Somatic embryogenesis, plant regeneration and somaclonal variation in barley

Abstract

In vitro culture of immature embryo and young leaf tissues was carried out with five cultivars of barley, Hordeum vulgare. Two cultivars (Albacete and Porthos) responded poorly from both types of explants, while the three others (Dissa, Golden Promise and Ingrid) produced a high frequency of embryogenic callus from these explants (25-60%). For 'Dissa' and 'Ingrid', young leaf explants were slightly better than immature embryo explants for embryogenic callus induction, while immature embryo cultures of 'Golden Promise' responded better than young leaf explants. Thus, there appears to be a significant genotype × explant interaction in the initiation of embryogenic callus in barley.Some phenotypic variants were detected among the regenerated plants of 'Golden Promise' and 'Ingrid', most originating by epigenetic changes. Only in one case was the variant phenotype heritable, probably due to a mutation in the chloroplast DNA. Mitotic alterations were not detected. Consequently, somaclonal variation did not appear to be a very frequent event in plants regenerated from 1-to 6-month-old cultures of barley.

Callus induction and regeneration efficiency of spring barley cultivars registered in the Czech Republic

“…Yellowish and crumbly calluses originated on the medium with 2,4-D; creamy white to transparent, compact and soft calluses originated on the medium with dicamba. The same type of callus was also observed by Ruíz et al (1992), Bregitzer et al (1995) and Castlillo et al (1998).…”

“…However, in some cases phenotypic and cytological variants have been found among regenerated barley plants (Karp et al 1987). In barley differences in the production of embryogenic calluses and regenerated plants have been observed when cultures were initiated from leaf base/apical meristems, mature embryos (Ganeshan et al 2003), immature inflorescences (Thomas and Scott 1985) immature zygotic embryos (Lührs and Lörz 1987, Ruíz et al 1992, Chang et al 2003) and immature scutella (Tingay et al 1997). But immature zygotic embryos are currently the most reliable and efficient target tissue for in vitro regeneration of cereals, this has already been well documented in some reports by Dahleen and Bregitzer (2002) and Chang et al (2003).…”

Factors influencing somatic embryogenesis and regeneration ability in somatic tissue culture of spring and winter rye

“…In this study, interaction of genotype × explant played an important role in the somatic embryogenesis of rye. A similar interaction has been found in barley (Ruiz et al 1992). …”

An evaluation of a new approach to the regeneration of Helichrysum italicum (Roth) G. Don, and the molecular characterization of the variation among sets of differently derived regenerants

“…[50], Elaeis guineensis [51] Actinidia deliciosa [52], and Phoenix dactylifera [53]. In Arabidopsis, 66.7% of the analysed regenerated plants showed at least one polymorphism [4], while for barley, the literature data is controversial, since Ruiz et al [6] found that somaclonal variation did not appear to be a very frequent event, while Bednarek et al [54] reported that all the regenerated plants showed at least one polymorphism with respect to the control plant. By contrast, our research revealed a high rate of changes among the plantlets, since 97.4% of them scored at least one polymorphic band relative to the control plant, even though the regenerated H. italicum plantlets showed a high identity, sharing on average more than 99.3% of the AFLP fragments.…”

“…storage protein levels in cereals and legumes), analyzing genotypic variations requires more appropriate tools, particularly considering that such variations do not necessarily lead to phenotype variations of agricultural value. The use of molecular markers can accomplish this task, and indeed they have been widely employed for the identification of somaclonal variants [5], with greater precision and less effort than karyological and phenotypic analyses [6,7]. Several marker classes are employed, but each has some disadvantages.…”