Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 22 issue 1 (march 2001) : 65-67

BIOCHEMICAL BASIS OF ACCLIMATIZATION OF MICROPROPAGATED PLANTLETS - A REVIEW,

B
B.N. Hazarika*
V
V. Nagaraju
V
V.A. Parthasarathy
G
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. (2025). BIOCHEMICAL BASIS OF ACCLIMATIZATION OF MICROPROPAGATED PLANTLETS - A REVIEW,. Agricultural Reviews. 22(1): 65-67. doi: .

ABSTRACT

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.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    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.
    Published In
    Agricultural Reviews
    Article Metrics
    Metrics Icon
    0
    Views
    0
    Citations
    Reviewed By
    Share Article
    Download Article
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us

      volume 22 issue 1 (march 2001) : 65-67

      BIOCHEMICAL BASIS OF ACCLIMATIZATION OF MICROPROPAGATED PLANTLETS - A REVIEW,

      B
      B.N. Hazarika*
      V
      V. Nagaraju
      V
      V.A. Parthasarathy
      G
      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. (2025). BIOCHEMICAL BASIS OF ACCLIMATIZATION OF MICROPROPAGATED PLANTLETS - A REVIEW,. Agricultural Reviews. 22(1): 65-67. doi: .

      ABSTRACT

      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.

      KEYWORDS

        REFERENCES

        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.
        In this Article
          Contact us
          Follow us
          Published In
          Agricultural Reviews

          Editorial Board

          View all (0)