| Literature DB >> 30641963 |
Dengxiang Du1, Ruchang Jin2, Jinjie Guo3, Fangdong Zhang4.
Abstract
Several approaches have recently been adopted to improve Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of maize; however, about eight months of in vitro culture are still required to isolate transgenic plants. Furthermore, genetic transformation of maize depends on immature embryos, which greatly increases costs. Here, we report a method that ensures the competency of an embryogenic callus secondary culture under laboratory conditions for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Moreover, pretreatment of the cell wall with a mixed lytic enzyme solution prior to Agrobacterium infection, significantly improved transformation efficiency and stability. Average stable transformation efficiency was approximately 30.39%, with peaks of 94.46%. Expression and phenotypic analysis of the Rsc reporter gene were tested in the T₀ generation of transgenic plants. Using this system, we successfully regenerated transgenic maize plantlets within three months of the emergence of the embryogenic callus. Additionally, we reduced somaclonal variation accompanying prolonged culture of maize cells in the dedifferentiated state, thus facilitating the molecular breeding of maize.Entities:
Keywords: Agrobacterium; callus; maize; mixed enzyme solution; transformation
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30641963 PMCID: PMC6358778 DOI: 10.3390/ijms20020279
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 5.923
The instantaneous conversion efficiency in different types of receptor materials in three repeats.
| Material | Receptor Number | GFP Positives | GFP Positives | GFP Positives | Average | Standard Deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Immature Embryos | 900 | 40 | 67 | 38 | 0.053 | 0.018 |
| Type I Callus | 90 g | 6.3 g | 3.51 g | 2.88 g | 0.047 | 0.021 |
| Dense Type II Callus | 90 g | 5.94 g | 5.67 g | 4.32 g | 0.059 | 0.010 |
| Loose Type II Callus | 90 g | 4.23 g | 5.22 g | 5.49 g | 0.055 | 0.007 |
The conversion efficiency and loose causes in different types of receptor materials.
| Material | Conversion Efficiency (g) | Callus Induction Loose (g) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Immature Embryos | 0.05 ± 0.04 | 5.24 ± 1.78 | 0.01 ± 0.01 |
| Type I Callus | 0.08 ± 0.02 | 1.15 ± 0.20 | 3.47 ± 2.07 |
| Dense Type II Callus | 0.69 ± 0.04 | 0.18 ± 0.03 | 5.03 ± 0.93 |
| Loose Type II Callus | 4.72 ± 0.50 | 0.19 ± 0.03 | 0.86 ± 0.64 |
Figure 1Agrobacterium transformation efficiency based on different states of the callus. (a) Conversion efficiency and loss rate for callus induction and Agrobacterium on immature embryos. Columnar volume represents material that is transiently transformed; The green plate represents conversion efficiency rate; Brown plate represents the callus loss caused by callus induction. The grey plate representsrepresents the callus loss caused by Agrobacterium infection; (b) Conversion efficiency and loss rate for callus induction and Agrobacterium on Type I callus. The green plate represents conversion efficiency rate; Brown plate represents the callus loss caused by callus induction. The grey plate representsrepresents the callus loss caused by Agrobacterium infection; (c) Conversion efficiency and loss rate for callus induction and Agrobacterium on Dense Type II callus. The green plate represents conversion efficiency rate; Brown plate represents the callus loss caused by callus induction. The grey plate representsrepresents the callus loss caused by Agrobacterium infection; (d) Conversion efficiency and loss rate for callus induction and Agrobacterium on Loose Type II callus. The green plate represents conversion efficiency rate; Brown plate represents the callus loss caused by callus induction. The grey plate representsrepresents the callus loss caused by Agrobacterium infection; and, (e) Callus phenotype on DR-46B Dark Reader transilluminator in darkness. Callus with green fluorescence are indicated by the red arrow.
Figure 2Effect of different parameters of the Agrobacterium transgenic system on transformation of maize callus. (a) Effect of bacterial culture density; (b) Effect of co-cultivation period; and, (c) Effect of acetosyringone concentration.
Effect of pretreatment conditions on egfp expression.
| Mixed Enzyme Solution Concentration (g/mL) | Mixed Enzyme Treatment Time (min) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concentration | Frequency of Callus Rate | Frequency of Stable Transformation | Time | Frequency of Callus Rate | Frequency of Stable Transformation |
| 0 | 73.19 ± 3.51 | 15.57 ± 1.89 | 0 | 76.46 ± 3.21 | 15.22 ± 0.60 |
| 0.01 | 64.50 ± 3.06 | 22.67 ± 1.42 | 3 | 71.00 ± 2.00 | 20.70 ± 0.31 |
| 0.02 | 53.56 ± 3.60 | 29.37 ± 1.96 | 6 | 63. 03 ± 8.66 | 25.02 ± 0.28 |
| 0.03 | 48.56 ± 3.60 | 37.48 ± 0.49 | 9 | 53.75 ± 1.52 | 38.33 ± 0.56 |
| 0.04 | 34.59 ± 3.78 | 21.28 ± 1.22 | 12 | 42.89 ± 11.71 | 12.39 ± 1.28 |
| 0.05 | 18.47 ± 1.15 | 10.54 ± 0.99 | 15 | 43.05 ± 3.60 | 10.15 ± 0.52 |
Each test was performed three times, and the mean ± SD was used to calculate the %.
Effect of combined changes in pretreatment conditions on egfp expression.
| 0 min 2 | 3 min | 6 min | 9 min | 12 min | 15 min | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 g/m 1 | 15.57 ± 1.89 3 | 21.17 ± 2.57 | 25.53 ± 3.10 | 39.23 ± 4.77 | 12.61 ± 1.53 | 10.27 ± 1.25 |
| 0.01 g/mL | 22.67 ± 1.42 | 30.83 ± 1.94 | 37.18 ± 2.33 | 57.13 ± 3.58 | 18.36 ± 1.15 | 14.96 ± 0.93 |
| 0.02 g/mL | 29.37 ± 1.95 | 39.95 ± 2.66 | 48.17 ± 3.20 | 74.02 ± 4.92 | 23.79 ± 1.58 | 19.39 ± 1.29 |
| 0.03 g/mL | 37.48 ± 0.49 | 50.98 ± 0.66 | 61.47 ± 0.80 | 94.46 ± 1.23 | 30.36 ± 0.39 | 24.74 ± 0.32 |
| 0.04 g/mL | 21.28 ± 1.22 | 28.95 ± 1.66 | 34.90 ± 2.00 | 53.63 ± 3.08 | 17.24 ± 0.99 | 14.05 ± 0.80 |
| 0.05 g/mL | 10.54 ± 0.99 | 14.34 ± 1.35 | 17.29 ± 1.63 | 26.57 ± 2.51 | 8.54 ± 0.80 | 6.96 ± 0.65 |
1 Pretreatment concentration in g/mL; 2 pretreatment times in min; 3 frequency of interaction. Each test was performed three times, and the mean ± SD was used to calculate the %.
Figure 3Regeneration of transgenic maize lines from immature embryogenic calli, and molecular and phenotypic identification of transformants. (a) Callus derived from an immature embryo and used as transformation receptor; (b) Fluorescence-positive calli grown on selection medium under the white light; (c) Fluorescence-positive calli phenotype was detected on the DR-46B Dark Reader transilluminator; (d) Multiple green spots were visible on the embryogenic calli in regeneration medium; (e) Fluorescence phenotype was detected with a fluorescent protein macro detector set; (f) Regeneration of putative transgenic plants; (g) Rsc-positive seeds of the regenerated plant; (h) PCR analysis showing positive transplants. M, BM2000 DNA marker; P, Plasmid DNA; WT: Wild type control; C: Transgenic negative control; lanes 1–7, different plants from different transformants.
Figure 4Immature embryos of maize Hi-II hybrid maize (A188*B73 origin) and different states of callus induced from the immature embryos in Induction process. (a) Immature embryos were isolated at 1.5–2.5 mm in length; (b) Type I callus with clumps of nonpolar cells with a smooth surface and a hard shell, was generated at the edge of the immature shield after 20–40 days on induction medium; (c) Type II callus by bright color, large granulation and hardness surface was generated after 60–90 days on induction medium; and, (d) Type II callus characterized by bright color, loose structure, granular shape, dry surface, and rapid growth was generated after 60–90 days on induction medium.
Figure 5Organization of the binary plasmid used for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. LB, left border; RB, right border. The egfp gene was used as a visual marker for selection and was driven by the CaMV35S (35S) promoter. The reporter regulator gene (Rsc) was controlled by the maize polyubiquitin gene (ubi) promoter.
Composition of media used in Agrobacterium-mediated transformations.
| Medium | Composition |
|---|---|
| LB (solid) | Yeast extract 5 g/L, NaCl 10 g/L, peptone 10 g/L, agar 15 g/L, pH 6.8 |
| LB (liquid) | Yeast extract 5 g/L, NaCl 10 g/L, peptone 10 g/L, pH 6.8 |
| Infection (N-I) | N61 2 g/L, 2,4-D1 2.0 mg/L, L-proline 0.7 g/L, sucrose 68.4 g/L, D-glucose2 36 g/L, MES1 0.5 g/L, myo-inositol 0.1 g/L, As1,2 200 μM, pH 5.2 |
| Co-cultivation (N-C) | N6 4 g/L, 2,4-D 2.0 mg/L, L-proline 0.7 g/L, sucrose 30 g/L, MES 0.5 g/L, myo-inositol 0.1 g/L, CuSO41,2 0.05 µM, DTT1,2 1 M, L-cysteine 0.4 g/L, As 100 μM, agar 8 g/L, pH 5.8 |
| Resting (N-R) | N6 4 g/L, 2,4-D 2.0 mg/L, L-proline 0.7 g/L, sucrose 30 g/L, MES 0.5 g/L, myo-inositol 0.1 g/L, AgNO31,2 0.85 mg/L, carbenicillin1,2 0.1 g/L, gelrite 2.5 g/L, pH 5.8 |
1 6-BA, 6-Benzylaminopurine; N6, Chu medium salt with N6 vitamins; 2,4-D, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; MES, 2-(N-morpholino) ethanesulfonic acid; As, acetosyringone; CuSO4, copper sulfate; DTT, dithiothreitol; AgNO3, silver nitrate; MS, MS basal salt and vitamins; NAA,. 2 Components were filter sterilized.