Journal of Biosciences

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 309–317 | Cite as

Do leaf surface characteristics affectAgrobacterium infection in tea [Camellia sinensis (L.) O Kuntze]?

  • Nitish Kumar
  • Subedar Pandey
  • Amita Bhattacharya
  • Paramvir Singh Ahuja


The host range specificity ofAgrobacterium with five tea cultivars and an unrelated species (Artemisia parviflora) having extreme surface characteristics was evaluated in the present study. The degree ofAgrobacterium infection in the five cultivars of tea was affected by leaf wetness, micro-morphology and surface chemistry. Wettable leaf surfaces of TV1, Upasi-9 andKangra jat showed higher rate (75%) ofAgrobacterium infection compared to Upasi-10 and ST-449, whereas non-wettable leaves ofA. parviflora showed minimum (25%) infection. This indicated that the leaves with glabrous surface having lower 8 (larger surface area covered by water droplet), higher phenol and wax content were more suitable forAgrobacterium infection. Caffeine fraction of tea promotedAgrobacterium infection even in leaves poor in wax (Upasi-10), whereas caffeine-free wax inhibited bothAgrobacterium growth and infection. Thus, study suggests the importance of leaf surface features in influencing theAgrobacterium infection in tea leaf explants. Our study also provides a basis for the screening of a clone/cultivar of a particular species most suitable forAgrobacterium infection the first step inAgrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation.


Agrobacterium infection Camellia sinensis leaf micro-morphology leaf surface chemistry leaf wetness tea 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ashby A M, Watson M D, Loake G J and Shaw C H 1988 Tiplasmid specific chemotaxis ofAgrobacterium tumefaciens C58C1 towardsvir inducing phenolic compounds and soluble factors from mono cotyledons and dicotyledonous plants;J. Bacteriol. 170 4181–4187PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Barnes J D, Percy K E, Paul N D, Jones P, Mclaughlin C K, Mullineaux P M, Creissen G and Wellburn A R 1996 The influence of UV-B radiation on the physicochemical nature of tobacco (Nicotiana tabaccum L.) leaf surface;J. Exp. Bot. 47 99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biao X, Toru K, Jian X and Yongyan B 1998 Effect of polyphenol compounds in tea transformations;American Society of Plant Physiologists (Plant Biol.) Abstr. No. 314Google Scholar
  4. Brewer C A, Smith W K and Vogelman T C 1991 Functional interaction between leaf trichomes, leaf wettability and the optical properties of water droplets;Plant Cell Environ. 14 955–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandler L D and Thomas C E 1991 Effect of leaf miner feeding activity on the incidence ofAlternaria leaf blight lesions on muskmelon leaves;Plant Disease 75 938–940CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Christou P 1996 Transformation technology;Curr. Opinion Biotechnol. 4 135–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crisp D J 1963 Water proofing mechanisms in animals and plants; inWater proofing and water repellency (ed.) J L Molliet (Amsterdam: Elsevier) pp 416–481Google Scholar
  8. DeCleene M 1985 The susceptibility of monocotyledons toAgrobacterium tumefaciens;Phytopathology 113 82–89Google Scholar
  9. DeCleene M and DeLey J 1976 The host range of crown gall;Bot. Rev. 42 389–466Google Scholar
  10. Edwards P J 1992 Resistance and defence: the role of secondary plant substances; inPest and pathogens. Plant responses to foliar attack (ed.) P G Ayres (Lancaster: Bioscientific Publisher) pp 69–84Google Scholar
  11. Evans K J, Nyquist W E and Latin R X 1992 A model based on temperature and leaf wetness duration for establishment ofAlternaria leaf blight of muskmelon;Phytopathology 82 890–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton C M, Frary A, Lewis C and Tanskley S D 1996 Stable transfer of intact high molecular weight DNA into plant chromosomes;Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93 9975–9979CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hawes M C and Pueppke S G 1987 Correlation between binding ofAgrobacterium tumefaciens by root cap cells and susceptibility to crown gall;Plant Cell Rep. 6 287–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hawes M C, Robbs S L and Pueppke S G 1989 Use of a root tumorigenesis assay to detect genotypic variation in susceptibility of 34 cultivars ofPisum sativum;Plant Physiol. 90 180–184PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hernandez J B P, Remy S, Sauco V G, Swennen R and Sagi L 1999 Chemotactic movement and attachment ofAgrobacterium tumefaciens to banana cells and tissues;J. Plant Physiol. 155 245–250Google Scholar
  16. Ingelbrecht I, Breyne P, Vancomperonolle A, vanMontagu J M and Depicker A 1991 Transcriptional interferences in transgenic plants;Gene 109 239–242PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jefferson R A 1987 Assaying chimeric genes in plants: The GUS gene fusion system;Plant Mol. Biol. Rep. 5 389–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jenks M A, Tuttle H A, Eigenbrode S D and Feldmann K A 1995 Leaf epicuticular waxes of theEceriferum mutants inArabidopsis;Plant Physiol. 108 269–377Google Scholar
  19. Juniper B E and Jefree C E 1983Plant surfaces (London: Edward Arnold)Google Scholar
  20. Karageorgou P, Levizou E and Manetas Y 2002 The influence of drought, shade and availability of mineral nutrients on exudate phenolics ofDittrichia viscose;Flora 197 285–289Google Scholar
  21. Kato M, Mizuno K, Crozier A, Fujimura T and Ashihara H 2000 Caffeine synthase gene from tea leaves.Nature (London) 406 956–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim K S, Taylor S E, Gleason M L and Koehler K J 2002 Model to enhance site specific estimation of leaf wetness duration;Plant Disease 86 179–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar N 2003Studies on recalcitrance of leaf explants to Agrobacterium mediated genetic transformation during the production of trans genic tea, M.Sc. thesis, Himachal Pradesh Krishi Viswavidyalay, PalampurGoogle Scholar
  24. Meidner H and Mansfield T A 1968Physiology of stomata (London: McGraw Hill)Google Scholar
  25. Mohamed M Z, Weersinghe D K and Wickremasinghe V 1986 Chemistry of tea (C. sinensis);SriLankan J. Tea Sci. 55 36–43Google Scholar
  26. Mondal T K, Bhattacharya A, Ahuja P S and Chand P K 2001 Transgenic tea (Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze cv. Kangra Jat) plants obtained byAgrobacterium mediated transformation of somatic embryos;Plant Cell Rep. 20 712–720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Murashige T and Skoog F A 1962 A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassay with tobacco tissue cultures;Physiol. Plant 15 473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nester E W, Gordon M P, Amasino R M and Yanofsky M F 1984 Crown gall: A molecular and physiological analysis;Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 35 387–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nesme X, Michel M F and Digat B 1987 Population heterogenecity ofAgrobacterium tumefaciens in galls ofPopulus L. from as single nursery;Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 53 655–659PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Pandey S and Nagar P K 2002 Leaf surface wetness and morphological characteristics ofValeriana jatamansi grown under open and shade habitats;Biol. Planta. 45 291–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pandey S and Nagar P K 2003 Patterns of leaf surface wetness in some important medicinal and aromatic plants of Western Himalaya;Flora 198 349–357Google Scholar
  32. Percy K E, Cape J N, Jagels R and Simpson C J 1994Air pollutants and the leaf cuticle (Berlin: Springer Verlag)Google Scholar
  33. Preece T F and Dickinson C H Preece T F and Dickinson C H 1971 Ecology of leaf surface microorganisms (New York: Academic Press)Google Scholar
  34. Pueppke S G 1984 Plant microbe interactions; inPlant microbe interactions molecular and genetic perspectives (eds) T Kosuge and E W Nester (New York: John Willey) pp 215–216Google Scholar
  35. Reynolds K M, Madden L V, Richard D L and Ellis M A 1989 Splash dispersal ofPhytopthora cactorum from infected strawberry fruit by stimulated canopy drip;Phytopathol. 79 465–469Google Scholar
  36. Sandal I, Kumar A, Bhattacharya A, Ravindranath S D, Gulati A and Ahuja P S 2001A thermolabile caffeine fraction of tea leaves—A substitute of acetosyringone for Agrobacterium mediated genetic transformations (Patent filed in US and PCT)Google Scholar
  37. Sandal I, Bhattacharya A, Kumar S and Ahuja P S 2002 Transgenic Tea (Camellia sinensis L O Kuntze);Xth IAPTC& B Congress. Plant Biotechnology 2002 and Beyond, June 23–28 2002, University of Florida, USA, AbstrNo. 1458Google Scholar
  38. Sandal I 2003Transgenic tea, Ph. D. thesis, Guru Nanak Dev University, AmritsarGoogle Scholar
  39. Swain T and Hillis W E 1959 The phenolic constituents ofPrunus domesticus I. The quantitative analyses of phenolic constituents;J. Plant Sci. Food Agri. 10 63–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Szymanski D B, Lloyd A M and Marks M D 2000 Progress in the molecular genetic analysis of trichome initiation and morphogenesis inArabidopsis;Trends Plant Sci. 5 80–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Willmer C H 1983Stomata (New York: Longman)Google Scholar
  42. Zupan J R and Zambryski P 1995 Transfer of T-DNA fromAgrobacterium to the plant cell;Plant Physiol. 107 1041–1047PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Academy of Sciences 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nitish Kumar
    • 1
  • Subedar Pandey
    • 1
  • Amita Bhattacharya
    • 1
  • Paramvir Singh Ahuja
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of BiotechnologyInstitute of Himalayan Bioresource TechnologyPalampurIndia

Personalised recommendations