Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC)

, Volume 133, Issue 3, pp 437–445 | Cite as

Study on factors influencing transformation efficiency in Pinus massoniana using Agrobacterium tumefaciens

  • Samaneh Sadat Maleki
  • Kourosh Mohammadi
  • Kong Shu Ji
Research Note


Genetic manipulation of gymnosperms using Agrobacterium—mediated system, a powerful field in forest biotechnology, has a potential to accelerate forest tree improvements with desired attributes. However, most conifers such as pine have been considered recalcitrant to genetic transformation. The present study reports the successful production of transgenic Pinus massoniana from zygotic embryos using Agrobacterium tumefaciens harboring the pBI121:CslA2 binary vector. Various independent parameters were tested for their effects on transformation efficiency in P. massoniana. According to our results, combination of Agrobacterium density at OD600 of 0.5, cold treatment of Agrobacterium suspension at 4 °C for approximately 5 h, inoculation period of 5 h, and the addition of 100 µM acetosyringone in co-cultivation medium significantly enhanced the transformation efficiency. The stable integration of CslA2 gene into the genome of putative transgenic plants was confirmed by polymerase chain reaction and Southern blot hybridization, and the expression levels were determined using quantitative reverse transcription-PCR. Our optimized transformation procedure could provide an opportunity for transferring economically important genes into P. massoniana and other conifer species as well.


Efficient transformation system Pinus massoniana Agrobacterium tumefaciens Molecular analysis 



2,4-Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid




Naphthalene acetic acid




Optical density at 600nm


Neomycin phosphotransferase



This study was supported by “The Thirteenth 5-year Plan” National Key Research Project “Pinus massoniana sustainable management technology research on Pinus massoniana”,and A Project Funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD).

Author contributions

SM and KJ designed the experiments. SM conducted the experiments and collated the results. KM performed the statistical analysis and prepared the graphs. Drafting of manuscript and reading and final approval of the version to be published; SM, KM and KJ.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Alvarez JM, Ordás RJ (2013) Stable Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of maritime pine based on kanamycin selection. Sci World J. Google Scholar
  2. Cerda F, Aquea F, Gebauer M, Medina C, Arce-Johnson P (2002) Stable transformation of Pinus radiata embryogenic tissue by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Cell Tiss Org 70:251–257. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Choudhury H, Kumaria S, Tandon P (2014) Pinus biotechnology: progress and prospects. In: Ramawat KG, Merillon J-M, Ahuja MR (eds) Tree biotechnology, 1st edn. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, London, pp 223–247Google Scholar
  4. Dutt M, Grosser JW (2009) Evaluation of parameters affecting Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of citrus. Plant Cell Tiss Org 98:331–340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dutta I, Kottackal M, Tumimbang E, Tajima H, Zaid A, Blumwald E (2013) Sonication-assisted efficient Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of the multipurpose woody desert shrub Leptadenia pyrotechnica. Plant Cell Tiss Org 112:289–301. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fortin C, Nester EW, Dion P (1992) Growth inhibition and loss of virulence in cultures of Agrobacterium tumefaciens treated with acetosyringone. J Bacteriol 174:5676–5685. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. Grace LJ, Charity JA, Gresham B, Kay N, Walter C (2005) Insect-resistant transgenic Pinus radiata. Plant Cell Rep 24:103–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Grant JE, Cooper PA, Dale TM (2015) Genetic transformation of micropropagated shoots of Pinus radiata D. Don. bioRxiv. Google Scholar
  9. Holsters M, Waele DD, Depicker A, Messens E, Montagu MV, Schell J (1978) Transfection and transformation of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Mol Gen Genet 163:181–187. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Hood EE, Gelvin SB, Melchers LS, Hoekema A (1993) New Agrobacterium helper plasmids for gene transfer to plants. Transgenic Res 2:208–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hou W, Shakya P, Franklin G (2016) A perspective on hypericum perforatum genetic transformation. Front Plant Sci 7:879. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. Isah T (2016) Induction of somatic embryogenesis in woody plants. Acta Physiol Plant 38:118–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kuta DD, Tripathi L (2005) Agrobacterium induced hypersensitive necrotic reaction in plant cells: a resistance response against Agrobacterium-mediated DNA transfer. Afr J Biotechnol 4:752–757Google Scholar
  14. Levee V, Garin E, Klimaszewska K, Seguin A (1999) Stable genetic transformation of white pine (Pinus strobus L.) after cocultivation of embryogenic tissues with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Mol Breed 5:429–440. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Li F, Li M, Zhan C, Wang S (2015) A reliable and high-efficiency Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation system of Pogonatherum paniceum embryogenic callus using GFP as a reporter gene. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 120:155–165. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li S, Cong Y, Liu Y, Wang T, Shuai Q, Chen N, Ga J, Li Y (2017) Optimization of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation in Soybean. Front Plant Sci 8:246. PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Maheshwari P, Kovalchuk I (2016) Agrobacterium-mediated stable genetic transformation of Populus angustifolia and Populus balsamifera. Front Plant Sci 7:296. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Malabadi RB, Nataraja K (2007) Genetic transformation of conifers: applications in and impacts on commercially forestry. Transgenic Plant J 1:289–313Google Scholar
  19. Malabadi RB, da Silva JAT, Nataraja K (2008) Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated genetic transformation of Pinus kesiya Royle ex Gord (Khasi Pine). Asian Aust J Plant Sci Biotech 2:7–14Google Scholar
  20. Nyaboga EN, Njiru JM, Tripathi L (2015) Factors influencing somatic embryogenesis, regeneration, and Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) cultivar TME14. Front Plant Sci 6:411. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. Ombori O, Muoma JMO, Machuka J (2013) Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of selected tropical inbred and hybrid maize (Zea mays L.) lines. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 113:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Porebski S, Bailey LG, Baum BR (1997) Modification of a CTAB DNA extraction protocol for plants containing high polysaccharide and polyphenol components. Plant Mol Biol Rep 15:8–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rashid H, Afzal A, Khan MH, Chaudhry Z, Malik SA (2010) Effect of bacterial culture density and acetosyringone concentration on Agrobacterium mediated transformation in wheat. Pak J Bot 42:4183–4189Google Scholar
  24. Sainger M, Chaudhary D, Dahiya S, Jaiwal R, Jaiwal PK (2015) Development of an efficient in vitro plant regeneration system amenable to Agrobacterium- mediated transformation of a recalcitrant grain legume blackgram (Vigna mungo L. Hepper). Physiol Mol Biol Plants 21:505–517.
  25. Sarmast MK (2016) Genetic transformation and somaclonal variation in conifers. Plant Biotechnol Rep 10:309–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Singh B (2014) Effect of desiccation and chilling treatment on somatic embryo development and germination in Rough Lemon (Citrus jambhiri Lush.). Br Biotechnol J 4:136–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Song ZY, Tian JL, Fu WZ, Li L, Lu LH, Zhou L, Shan ZH, Tang GX, Shou HX (2013) Screening Chinese soybean genotypes for Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation suitability. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B 14:289–298. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. Stachel SE, Messens E, Van Montagu M, Zambryski P (1985) Identification of the signal molecules produced by wounded plant cells that activate T-DNA transfer in Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Nature 318:624–629. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tang W, Newton RJ (2005) Transgenic Christmas trees regenerated from Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation of zygotic embryos using the green fluorescence protein as a reporter. Mol Breed 16:235–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tang W, Sederoff R, Whetten R (2001) Regeneration of transgenic loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) from zygotic embryos transformed with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Planta 213:981–989. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Tang W, Luo H, Newton RJ (2004) Effects of antibiotics on the elimination of Agrobacterium tumefaciens from loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) zygotic embryo explants and on transgenic plant regeneration. Plant Cell Tiss Org 79:71–81. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tang W, Newton RJ, Weidner DA (2007) Genetic transformation and gene silencing mediated by multiple copies of a transgene in eastern white pine. J Exp Bot 58:545–554CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Tang W, Xiao B, Fei Y (2014) Slash pine genetic transformation through embryo cocultivation with A. tumefaciens and transgenic plant regeneration. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 50:199–209. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tereso S, Miguel C, Zoglauer K, Valle-Piquera C, Oliveira MM (2006) Stable Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of embryogenic tissues from Pinus pinaster Portuguese genotypes. Plant Growth Regul 50:57–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wenck RA, Quinn M, Whetten RW, Pullman G, Sederoff R (1999) High-efficiency Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Norway spruce (Picea abies) and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Plant Mol Biol 39:407–416. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang SQ, Fei BH, Yu Y, Wang HK (2012) Fundamental properties of Masson pine (Pinus massoniana Lamb.) wood from plantation. In: Proceedings of the 55th international convention of society of wood science and technology, August 27–31, Beijing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang WJ, Dewey RE, Boss W, Phillippy BQ, Qu R (2013) Enhanced Agrobacterium-mediated transformation efficiencies in monocot cells is associated with attenuated defense responses. Plant Mol Biol 81:273–286. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhu LH, Wu XQ, Qu HY, Ji J, Ye JR (2010) Micropropagation of Pinus massoniana and mycorrhiza formation in vitro. Plant Cell Tiss Org 102:121–128. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Co-Innovation Center for Sustainable Forestry in Southern China, The key Forest Genetics & Biotechnology, Ministry of EducationNanjing Forestry UniversityNanjingChina

Personalised recommendations