| Literature DB >> 25931983 |
Akira Kikuchi1, Huu Duc Huynh1, Tsukasa Endo1, Kazuo Watanabe1.
Abstract
Global warming has become a major issue within the last decade. Traditional breeding programs for potato have focused on increasing productivity and quality and disease resistance, thus, modern cultivars have limited tolerance of abiotic stresses. The introgression of abiotic stress tolerance into modern cultivars is essential work for the future. Recently, many studies have investigated abiotic stress using transgenic techniques. This manuscript focuses on the study of abiotic stress, in particular drought, salinity and low temperature, during this century. Dividing studies into these three stress categories for this review was difficult. Thus, based on the study title and the transgene property, transgenic studies were classified into five categories in this review; oxidative scavengers, transcriptional factors, and above three abiotic categories. The review focuses on studies that investigate confer of stress tolerance and the identification of responsible factors, including wild relatives. From a practical application perspective, further evaluation of transgenic potato with abiotic stress tolerance is required. Although potato plants, including wild species, have a large potential for abiotic stress tolerance, exploration of the factors responsible for conferring this tolerance is still developing. Molecular breeding, including genetic engineering and conventional breeding using DNA markers, is expected to develop in the future.Entities:
Keywords: drought; gene engineering technique; low temperature; potato (Solanum tuberosum L.); salinity
Year: 2015 PMID: 25931983 PMCID: PMC4374567 DOI: 10.1270/jsbbs.65.85
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breed Sci ISSN: 1344-7610 Impact factor: 2.086
Details of recent transgenic potato studies on abiotic stress referred to in this manuscript
| Host cultivar | Transgene | Origin | Promoter | Treatment | Plant type | Evaluation | Reference | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Drought | Desiree | Potato | DA | PG | PC | |||
| Jowon | WW | PG | Sur | |||||
| White Lady | Yeast | Nor | PG | Tr | ||||
| Gannongshu2 | Spinach | 0.5 M Na/15% PEG | Inv | G | ||||
| Superior | Rhizobacterium | 5 μM MV+0.4% Sol/WW/0.15 M Na | SC/PG/SC | G/G/G | ||||
| Albatros | Rhizobacterium | WD/0.1 M Na | PG | G | ||||
| Desiree | Potato | 0.5 M Sol or 0.32 M Na | Inv (callus) | G | ||||
| Superior | Rhizobacterium | 20% PEG | SC | MDA | ||||
| Desiree | Globe artichoke | WD | SC | TP | ||||
| White Lady | Yeast | WD | PG | Tr | ||||
| White Lady | Yeast | WW | SC | RWC/CF | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| Salinity | Jubilei Zhukova | Barley | 0~0.25 M Na | Inv | G | |||
| Gannong2 | 0~9 g/L Na | PG | Sur, Y | |||||
| Nicola | 0~0.18 M Na | Inv | Y | |||||
| Daejima | Oyster mushroom | 2 M Na | SC | Sur | ||||
| Marfona | 0~0.15 M Na | H | G | |||||
|
| ||||||||
| Low temperature | Russet Burbank | Synthetic | −2.5°C | PG | IL | |||
| Desnitsa | Cyanobacterium | −7°C/8°C | Inv | IL/Sur,VD | ||||
| Desnitsa | Cyanobacterium | −9°C | Inv | IL, MDA | ||||
| Desiree | Wild potato | −7~0°C | SC | IL | ||||
| Desiree | Yeast | −9°C | Inv | MDA | ||||
| Desnitsa | Cyanobacterium | −7°C | Inv | MDA | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| Oxidative Scavenger | Taedong Valley | Strowberry | 10 μM MV/0.1 M Na/0.02 M Zn | Inv | Y | |||
| Atlantic | Cassava, Pea, | 0~400 μM MV/42°C | SC | D | ||||
| Atlantic | 0~300 μM MV/42°C | SC | VD/CF | |||||
| Atlantic | Cassava/Pea | 0~250 μM MV/42°C | SC | VD/RWC | ||||
| Atlantic | 0~250 μM MV/42°C/0.08 M Na | PG | VD/RWC/G | |||||
| Desiree | Wheat/Barley/Canola/Bromegrass | 44°C/WD/10°C, N | PG, F | G, Yield | ||||
| Superior | Cassava, Pea, Rhizobacterium | 10 μM MV/0.2 M Na/WW | SC | IL/G/G | ||||
| Kufri Sutlej | Himalayan cinquefoil | WW | SC | PR | ||||
| Taedong Valley | Strowberry | 0.2 M Na | Inv | G | ||||
| Taedong Valley | Strowberry | 0~0.5 M Na | PG | CF | ||||
| Taedong Valley | Potato | Nor | PG | Y | ||||
| Atlantic | 3 μM MV/200 μM Cd, WW | SC/Inv, SC | IL/G,VD | |||||
| Atlantic | 3 μM MV/0.05 M Na/5% PEG | Inv | IL/G/G | |||||
| Taedong Valley | Potato | 0.2 M Na/0.02 M Zn/0.20 M Man | PG | VD | ||||
| Taedong Valley | Strowberry | 0~0.2 M Na | Inv | G | ||||
| Taedong Valley | Rat | 0.1 M Na | Inv | G | ||||
|
| ||||||||
| Transcriptional factor | Umatilla | −7~0°C | SC | IL | ||||
| Superior | Potato | 0.075 M Na/8~10°C | Inv | G/Y | ||||
| Atlantic | Pepper | −9~0°C/45°C/0.4 M/0.075M MV | Inv | IL/Sur/Sur/CF | ||||
| Superior | Potato | WW | SC | VD/G/Sur | ||||
| LongShu3 | Sweetpotato | 0.4 M Na/WW | SC | VD | ||||
| Umatilla | −16~0°C | SC | IL | |||||
| Cardinal | Wild potato | PEG | Inv | G/Sur | ||||
| Desiree | 1M Na | Inv | VD | |||||
| Desiree | 2M Na | SC | VD | |||||
| Desiree | −20°C | Inv | Sur | |||||
| Desiree | PEG | Inv | VD | |||||
| Belle de Fontenay | Potato | 0.1M Na/WW | PG | G | ||||
| Desiree | WW/−6°C | SC | RWC/Sur | |||||
| Spunta | Potato | 0.2 M Na | Inv | G | ||||
| Umatilla/ | Nor | SC | Tr | |||||
Plant performance, such as yield or survival rate, and evaluation in near natural conditions are weighed heavily in this list.
Treatment abbreviations are as follows: Cd: CdCl2, DA: Dry air, Man: Mannitol, MV: Methyl viologen, Nor: Normal conditions, Na: NaCl, PEG: Polyethylene glycol, Sol: Solbitol, WD: Water deficient, WW: Water withheld, Zn: ZnCl2.
Plant type abbreviations are as follows: F: Field plant, H: Plant in hydroponic culture, Inv: in vitro plant, PG: Potted plant in greenhouse or outside, SC: Plant in soil in controlled conditions.
Evaluation abbreviations are as follows: CF: Chlorophyll fluorescence, G: Growth, IL: Ion leakage, MDA: Malondialdehyde content, PC: Proline content, PR: Photosynthetic rate, RWC: Relative water content, Sur: Survival rate, TP: Turgor potential, Tr: Transcriptome, VD: Visible damage, Y: Yield.
Fig. 1Seedling growth under drought conditions. Seeds were placed on 1/2 MS solid medium, and cultured at 25°C for 35 days (16L/8D). C indicates control conditions; D indicates drought stress conditions with 4% mannitol. All control plants grew well in control conditions, while their growth was inhibited under drought conditions. Three seeds did not germinate under drought conditions. All plants of the wild species germinated in both conditions, but wild plants grew slower than control plants. However, wild seedlings exhibited better growth under drought conditions than control seedlings.