Recombinant DNA Methodology II 1995
DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-765561-1.50017-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The bar Gene as Selectable and Screenable Marker in Plant Engineering

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
50
0
2

Year Published

1995
1995
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(55 citation statements)
references
References 28 publications
3
50
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The efficacy of PPT as a selection marker and bar as a resistance mechanism has resulted in bar being widely exploited in the construction and selection of transgenic plant lines. Similar to our observations, bar gene, which provides resistance to herbicide PPT, has been used successfully as a selectable marker in several plants [27] .…”
Section: The Impact Of Selection Agentsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The efficacy of PPT as a selection marker and bar as a resistance mechanism has resulted in bar being widely exploited in the construction and selection of transgenic plant lines. Similar to our observations, bar gene, which provides resistance to herbicide PPT, has been used successfully as a selectable marker in several plants [27] .…”
Section: The Impact Of Selection Agentsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The coding region of a synthetic bar gene (D'Halluin et al, 1992) was ampli®ed by PCR with the primers PPT 1 (5¢-GTC ATG AGT CCG GAG AGG AGA CCA) and PPT 5(5¢-GCA GGA TCC ATC ATA TCT GGG TAA CTG) and cloned into the Sma 1 site of pUC 18. After sequence veri®cation and determination of the correct orientation, the bar gene was isolated as a Sac I/Hind III fragment, gel-puri®ed (Hansen et al, 1993) and ligated into the Sac I/Hind III site of the vector pHB 234 (nos terminator in pUC 18).…”
Section: Cloning Of the Bar-constructsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In general, Agrobacteriummediated transformation is simpler, more efficient, and less expensive compared to other systems and also results in a low copy number of insertions. Sugar beet is highly susceptible in vitro to A. tumefaciens transformation (Krens et al, 1988;Lindsey and Gallois, 1990;D'Halluin et al, 1992b;Jacq et al, 1993;Zakharchenko et al, 2000) and susceptibility can be improved by preculturing explants before inoculation (Krens et al, 1996). Attempts have been made to develop transgenic sugar beet plants resistant to fungi; for example, a chitinase gene from pumpkin was transferred into sugar beet and suppression of disease symptoms caused by R. solani was detected in the transgenic plants (Hashimoto and Shimamoto, 2001;Gurel et al, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%