Journal of Plant Biotechnology

The Korean Society of Plant Biotechnology (한국식물생명공학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of in vitro propagation and occurrence of morphological and genetic variation in strawberry tissue culture with various plant hormone treatments

딸기 조직배양 시 여러가지 식물호르몬 처리에 따른 기내 증식 및 형태적, 유전적 변이 발생 비교

  • Kim, Hye Jin (Highland Agricultural Research Institute, National Institute of Crop Science) ;
  • Lee, Jong Nam (Highland Agricultural Research Institute, National Institute of Crop Science) ;
  • Choi, Mi Ja (Highland Agricultural Research Institute, National Institute of Crop Science) ;
  • Suh, Jong Taek (Highland Agricultural Research Institute, National Institute of Crop Science)
  • 김혜진 (국립식량과학원 고령지농업연구소) ;
  • 이종남 (국립식량과학원 고령지농업연구소) ;
  • 최미자 (국립식량과학원 고령지농업연구소) ;
  • 서종택 (국립식량과학원 고령지농업연구소)
  • Received : 2019.02.25
  • Accepted : 2019.03.31
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The objective of this study was to carry out treatment of various plant hormones in order to determine morphological and genetic variation degree of tissue-cultured strawberry. The cultivar used in this experiment was 'Goha' and 'Seolhyang', the plant hormones used for experiment were benzyladenine (BA), N-(2-Chloro-4 pyridyl)-N'-phenylurea (CPPU) and thidiazuron (TDZ), and the concentrations were 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, $4.0mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$ with each hormone. The BA treatment of the proliferation efficiency of tissue-cultured strawberry 'Goha' and 'Seolhyang' was the highest. When processing BA, CPPU and TDZ, morphological variation and genetic variation happened in strawberry 'Goha' and 'Seolhyang', especially, the variations appeared highly in CPPU treatment. The genetic variation in 'Goha' appeared at the concentration more than BA $0.5mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$ as 1.1%, appeared at the concentration of CPPU $0.5mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$ as 15.3%, and at the concentration of TDZ $2.0mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$ as 1.2%. The genetic variation in 'Seolhyang' appeared at the concentration of BA $4.0mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$ as 2.3%, and at the concentration of CPPU $0.5mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$ as 14.3%. Therefore, CPPU should not be treated during strawberry tissue culture, and BA and TDZ should be treated at low concentration.

본 실험은 딸기 조직배양 시 여러가지 식물호르몬의 농도 별처리에 따른 증식률 및 형태적, 유전적 변이 발생 정도를 확인하고자 실시하였다. 본 실험에 사용된 공시 품종은 '고하'와 '설향'이며, 본 실험에 사용한 식물 호르몬은 BA, CPPU 및 TDZ로, 농도는 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, $4.0mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$였다. '고하'와 '설향'의 조직배양묘 증식률은 BA 처리 시 가장 높았다. BA, CPPU 및 TDZ 처리 시 '고하' 및 '설향'에서 형태적 및 유전적 변이가 발생하였고, 특히 품종에 관계없이 CPPU 처리에서 변이가 높게 나타났다. '고하'의 유전적 변이는 BA $0.5mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$ 이상의 농도에서 1.1%로 나타났고, CPPU $0.5mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$에서 15.3%로 나타났으며, TDZ $2.0mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$에서 1.2%로 나타났다. '설향'의 유전적 변이는 BA $4.0mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$에서 2.3%로 나타났고, CPPU $0.5mg{\cdot}L^{-1}$에서 14.3%로 나타났다. 따라서 딸기 조직배양 시, CPPU는 처리하지 않는 것이 좋을 것으로 판단되고, BA나 TDZ또한 저농도로 처리하는 것이 바람직할 것으로 판단된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Ahmad SS (2013) In vitro shoot proliferation of strawberry using stem plantlet explants derived from meristem culture. Widyariset 16:473-480 (Abstr.)
  2. Anderson G, Lewis-Smith AC, Chamberlain M, Smith SM (1991) Variation in organization and copy number of ribosomal RNA genes in Petunia hybrida somaclones. Biologia Plantarum 33:206-210 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02897884
  3. Ashrafuzzaman M, Faisal SM, Yadav D, Khanam D, Raihan F (2013) Micropropagation of strawberry (Fragaria X ananassa) through runner culture. Bangladesh J. Agril. Res. 38:467-472 https://doi.org/10.3329/bjar.v38i3.16973
  4. Badoni A and Chauhan JS (2009) Effect of growth regulators on meristem-tip development and in vitro multiplication of potato cultivar 'Kufri Himalini'. Nature and Science 7:31-34
  5. Boxus P (1989) Review on strawberry mass propagation. Acta Hort. 265:309-320 https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.1989.265.46
  6. Boxus P (1999) Micropropagation of strawberry via axillary shoot proliferation. In: Plant Cell Culture Protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology. Part III. Plant propagation in vitro. Hall RD (ed.). Humana Press Inc., Totowa NJ 111:103-114
  7. Cameron JS and Hancock JF (1986) Enhanced vigor in vegetative progeny of micropropagated strawberry plants. HortScience 21:1225-1226
  8. Evans DA and Bravo JE (1986) Phenotypic and genotypic stability of tissue culture plants. In: Zimmerman RH, Griesbach RJ, Hammerschlag FA, Lawson RH (eds.). Tissue Culture as a Plant Production System for Horticultural Crops (p 73-94). Martinus Nijihoff Publishers, Dordrdcht
  9. Faedi W, Mourgues F, Rosati C (2002) Strawberry breeding and varieties: situation and perspectives. Acta Hort. 567:51-59 https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2002.567.1
  10. Fatemeh H, Maheran AA, Ghizan S, Azmi AR, Hossein K (2010) Micropropagation of strawberry cv. Camarosa: Prolific shoot regeneration from in vitro shoot tips using thidiazuron with N6-benzylamino-purin. HortScience. 45:453-456 https://doi.org/10.21273/HORTSCI.45.3.453
  11. Govan GL, Simpson DW, Johnson AW, Tobutt KR, Sargent DJ (2008) A reliable multiplexed microsatellite set for genotyping Fragaria and its use in a survey of 60 F. X ananassa cultivars. Mol. Breeding 22:649-661 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-008-9206-2
  12. Gould AR (1986) Factors controlling variability in vitro. In: Vasil IK (Ed.) Cell Culture and Somatic Cell Genetics of Plants, Vol 3:549-567. Academic Press, New York
  13. Honjo M, Nunome T, Kataoka S, Yano T, Yamazaki H, Hamano M, Yui S, Morishita M (2011) Strawberry cultivar identification based on hypervariable SSR markers. Breeding Sci. 61:420-425 https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.61.420
  14. Irkaeva NM and Matveeva TV (1997) Response of strawberry (Fragaria vesca L.) strains to cytokinin in vitro. (Russian with English abstract) Genetika 33:495-500
  15. Kaeppler SM, Kaeppler HF, Rhee Y (2000) Epigenetic aspects of somaclonal variation in plants. Plant Mol. Biol. 43:179-188 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006423110134
  16. Kane EJ, Wilson AJ, Chourey PS (1992) Mitochondrial genome variability in Sorghum cell culture protoclones. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83:799-806 https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00226700
  17. Karp A (1989) Can genetic instability be controlled in plant tissue cultures. IAPTC Newsletter 58:2-11
  18. Karp A (1995) Somaclonal varation as a tool for crop improvement. Euphytica 85:295-302 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00023959
  19. Karp A and Bright SWJ (1985) On the causes and origins of somaclonal variation. In: Miflin BJ (ed). Oxford Survey of Plant Molecular and Cell Biology, Vol.2:199-234. Oxford University Press, Oxford
  20. Koruza B and Jeleska S (1993) Influence of meristem culture and virus elimination on phenotypical modifications of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L., cv. Refosk). Vitis 32:59-60
  21. Lee JN, Kim HJ, Kim KD, Kwon YS, Im JS, Lim HT, Yeoung YR (2010) In vitro mass propagation and economic effects of bioreactor culture in ever-bearing strawberry 'Goha'. Kor. J. Hort. Sci. Technol. 28:845-849
  22. Marcotirigiano M, Swartz HJ, Gray SE, Tokaricky D, Popenoe J (1984) The effect of benzylaminopurine on the in vitro multiplication rate and subsequent field performance of tissue culture propagation strawberry plant. Adv. Strawberry Prod. 3:23-25
  23. Marandi JR, Naseri L, Mohseniazer M, Hajitagiloo R, Marhamati MR (2011) Investigation on interaction effect of benzyladenine and chitosan on in vitro proliferation of strawberry (Fragaria X ananassa cv. Selva). Agricultural Biotechnology 10:27-34 (Abstr.)
  24. Martin RR, Tzanetakis IE (2006) Characterisation and recent advances in detection of strawberry viruses. Plant Disease 90:384-396 https://doi.org/10.1094/PD-90-0384
  25. Martin RR, Spiegel S (1998) Strawberry mottle virus. In:JL Mass (ed.). Compendium of strawberry diseases. Sec. ed. Am. Phytopato. Soc. 66-67
  26. Mellor FC, Krczal H (1987) Strawberry mottle. In: RH Converse (ed.), Virus diseases of small fruits. United States Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 631, Washington, D. C., 10-16
  27. Nehra NS, Kartha KK, Stushnoff C, Giles KL (1992) The influence of plant growth regulator concentrations and callus age on somaclonal variation in callus culture regenerants of strawberry. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult. 29:257-268 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00034361
  28. Orton TJ (1983) Experimental approaches to the study of somaclonal variation. Plant Mol. Biol. Rept. 1:67-76 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02680301
  29. Pant M, Lal A, Jain R (2015) A simple cost effective method for mass propagation of Chrysanthemum morifolium and antibacterial activity assessment of in vitro raised plantlets. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 5:103-111 https://doi.org/10.7324/JAPS.2015.50716
  30. Sansavini S, Rosati P, Gaggioli D, Toshi MF (1990) Inheritance and stability of somaclonal variation in micropropagated strawberry. Acta Hort. 280:375-384 https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.1990.280.62
  31. Sonneveld C and Straver N (1994) Nutrient solutions for vegetables and flowers grown in water ore substrates, (tenth edition). Proefstation voor Tuinbouw onder glas te Naaldwijk, The Netherlands, Series Voedingsoplossingen Glastuinbouw No.8:45pp
  32. Swartz HJ, Galletta GJ, Zimmerman RH (1981). Field performance and phenotypic stability of tissue culture-propagated strawberries. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 106:667-673
  33. Thompson JR, Jelkman W (2003) The detection and variation of strawberry mottle virus. Plant disease 87:385-390 https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS.2003.87.4.385
  34. Varga A, Thoma LH, Bruinsma J (1988) Effects of auxins and cytokinins on epigenetic instability of callus-propagated Kalanchoe blossgeldiana pollen. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. Cult. 15:223-231 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00033646
  35. Zebrowska JI, Czernas J, Gawronski J, Hortynski JA (2003) Suitability of strawberry (Fragaria X ananassa Duch.) microplants to the field cultivation. Food, Agriculture & Environment 1:190-193
  36. Zhang Z (2014) Epigenetic and genetic variation in micro-propagated strawberry plants. Acta Hort. 1049:63-66 https://doi.org/10.17660/actahortic.2014.1049.2