1990
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-009-2103-0_19
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Do We Understand Somaclonal Variation?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
29
0
4

Year Published

1992
1992
2009
2009

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 65 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 52 publications
0
29
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The tendency of meristematic cells to maintain genetic homogeneity appears to be inherent in their developmental programme as unorganised growth of these cells in vitro results in a substantial increase in genetic variation (Bayliss 1980;D'Amato 1985; Lee and Phillips 1988). Some somaclonal variation has been attributed to specific genetic alterations that occur in tissue culture (Larkin and Scowcroft 1981; Lee and Phillips 1988;Phillips et al 1990;Brettell and Dennis 1991;Karp 1991).…”
Section: Somatic Cell Selectionmentioning
confidence: 96%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The tendency of meristematic cells to maintain genetic homogeneity appears to be inherent in their developmental programme as unorganised growth of these cells in vitro results in a substantial increase in genetic variation (Bayliss 1980;D'Amato 1985; Lee and Phillips 1988). Some somaclonal variation has been attributed to specific genetic alterations that occur in tissue culture (Larkin and Scowcroft 1981; Lee and Phillips 1988;Phillips et al 1990;Brettell and Dennis 1991;Karp 1991).…”
Section: Somatic Cell Selectionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…However, the pioneering work that defined the hormonal bases for the regulation of adventitious organogenesis (Skoog and Miller 1957) and embryogenesis (Reinert 1958a(Reinert , b 1959Steward et al 1958) and the recent application of these concepts to numerous crop species, including graminaceous crops (Vasil 1987;Gobel and Lorz 1988;Bhaskaran and Smith 1990;Potrykus 1990), has substantially enhanced the agricultural potential for exploitation of somaclonal variation. Since genetic characterisation of somatic cell variability is still rather incomplete (Lee and Phillips 1988;Phillips et al 1990;Karp 1991), it remains to be resolved whether it represents a unique potential source of variability for salt tolerance. Further, it is unclear how effectively this variability can be manipulated for agricultural utilisation.…”
Section: Somatic Cell Selectionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In comparison, plant regeneration produced by culturing tissue sections lacking a preformed meristem (adventitious origin) (reviewed by Phillips et al, 1990;Phillips et al, 1994;Karp, 1995) or derived from callus and cell cultures (de novo origin) (Damasco et al, 1996) is more susceptible to somaclonal variation. In the case of sugarcane, shoot tip culturing induces considerable phenotypic variability (Burner and Grisham, 1995).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relationship between late-replicating DNA in constitutive heterochromatin and the vulnerability of such regions on breakage has been described in tissue cultures of several species (SINGH 1993). According to one hypothetical mechanism, changes in DNA methylation could affect the structure of the chromatin and could result in deviations in the timing of replication of latereplicating DNA in heterochromatic regions (PHILLIPS et al 1990). It's possible that some of the mechanisms involved in the origin of variations in the chromosome structure induced by tissue culture might not necessarily be limited to the environment in vitro.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%