTURE
卷 106, 期 3, 页码 391-399

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11240-011-9935-5

关键词

Woody vine; Secondary somatic embryo; Elite tree; Ploidy; Genetic variation; Magnoliaceae

资金

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [DL09CA12]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [30671701]
  3. Northeast Forestry University [OPTP10-NEFU]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Somatic embryogenesis (SE) was induced in female flower buds from mature Schisandra chinensis cultivar 'Hongzhenzhu'. Somatic embryo structures were induced at a low frequency from unopened female flower buds and excised unopened on Murashige and Skoog (MS) agar medium containing 4.0 mg l(-1) 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). Friable embryogenic calli were induced from somatic embryo structures after three to four subcultures on initiation medium. The frequencies of mature somatic embryo germination and plantlet conversion were low, but increased in the presence of gibberellic acid (GA(3)). Some germinated somatic embryos could form friable embryogenic calli on medium without plant growth regulators (PGRs). The germination and conversion frequencies of somatic embryos from embryogenic calli induced using PGR-free medium were higher than for somatic embryos from embryogenic calli induced on medium containing 2,4-D. Most somatic embryos from 2,4-D-induced embryogenic calli had trumpet-shaped embryos, and most somatic embryos from PGR-free medium-induced embryogenic calli had two or three cotyledons. Histological observation indicated that two- and three-cotyledon embryos had defined shoot primordia, but most of the trumpet-shaped embryos yielded plantlets that lacked or had poorly developed meristem tissue. Cytological and random amplification of polymorphic DNA (RAPD) analyses indicated no evidence of genetic variation in the plantlets of somatic embryo origin.

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

4.5
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