Comparison of efficiency and time to regeneration of
A17
Cytokinin reporter
Medicago truncatula
R108
Root explants
Tissue culture regeneration
crn Mutant
Journal
Plant methods
ISSN: 1746-4811
Titre abrégé: Plant Methods
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101245798
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2019
2019
Historique:
received:
21
09
2018
accepted:
18
02
2019
entrez:
13
3
2019
pubmed:
13
3
2019
medline:
13
3
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Tissue culture transformation of plants has an element of art to it, with protocols passed on between labs but often not directly compared. As The While no A17 transgenic plants were obtained, transgenic plantlets from the R108 ecotype were produced in as little as 4 months with a comparison of the two widely studied ecotypes under a single set of conditions. While the protocols tested gave similar results in percentage of transformed plants produced, considerations of labor and time to transgenics that vary between the root explant protocols tested were discovered. These considerations may influence which protocol to choose for introducing a single transgene versus creating lines with multiple mutations utilizing a CRISPR/Cas9 construct.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Tissue culture transformation of plants has an element of art to it, with protocols passed on between labs but often not directly compared. As
RESULTS
RESULTS
The
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While no A17 transgenic plants were obtained, transgenic plantlets from the R108 ecotype were produced in as little as 4 months with a comparison of the two widely studied ecotypes under a single set of conditions. While the protocols tested gave similar results in percentage of transformed plants produced, considerations of labor and time to transgenics that vary between the root explant protocols tested were discovered. These considerations may influence which protocol to choose for introducing a single transgene versus creating lines with multiple mutations utilizing a CRISPR/Cas9 construct.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30858871
doi: 10.1186/s13007-019-0404-1
pii: 404
pmc: PMC6394069
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
20Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Plant J. 2000 Jun;22(6):531-41
pubmed: 10886773
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2001 Jun;14(6):695-700
pubmed: 11386364
Plant Cell Rep. 2003 Aug;22(1):46-51
pubmed: 12827434
J Exp Bot. 2004 May;55(399):983-92
pubmed: 15073217
Planta. 2006 May;223(6):1344-54
pubmed: 16575594
Plant Physiol. 1989 Oct;91(2):694-701
pubmed: 16667089
Methods Mol Biol. 2006;343:115-27
pubmed: 16988338
Plant J. 2008 Apr;54(2):335-47
pubmed: 18208518
Biotechnol J. 2008 Aug;3(8):1088-93
pubmed: 18618483
Plant Cell. 2011 Jul;23(7):2774-87
pubmed: 21742993
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Oct 18;108(42):E864-70
pubmed: 21949378
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2012 Jul;25(7):976-92
pubmed: 22414438
Plant Physiol. 2013 Mar;161(3):1066-75
pubmed: 23355633
Int J Dev Biol. 2013;57(6-8):577-86
pubmed: 24166440
Plant Cell Rep. 1996 Jan;15(5):305-10
pubmed: 24178347
Plant Cell Rep. 1995 Mar;14(6):349-53
pubmed: 24185331
Plant Cell Rep. 1995 Apr;14(7):450-4
pubmed: 24185455
Plant Cell Rep. 1994 Dec;14(2-3):81-6
pubmed: 24192870
Plant Cell Rep. 1991 May;10(1):12-6
pubmed: 24226156
Theor Appl Genet. 1988 Nov;76(5):767-74
pubmed: 24232356
Plant Cell Rep. 1989 May;8(5):278-81
pubmed: 24233225
BMC Plant Biol. 2014 May 06;14:122
pubmed: 24885873
Methods Mol Biol. 2015;1223:43-56
pubmed: 25300830
Plant J. 2014 Dec;80(6):1151-63
pubmed: 25329881
Appl Biochem Biotechnol. 2015 Feb;175(4):2266-87
pubmed: 25480345
Protoplasma. 2017 Mar;254(2):697-711
pubmed: 27180194
Plant J. 2016 Oct;88(1):108-119
pubmed: 27296908
Plant Cell. 2016 Jul;28(7):1510-20
pubmed: 27335450
Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1497:81-90
pubmed: 27864760
BMC Genomics. 2017 Aug 4;18(1):578
pubmed: 28778149
Plant Methods. 2017 Oct 27;13:89
pubmed: 29090013
Nature. 1986 Feb 27-Mar 5;319(6056):791-3
pubmed: 3005872
Plant Cell Rep. 1998 Mar;17(5):345-355
pubmed: 30736570