4.7 Article

In vitro plant regeneration from cotyledonary nodes of recombinant inbred lines of lentil

期刊

SCIENTIA HORTICULTURAE
卷 134, 期 -, 页码 13-19

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2011.11.029

关键词

Cotyledonary node; In vitro rooting; In vitro-in vivo rooting; Lentil; Shoot regeneration

资金

  1. Agencia Nacional de Investigaciones Cientificas y Tecnicas (ANCYT)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An efficient and reproducible in vitro regeneration protocol for lentil was developed. For shoot regeneration, cotyledonary node explants of ten elite genotypes were cultured in an inverted orientation on different shoot regeneration media that consisted of Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium supplemented with 1 mg L-1 6-benzylaminopurine (BAP) (M1), 1 mg L-1 BAP + 0.45 mg L-1 indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) (M2), and 2 mg L-1 BAP (M3). High percentages of shoot regeneration ranging from 80 to 100% on M1 and M3 media and from 50 to 100% on M2 medium were induced. M1 was the most efficient shoot regeneration medium for most genotypes tested. For rooting, in vitro and in vitro-in vivo methods were used. Low and variable rooting percentages ranging from 0 to 45% were recorded with in vitro-in vivo method. Efficiency of rooting on in vitro medium varied depending on the medium in which shoots had been previously regenerated and the genotype tested. When M1 medium was used, high rooting percentages (over 40%) for most genotypes except for microsperma genotypes were found. When the 10 genotypes were screened for good regeneration performance using M1 medium, 2 main clusters and 3 subgroups within one of the clusters were formed based on similarities respect of the number of regenerated shoots per explant and rooting percentages. Subgroup 1 composed by A1146 genotype produced the highest number of shoots per explain (6.17 shoots) and a high rooting percentage (60%) so was selected for further transformation and use as a potential commercial variety. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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