Transformation in Hyoscyamus

  • D. Hanold
Part of the Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry book series (AGRICULTURE, volume 9)


Until recently, for the improvement of agricultural crops the traditional way of breeding and selection has been the only choice. However, with the development of new biotechnology methods (see Bajaj 1986), the alternative of directed genetic modification has become available. If used wisely, such manipulation techniques could become a powerful tool to solve agricultural problems. In vitro transformation is one of these techniques, and it has several advantages over traditional plant breeding. If genes for specific desirable properties of the plant can be isolated, they can be directly introduced into plant cells in one step, and whole plants possessing the new property can be regenerated, rather than having to go through the traditional tedious and time-consuming process of crossing and selection necessary so far (Cocking 1985). With the help of a suitable vector, desirable genes present in one species of plants — or even bacteria or animals — could be transferred to completely unrelated species with which natural exchange of genetic information cannot be achieved, making it possible to cross genetic borders imposed by nature (Wullems and Schilperoort 1985).


Buoyant Density Strain LBA4058 Tropane Alkaloid Plant Protoplast Octo Pine 
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. Bajaj YPS (1986) Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry 2. Crops I. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York TokyoGoogle Scholar
  2. Black J (1957) Flora of South Australia. Part I V. K. M. Stevenson, Government Printer, AdelaideGoogle Scholar
  3. Cocking EC (1985) Applications of protoplast technology. In: Pilet P (ed) The Physiological Properties of Plant Protoplasts. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 6–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Durand J, Potrykus I, Donn G (1973) Plantes issues de protoplastes de pétunia. Z Pflanzenphysiol 69:26 — 34Google Scholar
  5. Gebhardt C, Schnebli V, King P (1981) Isolation of biochemical mutants using haploid mesophyll protoplasts of Hyoscyamus muticus. II. Auxotrophic and temperature-sensitive clones. Planta 153: 81–89Google Scholar
  6. Hanold D (1983) In vitro transformation of protoplast-derived Hyoscyamus muticus cells by Agro-bacterium tumefaciens. Plant Sci Lett 30: 177–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hill A (1952) Economic botany. McGraw-Hill, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Jia J, Potrykus I, Lazar G, Saul M (1983) Hyoscyamus-Nicotiana fusion hybrids selected via auxotroph complementation and verified by species-specific DNA hybridisation. In: Potrykus I, Harms C, Hinnen A, Hatter R, King P, Shillito RA (eds) Protoplasts 1983, Poster Proc 6th Int Protoplast Symp Basel, Birkhäuser, pp 110–111Google Scholar
  9. Klapwijk P, Scheuldermann T, Schilperoort R (1978) Coordinated regulation of octopine degradation in Agrobacterium tumefaciens: evidence for a common regulatory gene and separate operons. J Bacteriol 136:775— 785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Linsmaier E, Skoog F (1965) Organic growth factor requirement of tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant 18: 100–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lörz H, Wernicke W, Potrykus I (1979) Culture and plant regeneration of Hyoscyamus protoplasts. Planta Med 36: 21–29PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Maniatis T, Fritsch E, Sambrook J (1982) Molecular cloning, a laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Marton L, Wullems G, Molendijk L, Schilperoort RA (1979) In vitro transformation of cultured cells from Nicotiana tabacum by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Nature 277: 129–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morley B (1970) Wild flowers of the world. Rainbird Reference Books, p 38Google Scholar
  15. Nester E, Kosuge T (1981) Plasmids specifying plant hyperplasias. Annu Rev Microbiol 35: 531–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Otten L, Schilperoort RA (1978) A rapid microscale method for the detection of lysopine and nopaline dehydrogenase activity. Biochem Biophys Acta 527: 497–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Potrykus I, Shillito R, Jia J, Lâzâr G (1982) Auxotroph complementation via protoplast fusion in Hyoscyamus muticus and Nicotiana tabacum. In: Lurquin P, Kleinhof A (eds) Genetic engineering in eucaryotes. Proc NATO Advanced Study Institute, Pullman 1982, Plenum, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Southern E (1975) Detection of specific sequences among DNA fragments separated by gel electrophoresis. J Mol Biol 98: 503–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Strauss A (1989) Hyoscyamus species: In vitro culture and the production of tropane alkaloids. In: Bajaj YPS (ed) Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry 7. Medicinal and aromatic plants II. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York Tokyo, pp 286–314Google Scholar
  20. Strauss A, Bucher F, King P (1981) Isolation of biochemical mutants using haploid mesophyll protoplasts of Hyoscyamus muticus. I. A nitrate non-utilising clone. Planta 153: 75–80Google Scholar
  21. Wernicke W, Thomas E (1980) Studies on morphogenesis from isolated plant protoplasts: shoot formation from mesophyll protoplasts of Hyoscyamus muticus and Nicotiana tabacum. Plant Sci Lett 17:401 — 407Google Scholar
  22. Wernicke W, Lörz H, Thomas E (1979) Plant regeneration from leaf protoplasts of haploid H. muticus L. produced via anther culture. Plant Sci Lett 15: 239–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wullems G, Schilperoort RA (1985) Plant protoplast transformation by Agrobacterium in relation to plant biotechnology. In: Fowke L, Constable F (eds) Plant Protoplasts, CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, pp 205–229Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Hanold
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant PathologyWaite Agricultural Research InstituteGlen OsmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations