Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

volume 22 issue 3 & 4 ( 2001) : 163- 182

ROLE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN HYBRID SEED PRODUCTION OF VEGETABLE CROPS - A REVIEW

R
Rajinder Kumar Dhall
D
D.S.Cheema
1Department of Vegetable Crops, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana - 141 004, India

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Dhall Kumar Rajinder, D.S.Cheema (2025). ROLE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN HYBRID SEED PRODUCTION OF VEGETABLE CROPS - A REVIEW. Agricultural Reviews. 22(3): 163- 182. doi: .

ABSTRACT

The review emphasises the role of biotechnological tools like micropropagation, molecular markers, anther culture, cybridization, induced male sterility and transgenics in the production of specific parental lines or hybrids in vegetables. Micropropagation can be used for maintenance of male sterile lines either controlled by recessive genes (tomato, muskmelon, chilli) or dominant genes (cabbage); maintenance of self-incompatible lines in cole crops and maintenance of hybrids as such through tissue culture. Molecular markers can be used for assessment of genetic diversity, construction of linkage maps, varietal identificaton and marker assisted selection for traits of interest. Anther culture techniques can be utilized for development of self-incompatible lines in cole vegetables and also to develop inbred lines in cross-pollinated vegetables. Cybridization is used for single step transfer of cytoplasmic male sterility from potato to tomato by protoplast fusion and generation of noval cybrids in tomato. Induction of male sterility by the use of ‘Barnase-Barstar’ systerm of hybrids seed production, is universally applicable for economic hybrid seed production especially in those vegetable crops where male sterility is not available (e.g. okra). Genetic transformation techniques can be used for trait specific transgenic parental lines for hybrids.

KEYWORDS

    REFERENCES

    1. Anderson, We. and Carstens, B. (1977). J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 102: 69-73.
    2. Barsbay, T.L. et al. (1984). Pl. Cell Rep. 3: 165.
    3. Baudracco-Arnas, S. and Pitrat, M. (1996). Theor. Appl. Genet. Y3: 57-64.
    4. Berg, G.L. et aI, (1996). PI. System Evolut. 200 (3/4): 253-261.
    5. Binding, H. et al. (1982). Theor. Appl. Genet. 6:i: 273.
    6. Bird, C.R. et al. (1988). PI. Mol. BioI. 11: 651-662.
    7. Brigneti, G, et al (1997). Theor. Appl. Genet. 94: 19S-:W:3
    8. Buter:ko, R.G, and Kuchko, AA (1980). DokI. Ak4 !I.~uk S.S.S.R. ~,n: 491.
    9. Can:argo, LEA and Osborn, T.e. (1996). Theol: Appl. Genet. 92: 610-616.
    10. Chaque, V. et al. (1996). Theor. Appl. Genet. 92: 1045-1051.
    11. Cheng, J. (1998). In: Asean Workshop on Regulations lor Agrku!tural Products Derived from B;okchnology, held
    12. during 1-2 April 1998, Singapore.
    13. Cheung, WY. et al. (1997). Theor. Appl. Genet. 94: 569-582.
    14. Chungwongse, J. et :11. (1994). Theor. Appl, Genet. 89: 76-79.
    15. Constabel, F. et al. (1976). Z PfIanzenphysiol. 79: 1.
    16. De Block, M. etal. (1987). EMBOJ. 6: 2513-2518.
    17. Dickinson, M.J. etal. (1993). Mol. Pl.-Microbe. Inter. 6: 341-347.
    18. Dirlewanger, E.P. etal. (1994). Theor. Appl. Genet. 88: 17-27.
    19. Don Grierson (1991). Hort. Sci. 26 : 1025-28.
    20. Droge, W etal. (1992). Planta 189: 142-51.
    21. Dudits, D. et al. (1979). PI. Sci Lett. 15: 101.
    22. Evans, D.A. etal. (1984). Am. J. Bot. 71: 759-774.
    23. Fisk, H.J. and Dandekar A.M. (1993). Scientia Hort. 55: 5-36.
    24. Hamilton, AJ. et al. (1990). Nature 346: 280-287.
    25. Harrison, B.D. et al. (1987). Nature 328: 799-802.
    26. Heller, R. etal. (1996). Theor. Appl. Genet. 92: 991-997.
    27. Hoey, B.K. etal. (1996). Theor. Appl. Genet. 92: 92-1 GO.
    28. Inai, S. et al. (1993). Theor. Appl. Genet. 87: 416-423.
    29. James, M.B. and Michael, J.H. (1995). J. Am. Soc. Hort. S"ci. 1~O: 752.
    30. Jame$, N. etal. (1993). J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 118:2
    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 3 & 4 ( 2001) : 163- 182

      ROLE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN HYBRID SEED PRODUCTION OF VEGETABLE CROPS - A REVIEW

      R
      Rajinder Kumar Dhall
      D
      D.S.Cheema
      1Department of Vegetable Crops, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana - 141 004, India

      • Submitted|

      • First Online |

      • doi

      Cite article:- Dhall Kumar Rajinder, D.S.Cheema (2025). ROLE OF BIOTECHNOLOGY IN HYBRID SEED PRODUCTION OF VEGETABLE CROPS - A REVIEW. Agricultural Reviews. 22(3): 163- 182. doi: .

      ABSTRACT

      The review emphasises the role of biotechnological tools like micropropagation, molecular markers, anther culture, cybridization, induced male sterility and transgenics in the production of specific parental lines or hybrids in vegetables. Micropropagation can be used for maintenance of male sterile lines either controlled by recessive genes (tomato, muskmelon, chilli) or dominant genes (cabbage); maintenance of self-incompatible lines in cole crops and maintenance of hybrids as such through tissue culture. Molecular markers can be used for assessment of genetic diversity, construction of linkage maps, varietal identificaton and marker assisted selection for traits of interest. Anther culture techniques can be utilized for development of self-incompatible lines in cole vegetables and also to develop inbred lines in cross-pollinated vegetables. Cybridization is used for single step transfer of cytoplasmic male sterility from potato to tomato by protoplast fusion and generation of noval cybrids in tomato. Induction of male sterility by the use of ‘Barnase-Barstar’ systerm of hybrids seed production, is universally applicable for economic hybrid seed production especially in those vegetable crops where male sterility is not available (e.g. okra). Genetic transformation techniques can be used for trait specific transgenic parental lines for hybrids.

      KEYWORDS

        REFERENCES

        1. Anderson, We. and Carstens, B. (1977). J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 102: 69-73.
        2. Barsbay, T.L. et al. (1984). Pl. Cell Rep. 3: 165.
        3. Baudracco-Arnas, S. and Pitrat, M. (1996). Theor. Appl. Genet. Y3: 57-64.
        4. Berg, G.L. et aI, (1996). PI. System Evolut. 200 (3/4): 253-261.
        5. Binding, H. et al. (1982). Theor. Appl. Genet. 6:i: 273.
        6. Bird, C.R. et al. (1988). PI. Mol. BioI. 11: 651-662.
        7. Brigneti, G, et al (1997). Theor. Appl. Genet. 94: 19S-:W:3
        8. Buter:ko, R.G, and Kuchko, AA (1980). DokI. Ak4 !I.~uk S.S.S.R. ~,n: 491.
        9. Can:argo, LEA and Osborn, T.e. (1996). Theol: Appl. Genet. 92: 610-616.
        10. Chaque, V. et al. (1996). Theor. Appl. Genet. 92: 1045-1051.
        11. Cheng, J. (1998). In: Asean Workshop on Regulations lor Agrku!tural Products Derived from B;okchnology, held
        12. during 1-2 April 1998, Singapore.
        13. Cheung, WY. et al. (1997). Theor. Appl. Genet. 94: 569-582.
        14. Chungwongse, J. et :11. (1994). Theor. Appl, Genet. 89: 76-79.
        15. Constabel, F. et al. (1976). Z PfIanzenphysiol. 79: 1.
        16. De Block, M. etal. (1987). EMBOJ. 6: 2513-2518.
        17. Dickinson, M.J. etal. (1993). Mol. Pl.-Microbe. Inter. 6: 341-347.
        18. Dirlewanger, E.P. etal. (1994). Theor. Appl. Genet. 88: 17-27.
        19. Don Grierson (1991). Hort. Sci. 26 : 1025-28.
        20. Droge, W etal. (1992). Planta 189: 142-51.
        21. Dudits, D. et al. (1979). PI. Sci Lett. 15: 101.
        22. Evans, D.A. etal. (1984). Am. J. Bot. 71: 759-774.
        23. Fisk, H.J. and Dandekar A.M. (1993). Scientia Hort. 55: 5-36.
        24. Hamilton, AJ. et al. (1990). Nature 346: 280-287.
        25. Harrison, B.D. et al. (1987). Nature 328: 799-802.
        26. Heller, R. etal. (1996). Theor. Appl. Genet. 92: 991-997.
        27. Hoey, B.K. etal. (1996). Theor. Appl. Genet. 92: 92-1 GO.
        28. Inai, S. et al. (1993). Theor. Appl. Genet. 87: 416-423.
        29. James, M.B. and Michael, J.H. (1995). J. Am. Soc. Hort. S"ci. 1~O: 752.
        30. Jame$, N. etal. (1993). J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 118:2
        In this Article
          Contact us
          Follow us
          Published In
          Agricultural Reviews

          Editorial Board

          View all (0)