| Literature DB >> 26885503 |
Sharifah Nurashikin Wafa1, Rosna Mat Taha1, Sadegh Mohajer1, Noraini Mahmad1, Bakrudeen Ali Ahmed Abdul1.
Abstract
An efficient protocol for micropropagation of Canna indica L., an economically and pharmaceutically important plant, was standardized using rhizome explants, excised from two-month-old aseptic seedlings. Complete plant regeneration was induced on MS medium supplemented with 3.0 mg/L BAP plus 1.5 mg/L NAA, which produced the highest number of shoots (73.3 ± 0.5%) and roots (86.7 ± 0.4%) after 2 weeks. Furthermore, the optimum media for multiple shoots regeneration were recorded on MS enriched with 7.0 mg/L BAP (33.0 ± 0.5%). Plantlets obtained were transplanted to pots after two months and acclimatized in the greenhouse, with 75% survival. In addition, ultrastructural studies showed that rhizomes of in vitro grown specimens were underdeveloped compared to the in vivo specimens, possibly due to the presence of wide spaces. Meanwhile, the leaves of in vivo specimens had more open stomata compared to in vitro specimens, yet their paracytic stomata structures were similar. Hence, there were no abnormalities or major differences between in vitro regenerants and mother plants.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 26885503 PMCID: PMC4739482 DOI: 10.1155/2016/2820454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Figure 1Different stages of Canna indica L. plantlet development. (a) Complete plant regeneration after 1 month. (b) Vigorous plantlet growth after 2 months. (c) Subcultured plantlet in a larger container. (d) Acclimatized plantlet on garden soil.
The combined effects of hormones on new shoot and root formation of Canna indica L. after 8 weeks.
| MS + hormones (mg/L) | New shoot formation (%) | Number of shoots per explant | New root formation (%) | Number of roots per explant |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.5 BAP + 1.5 2,4-D | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| 1.5 BAP + 4.5 2,4-D | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| 3.0 BAP + 1.5 2,4-D | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| 3.0 BAP + 3.0 2,4-D | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| 3.0 BAP + 4.5 2,4-D | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| 1.5 BAP + 1.5 NAA | 10.0 ± 0.3a | 1 | 53.3 ± 0.5ab | 6 |
| 1.5 BAP + 3.0 NAA | 13.3 ± 0.4a | 1 | 60.0 ± 0.5ab | 7 |
| 1.5 BAP + 4.5 NAA | 23.3 ± 0.4ab | 1 | 73.3 ± 0.5bc | 8 |
| 3.0 BAP + 1.5 NAA | 73.3 ± 0.5c | 1 | 86.7 ± 0.4c | 10 |
| 3.0 BAP + 3.0 NAA | 40.0 ± 0.5b | 1 | 56.7 ± 0.5ab | 5 |
| 3.0 BAP + 4.5 NAA | 43.3 ± 0.5b | 1 | 66.7 ± 0.5abc | 6 |
| 1.5 KN + 1.5 NAA | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
| 1.5 KN + 3.0 NAA | 3.3 ± 0.2a | 1 | 43.3 ± 0.5a | 4 |
| 1.5 KN + 4.5 NAA | 0.0 | 0 | 0.0 | 0 |
Data represent mean ± standard error (SE) from 30 replicates per treatment. Means with different letters in the same column are significantly different at p = 0.05 according to Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT).
Effects of single hormone on shoots, multiple shoots, and root formation of Canna indica L. after 8 weeks.
| MS + hormone (mg/L) | Shoot formation (%) | Multiple shoots formation (%) | Number of shoots per explant | Root formation (%) | Number of roots per explant | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS (control) | 26.7 ± 0.5abc | 0.0 | 1 | 30.0 ± 0.5ab | 5 | |
|
| ||||||
| BAP | 0.5 | 46.7 ± 0.5bcde | 0.0 | 1 | 56.7 ± 0.5cde | 7 |
| 1.0 | 56.7 ± 0.5def | 3.0 ± 0.2a | 2 | 73.3 ± 0.5de | 9 | |
| 2.0 | 46.7 ± 0.5bcde | 3.0 ± 0.2a | 2 | 50.0 ± 0.5abcd | 7 | |
| 3.0 | 70.0 ± 0.5ef | 20.0 ± 0.4abcd | 3 | 56.7 ± 0.5cde | 8 | |
| 5.0 | 76.7 ± 0.4f | 30.0 ± 0.5cd | 4 | 53.3 ± 0.5bcde | 6 | |
| 7.0 | 70.0 ± 0.5ef | 33.0 ± 0.5d | 4 | 36.7 ± 0.5abc | 4 | |
| 9.0 | 53.3 ± 0.5cdef | 30.0 ± 0.5cd | 4 | 26.7 ± 0.5a | 3 | |
|
| ||||||
| KN | 0.5 | 46.7 ± 0.5bcde | 3.3 ± 0.2a | 2 | 60.0 ± 0.5cde | 8 |
| 1.0 | 43.3 ± 0.5abcde | 0.0 | 1 | 66.7 ± 0.5de | 9 | |
| 2.0 | 36.7 ± 0.5abcd | 6.7 ± 0.3a | 2 | 70.7 ± 0.4ef | 10 | |
| 3.0 | 33.3 ± 0.5abcd | 3.3 ± 0.2a | 2 | 66.7 ± 0.5de | 7 | |
| 5.0 | 56.7 ± 0.5def | 6.7 ± 0.3a | 2 | 73.3 ± 0.5de | 8 | |
| 9.0 | 56.7 ± 0.5def | 26.7 ± 0.5bcd | 3 | 70.0 ± 0.5de | 7 | |
|
| ||||||
| NAA | 0.5 | 26.7 ± 0.5abc | 0.0 | 1 | 100.0 ± 0.0f | 12 |
| 1.0 | 23.3 ± 0.4ab | 10.0 ± 0.3ab | 2 | 100.0 ± 0.0f | 13 | |
| 2.0 | 20.0 ± 0.4ab | 3.3 ± 0.2a | 2 | 100.0 ± 0.0f | 12 | |
| 3.0 | 16.7 ± 0.4a | 0.0 | 1 | 100.0 ± 0.0f | 14 | |
|
| ||||||
| TIBA | 0.5 | 70.0 ± 0.5ef | 13.3 ± 0.4abc | 2 | 50.0 ± 0.5abcd | 6 |
| 1.0 | 33.3 ± 0.5abcd | 3.3 ± 0.2a | 2 | 70.0 ± 0.5de | 10 | |
Data in percentage are mean ± standard error (SE) from 30 replicates per treatment. Means with different letters in the same column are significantly different at p = 0.05 according to Duncan's multiple range test (DMRT).
Figure 2Multiple shoot induction from Canna indica L. rhizome explants, in (a) 7.0 mg/L BAP; (b) 6.0 mg/L BAP; and (c) 5.0 mg/L BAP after 8 weeks.
Figure 3Ultrastructural comparison of Canna indica L. rhizome. The outer layer of in vivo rhizome (a) is smoother and well-formed compared to the in vitro rhizome (b). At 70x magnification, there are no conspicuous void spaces in the in vivo rhizome (c) while void spaces were visible in the in vitro rhizome (d).
Figure 4Surface view of stomata distribution of Canna indica L. leaves. More open stomata are detected on the in vivo leaves ((a) adaxial; (c) abaxial) compared to in vitro leaves ((b) adaxial; (d) abaxial).
Figure 5Ultrastructural comparison of stomata structure of Canna indica L. leaves. Stomata of in vivo (a) and in vitro (b) leaves are paracytic in structure and the pores of in vivo stomata (c) are larger in comparison with the stomata of in vitro leaves (d).