4.5 Article

Doubling the chromosome number of bahiagrass via tissue culture

期刊

EUPHYTICA
卷 175, 期 1, 页码 43-50

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10681-010-0165-4

关键词

Polyploidy; Chromosome doubling; Paspalum; Tissue culture

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Crop improvement in bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugg,) is limited by apomixis in most natural tetraploids, however, diploid sexual types occur. Production of sexual tetraploids by chromosome doubling will allow hybridization with apomictic tetraploids. Diploid bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum Flugg,) embryogenic callus tissue was exposed to three concentrations of three antimitotic chemical agents, colchicine, oryzalin and trifluralin. Callus was generated to plants and ploidy was evaluated by stomata size, mitotic chromosome counts, and flow cytometry. A total of 310 plants were verified as tetraploid of 1,432 plants that reached transplanting size. All treatments yielded 4x plants. The mean percentage success over all treatments was 22%, with means of 31% for oryzalin, 24% for colchicine and 16% for trifluralin. The high rates of success indicate that all agents can be successfully used to double chromosome numbers in bahiagrass. The percentage of 4x plants ranged from 9% (20 mu M trifluralin) to 43% (20 mu M oryzalin). Several treatments adversely affected regeneration. Mitotic chromosome counts are difficult and labor intensive in bahiagrass. Therefore, leaf stomata measurements were used as a preliminary screen. Data gave a bimodal distribution with overlapping tails and based on chromosome counts would have given an error rate of 12%. Flow cytometry analysis of regenerated plants resulted in mean nucleus fluorescence distributions consistent with control diploid or tetraploid values. These values agreed with chromosome counts, and this method is recommended for determining bahiagrass ploidy level. Research goals and available resources should be taken into consideration when selecting a treatment for chromosome doubling in bahiagrass.

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