Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC)

, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 169–175 | Cite as

In vitro multiplication of wild relatives in genus Beta conserves the invaluable threatened germplasms

  • A. Ergül
  • S. D. Khabbazi
  • M. Ç. Oğuz
  • C. Y. Özmen
  • S. Gürel
  • E. Gürel
Research Note


Conservation of threatened plant genetic resources is vital for food security and biodiversity maintenance. Wild species of genus Beta are invaluable germplasm which could be utilized for beet breeding programs. In this study, in vitro multiplication and genotypic responses of different species in the section Beta and Corollinae were compared in presence of plant growth regulators. Following the surface sterilization, seeds were cultivated in vitro. Cotyledonary node explants were excised from the germinated young seedlings and treated with BAP, GA3 and TDZ. The obtained results demonstrated a significant difference between the genotypes in terms of in vitro shoot proliferation efficiency when subjected to BAP and GA3. Among the applied growth regulators, effect of BAP on number of multiplied shoots was the highest. Moreover, the genotypic variation in rooting was also evident when the shoots were subjected to IAA and IBA. This study is the first report of in vitro multiplication of wild species in genus Beta that could be exploited in future germplasm maintenance, gene transformation and breeding studies.


Wild beet In vitro multiplication Tissue culture Germplasm conservation 





Gibberellic acid


Indole-3-acetic acid


Indole-3-butyric acid


Murashige and Skoog Basal Medium





The financial support from the Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey (TUBITAK), Project No: TOVAG-113O096, is deeply appreciated. Also, the authors are thankful to the Aegean Agricultural Research Institute, Izmir, Turkey, for kindly providing the seeds required for the study.

Author contributions

AE designed and outlined the research. SDK contributed to data analysis, interpreted the data and wrote the manuscript. MÇO analyzed the data. MÇO and CYÖ performed the experiment. SG and EG criticized the data interpretation and edited the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Asher MJC, Luterbacher MC, Frese L (2001) Wild beta species as a source of resistance to sugar beet pests and diseases. Proc IIRB 64:141–152Google Scholar
  2. Astly D (1992) Reservation of genetic diversity and accession integrity. Field Crops Res 29:205–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biaggi MD, Biancardi E (2016) Breeding methods. In: Biancardi E, Tamada T (eds) Rhizomania Springer, Cham, pp 233–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Biancardi E, Panella LW, Lewellen RT (2012) Beta maritima: the origin of beets. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Capistrano-Gossmann GG, Ries D, Holtgräwe D (2017) Crop wild relative populations of Beta vulgaris allow direct mapping of agronomically important genes. Nat Commun 8:15708. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. Coons GH (1975) Interspecific hybrids between Beta vulgaris L. and the wild species of Beta. J Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 18:281–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ford-Lloyd BV (2005) Sources of genetic variation, Genus Beta. In: Biancardi E, Campbell LG, Skaracis GN, De Biaggi M (eds) Genetics and breeding of sugar beet, Science Publishers Inc, Enfield, pp 25–33Google Scholar
  8. Ford-Lloyd BV, Schmidt M, Armstrong SJ et al (2011) Crop wild relatives undervalued, underutilized and under threat? BioScience 61(7):559–565. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Golden AM (1959) Susceptibility of several Beta species to the sugar beet nematode (Heterodera schachtbii) and root-knot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp.). J Am Soc Sugar Beet Technol 10:444–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gürel S, Gürel E, Kaya Z (2001) Callus development and indirect shoot regeneration from seedling explants of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) cultured in vitro. Turk J Bot 25:25–33Google Scholar
  11. Gürel S, Topal E, Gürel E (2003) The effect of pretreating seedlings with TDZ on direct shoot regeneration from petiole explants of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Asia Pac J Mol Biol Biotechnol 11(1):57–62Google Scholar
  12. Jacq B, Tetu T, Sangwan RS, Laat AD, Sangwan-Norreel BS (1992) Plant regeneration from sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) hypocotyls cultured in vitro and flow cytometric nuclear DNA analysis of regenerants. Plant Cell Rep 11: 329–333CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Kadereit G, Hohmann S, Kadereit JW (2006) A synopsis of Chenopodiaceae subfam. Betoideae and notes on the taxonomy of Beta. Willdenowia 36:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kagami H, Taguchi K, Arakawa T, Kuroda Y, Tamagake H, Hereditas TK (2016) Efficient callus formation and plant regeneration are heritable characters in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Hereditas 153:12. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Kulshrestha S, Coutts RHA (1997) Direct somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from mature sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.) zygotic cotyledons. Plant Growth Regul 22(2):87–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Maxted N, Kell S (2009) Establishment of a global network for the in situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and needs. FAO Consultancy Report. Accessed 29 Sep 2017
  17. Meilleur BA, Hodgkin T (2004) In situ conservation of crop wild relatives: status and Trends. Biodivers Conserv 13:663–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Özgür OM (1992) Beta L. of Turkey. The general directorate of the Turkish sugar corp, Ankara**Google Scholar
  20. Panella L, Lewellen RT (2007) Broadening the genetic base of sugarbeet: introgression from wild relatives. Euphytica 154:383–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pazuki A, Aflaki F, Gürel S, Ergul A, Gürel E (2018) Production of doubled haploids in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris): an efficient method by a multivariate experiment. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 132(1):85–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Rajpurohit D, Jhang T (2015) In situ and ex situ conservation of plant genetic resources and traditional knowledge. In: Salgotra R, Gupta B (eds) Plant genetic resources and traditional knowledge for food security. Springer, Singapore, pp 137–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reamon-Büttner SM, Wricke G (1993) Evidence of tetrasomic inheritance in Beta corolliflora. J Sugar Beet Res 30:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ren H, Zhang Q, Lu H et al (2012) Wild plant species with extremely small populations require conservation and reintroduction in China. Ambio 41(8):913–917. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Saunders JW, Doley WP (1986) One step shoot regeneration from callus of whole plant leaf explants of sugarbeet lines and a somaclonal variant for in vitro behavior. J Plant Physiol 124(5):473–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scholten OE, De Bock TS, Klein-Lankhorst RM, Lange W (1999) Inheritance of resistance to beet necrotic yellow vein virus in Beta vulgaris conferred by a second gene for resistance. Theor Appl Genet 99:740–746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Seiler GJ, Frese L, Burenin V (1996) Collection of wild beta section Corollinae in the Soviet Union. J Sugar Beet Res 33(1–4):31–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tamada T, Baba T (1973) Beet necrotic yellow vein virus from rhizomaniaaffected sugar beet in Japan. Ann Phytopathol Soc Jpn 39:325–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yu MH (1989) Callus induction and differentiation from leaf explants of different species of the genus Beta. Crop Sci 29:205–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

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

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Ergül
    • 1
  • S. D. Khabbazi
    • 1
  • M. Ç. Oğuz
    • 1
  • C. Y. Özmen
    • 1
  • S. Gürel
    • 2
  • E. Gürel
    • 3
  1. 1.Biotechnology InstituteAnkara UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Plant BreedingSugar InstituteAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of BiologyAbant Izzet Baysal UniversityBoluTurkey

Personalised recommendations