4.6 Article

Effect of plant growth regulators on plant regeneration of Dioscorea remotiflora (Kunth) through nodal explants

期刊

PLANT GROWTH REGULATION
卷 68, 期 2, 页码 293-301

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10725-012-9717-z

关键词

Tissue culture; Culture media; Micropropagation; Dry weight; Tuberous roots

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia (CONACYT) [99963]
  2. Consejo Estatal de Ciencia y Tecnologia del Estado de Jalisco (COECYTJAL) [PS-2009-919]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Dioscorea remotiflora (Kunth) is an important wild plant that produces tuberous roots used as a source of food in the Western part of Mexico. Lack of planting material and inefficiency of traditional methods of propagation are the main constraints for implementing large-scale cultivation. In contrast, tissue culture techniques allow increasing multiplication and rapid production of plant material. In this regard, leaves or nodal segments were incubated on MS, B5 and WPM culture media with different PGRs in order to obtain an efficient micropropagation protocol. Leaves explants were unable to inducing shoots or callus. However, nodal segments produced axillary shoots and/or callus in all culture media. MS containing 2.33 mu M KIN was the most suitable to inducing shoots; an average of 6.6 shoots per segment for 100 % explants was obtained, which displayed also the greater number of nodes (5.0) and leaves (7.9) per segment. A decrease on shoot proliferation was observed combining BA or KIN with 2,4-D or NAA. However, small brownish callus were induced on 100 % of segments using 2.33 mu M KIN with 5.37 mu M 2,4-D or 9.30 mu M KIN plus 2.69 mu M NAA. In contrast, by adding 2.69 mu M NAA, 66.4 % of the nodal segments formed shoots and produced also yellowish friable callus on the base of the shoots. Shoots were easily rooted with 8.28 mu M IBA (96.9 %), displaying the greatest root and shoot biomass, but maximum number of tuberous roots, and root or tuberous root biomass was produced increasing IBA (20.7 mu M).

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

4.6
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