| Literature DB >> 28401464 |
Pravej Alam1,2, Zainul Abdeen Khan3, Malik Zainul Abdin4, Jawaid A Khan3, Parvaiz Ahmad5,6, Shereen F Elkholy7,8, Mahmoud A Sharaf-Eldin7,9.
Abstract
Catharanthus roseus is an important medicinal plant known for its pharmacological qualities such as antimicrobial, anticancerous, antifeedant, antisterility, antidiabetic activities. More than 130 bioactive compounds like vinblastine, vindoline and vincristine have been synthesized in this plant. Extensive studies have been carried out for optimization regeneration and transformation protocols. Most of the protocol described are laborious and time-consuming. Due to sophisticated protocol of regeneration and genetic transformation, the production of these bioactive molecules is less and not feasible to be commercialized worldwide. Here we have optimized the efficient protocol for regeneration and transformation to minimize the time scale and enhance the transformation frequency through Agrobacterium and sonication-assisted transformation (SAAT) method. In this study, hypocotyl explants responded best for maximal production of transformed shoots. The callus percentage were recorded 52% with 1.0 mg L-1 (BAP) and 0.5 mg L-1 (NAA) while 80% shoot percentage obtained with 4.0 mg L-1 (BAP) and 0.05 mg L-1 (NAA). The microscopic studies revealed that the expression of GFP was clearly localized in leaf tissue of the C. roseus after transformation of pRepGFP0029 construct. Consequently, transformation efficiency was revealed on the basis of GFP localization. The transformation efficiency of SAAT method was 6.0% comparable to 3.5% as conventional method. Further, PCR analysis confirmed the integration of the nptII gene in the transformed plantlets of C. roseus.Entities:
Keywords: Agrobacterium; BAP; Catharanthus roseus; GFP; Hypocotyl; Internode; NAA; Regeneration; SAAT
Year: 2017 PMID: 28401464 PMCID: PMC5388651 DOI: 10.1007/s13205-016-0593-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: 3 Biotech ISSN: 2190-5738 Impact factor: 2.406
Effect of different concentrations of BAP sand NAA on % callus induction in the hypocotyl explants of C. roseus
| Growth regulator (mg L−1) | Callus formation (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| BAP | NAA | |
| 0.0 | – | – |
| 0.1 | – | – |
| 0.5 | – | – |
| 1.0 | – | – |
| – | 0.0 | – |
| – | 0.1 | 1.00 ± 0.35 |
| – | 0.5 | 1.50 ± 0.57 |
| – | 1.0 | 2.0 ± 0.43 |
| 0.1 | 0.5 | 6.66 ± 1.55 |
| 0.1 | 1.0 | 10.66 ± 1.52 |
| 0.1 | 1.5 | 3.00 ± 0.51 |
| 0.5 | 0.5 | 4.33 ± 0.58 |
| 0.5 | 1.0 | 23.00 ± 2.35 |
| 0.5 | 1.5 | 25.66 ± 0.57 |
| 1.0 | 0.5 | 52.00 ± 2.00 |
| 1.0 | 1.0 | 32.66 ± 2.08 |
| 1.0 | 1.5 | 24.66 ± 2.51 |
Each value is the mean ± standard error (n = 5)
Effect of various concentrations of BAP and NAA on the shoot induction from hypocotyls explant of C. roseus
| Treatments | BAP (mg L−1) | NAA (mg L−1) | Shoot induction (%) | No. of shoots per explants |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS0 | – | – | – | – |
| MS1 | 1.0 | – | – | – |
| MS2 | 1.5 | – | – | – |
| MS3 | 2.5 | – | – | – |
| MS4 | 2.0 | – | – | – |
| MS5 | 3.0 | – | ||
| MS6 | 4.0 | – | ||
| MS7 | – | 0.01 | – | – |
| MS8 | – | 0.02 | – | – |
| MS9 | – | 0.03 | – | – |
| MS10 | – | 0.04 | – | – |
| MS11 | – | 0.05 | – | – |
| MS12 | 1.0 | 0.01 | – | – |
| MS13 | 1.0 | 0.02 | – | – |
| MS14 | 1.0 | 0.03 | – | – |
| MS15 | 1.0 | 0.04 | – | – |
| MS16 | 1.0 | 0.05 | – | – |
| MS17 | 2.0 | 0.01 | – | – |
| MS18 | 2.0 | 0.02 | – | – |
| MS19 | 2.0 | 0.03 | – | – |
| MS20 | 2.0 | 0.04 | – | – |
| MS21 | 2.0 | 0.05 | – | – |
| MS22 | 3.0 | 0.01 | – | – |
| MS23 | 3.0 | 0.02 | + | – |
| MS24 | 3.0 | 0.03 | + | – |
| MS25 | 3.0 | 0.04 | ++ | – |
| MS26 | 3.0 | 0.05 | ++ | – |
| MS27 | 4.0 | 0.1 | ++ | – |
| MS28 | 4.0 | 0.02 | 45 | 12 ± 0.55 |
| MS29 | 4.0 | 0.03 | 53 | 19 ± 2.15 |
| MS30 | 4.0 | 0.04 | 65 | 25 ± 2.15 |
| MS31 | 4.0 | 0.05 | 80 | 35 ± 0.70 |
| MS32 | 5.0 | 0.1 | 40 | 15 ± 0.37 |
| MS33 | 5.0 | 0.02 | 35 | 12 ± 0.52 |
| MS34 | 5.0 | 0.03 | 20 | 10 ± 0.40 |
| MS35 | 5.0 | 0.04 | 15 | 9.0 ± 0.55 |
| MS36 | 5.0 | 0.05 | 12 | 6.0 ± 0.65 |
Each value is the mean ± standard error (n = 5)
Fig. 1Schematic representation of the expression vector (pGreen0029) containing green fluorescent protein tagged with CLCuBuV promoter. CP coat protein, Rep replication initiation protein, CLCuBuV cotton leaf curl Burewala virus, LB left-border sequence of T-DNA, RB right-border sequence of T-DNA, GFP green fluorescent protein, Kan R Kanamycin resistance gene
Fig. 2Stages of regenertion of C. roseus though internodal and hypocotyl segments
Effect of growth regulators (NAA and IBA) on rooting of in vitro regenerated shoots of C. roseus
| Growth regulators | Concentration (mg/L) | No. of roots/plantlet |
|---|---|---|
| IBA | 0.1 | 5.0 ± 0.30 |
| 0.5 | 12.3 ± 0.25 | |
| 1.0 | 30.0 ± 0.36 | |
| NAA | 0.1 | 4.0 ± 0.41 |
| 0.5 | 10.5 ± 0.52 | |
| 1.0 | 16.5 ± 0.23 |
Each value is the mean ± standard error (n = 5)
Selection of number of transformants on shoot induction selection medium (SISM) containing kanamycin (Kanr) and GFP positive shoots after co-cultivation of C. roseus hypocotyl explants infected with Agrobacterium tumefaciens LBA4404
| No. of explants | Kanr | GFP | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| SAAT | Conventional | SAAT | Conventional | |
| 50 | 4 ± 0.43 | 2 ± 0.33 | 3 ± 0.44 | 1 ± 0.32 |
| 50 | 3 ± 0.21 | 2 ± 0.3 | 3 ± 0.44 | 2 ± 0.32 |
| 50 | 4 ± 0.44 | 3 ± 0.18 | 4 ± 0.4 | 3 ± 0.31 |
| 50 | 3 ± 0.22 | 1 ± 0.22 | 2 ± 0.11 | 1 ± 0.32 |
Each value is the mean ± standard error (n = 3)
Fig. 3Influence of pre-culture duration on rate of transformation in C. roseus
Fig. 4Effect of co-cultivation period on transformation rate in C. roseus
Fig. 5Visualization of green fluorescent protein in transformed Catharanthus roseus leaf. a Fluorescent microscope view, b confocal microscopic view, c GFP expression fused with chlorophyll (red), d un-transformed leaf
Fig. 6PCR analysis for the presence of the nptII gene in kanamycin-resistant C. roseus transgenic lines. Lanes: M: 1 kb ladder, PC-positive control of nptII from pRepGFP0029, UT-non-transgenic control plant, T-PCR positive Transformed C. roseus line