Potato pp 375-391 | Cite as

Variation in Tubers in Single Cell-Derived Clones of Potato in Ireland

  • A. C. Cassells
  • S. Austin
  • E. M. Goetz
Part of the Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry book series (AGRICULTURE, volume 3)


Sporting in potato is recognized as a problem in seed tuber production where roguing of off-types is mandatory (de Bokx 1972). The frequency of sports, i.e. phenotypic variants, reported in the field is relatively high in potato (Mcintosh 1945; Bald 1950). Much cryptic variation, however, goes undetected. Sports represent the expression of only a small percentage of somatic cell mutations, since for expression as sports, mutant cells must normally be incorporated into apical or axillary bud development and expressed in stems originating from the latter. For this criterion to be satisfied, the mutant cell(s) must displace the cells in one or more of the somatic layers (Clowes 1961) giving rise to sectorial/mericlinal, or periclinal chimeras or, if all these normal somatic cell layers are affected, to solid mutant (non-chimeric) shoots. These possibilities are illustrated in Fig. 1. Since somatic cell layer II (LII) contributes to germ cell development, only mutations in the LII may also be heritable.


Adventitious Shoot Somaclonal Variation Cryptic Variation Single Cell Culture Periclinal Chimera 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Austin S, Cassells AC (1983 a) Variation between plants regenerated from individual calli produced from separated potato stem callus cells. Plant Sci Lett 31:107–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin S, Cassells AC (1983 b) The regeneration of plantlets from isolated single cells of Irish potato varieties. In: Cassells AC, Kavanagh JA (eds) Plant tissue culture in relation to biotechnology. R Ir Acad, Dublin, pp 53–60Google Scholar
  3. Bajaj YPS (1986) Cryopreservation of potato somaclones. In: Semal J (ed) Somaclonal variation and crop improvement. Nijhoff, Dordrecht Lancaster, pp 244–250Google Scholar
  4. Bald JG (1950) Testing and maintenance of potato clones. Empire J Exp Agric 18:95–104Google Scholar
  5. Balkema GM (1972) Diplontic drift in chimeric plants. Rad Bot 12:51–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Behnke M (1979) Selection of potato callus for resistance to culture filtrates of Phytophthora infestans on regeneration of resistant plants. Theor Appl Genet 55:69–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brettel RIS, Ingram DS (1979) Tissue culture in the production of novel disease-resistant crops. Plant Biol Rev 54:329–345Google Scholar
  8. Broertjes C, Harten AM van (1978) Application of mutation breeding methods in the improvement of vegetatively propagated plants. In: Interpretive literature review. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  9. Cassells AC (1985) Genetic, epigenetic and non-genetic variation in tissue culture derived plants. In: Schafer-Mernhr A (ed) In vitro techniques, propagation and long term storage. Martinus/Junk, Dordrecht, pp 111–120Google Scholar
  10. Cassells AC, Minas G, Long RD (1980) Comparative tissue culture studies of pelargonium hybrids using meristem and explant culture: chimeral and beneficially infected varieties. In: Helgeson JP, Ingram DS (eds) Tissue culture for plant pathologists. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 125–130Google Scholar
  11. Cassells AC, Goetz EM, Austin S (1983) Phenotypic variation in plants produced from lateral buds, stem explants and single-cell derived callus of potato. Potato Res 26:367 -372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cassells AC, Farrell G, Goetz EM (1986 a) Variation in the tissue culture progeny of the chimeral potato (Solarium tuberosum L.) variety Golden Wonder. In: Semal J (ed) Somaclonal variations and plant improvement. Martinus/Nijhoff/Junk, Dordrecht, pp 202–212Google Scholar
  13. Cassells AC, Coleman M, Farrell G, Long RD, Goetz EM, Boyton V (1986 b) Screening for virus resistance in tissue culture adventitious regenerants and their progeny. In: Horn W et al. (eds) Genetic manipulation in plant breeding. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 535–545Google Scholar
  14. Clowes FAL (1961) Apical meristems. Botanical monographs, vol. II. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. D’Amato F (1952) Polyploidy in the differentiation and function of tissues and cells in plants. A criticalm examination of the literature. Caryologia 4:311–358Google Scholar
  16. D’Amato F, Bennici A, Cionini PG, Baroncelli S, Lupi MC (1980) Nuclear fragmentation followed by amitosis as a mechanism for wide chromosome number variation in tissue cultures, its implication for plant regeneration. In: Sala F, Parisi B, Cella R, Ciferii O (eds) Plant cell cultures: results and perspectives. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 62–72Google Scholar
  17. de Bokx JA (1972) Viruses of potatoes and seed-potato production. Cent Agric Publ Doc, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  18. Evans DA, Sharp WR, Medina-Filho HP (1984) Somaclonal and gametoclonal variation. Am J Bot 71:759–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harten AM van, Bouter H, Broertjes C (1981) In vitro adventitious bud techniques for vegetative propagation and mutation breeding of potato (Solarium tuberosum L.) II. Significance for mutation breeding. Euphytica 30:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Howard HW (1970) The genetics of potato (Solarium tuberosum L.). Logos, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Kohlenbach HW (1985) Fundamental and applied aspects of in vitro plant regeneration by somatic embryogenesis. In: Schafer-Mernhr A (ed) In vitro techniques, propagation and long term storage. Martinus/Junk, Dordrecht, pp 101–110Google Scholar
  22. Laemmli UK (1970) Clevage of structural proteins during assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature (London) 227:680–685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lam S (1977) Regeneration of plantlets from single cells in potato. Am Potato J 54:575–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Larkin PW, Scowcroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation, a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theor Appl. Genet 60:197–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McClintock B (1978) Mechanisms that rapidly reorganize the genome. Stadler Sym, Univ Miss, Columbia 10:25–47Google Scholar
  26. Mcintosh TP (1945) Variations in potato varieties. Scot Agric 25:125–132Google Scholar
  27. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassay with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neilson-Jones W (1969) Plant chimeras. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  29. Pasteur N (1973) Microelectrophoretic analysis of enzymes and other problems during development of Drosophila pseudo-obscura. PhD Thesis, Univ Austin, TexasGoogle Scholar
  30. Roest S, Bokelmann GS (1976) Vegetative propagation of Solarium tuberosum L. in vitro. Potato Res 19:173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sanford JC, Weedon NF, Chyi YS (1984) Regarding the novelty and breeding value of protoplastderived variants of Russet Burbank (Solarium tuberosum L.). Euphytica 33:309-315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shepard JF, Totton RE (1977) Mesophyll cell protoplasts of potato; isolation, proliferation and plant regeneration. Plant Physiol 60:313–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shepard JF, Bidney D, Shahin E (1980) Potato protoplasts in crop improvement. Science 28:17–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Widholm JM (1972) The use of fluorescein diacetate and phenosafranine for determining the viability of cultured plant cells. Stain Technol 47:189–194Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. C. Cassells
    • 1
  • S. Austin
    • 1
  • E. M. Goetz
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant ScienceUniversity CollegeCorkIreland

Personalised recommendations