Advertisement

Russian Journal of Genetics

, Volume 41, Issue 1, pp 60–65 | Cite as

RAPD and ISSR analyses of regenerated pea Pisum sativum l. plants

  • O. I. Kuznetsova
  • O. A. Ash
  • G. A. Hartina
  • S. A. Gostimskij
Plant Genetics
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Long-term pea callus cultures of different genotypes (mutants R-9 and W-1 and cultivar Viola) were used to regenerate plants (generation R 0 ). The regenerants displayed changes both in qualitative and in quantitative traits. The most dramatic morphological alterations and complete sterility were observed in regenerants of the cultivar Viola. To estimate the genetic differences, regenerants were compared with the original lines with the use of RAPD (random amplified polymorphic DNA) and ISSR (inter simple sequence repeat) analyses. The extent of divergence varied among regenerants and depended mostly on the original genotype. The genetic difference from the original line was no more than 1% in W-1 regenerants, 0.7–5.3% in R-9 regenerants, and 10– 15% in sterile regenerants of the cultivar Viola. The genetic variation of plants regenerated from a callus culture maintained for ten years did not exceed that of plants obtained from a culture maintained for two years.

Keywords

Genetic Variation Quantitative Trait Sequence Repeat Genetic Difference Callus Culture 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Larkin, R.J. and Scowcroft, W.R., Somaclonal Variation-A Novel Source of Variability from Cell Culture for Plant Improvement, Theor. Appl. Genet., 1981, vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kunakh, V.A., Variation of the Plant Genome upon Dedifferentiation and Callus Formation in Vitro, Fiziol. Rast., 1999, vol. 46, no. 6, pp. 919–929.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gostimskij, S.A., Genetic Variation of Plant Cells during Culturing, Usp. Sovrem. Genet., 1987, issue 14, pp. 48–63.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mohan Jain, S., Tissue Culture-Derived Variation in Crop Improvement, Euphytica, 2001, vol. 118, pp. 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bagrova, A.M., Ezhova, T.A., Hartina, G.A., and Gostimskij, S.A., Generation of Long-Cultured Calluses and Analysis of Somaclonal Variation in Regenerants of Grain and Vegetable Pea Cultivars, Vestn. Mosk. Univ., Ser. 16, Biol., 1991, no. 1, pp. 28–33.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kaeppler, S.M., Heidi, F., and Yong Rhee, Epigenetic Aspects of Somaclonal Variation in Plants, Plant. Mol. Biol., 2000, vol. 43, pp. 179–188.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gostimskij, S.A., Bagrova, A.M., and Ezhova, T.A., Detection and Cytogenetic Analysis of the Variation Arising upon Plant Regeneration from Cultured Tissues of Pisum sativum, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 1985, vol. 283, no. 4, pp. 1007–1011.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorokhov, D.B. and Klocke, E., A Rapid and Economic Technique for RAPD Analysis of Plant Genomes, Rus. J. Genet., 1997, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 358–365.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gesteira, A.S., Otoni, W.C., Barros, E.G., and Moreira, M.A., RAPD-Based Detection of Genomic Instability in Soybean Plants Derived from Somatic Embryogenesis, Plant Breed., 2002, vol. 121, pp. 269–271.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bogani, P., Simoni, A., Lio, P., et al., Genome Flux in Tomato Cell Clones Cultured in Vitro in Different Physiological Equlibria: II. A RAPD Analysis of Variability, Genome, 1996, vol. 39, pp. 846–853.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Leroy, X.J., Leon, K., Hily, J.M., et al., Detection of in Vitro Culture-Induced Instability through Inter-Simple Sequence Repeat Analysis, Theor. Appl. Genet., 2001, vol. 102, pp. 885–891.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osipova, E.S., Kokaeva, Z.G., Troitskij, A.V., et al., RARD Analysis of Maize Somaclones, Rus. J. Genet., 2001, vol. 37, no. 1, pp 80–84.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kokaeva, Z.G., Bobrova, V.K., Val’ekho-Roman, K.M., et al., RARD Analysis of Somaclonal and Intercultivar Variations in Pea, Dokl. Akad. Nauk, 1997, vol. 355, no. 1, pp. 134–136.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moller, E.M., Bahnurg, G., Sandermann, H., and Jeiger, H.H., A Simple and Efficient Protocol for Isolation of High-Molecular-Weight DNA from Filamentous Fungi, Fruit Bodies and Infected Plant Tissues, Nucleic Acids Res., 1992, vol. 20, no. 22, pp. 6115–6116.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van de Peer, Y. and De Wachter, R., Treecon for Windows: A Software Package for Construction and Drawing of Evolutionary Trees for Microsoft Windows Environment, Comput. Appl. Biosci., 1994, vol. 10, pp. 569–570.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Phillips, R.S., Kaeppler, S.M., and Olhoft, P., Genetic Instability of Plant Tissue Cultures: Breakdown of Normal Controls, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 1994, vol. 91, pp. 5222–5226.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cecchini, E., Natali, L., Cavallini, A., and Durante, M., DNA Variations in Regenerated Plants of Pea (Pisum sativum L.), Theor. Appl. Genet., 1992, vol. 84, pp. 874–879.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bogani, P., Simoni, A., Lio, P., et al., Molecular Variation in Plant Cell Populations Evolving in Different Physiological Contexts, Genome, 2001, vol. 44, pp. 549–558.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Osipova, E.S., Koveza, O.V., Troitskij, A.V., et al., Analysis of Specific RAPD and ISSR Fragments in Maize (Zea mays L.) and Development of SSAR Markers on Their Basis, Rus. J. Genet., 2003, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. 1412–1419.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© MAIK “Nauka/Interperiodica” 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • O. I. Kuznetsova
    • 1
  • O. A. Ash
    • 1
  • G. A. Hartina
    • 1
  • S. A. Gostimskij
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of GeneticsMoscow State UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations