Advertisement

Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC)

, Volume 137, Issue 1, pp 149–156 | Cite as

High-frequency somatic embryogenesis, nuclear DNA estimation of milkweed species (Asclepias latifolia, A. speciosa, and A. subverticillata), and genome size stability of regenerants

  • Hamidou F. SakhanokhoEmail author
  • Ebrahiem M. Babiker
  • Barbara J. Smith
  • Patricia R. Drackett
Original Article
  • 292 Downloads

Abstract

A high-frequency somatic embryogenesis was developed for three Asclepias species, A. latifolia (broadleaf milkweed), A. speciosa (showy milkweed), and A. subverticillata (horsetail milkweed) using gibberellic (GA3) and the amino acid l-proline. A somatic embryo initiation medium consisting of MS salts (Murashige and Skoog, in Physiol Plant 15:473–497, 1962) with Gamborg’s (1968) vitamins, 1.5 µM 2,4-D, 2.3 µM kinetin, and 2% (w/v) sucrose supplemented with various concentrations of l-proline (0, 8.7, or 17.4 mM) combined with various of concentrations of GA3 (0, 2.9, or 5.8 µM), resulting in nine different media (MWM0–MWM8). All media produced callus, but no embryos were obtained on the control medium which contained no l-proline or GA3. Once calli produced somatic embryos, they were transferred to a medium referred to as somatic embryo conversion medium or SECM, which contained MS salts with Gamborg’s vitamins (Gamborg et al., Exp Cell Res 50:151–158, 1968), 2.3 µM kinetin, 2.9 mM GA3, 1.5% (w/v) sucrose, 8 g/L. The conversion percentage of somatic embryos into plants was high for all media, in particular for MWM2 (17.4 mM l-proline + 0 µM GA3) with conversion rates of 90.2, 93.4, and 97% for A. latifolia, A. speciosa, and A. subverticillata, respectively. Flow cytometry was used to estimate the nuclear DNA content of both seed-derived and in vitro grown plants. The 2C-DNA values of all three species were 0.92 pg, which did not differ from the values of in vitro grown plants, thus verifying that the regeneration system produces genetically stable plants.

Keywords

Broadleaf milkweed Genetic stability Horsetail milkweed Monarch butterflies Showy milkweed Somaclonal variation 

Abbreviations

GA3

Gibberellic acid A3

Kinetin

6-Furfurylaminopurine

KNOX genes

Knotted1-like homeobox genes

MS

Murashige and Skoog’s medium (1962)

MWM

Milkweed medium

2,4-D

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Denise Hardy and Robin Hayes for technical assistance. This work received the financial support of USDA-ARS CRIS project 6062-21000-009-00D. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture. USDA-ARS Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Policy mandates equal opportunity for all persons and prohibits discrimination in all aspects of the agency’s personnel policies, practices, and operations.

Author Contributions

HFS conceived, conducted experiments, and analyzed data. EMB contributed to the conception and writing of the manuscript. BJS helped organize and edit the manuscript. PRD helped select Asclepias species and write the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ahmadi B, Shariatpanahi ME (2015) Proline and chitosan enhanced efficiency of microspore embryogenesis induction and plantlet regeneration in Brassica napus L. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 123:57–65.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-015-0814-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bai C, Alverson WS, Follansbee A, Waller DM (2012) New reports of nuclear DNA content for 407 vascular plant taxa from the United States. Ann Bot 110:1623–1629CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Baskin JM, Baskin CC (1977) Germination of common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Bull Torrey Bot Club 104:167–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Berkman B (1949) Milkweed: a war strategic material and a potential industrial crop for sub-marginal lands in the United States. Econ Bot 3:223–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betekhtin A, Rojek M, Jaskowiak J, Milewska-Hendel A, Kwasniewska J, Kostyukova Y, Kurczynska E, Rumyantseva N, Hasterok R (2017) Nuclear genome stability in long-term cultivated callus lines of Fagopyrumtataricum(L.) Gaertn. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone/0173537 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Binzel ML, Sankhla N, Joshi S, Sankhla D (1996) Induction of direct somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration in pepper (Capsicum annum L.). Plant Cell Rep 15:536–540CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Borders B, Lee-Mäder E (2014) Milkweeds: a conservation practitioner’s guide. Plant ecology, seed production methods, and habitat restoration opportunities. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Milkweeds_XerSoc_june2014.pdf. Accessed 20 July 2018
  8. Brower LP, Taylor OR, Williams EH, Slayback DA, Zubieta RR, Ramirez MI (2012) Decline of monarch butterflies overwintering in Mexico: is the migratory phenomenon at risk? Insect Conserv Divers 5:95–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ceasar SA, Ignacimuthu S (2010) Effect of cytokinins, carbohydrates and amino acids on induction and maturation of somatic embryos in kod millet (Paspalum scorbiculatum Linn.). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 102:153–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Doležel J, Bartoš J, Voglmayr H, Greilhuber J (2003) Nuclear DNA content and genome size of trout and human. Cytometry 51:127–128CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Emons AMC, Samallo-Droppers A, Toorn CVD (1993) The influence of sucrose, mannitol, abscisic acid, and gibberellic acid on the maturation of somatic embryos of Zea mays L. from suspension cultures. J Plant Physiol 142:597–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaertner EE (1979) The history and use of milkweed (Asclepias syriaca L.). Econ Bot 33:119–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gamborg OL, Miller RA, Ojima K (1968) Nutrient requirements of suspension culture of soybean root cells. Exp Cell Res 50:151–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Greilhuber J, Doležel J, Lysàk M, Bennett MD (2005) The origin, evolution, and proposed stabilisation of the terms ‘genome size’ and ‘C-value’ to describe nuclear DNA contents. Ann Bot 95:255–260CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Groet SS, Kidd GH (1981) Somatic embryogenesis and regeneration from milkweed cell cultures. Biomass 1:93–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harry-O’kuru RE, Holser RA, Abbott TP, Weisleder D (2002) Synthesis and characteristics of polyhydroxy triglycerides from milkweed oil. Ind Crops Prod 15:50–58Google Scholar
  17. Hartzler RG (2010) Reduction in common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca) occurrence in Iowa cropland from 1999 to 2009. Crop Prot 29:1542–1544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jena S, Ray A, Sahoo A, Sahoo S, Kar B, Panda PC, Nayak S (2018) High-frequency clonal propagation of Curcuma angustifolia ensuring genetic fidelity of micropropagated plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 135:473–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnston JS, Bennett MD, Rayburn AL, Galbraith DW, Price HJ (1999) Reference standards for determination of DNA content of plant nuclei. Amer J Bot 86:609–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaye TN, Sandlin IJ, Bahm MA (2018) Seed dormancy and germination vary within and among species of milkweeds. AoB Plants 10:ply018.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aobpla/ply018 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Knudsen HD, Zeller RD (1993) The milkweed business. In: Janick J, Simons JE (eds) New crops. Wiley, New York, pp 422–428Google Scholar
  22. Kubaláková M, Doležel J, Lebeda A (1996) Ploidy instability of embryogenic cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) callus culture. Biol Plant 38:475–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lineros Y, Balocchi C, Muñoz X, Sánchez M, Ríos D (2018) Cryopreservation of Pinus radiata embryogenic tissue: effects of cryoprotective pretreatments on maturation ability. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 135:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Luna T, Dumroese RK (2013) Monarchs (Danaus plexippus) and milkweeds (Asclepias species): the current situation and methods for propagating milkweeds. Native Plants J 14:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Malcolm SB (1991) Cardenolide-mediated interactions between plants and herbivores. In: Rosenthal GA, Berenbaum MR (eds) Herbivores: their interactions with secondary plant metabolites. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 251–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malcolm SB, Brower LP (1989) Evolutionary and ecological implications of cardenolides sequestration in the monarch butterfly. Experimentia 45:284–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. McGregor RL (1986) Flora of the great plains. University Press of Kansas, LawrenceGoogle Scholar
  28. Montero-Córtes M, Saenz L, Cordova I, Quiroz A, Verdeil JL, Oropeza C (2010) GA3 stimulates the formation and germination of somatic embryos and the expression of a KNOTTED-like homeobox gene of Cocos nucifera (L.). Plant Cell Rep 29:1049–1059CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Panter KE, Gardner DR, Lee ST, Pfister JA, Ralphs MH, Stegelmeier BL, James LE (2007) Important poisonous plants of the United States: Milkweeds: Asclepias spp. In: Gupta RC (ed) Veterinary toxicology: basic and clinical principles. Academic Press, Amsterdam, pp 861–863Google Scholar
  31. Pavek DS (1992) Asclepias incarnata. Fire effects information system. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory. https://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/plants/forb/ascinc/all.html. Accessed 15 July 2018
  32. Pleasants JM, Oberhauser KS (2012) Milkweed loss in agricultural fields because of herbicide use: effect on the monarch butterfly population. Insect Conserv Divers 6:135–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pramanik TK, Datta SK (1986) Plant regeneration and ploidy variation in culture derived plants of Asclepias curassavica L. Plant Cell Rep 3:219–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Price HJ, Johnston JS (1996) Influence of light on DNA content of Helianthus annuus Linnaeus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 93:11264–11267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Reddy SH, Chakravarthi M, Chandrashekara KN (2012) In vitro multiple shoot induction through axillary bud of Asclepias curassavica L.—a valuable medicinal plant. Intern J Sci Res Pub 2:ISSN 2250–3153Google Scholar
  36. Sabooni N, Shekafandeh A (2017) Somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration of blackberry using the thin cell layer technique. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 130:313–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sano R, Juarez CM, Hass B, Sakakibara K, Ito M, Banks JA, Hasebe M (2005) KNOX homeobox genes potentially have similar function in both diploid unicellular and multicellular meristems, but not in haploid meristems. Evol Dev 7:69–78CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Schultz J, Beyer P, Williams J (2001) Propagation protocol for production of container Asclepias syriaca L. plants. Hiawatha National Forest, Marquette, Michigan. Native Plant Network. http://www.nativeplantnetwork.org/Network/ViewProtocols.aspx?Protoco1lD=1489. Accessed 05 March 2018
  39. Seiber JN, Nelson CJ, Lee SM (1982) Cardenolides in the latex and leaves of seven Asclepias species and Calotropis procea. Phytochemistry 21:2343–2348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sliwinska E, Thiem B (2007) Genome size stability in six medicinal plant species propagated in vitro. Biol Plantarum 51:556–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Šmarda P. Bureš P. Horová L. Foggi B. Rossi G (2008) Genome size and GC content evolution of Festuca: ancestral expansion and subsequent reduction. Ann Bot 101:421–433CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Stenoien C, Nail KR, Zalucki JM, Parry H, Oberhauser KS, Zalucki MP (2018) Monarchs in decline: a collateral landscape-level effect of modern agriculture. Insect Sci 25:528–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Stuart DA, Strickland SG (1984) Somatic embryogenesis from cell cultures of Medicago sativa L. I. The role of amino acid additions to the regeneration medium. Plant Sci Let 34:165–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Thiem B, Sliwinska E (2003) Flow cytometric analysis of nuclear DNA content in cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus L.) in vitro cultures. Plant Sci 164:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tideman J, Hawker JS (1982) In vitro propagation of latex-producing plants. Ann Bot 49:273–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woodson RE Jr (1954) The north American species of Asclepias L. Ann Mo Bot Gard 41:1–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Thad Cochran Southern Horticultural LaboratoryUnited States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research ServicePoplarvilleUSA
  2. 2.The Crosby ArboretumMississippi State University Extension ServicePicayuneUSA

Personalised recommendations