4.7 Article

Comparative Analysis of In Vitro Responses and Regeneration between Diverse Bioenergy Sorghum Genotypes

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 9, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants9020248

关键词

in vitro regeneration; medium browning; albino plantlet; genotype; bioenergy sorghum

资金

  1. Clemson University Office of the Vice President for Research [AR-0000595]
  2. Robert and Lois Coker Endowment Clemson University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Sorghum has been considered a recalcitrant plant in vitro and suffers from a lack of regeneration protocols that function broadly and efficiently across a range of genotypes. This study was initiated to identify differential genotype-in vitro protocol responses across a range of bioenergy sorghum parental lines and the common grain sorghum genotype Tx430 in order to characterize response profiles for use in future genetic studies. Two different in vitro protocols, LG and WU, were used for comparisons. Distinct genotype-protocol responses were observed, and the WU protocol performed significantly better for plantlet regeneration. Most bioenergy genotypes performed as well, if not better than Tx430, with Rio and PI329311 as the top regenerating lines. Genotypes displayed protocol-dependent, differential phenolic exudation responses, as indicated by medium browning. During the callus induction phase, genotypes prone to medium browning exhibited a response on WU medium which was either equal or greater than on LG medium. Genotype- and protocol-dependent albino plantlet regeneration was also noted, with three of the bioenergy genotypes showing albino plantlet regeneration. Grassl, Rio and Pink Kafir were susceptible to albino plantlet regeneration, with the response strongly associated with the WU protocol. These bioenergy parental genotypes, and their differential responses under two in vitro protocols, provide tools to further explore and assess the role of genetic loci, candidate genes, and allelic variants in the regulation of in vitro responsiveness in sorghum.

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