In vitro octaploid induction of Populus hopeiensis with colchicine.
Colchicine
Octaploid
Phenotypic variation
Populus hopeiensis
Stomata
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Apr 2022
06 Apr 2022
Historique:
received:
12
02
2022
accepted:
31
03
2022
entrez:
7
4
2022
pubmed:
8
4
2022
medline:
9
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Autopolyploids, especially artificial lines, provide model systems for understanding the mechanisms of gene dosage effects on trait variation owing to their relatively uniform genetic background. Here, a protocol for in vitro octaploid induction of Populus hopeiensis from leaf blades with colchicine treatment was established through investigation of the effects of different pre-culture durations, colchicine concentrations, and exposure times. We found that pre-culture duration, colchicine concentration, and exposure time had significant effects on the survival rate, shoot regeneration rate, and octaploid induction rate of P. hopeiensis leaf blades. The highest octaploid induction rate (8.61%) was observed when leaf blades pre-cultured for 9 days were treated for 4 days with 100 μM colchicine. The ploidy level of all regenerated plantlets was analyzed by flow cytometry and further confirmed by chromosome counting. A total of 14 octaploids were obtained. The stomatal length, width, and density of leaf blades significantly differed between tetraploid and octaploid plants. Compared with diploid and tetraploid plants, octaploids had a slower growth rate, smaller leaf blade size, and shorter internodes. We established an effective protocol for inducing octaploids in vitro from autotetraploid P. hopeiensis leaf blades by colchicine treatment.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Autopolyploids, especially artificial lines, provide model systems for understanding the mechanisms of gene dosage effects on trait variation owing to their relatively uniform genetic background. Here, a protocol for in vitro octaploid induction of Populus hopeiensis from leaf blades with colchicine treatment was established through investigation of the effects of different pre-culture durations, colchicine concentrations, and exposure times.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We found that pre-culture duration, colchicine concentration, and exposure time had significant effects on the survival rate, shoot regeneration rate, and octaploid induction rate of P. hopeiensis leaf blades. The highest octaploid induction rate (8.61%) was observed when leaf blades pre-cultured for 9 days were treated for 4 days with 100 μM colchicine. The ploidy level of all regenerated plantlets was analyzed by flow cytometry and further confirmed by chromosome counting. A total of 14 octaploids were obtained. The stomatal length, width, and density of leaf blades significantly differed between tetraploid and octaploid plants. Compared with diploid and tetraploid plants, octaploids had a slower growth rate, smaller leaf blade size, and shorter internodes.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We established an effective protocol for inducing octaploids in vitro from autotetraploid P. hopeiensis leaf blades by colchicine treatment.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35387617
doi: 10.1186/s12870-022-03571-3
pii: 10.1186/s12870-022-03571-3
pmc: PMC8985302
doi:
Substances chimiques
Colchicine
SML2Y3J35T
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
176Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Science. 2008 Apr 25;320(5875):481-3
pubmed: 18436776
PLoS Biol. 2008 Jul 15;6(7):e174
pubmed: 18630989
BMC Genomics. 2012 Jun 29;13:286
pubmed: 22747754
J Biomed Biotechnol. 2009;2009:343485
pubmed: 19696915
Am J Bot. 2020 Aug;107(8):1097-1100
pubmed: 32737992
Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2007;58:377-406
pubmed: 17280525
Genome. 2009 Mar;52(3):275-85
pubmed: 19234556
Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Jul 7;279(1738):2497-509
pubmed: 22492065
Am Nat. 2014 Oct;184(4):456-65
pubmed: 25226181
Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2019 Jan;25(1):1-11
pubmed: 30804626
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2012 Apr;15(2):140-6
pubmed: 22480430
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2014 Oct;83:107-16
pubmed: 25128646
Genetics. 2007 Aug;176(4):2055-67
pubmed: 17565939
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015 Dec 15;112(50):E7022-9
pubmed: 26621743
Plant Physiol Biochem. 2019 Oct;143:154-164
pubmed: 31505448
Cell. 2007 Nov 2;131(3):452-62
pubmed: 17981114
Science. 1983 Jun 3;220(4601):1049-51
pubmed: 17754551
Plant Reprod. 2014 Dec;27(4):181-96
pubmed: 25262386
Plant J. 2012 Aug;71(4):539-49
pubmed: 22449082
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2009 Feb;12(1):17-22
pubmed: 18951836
New Phytol. 2010 Apr;186(1):5-17
pubmed: 20070540
Mol Biol Evol. 2015 Sep;32(9):2351-66
pubmed: 25976351
Nat Rev Genet. 2005 Nov;6(11):836-46
pubmed: 16304599
Nat Rev Genet. 2017 Jul;18(7):411-424
pubmed: 28502977
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1978 Mar;75(3):1446-50
pubmed: 274731
Plant Cell Rep. 2005 Dec;24(11):671-6
pubmed: 16094528
Front Plant Sci. 2020 Mar 17;11:295
pubmed: 32256514
Hereditas. 1945;31(3-4):411-40
pubmed: 21021077
Plant Cell Rep. 2007 Nov;26(11):1977-84
pubmed: 17641861
Plant Cell Rep. 2011 Sep;30(9):1771-8
pubmed: 21750904
Trends Plant Sci. 2012 Jun;17(6):332-40
pubmed: 22401845
PeerJ. 2021 Oct 27;9:e12399
pubmed: 34760387
Plant Physiol. 2019 Jan;179(1):74-87
pubmed: 30301776
Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 15;7:42708
pubmed: 28198429
BMC Biol. 2009 May 01;7:18
pubmed: 19409075
Annu Rev Genet. 2008;42:443-61
pubmed: 18983261
Annu Rev Biochem. 2000;69:277-302
pubmed: 10966460
Nat Rev Genet. 2009 Oct;10(10):725-32
pubmed: 19652647
Plant J. 2021 Oct;108(2):541-554
pubmed: 34403543
Planta. 2019 Mar;249(3):635-646
pubmed: 30327883
Curr Biol. 2008 May 20;18(10):R435-R444
pubmed: 18492478
Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 Jul;1320:16-34
pubmed: 24903334
Am J Bot. 2017 Jun;104(6):905-914
pubmed: 28626037