| Literature DB >> 31086494 |
Shupei Rao1,2, Xiangyang Kang1,2, Jian Li3, Jinhuan Chen1,2.
Abstract
Lycium ruthenicum of Solanaceae was widely used as healthy vegetables and natural medicine foods for containing numerous functional components in leaves, roots and fruits. In the present study, tetraploid plants of L. ruthenicum were obtained efficiently by treating their leaves with colchicine in vitro. The highest induction frequency of the tetraploids was 31.4%, which was obtained by preculturing the leaves for 10 days and then treating them with 100 mg/L of colchicine concentration for 48 h. The ploidy levels of the regenerated plants were determined by flow cytometry and chromosome counting methods. Cytological, morphological, and histological characterization validated the results of flow cytometry, revealing the differences between the two kinds of ploidy plants in their tissue culture stage and field production stages. Morphological indexes also provide a simple and intuitionistic method for distinguishing tetraploid from diploid plants. As the chromosome number increased, the stomatal size and number of the chloroplasts in the stomata also increased, but the stomatal density decreased. The results indicate that the chromosome number is correlated with the stomatal index. The generated tetraploid is a potentially useful cultivated variety and will be beneficial for producing triploid progeny in the future.Entities:
Keywords: Lycium; colchicine; flow cytometry; tetraploid
Year: 2019 PMID: 31086494 PMCID: PMC6507718 DOI: 10.1270/jsbbs.18144
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Breed Sci ISSN: 1344-7610 Impact factor: 2.086
Fig. 1Plant regeneration from leaves of L. ruthenicum. a: 0.5 cm × 0.5 cm leaf inoculation into MS differentiation medium. b: The blade has grown more than 1 mm of callus. c: Growing buds from callus. d: Leaves treated with colchicine successfully differentiated into adventitious buds. e: Adventitious buds transferred to half-strength MS medium. f: Adventitious buds have already taken root.
Effects of different preculture duration, colchicine concentrations, and exposure time on the induction of tetraploid L. ruthenicum
| Treatment number | Colchicine concentration (mg/L) | Preculture duration (days) | Exposure time (h) | Survival rate (%) | No. of regenerated shoots | No. of diploid | No. of mixoploid | No. of tetraploid | Tetraploid induction rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0 | 10 | 72 | 92.6 ± 6.41 | 48 | 48 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 2 | 48 | 96.2 ± 6.41 | 46 | 46 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 3 | 24 | 100 ± 0.00 | 52 | 52 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 4 | 20 | 72 | 96.2 ± 6.41 | 53 | 53 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 5 | 48 | 100 ± 0.00 | 57 | 57 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 6 | 24 | 100 ± 0.00 | 55 | 55 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 7 | 50 | 10 | 72 | 88.9 ± 0.00 | 36 | 33 | 0 | 3 | 8.3 |
| 8 | 48 | 92.6 ± 6.41 | 39 | 36 | 0 | 3 | 7.7 | ||
| 9 | 24 | 100 ± 0.00 | 46 | 43 | 1 | 2 | 4.3 | ||
| 10 | 20 | 72 | 92.6 ± 6.41 | 42 | 33 | 0 | 9 | 21.4 | |
| 11 | 48 | 100 ± 0.00 | 52 | 39 | 1 | 12 | 23.1 | ||
| 12 | 24 | 100 ± 0.00 | 49 | 44 | 1 | 4 | 8.2 | ||
| 13 | 100 | 10 | 72 | 92.6 ± 6.41 | 40 | 30 | 0 | 10 | 25 |
| 14 | 48 | 100 ± 0.00 | 51 | 35 | 0 | 16 | 31.4 | ||
| 15 | 24 | 96.3 ± 6.41 | 49 | 42 | 0 | 7 | 14.3 | ||
| 16 | 20 | 72 | 85.2 ± 12.82 | 35 | 32 | 0 | 3 | 8.6 | |
| 17 | 48 | 88.9 ± 11.1 | 40 | 36 | 0 | 4 | 10.0 | ||
| 18 | 24 | 96.3 ± 6.41 | 47 | 45 | 0 | 2 | 4.3 | ||
| 19 | 150 | 10 | 72 | 70.4 ± 6.41 | 27 | 24 | 0 | 3 | 11.1 |
| 20 | 48 | 74.1 ± 6.41 | 29 | 25 | 0 | 4 | 13.8 | ||
| 21 | 24 | 81.5 ± 6.41 | 34 | 32 | 0 | 2 | 5.9 | ||
| 22 | 20 | 72 | 74.1 ± 6.41 | 31 | 27 | 0 | 4 | 12.9 | |
| 23 | 48 | 88.9 ± 11.10 | 41 | 37 | 0 | 4 | 9.8 | ||
| 24 | 24 | 85.2 ± 6.41 | 38 | 35 | 0 | 3 | 7.9 | ||
| 25 | 200 | 10 | 72 | 0.0 ± 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 26 | 48 | 11.1 ± 0.00 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 27 | 24 | 7.4 ± 6.41 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 28 | 20 | 72 | 0.0 ± 0.00 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| 29 | 48 | 18.5 ± 6.41 | 13 | 12 | 0 | 1 | 7.7 | ||
| 30 | 24 | 3.7 ± 6.41 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Survival rate refers to the percentage of differentiated successfully explants to the total number of explants. All data represent the mean ± SE of three replicates.
Fig. 2Flow cytometry analysis of L. ruthenicum. a: Diploid (control). b: Tetraploid.
Fig. 3Number of chromosomes in root tips of regenerated plants of L. ruthenicum. a: Chromosome number of diploid plant (2n = 2x = 24) (bars: 10 μm). b: Chromosome number of tetraploid plant (2n = 4x = 48) (bars: 10 μm).
Comparison of stomatal traits between diploids and tetraploids
| Ploidy level | Stomatal length (μm) | Stomatal width (μm) | Stomatal density (mm2) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diploid | 23.0 ± 2.91b | 21.3 ± 2.15b | 189.6 ± 19.20a |
| Tetraploid | 37.2 ± 2.30a | 38.4 ± 1.99a | 94.3 ± 10.54b |
Lower case letters represent a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 0.05 significance level.
Fig. 4Stomatal size and density of plants in the regenerated L. ruthenicum. a: Stomatal size of diploid plant (bars: 20 μm). b: Stomatal size of tetraploid plant (bars: 20 μm). c: Stomatal density of diploid plant (bars: 100 μm). d: Stomatal density of tetraploid plant (bars: 100 μm) Lower case letters represent a significant difference in Duncan’s multiple range test at the 0.05 significance level. e: Number of chloroplasts in diploid stomata (bars: 25 μm). f: Number of chloroplasts in tetraploid stomata (bars: 25 μm).
Fig. 5Comparison of morphological difference between diploids and tetraploids sterile seedlings. a: Comparison of leaf morphology in different parts of tetraploid and diploid plants. b: Whole morphology differences between tetraploid and diploid plants. c: Diploid cross-section under scanning electron microscope (bars: 500 μm). d: Tetraploid cross-section under scanning electron microscope (bars: 500 μm).
Fig. 6Comparison of morphological difference between diploids and tetraploids of early stage. a: Plant height for 30-day-old seedlings. b: Stem diameter for 30-day-old seedlings. c: Leaf area for 30-day-old seedlings. d: Fresh weight or dry weight for whole plant of diploid and tetraploid. e: Fresh weight or dry weight for 10 leaves of diploid and tetraploid. f: Fresh weight or dry weight for per cm stem of diploid and tetraploid. g: Chlorophyll content of diploid and tetraploid leaves grown for 30-day-old seedlings and 90-day-old seedlings.
Fig. 7Comparison of morphological difference between diploids and tetraploids field seedlings growing for 8 months. a: Morphology of diploid plants. b: Morphology of tetraploid plants.