Advertisement

Regeneration of Plants from Protoplast of Cultivated Strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa) and Wild Strawberry (Fragaria vesca)

  • M. Nyman
  • P. Wallin
Part of the Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry book series (AGRICULTURE, volume 23)

Abstract

At least 14 species from 4 different ploidy groups are currently recognized in the strawberry genus Fragaria: eight diploids, two tetraploids, one hexaploid, and three octaploid species (Table 1). The most widely planted strawberry, F. x ananassa Duch. (2n = 8 x = 56), is actually not a species, but a man-made hybrid between two native American strawberries: F. chiloensis Duch. (2n = 8 x =56) and F. virginiana Duch. (2n = 8 x = 56). These two species were introduced to Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and were later, by chance, intercrossed. Much of the improvement in cultivar performance is, however, a result of breeding over the past 50 years and it is within this period that strawberries attained extensive popularity throughout the world (Scott and Lawrence 1975; Shaw 1990). The cultivated strawberry (F. x. ananassa Duch.) is a vegetatively propagated, highly heterozygous crop which displays a wide variation in adaptation to environmental conditions. It is grown all over the arable world and the world production in 1989 was very close to 2000000 metric tons (Hancock et al. 1991). Fragaria vesca L. and F. moschata Duch. are also grown commercially,
Table 1

Wild strawberry species of the world and their geographical distribution

but on a much smaller scale, Fragaria vesca L. is grown in Europe and North America and F. moschata Duch, is found primarily in Europe. The high ploidly level and strong heterozygosity are characters that impose difficulties when this species is bred according to conventional strategies (Nehra et al. 1990b).

Keywords

Protoplast Isolation Strawberry Plant Direct Gene Transfer Wild Strawberry Fragaria Vesca 
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. Bajaj YPS (ed) (1990) Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry 11. Somaclonal variation in crop improvement 1. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Banks MS, Evans PK (1976) A comparison of the isolation and culture of mesophyll protoplasts from several Nicotiana species and their hybrids. Plant Sci Lett. 7:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Binding H, Nehls R, Kock R, Finger J, Mordhorst G (1981) Comparative studies of protoplast regeneration in herbaceous species of Dictotyledoneae class. Z Pflanzenphysiol 101:119–130Google Scholar
  4. Chen WH, Davey MR, Power JB, Cocking EC (1988) Sugarcane protoplasts: factors affecting division and plant regeneration. Plant Cell Rep 7:344–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Evans WD (1982a) Guelph SOI synthetic octoploid strawberry breeding clone. Hort Science 17(5): 833–834Google Scholar
  6. Evans WD (1982b) Guelph S02 synthetic octoploid strawberry breeding clone. Hort Science 17(5): 834Google Scholar
  7. Fahleson J, Dixelius J, Sundberg E, Glimelius K (1988) Correlation between flow cytometric determination of nuclear DNA content and chromosome number in somatic hybrids within Brassicaceae. Plant Cell Rep. 7:74–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Glimelius K, Djupsjobacka M, Fellner-Feldegg H (1986) Selection and enrichment of plant protoplast heterokaryons of Brassicaceae by flow sorting. Plant Sci 45:133–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hancock JF, Maas JL, Shanks CH, Breen PJ, Luby JJ (1991) Strawberries (Fragaria). In: Moore JN, Ballington Jr JR (eds) Genetic resources of temperate fruit and nut crops. Int Soc for Hortic Sci, Wageningen, pp 491–546Google Scholar
  10. Horsch RB, Fry JE, Hoffmann NL, Eichholtz D, Fraley RT (1985) A simple and general method for transferring genes into plants. Science 227:1229–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. James DJ, Passey A J, Barbara DJ (1990) Agrobacterium-mQdmted transformation of the cultivated strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) using disarmed binary vectors. Plant Sci 69:79–94Google Scholar
  12. Jefferson RA, Kavanagh TA, Michael WB (1987) GUS fusions: β-glucuronidase as a sensitive and versatile gene fusion marker in higher plants. EMBO J 6:3901–3907Google Scholar
  13. Jungnickel F (1988) Strawberries (Fragaria spp. and hybrids). In: Bajaj YPS (ed) Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry 6. Crops II. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 38–103Google Scholar
  14. Kerns HR, Meyer MM Jr (1986) Tissue culture propagation of Acer x freemanii using thidiazuron to stimulate shoot tip proliferation. Hort Science 21(5): 1209–1210Google Scholar
  15. Lindsey K, Jones MGK (1989) Consequenses of tissue culture-variability and instability. In: Lindsey K, Jones MGK (eds) Plant biotechnology in agriculture. Open University Press, Milton Keynes, pp 78–93Google Scholar
  16. Menzel L, Nagy F, Kizz ZsR, Maliga P (1981) Streptomycin resistant and sensitive somatic hybrids of Nicotiana tabacum + Nicotiana knightiona: correlation of resistance to N. tabacum plastids. Theor Appl Genet 59:191–195Google Scholar
  17. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant 15:473–497Google Scholar
  18. Nehra SN, Chibbar RN, Kartha KK, Datla RSS, Crosby WL, Stushnoff C (1990a) Agrobacteriummediated transformation of strawberry calli and recovery of transgenic plants. Plant Cell Rep 9:10–13Google Scholar
  19. Nehra SN, Chibbar RN, Kartha KK, Datla RSS, Crosby WL, Stushnoff C (1990b) Genetic transformation of strawberry by Agrobacterium tumefaciens using a leaf disk regeneration system. Plant Cell Rep 9:293–298Google Scholar
  20. Nieuwkerk JP van, Zimmerman RH, Fordham I (1986) Thidiazuron stimulation of apple shoot proliferation in vitro. Hort Science 21(3): 516–518Google Scholar
  21. Nyman M, Wallin A (1988) Plant regeneration from strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa) mesophyll protoplasts. J Plant Physiol 133:375–377Google Scholar
  22. Nyman M, Wallin A (1991a) Transient gene expression in strawberry protoplasts and the recovery of transgenic plants. Plant Cell Rep 11:105–108Google Scholar
  23. Nyman M, Wallin A (1991b) Improved culture technique for strawberry (Fragaria x ananassa Duch.) protoplasts and the determination of DNA content in protoplast derived plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 30:127–133Google Scholar
  24. Paszkowski J, Saul MW, Potrykus I (1989) Plant gene vectors and genetic transformation: DNA-mediated direct gene transfer to plants. In: Schell J, Vasil IK (eds) Cell culture and somatic cell genetics of plants, Vol 6. Academic Press, San Diego, pp 52–68Google Scholar
  25. Puonti-Kaerlas J, Eriksson T (1988) Improved protoplast culture and regeneration of shoots in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Cell Rep 7:242–245Google Scholar
  26. Scott DH, Lawrence FJ (1975) Strawberries. In: Janick J, Moore JN (eds) Advances in fruit breeding. Purdue Univ Press, West Lafayette, IN, pp 71–97Google Scholar
  27. Shaw DV (1990) Strawberries in America: introduction to the symposium Hort Science 25(8): 868Google Scholar
  28. Shillito RD, Paszkowski J, Potrykus I (1983) Agarose plating and bead type culture technique enable and stimulate development of protoplast-derived colonies in a number of plant species. Plant Cell Rep 2:244–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Simon I, Racz E, Zatyko JM (1987) Preliminary notes on somaclonal variation of strawberry. Fruit Sci Rep (Skierniewice) 14 (4): 154–155Google Scholar
  30. Trajkovski V (1978) Annelie — den forsta “smulgubben” frin Balsgard. Tidskr Frukt Barodl 20 (18): 23–24Google Scholar
  31. Trajkovski K (1988) Sara, en ny “Smulgubbe” fran Balsgard. Tidskr Frukt Barodl 4:73–74Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Nyman
  • P. Wallin
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Physiological BotanyUniversity of UppsalaUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations