4.3 Article

Developing an efficient protocol for hairy root induction in Lythrum salicaria L

期刊

BIOLOGIA
卷 78, 期 10, 页码 2667-2677

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11756-023-01443-1

关键词

Agrobacterium rhizogenes; Hairy roots; Lythrum salicaria; rolC

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study reports on the hairy root production of Lythrum salicaria, with the highest transformation rate achieved using Agrobacterium rhizogenes strain A4 on excised shoots of L. salicaria (65 +/- 2.3%). PCR analysis confirmed the hairy roots induced by A. rhizogenes using specific primers for the rolC genes. The results of this study can be applied in various applications of L. salicaria hairy root cultures.
Today, the culture of hairy roots is a suitable tool for studies in plant biology, such as gene expression, gene function analyses, enzymes and metabolic pathways. Lythrum salicaria is a herbaceous perennial that has great potential as a medicinal plant and pollution purifier. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first to report on hairy root production of L. salicaria. In this research, hairy root cultures of L. salicaria were evaluated with two strains of Agrobacterium rhizogenes, A4 and ATCC. The hairy roots induced by A. rhizogenes were confirmed with PCR analysis using the rolC genes specific primers. The highest percentage of transformation was obtained in the excised shoots of L. salicaria in inoculation with A. rhizogenes strain A4 (65 +/- 2.3%). The percentage of explants with transgenic roots was increased in solid MS medium containing 100 mu M acetosyringone at a 10 min infection time and a 48 h co-cultivation period. The hairy roots obtained from the shoot explants were extremely fertile and had extensive lateral branching compared to normal roots. In conclusion, the aim of the present study was to develop an efficient protocol for hairy root induction in L. salicaria. The results of this study can be used in the hairy root cultures of L. salicaria for various applications.

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

4.3
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