Gamma radiosensitivity study on wheat (Triticum turgidum ssp. durum)

Abstract

Fifty wheat seed variety (var.) CIRNO C2008 were gamma irradiated with 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, or 600 Gy by using a Cobalt-60 source at 907.39 Gy/h, and the nonirradiated seeds were considered the control (M0). A photoperiod of 13 h of darkness (14°C) and 11 h of light (2 h at 18°C, 7 h at 25°C, and 2 h at 18°C) was used for 30 days, in a growth chamber (BJPX-A450; BIOBASE) for quantifying the morphometric traits of the irradiated vs nonirradiated seeds. The germination percentage (from 88.89% in M0 to 77.78% in 600 Gy) did not show significant differences among treatments; while the survival percentage (from 100% in M0 to 6.66% in 600 Gy) and plant height (from 19.21 cm in M0 to 1.16 cm in 600 Gy) showed negative significant (p < 0.05) difference among nonirradiated seeds (M0) and the rest of the treatments. Finally, based on the survival percentage, the calculated lethal dose was 290.6 Gy, which will allow obtaining promising wheat mutants. Gamma irradiation is a promising alternative to obtain a greater wheat variability for advanced mutant lines.

Genotype-mutagenic interaction in the cytogenetic variability of winter wheat for a new ecogenetic factor

“…We can also agree with previous studies of this mutagen in other cereal crops, primarily in terms of depressive effects in the first generation and induction of mutations, that, in general, the concentrations proposed for practical use are sufficiently contrasting to obtain a wide variety in the largest possible group of genotypes (Zhao et al, 2019;Ahumada-Flores et al, 2020). Other effects are possible, but primarily in groups that are of more limited interest -with the presence of significant translocations from wild relatives, perhaps some specific local forms and landraces (Pekol et al, 2016).…”

“…However, as can be seen from the response of some variants, this may narrow the possibilities for the emergence of promising forms in the future for some less variable initial subjects (Nazarenko, 2020). Thus, the position on expansion of the used gradations of the mutagenic factor remains unchanged, since even in this study there are at least two of these forms out of eight, in fact, a quarter of the sample, which is very significant (Ahumada-Flores et al, 2020;Von Well et al, 2022).…”

“…Quite often, this requires the use of factor values that would be far beyond the limits of what is possible in the environment, even at high degrees of pollution (Balkan et al, 2019). Proceeding from this, it should be noted that although rarer types of chromosomal aberrations can serve as an indicator of an increase in concentrations to a certain extent (until the mitotic activity of cells as a whole is critically suppressed), they still do not reflect the specifics of the genotype in cytogenetic studies, and even more so, its interaction with a specific chemical agent (Ahumada-Flores et al, 2020;Shabani et al, 2022).…”

“…The data obtained may indicate not only the magnitude of the pollution itself, but also its nature, causes, and features of the consequences (Navid, 2021). The methods developed on the basis of testing chromosomal changes are appropriately standardized and internationally recognized (Ahumada-Flores et al, 2020).…”

Cytogenetic and Biochemical Responses of Wheat Seeds to Proton Irradiation at the Bragg Peak

“…We mention that the radiosensitivity of wheat studied by Ahumada-Flores et al [ 39 ] indicated that gamma ray irradiation at doses lower than 100 Gy causes positive morphological changes in its growth, while higher doses (300, 400, 500 and 600 Gy) negatively affect plant growth and survival due to deleterious effects that reduce plant genome stability, such as chromosomal damages. Im et al [ 35 ] found that low-dose proton beam irradiation did not affect the height of soybean plants compared to high doses of 100–300 Gy.…”