Androgenic ability and plant regeneration potential in some tomato varieties

Adriana BADULESCU; Anamaria M. DUMITRU; Andreea E. MANOLESCU; Dorin I. SUMEDREA; Carmen F. POPESCU

doi:10.15835/nbha50112413

Authors

Adriana BADULESCU National Research and Development Institute for Biotechnology in Horticulture Stefanesti, Calea Bucuresti, Pitesti, 37 Stefanesti, Arges, Romania (RO)
Anamaria M. DUMITRU National Research and Development Institute for Biotechnology in Horticulture Stefanesti, Calea Bucuresti, Pitesti, 37 Stefanesti, Arges, Romania (RO)
Andreea E. MANOLESCU National Research and Development Institute for Biotechnology in Horticulture Stefanesti, Calea Bucuresti, Pitesti, 37 Stefanesti, Arges, Romania (RO)
Dorin I. SUMEDREA National Research and Development Institute for Biotechnology in Horticulture Stefanesti, Calea Bucuresti, Pitesti, 37 Stefanesti, Arges, Romania (RO)
Carmen F. POPESCU National Research and Development Institute for Biotechnology in Horticulture Stefanesti, Calea Bucuresti, Pitesti, 37 Stefanesti, Arges, Romania (RO)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha50112413

Keywords:

androgenic induction, molecular markers, phenotypic traits, tissue culture, variability

Abstract

Aiming to evaluate the in vitro regeneration potential, five varieties of tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) were studied for their response in anther culture. Anther explants at an early stage of microspore development were inoculated onto 3 culture media. The first differentiation processes were recorded during the first three weeks of culture, in darkness. The statistical analysis of the data recorded during the anther culture showed significant differences between genotypes regarding their specific response to culture conditions and the significant influence of the initiation medium composition in triggering the differentiation processes. Under the tested conditions were induced: the embryogenic potential in 3 genotypes (ʻȘtefănești 22ʼ, ʻCostate 21ʼ and ʻChihlimbarʼ) and the indirect organogenesis in 2 genotypes (ʻArgeș 20ʼ and ʻCostate 21ʼ). Morphological characteristics of anther-derived plants from ʻArgeș 20ʼ variety, grown in greenhouse conditions (growth rate, features of leaf, flower and fruit), as well as analyses with nine SSR markers (banding patterns, the coefficient of genetic similarity and the polymorphism information content) in DNA samples from each regenerant and the donor variety, provided clear evidence of the occurrence of spontaneous genetic variation during in vitro anther culture, and of the existence of somaclonal variation in regenerated plants. The amplified products obtained with SSR primers revealed a total number of scorable bands of 160 and a mean percentage of polymorphic bands of 21.09 %. Two out the nine tested primers, SSR63 and SLM6-7 proved to be efficient in detecting genetic differences not only among regenerants, but also between them and the donor genotype.

References

Aguirre NC, López W, Orozco-Cárdenas M, Coronado YM, Vallejo-Cabrera F (2017). Use of microsatellites for evaluation of genetic diversity in cherry tomato. Plant Breeding Bragantia 76(2). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4499.116

Ahmar S, Gill RA, Jung KH, Faheem A, Qasim MU, Mubeen M, Zhou W (2020). Conventional and molecular techniques from simple breeding to speed breeding in crop plants: recent advances and future outlook. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 21(7):2590 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms21072590

Ahmed I, Islam M, Arshad W, Mannan A, Ahmad W, Mirza B (2009). High-quality plant DNA extraction for PCR: an easy approach. Journal of Applied Genetics 50(2):105-107. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03195661

Al-Shammari AMA, Hamdi GJ (2021). Genetic diversity analysis and DNA fingerprinting of tomato breeding lines using SSR markers. Journal of Agricultural Science XXXII:1-7. https://doi.org/10.15159/jas.21.13

Anderson JA, Churchill GA, Autrique JE, Tanksley SD, Sorrells ME (1993). Optimizing parental selection for genetic linkage maps. Genome 36(1):181-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/g93-024

Bădulescu A, Popescu CF, Dumitru AM, Sumedrea DI (2020). New varieties of tomato - morphological aspects and molecular characterization with RAPD and SSR markers. Notulae Scientia Biologicae 12(4):818-828. https://doi.org/10.15835/nsb12410841

Bairu MW, Aremu AO, Van Staden J (2011). Somaclonal variation in plants: causes and detection methods. Plant Growth Regulation 63:147-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10725-010-9554-x

Brew-Appiah RAT, Ankrah N, Liu W, Konzak CF, von Wettstein D, Rustgi A (2013). Generation of doubled haploid transgenic wheat lines by microspore transformation. PLoS One 8(11):e80155.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080155

Cao Z, Deng Z (2020). Morphological, cytological and molecular marker analyses of ‘Tapestry’ caladium variants reveal diverse genetic changes and enable association of leaf coloration pattern loci with molecular markers. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 143:363-375. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-020-01922-2

Cebolla-Cornejo J, Roselló S, Nuez F (2013). Phenotypic and genetic diversity of Spanish tomato landraces. Scientia Horticulturae 162:150-164.

Corral-Martínez P, Nuez F, Seguí-Simarro JM (2011). Genetic quantitative and microscopic evidence for fusion of haploid nuclei and growth of somatic calli in cultured ms10 35 tomato anthers. Euphytica 178:215-228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-010-0303-z

Dice LR (1945). Measures of the amount of ecologic association between species. Ecology 26:297-302.

Diklesh K, Neeraj S, Vikrant KS, Dhananjay S, Girish C (2016). Assessment of genetic variation in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) genotypes using SSR molecular markers. Ecology, Environment and Conservation 22:S317-S325. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1673-8527(08)60054-5

Dunwell JM (1986). Pollen, ovule, and embryo culture as tools in plant breeding. In: Withers LA, Alderson PG (Eds). Plant Tissue Culture and its Agricultural Applications. Butterworths, London, pp 374-404.

Fentik DA (2017). Review on genetics and breeding of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Advances in Crop Science and Technology 5(5):1000306. Https://doi.org/10.4172/2329-8863.1000306

Gheorghe RN, Popescu CF, Pamfil D, Ciocirlan CN, Sestras R (2010). Genetic diversity of some Romanian grapevine cultivars as revealed by microsatellite markers. Romanian Biotechnological Letters 15(2):26-31. https://e-repository.org/rbl/vol.15/iss.2.s/5.pdf

Gulshan Y, Varghese TM, Sharma DR (1981). Studies on anther cultures of tomato Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. Biologia Plantarum 23(6):414-420.

Guo Y, Mizukami Y, Yamada T (2005). Genetic characterization of androgenic progeny derived from Lolium perenne x Festuca pratensis cultivars. New Phytologist 166:455-464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01345.x

Julião SA, Carvalho CR, Ribeiro da Silva TC, Koehler AD (2015). Multiploidy occurrence in tomato calli from anther culture. African Journal of Biotechnology 14(40):2846-2855.

Kozik EU, Nowak R, Klosinka U, Gorecka K, Krzyzanowska D, Gorecki R (2002). Morphological diversity of androgenic carrot plants. Journal of Applied Genetics 43(1):49-53.

Krishna H, Alizadeh M, Singh SK, Singh U, Chauhan N, Eftekhari M, Sadh RK (2016). Somaclonal variations and their applications in horticultural crops improvement. 3 Biotech 6:54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0389-7

Larkin P, Scowcroft W (1981). Somaclonal variation - a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 60:197-214. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02342540

Méndez-Hernández HA, Ledezma-Rodríguez M, Avilez-Montalvo RN, Juárez-Gómez YL, Skeete A, Avilez-Montalvo J, … Loyola-Vargas VM (2019). Signaling overview of plant somatic embryogenesis. Frontiers in Plant Science 10:77. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00077

Murashige T, Skoog F (1962). A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiologia Plantarum 15:473-497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.13993054.1962.tb08052.x

Murovec J, Bohanec B (2012). Haploids and Doubled Haploids. In: Plant Breeding. Abdurakhmonov I (Ed). InTech, pp 87-106.

Prihatna C, Chen R, Barbetti MJ, Barker SJ (2019). Optimization of regeneration parameters improves transformation efficiency of recalcitrant tomato. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 137(3):473-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-019-01583-w

Saeed W, Naseem S, Gohar D, Ali Z (2019). Efficient and reproducible somatic embryogenesis and micropropagation in tomato via novel structures - Rhizoid tubers. PLoS One 14(5):e0215929. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215929

Sánchez MA, Coronado YM, Coronado ACM (2020). Androgenic studies in the production of haploids and doubled haploids in Capsicum spp. Revista Facultad Nacional de Agronomía Medellín 73 (1). https://doi.org/10.15446/rfnam.v73n1.76044

Saravanan KR, Rajaram R, Renganathan P (2014). Studies on genetic diversity using SSR marker associated traits in tomato genotypes (Lycopersicum esculentum L.). European Journal of Biotechnology and Bioscience 1(5):26-29.

Seguí-Simarro JM (2010). Androgenesis revisited. The Botanical Review 76:377-404.

Seguí-Simarro JM, Corral-Martínez P, Parra-Vega V, González-Garcıa B (2011). Androgenesis in recalcitrant solanaceous crops. Plant Cell Reports 30:765-778. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-010-0984-8

Seguí-Simarro JM, Nuez F (2007). Embryogenesis induction, callogenesis, and plant regeneration by in vitro culture of tomato isolated microspores and whole anthers. Journal of Experimental Botany 58(5):1119-1132. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl271

Shirasawa K, Isobe S, Tabata S, Hirakawa H (2014). Kazusa Marker DataBase: a database for genomics, genetics, and molecular breeding in plants. Breeding Science 64:264.271. https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.64.264

Summers WL, Jaramillo J, Bailey T (1992). Microspore developmental stage and anther length Influence the induction of tomato anther callus. HortScience 27(7):838-840.

Titeli VS, Zafeiriou I, Laskaridou A, Menexes G, Madesis P, Stavridou E, Nianiou-Obeidat I (2021). Development of a simple and low-resource regeneration system of two Greek tomato varieties. Agriculture 11:412. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11050412

Tradeu De Faria R, Destro D, Filho JCB, Illg RD (2002). Introgression of in vitro regeneration capability of Lycopersicon pimpinellifolium Mill. into recalcitrant tomato cultivars. Euphytica 124:59-63 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015693902836

Vieira M L, Santini L, Diniz A L, Munhoz C (2016). Microsatellite markers: what they mean and why they are so useful. Genetics and Molecular Biology 39(3):312-328. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-4685-GMB-2016-0027

Xu J, Liu L, Xu Y, Chen C, Rong T, Ali F, … Lu Y (2013). Development and characterization of simple sequence repeat markers providing genome-wide coverage and high resolution in maize. DNA Research 20:497-509. https://doi.org/10.1093/dnares/dst026

Zagorska NA, Shtereva LA, Kruleva MM, Sotira VG, Baralieva DL, Dimitrov BD (2004). Induced androgenesis in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). III. Characterization of the regenerants. Plant Cell Reports 22:449-456. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-003-0720-8

Zamir D, Jones RA, Kedar N (1980). Anther culture of male sterile tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) mutants. Plant Science Letters 17:353-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-4211(80)90168-6

Zhang L, Yuan D, Yu S, Li Z, Cao Y, Miao Z, Qian H, Tang K (2004). Preference of simple sequence repeats in coding and non-coding regions of Arabidopsis thaliana. Bioinformatics 20:1081-1086. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth043

Zhao He, Wang X X, Du Yong C, Zhu De-W, Guo Y, Gao JC, ... Snyder JC (2014). Haploid induction via in vitro gynogenesis in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.). Journal of Integrative Agriculture 13(10):2122-2131.