4.5 Article

Linear energy transfer dependence of the effects of carbon ion beams on adventitious shoot regeneration from in vitro leaf explants of Saintpaulia ionahta

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION BIOLOGY
卷 82, 期 7, 页码 473-481

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09553000600863080

关键词

linear energy transfer; relative biological effectiveness; tissue culture; carbon ion beams; irradiation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To determine the effects of carbon ion beams with five different linear energy transfer (LET) values on adventitious shoots from in vitro leaf explants of Saintpaulia ionahta Mauve cultivar with regard to tissue increase, shoots differentiation and morphology changes in the shoots. Materials and methods: In vitro leaf explant samples were irradiated with carbon ion beams with LET values in the range of 31 similar to 151 keV/mu m or 8 MeV of X-rays (LET 0.2 keV/mu m) at different doses. Fresh weight increase, surviving fraction and percentage of the explants with regenerated malformed shoots in all the irradiated leaf explants were statistically analysed. Results: The fresh weight increase (FWI) and surviving fraction (SF) decreased dramatically with increasing LET at the same doses. In addition, malformed shoots, including curliness, carnification, nicks and chlorophyll deficiency, occurred in both carbon ion beam and X-ray irradiations. The induction frequency with the former, however, was far more than that with the X-rays. Conclusions: This work demonstrated the LET dependence of the relative biological effectiveness (RBE) of tissue culture of Saintpaulia ionahta according to 50% FWI and 50% SF. After irradiating leaf explants with 5 Gy of a 221 MeV carbon ion beam having a LET value of 96 keV/mu m throughout the sample, a chlorophyll-deficient (CD) mutant, which could transmit the character of chlorophyll deficiency to its progeny through three continuous tissue culture cycles, and plantlets with other malformations were obtained.

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