Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 59–62 | Cite as

Recovery of plants from leaf protoplasts of hybrid-poplar and aspen clones

  • Julie A. Russell
  • Brent H. McCown


Leaf protoplasts were isolated from shoot cultures of two hybrid poplar clones (Populus alba × P. grandidentata ‘Crandon’, NC-5339 and P. nigra ‘Betulifolia’ × P. trichocarpa, NC-5331) and the Upright European Aspen (P. tremula ‘Erecta’) and were cultured in contact with screen discs floated in liquid medium. Protoplast culture was influenced by the growth medium of the source shoot cultures, the protoplast purification procedure, the plating density, and the presence or absence of a coconut water and casein hydrolysate supplement added to the culture medium. The protoplast-derived cells divided more quickly and with higher incidence than previously reported for hybrid poplars. Shoots were regenerated from the protoplast-derived calli and were maintained as shoot cultures. Plants were developed from microcuttings rooted ex vitro and were grown-on in the greenhouse and field.


Growth Medium Liquid Medium Alba Purification Procedure Casein Hydrolysate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.





1-naphthaleneacetic acid




Woody Plant Medium, Lloyd and McCown (1980)


Murashige and Skoog Medium (1962)


North Central Forest Experiment Station accession number assigned to hybrid poplar clones.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahuja MR (1986) In: Evans DA, Sharp WR, Ammirato RV (eds) Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, vol 4, Macmillan, New York, pp 626–651Google Scholar
  2. Bednarek SB, Russell JA, Sellmer JC, McCown BH (1987) In Vitro 23:66AGoogle Scholar
  3. Binding H, Nehls R, Jorgensen J (1982) In: Fujiwara A (ed) Plant Tissue Culture 1982, Proc 5th Intl Cong Plant Tissue and Cell Culture, Tokyo, pp 575–578Google Scholar
  4. Haissig BE, Nelson ND, Kidd GH (1987) Bio/technology 5:52–59Google Scholar
  5. Kao KN, Michayluk MR (1975) Planta 126:105–110Google Scholar
  6. Lloyd GB, McCown BH (1980) Proc Intl Plant Prop Soc 30:421–427Google Scholar
  7. McCown DD, McCown BH (1987) In: Bonga J, Durzan DJ (eds) Cell and Tissue Culture in Forestry, vol 3, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 247–260Google Scholar
  8. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) Physiol Plant 15:473–497Google Scholar
  9. Nelson ND, Haissig BE (1984) In: Proc Int Symp of Recent Advances in Forest Biotechnology, Michigan Biotechnology Institute, East Lansing, MI, pp 139–154Google Scholar
  10. Nelson ND, Haissig BE, Riemenschneider DE (1984) Proc TAPPI 1984 Research and Development Conference, TAPPI, Atlanta, GA, pp 27–34Google Scholar
  11. Pasqualetto PL, Zimmerman RH, Fordham I (1986) J Amer Soc Hort Sci 111:976–980Google Scholar
  12. Russell JA, McCown BH (1986a) Plant Cell Rep 5:284–287Google Scholar
  13. Russell JA, McCown BH (1986b) Plant Sci 46:133–142Google Scholar
  14. Russell JA, McCown BH (in press) Proc Intl Conf on the Genetic Manipulation of Woody Plants, Michigan State University, East Lansing, June 1987Google Scholar
  15. Sha L, McCown BH, Peterson LA (1985) J Amer Soc Hort Sci 110:631–634Google Scholar
  16. Sticklen MB, Domir SB, Lineberger RD (1986) Plant Sci 47:29–34Google Scholar
  17. Zeldin EL, McCown BH (1986) Abstr VI Intl Congress of Plant Tissue and Cell Culture, Minneapolis, MN, p 57Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julie A. Russell
    • 1
  • Brent H. McCown
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of HorticultureUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations