4.3 Article

Micropropagation and plant regeneration from embryogenic callus of Miscanthus sinensis

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11627-011-9387-y

关键词

Miscanthus sinensis; Plant growth regulator; Embryogenic callus; Micropropagation

资金

  1. Department of Science and Technology of Zhejiang Province [2008C12019]
  2. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars, State Education Ministry
  3. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31070604]
  4. Project of Student Science and Technology Innovation of Zhejiang Province
  5. Zhejiang A F University [100202]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Miscanthus sinensis (Poaceae) is a typical perennial giant grass of East Asia. Due to its high photosynthetic efficiency, low input requirements, and high biomass production, M. sinensis shows outstanding potential as a biofuel feedstock. However, the lack of an efficient tissue culture system may limit its utilization potential. Different explants of M. sinensis were evaluated to develop an efficient tissue culture system. Shoot apices from in vitro-germinated seedling explants were tested for adventitious bud proliferation. The highest level of proliferation (multiplication coefficient 6.69) was obtained when shoot apices were cultured on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium supplemented with 1.0 mg L-1 6-benzyladenine (BA), 2.0 mg L-1 kinetin, 0.05 mg L-1 alpha-naphthalene acetic acid (NAA), 3% sucrose, and 0.8% agar. The highest rooting percentage (95.4%) was obtained when adventitious buds were cultured on half-strength MS medium supplemented with 0.2 mg L-1 NAA, 3% sucrose, and 0.8% agar. Significant differences were found in the formation of embryogenic callus among different explant types. The embryogenic callus derived from epicotyls had the highest regeneration capacity when cultured on a medium supplemented with 2.0 mg L-1 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, 0.5 mg L-1 BA, and 0.1 mg L-1 thiamine. Under these conditions, the callus induction percentage was 82%.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据