Agricultural Reviews

  • Chief EditorPradeep K. Sharma

  • Print ISSN 0253-1496

  • Online ISSN 0976-0741

  • NAAS Rating 4.84

Frequency :
Quarterly (March, June, September & December)
Indexing Services :
AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Agricultural Reviews, volume 22 issue 1 (march 2001) : 65-67

BIOCHEMICAL BASIS OF ACCLIMATIZATION OF MICROPROPAGATED PLANTLETS - A REVIEW,

B.N. Hazarika*, V. Nagaraju, V.A. Parthasarathy, G. BhowDuk
1Biotechnology Laboratory, ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region, Umiam, Meghalaya-793 103, India
  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Hazarika* B.N., Nagaraju V., Parthasarathy V.A., BhowDuk G. (2024). BIOCHEMICAL BASIS OF ACCLIMATIZATION OF MICROPROPAGATED PLANTLETS - A REVIEW,. Agricultural Reviews. 22(1): 65-67. doi: .
Exhaustive work done on in vitro propagation concerns mostly with providing chemical supplement to growth medium and amiable conditions to culture environment. Not much has been done on vital tissues which are cultured, in respect to their biochemical status. Hence, there is need to work on biochemical aspects to get an insight into in vitro differenciation and acclimatization phenomenon in order to make suitable amendments in the medium to increase efficiency of the in vitro propagation in economic terms. This review attempts to bring together the current informations on biochemical changes during in vitro differenciation and hardening of tissue cultured plant.
    1. Bra!nerd, KE. and Fuchlganl, L.H. (1?81), J. Am. Sci. HOlt. Soi. 106 : 515 - 518.
    2. Bramerd, KE. et 41, (l9g1). HOlt. Sci. 16 : 173 - 175. '
    3. Capeliades, M. et aI. (1991). Plant CeO Tiss. Orq'. Cult. 25 : 21-26.
    4. Dhawan, V. and Bho~, S. S. (1987). Plant Sci. 53 : 65-72.
    5. Dorffling, K et aJ. (1993). J. Plant Physio/. 142 : 222-225.
    6. GaIzy, R. and Compan, O. (1992kPlant CeO Tiss. arg. Cult. 31; 239 - 244.
    7. Grout, BW.W. and Aston"", M.J. (1977). HOlt. Res. 1'1: 1-7.
    8. Guy, C.L. (1991). Ann. lUll/. Plant Physion. Plant Mol. Bioi. 41 : 187 - 223.
    9. Hanson, A.D. et aJ. (1979). Ch>P Sci. 19 : 489 -493.'
    10. Hazarl~l B.N. (1999). Ph.D. Thesis, Gauhatl University, India.
    11. Koster, I'.L. and Lynch, D.V. (1992). Plant Physio/. 98 : 108 -113.
    12. Kruuv, J. and GIofCheski, D.J. (1999). CTJII'O!»%gy. 29 : 291- 295.
    13. PaHi, G. etal. (1974). Phyton. 32 : 121-127.
    14. Paul, M.J. and Stiff, M. (1993). Plant ceUEnv. 16 : 1047-1057.
    15. Preeeee, J.E. and ~, E.• G.• (1991). /n. Micropropagatlon (ed. Debergh, P.C. and Zlmmerman, R. H;) KIuwer
    16. Academic Pub.I'letneI'Ia11CJ.pp 71 -93.' '.,
    17. Ritchie, GAo et aI.(1991). J. J:.xp. Bot. 42 : 1557-1563. , '
    18. SandII, N. et aJ. (1993). Plant PhysioI. 88 : 661-667.' .
    19. Sarma, G.L. et al(I997). Indian J. Hort. 54. : 128-131.
    20. SasIlkI, H~ et aJ.,(1996). Ann. Bot. 78 : 365-369.
    21. Siegleman, H.W. (1964). /n.: BiochemIStry of Phenolic Compounds (ed. 'Harbome, J. B.) Acdemic Press,
    22. New YorI(,pp. 437-456. , " ..
    23. Smith, E.F. fit aldl996) Plant CeO Tiss. Om. Cult. 21 : 133-140.
    24. ~er,E. (1979). J. Am. Soc. Hart. Sci. 104 : 493-496. '
    25. Sutter, E~ and lan!Ihans, R.W. (1982). Can. J. Bot. 60 : 2986-2902.
    26. Sutter, E. (1984). 'Can.J. Bot. 62 : 74-77.
    27. Sutter, E. ~985). Ann. Bot. 55,: 321-329.
    28. ", Sutter, E. 1988). J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113,: 234-238.
    29. ~, .M. et aI. (1997). PIMio/ Plant. 101 : 31-37.
    30. TyankoViI, l. (1969). C R. Ac. Sci. -1gric. Bulg. 2 : 317-321. '
    31. Ticha fit aJ. (1998). PhJlSio/ Plant. J!02 : 155-162.
    32. U1*lhvaY, A. et aI. (1999). Indian J. HOlt. 56 : 149-154.
    33. Wang,-S:V. and Steffens, G. L. (1987). Plant PhY5iol. 84: 1051·1054.
    34. Wardle, K et aI. (1983). Ann. Bot. 43 : 745-752.
    35. Ztv, M. et aI. (1982). Plant CeO Tiss. Org. Cult. 2 : 55-65.

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)