| Literature DB >> 25606433 |
Paromik Bhattacharyya1, Suman Kumaria1, Reemavareen Diengdoh1, Pramod Tandon1.
Abstract
An efficient genetically stable regeneration protocol with increased phytochemical production has been established for Dendrobium nobile, a highly prized orchid for its economic and medicinal importance. Protocorm like bodies (PLBs) were induced from the pseudostem segments using thidiazuron (TDZ; 1.5 mg/l), by-passing the conventional auxin-cytokinin complement approach for plant regeneration. Although, PLB induction was observed at higher concentrations of TDZ, plantlet regeneration from those PLBs was affected adversely. The best rooting (5.41 roots/shoot) was achieved in MS medium with 1.5 mg/l TDZ and 0.25% activated charcoal. Plantlets were successfully transferred to a greenhouse with a survival rate of 84.3%, exhibiting normal development. Genetic stability of the regenerated plants was investigated using randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and start codon targeted (SCoT) polymorphism markers which detected 97% of genetic fidelity among the regenerants. The PIC values of RAPD and SCoT primers were recorded to be 0.92 and 0.76 and their Rp values ranged between 3.66 and 10, and 4 and 12 respectively. The amplification products of the regenerated plants showed similar banding patterns to that of the mother plant thus demonstrating the homogeneity of the micropropagated plants. A comparative phytochemical analysis among the mother and the micropropagated plants showed a higher yield of secondary metabolites. The regeneration protocol developed in this study provides a basis for ex-situ germplasm conservation and also harnesses the various secondary metabolite compounds of medicinal importance present in D. nobile.Entities:
Keywords: Antioxidants; Genetic fidelity; In vitro propagation; RAPD; SCoT; Secondary metabolites
Year: 2014 PMID: 25606433 PMCID: PMC4287867 DOI: 10.1016/j.mgene.2014.06.003
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Meta Gene ISSN: 2214-5400
Fig. S1(A) Living stem parts of D. nobile. (B) Dried stems of D. nobile. (C) Smashed and grinded parts of D. nobile and chemical structures of bioactive compounds found from D. nobile extracts. (D) Dendrobine. (E) Moscatilin. (F) Gigantol. (G) Denbinobine. (H) Nobilin. (I) Dendrophenol.
Fig. 1Micropropagation of D. nobile from pseudostem segments: (A) mature plant in the greenhouse, (B) asymbiotic seed germination in MS medium, (C) protocorm development into plantlets in MS medium (bar = 1 cm), (D) pseudostem segments excised as explants with two leaves (bar = 1 cm), (E) initiation of shoot proliferation from pseudostem explants (bar = 1 cm), (F) PLBs induced from explants cultured in MS medium + 1.5 mg/l TDZ (bar = 1 cm), (G) multiple shoots originating from induced PLBs + 1.5 mg/L TDZ, (H) compact mass of PLBs formed when exposed to 3.0 and 3.5 mg/l TDZ, (I) differential responses of PLBs to concentrations of TDZ, (J) complete plantlet with roots after 8 weeks of culture, (K) completely rooted plantlets after 8 weeks of culture, and (L) greenhouse acclimatized plantlets.
Effect of TDZ incorporated in MS medium on PLB induction and subsequent organogenesis in the segments of pseudostem explants of D. nobile after 8 weeks of culture.
| Sl | TDZ treatment (mg/l) | Explant response (%) | No of PLBs/explant | PLB weight (g) | No of shoots differentiated/culture | Shoot length (cm) | Root length (cm) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | Control | – | – | – | – | – | – |
| 2. | 0.10 | 69.8 ± 0.63 h | 3.70 ± 0.48 | 0.26 ± 0.0078e | 2.6 ± 0.51d | 1.28 ± 0.032c | 1.29 ± 0.004c |
| 3. | 0.50 | 78.7 ± 0.78 g | 5.77 ± 0.49b | 0.80 ± 0.0094c | 3.5 ± 0.52c | 1.48 ± 0.022c | 1.24 ± 0.051c |
| 4. | 1.0 | 90.8 ± 0.73d | 7.50 ± 0.70a | 0.86 ± 0.0094c | 4.6 ± 0.51b | 1.78 ± 0.015b | 2.19 ± 0.166b |
| 5. | 1.5 | 94.1 ± 0.73c | 11.60 ± 0.69a | 1.16 ± 0.0699b | 5.9 ± 0.31 a | 1.95 ± 0.064a | 3.12 ± 0.078a |
| 6. | 2.0 | 64.8 ± 0.63a | 14.70 ± 0.48c | 1.32 ± 0.0195a | 3.9 ± 0.31 ab | 1.86 ± 0.047ab | 2.14 ± 0.051b |
| 7. | 2.5 | 59.9 ± 0.56b | 12.80 ± 0.34c | 0.75 ± 0.0122 cd | 3.2 ± 0.42d | 0.79 ± 0.076d | 1.21 ± 0.056 c |
| 8. | 3.0 | 28.3 ± 0.94e | 6.90 ± 0.56d | 0.67 ± 0.0084d | – | – | – |
| 9. | 3.5 | 21.5 ± 0.84f | 6.20 ± 0.42e | 0.29 ± 0.0147e | – | – | 0.27 ± 0.013 |
Values are the mean ± SD. Means followed by the same letter in the column are not significantly different as indicated by Fisher's LSD (p = 0.05).
Comparison of RAPD and SCoT markers, individually as well as collectively.
| SL | Name of the approach | No. of primer used | Total bands amplified | Avg. bands/primer | Total no. of poly-morphic bands | % of poly-morphism | Distance range (Jaccard's coefficient) | CC | DC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | RAPD | 7 | 27 | 3.85 | 3 | 11.11 | 0.92 | |||
| 2. | SCoT | 15 | 57 | 3.80 | 2 | 3.50 | 0.97–1.00 | 0.76 | 0.51 | 0.26 |
| 3. | RAPD + SCoT | 22 | 84 | 3.81 | 5 | 5.95 | 0.82 |
Polymorphic information content = PIC.
Correlation coefficient = CC.
Determination coefficient = DC.
Fig. 2Banding profiles in D. nobile using RAPD and SCoT primers. (A) OPA-13 and (B) S34 with lane L — 100 bp ladder; lane B — blank; lane M — mother plant, lanes C1–C10 — micropropagated plants. (C) Dendrogram illustrating coefficient similarities among regenerated plants and the mother plant by the UPGMA cluster analysis using the NTSYS-PC program.
Data of RAPD and SCoT primers used in the present study and the extent of polymorphism.
| Sl no. | Primer Name | Primer Sequence (5′–3′) | Total no. of bands | No. of mono-morphic bands | No. of poly morphic bands | % of poly-morphism ( | Resolving power ( |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | OPA-11 | CAATCGCCGT | 6 | 5 | 1 | 16.66 | 9 |
| 2. | OPA-12 | TCGGCGATAG | 4 | 3 | 1 | 25.00 | 7.33 |
| 3. | OPA-13 | CAGCACCCAC | 4 | 4 | – | – | 8 |
| 4. | OPB-1 | GTTTCGCTCC | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.00 | 3.66 |
| 5. | OPB-6 | TGCTCTGCCC | 4 | 4 | – | – | 8 |
| 6. | OPH-19 | CTGACCAGCC | 5 | 5 | – | – | 10 |
| 7. | OPK-4 | CCGCCCAAAC | 2 | 2 | – | – | 4 |
| 8. | S4 | CAACAATGGCTACCACCT | 2 | 2 | – | – | 4 |
| 9. | S5 | CAACAATGGCTACCACGA | 6 | 6 | – | – | 12 |
| 10. | S6 | CAACAATGGCTACCACGC | 5 | 5 | – | – | 10 |
| 11. | S7 | CAACAATGGCTACCACGG | 3 | 3 | – | – | 6 |
| 12. | S9 | CAACAATGGCTACCACGT | 4 | 4 | – | – | 8 |
| 13. | S10 | CAACAATGGCTACCAGCA | 4 | 4 | – | – | 8 |
| 14. | S11 | CAACAATGGCTACCAGCC | 4 | 4 | – | – | 8 |
| 15. | S12 | ACGACATGGCGACCAACG | 5 | 5 | – | – | 10 |
| 16. | S17 | ACCATGGCTACCACCGAG | 4 | 4 | – | – | 8 |
| 17. | S25 | ACCATGGCTACCACCGGG | 2 | 2 | – | – | 4 |
| 18. | S26 | ACCATGGCTACCACCGTC | 4 | 3 | 1 | 25.00 | 8 |
| 19. | S32 | CCATGGCTACCACCGCAC | 3 | 3 | – | – | 6 |
| 20. | S33 | CCATGGCTACCACCGCAG | 4 | 4 | – | – | 8 |
| 21. | S34 | ACCATGGCTACCACCGCA | 5 | 5 | – | – | 10 |
| 22. | S35 | CATGGCTACCACCCGCCC | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50.00 | 10 |
| Total | 84 | 79 | 5 | 5.95 | |||
Fig. 3Antioxidant activity of D. nobile within the mother and in vitro raised plants using methanol, chloroform and acetone as solvents. (A) DPPH activity. (B) FRAP activity.