ASSESSMENT OF SOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS AND PLANT REGENERATION POTENTIALITY FROM COLEOPTILE AND ROOT TISSUES OF JHUM RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.).

Article Id: ARCC1054 | Page : 88 - 95
Citation :- ASSESSMENT OF SOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS AND PLANT REGENERATION POTENTIALITY FROM COLEOPTILE AND ROOT TISSUES OF JHUM RICE (ORYZA SATIVA L.)..Indian Journal Of Agricultural Research.2010.(44):88 - 95
Pervin Akter* and M. AL-Forkan pervinakter111@yahoo.com
Address : Department of Botany, University of Chittagong, Chittagong- 4331, Bangladesh.

Abstract

In this study, attempt was made to establish a reproducible protocol via tissue culture from
root and coleoptiles in three Jhum rice cultivars (cvs.) viz Hamaran, Sori, Kulbadam. Spontaneous
callus induction and plant regeneration as well as variation among the cultivars were observed in
different combinations on MS based media. Embryogenic calli and non embryogenic calli were
found on MS based media supplemented with 2.5 mgl-1 2, 4-D; 1% Casein hydrolysate (CH) and
0.5 mgl-1 Kn respectively. Plantlet regeneration occurred on MS basal medium using 2.0 mgl-1
BAP and 0.5 mgl-1 Kn. In point of coleoptiles, cv. Hamaran displayed a good number of embryogenic
calli and shoot production. Most effective response amongst the cultivars was found in coleoptiles
than root while explants of root failed to reproduce plantlets through tissue culture. Finally, the
plantlets were transferred to the natural condition in pot for acclimatization.

Keywords

Jhum rice Coleoptiles Roots Embryogenesis Plant regeneration.

References

  1. Abe T. and Futsuhara Y. (1985) J. Plant Physiol. 121: 111-118.
  2. Abe T. and Futsuhara Y. (1986) Japan J. Breed. 36: 1- 16.
  3. Al-Forkan et al. (2005) Biotechnology. 4: 230- 234.
  4. Al-Forkan M. and Rahim M A. (2005) Chittagong Univ. J. Bio. Sci. 29: 89-96.
  5. Bhattacharya P. and Sen S.K. (1980) Theo. Appl. Genet. 58: 87-90.
  6. Chand Suresh and Sahrawat A.K. (1997) Indian J. Biotech. 32: 17-18.
  7. Guo C.Y. and Cao Z.Y. (1982) Heredities China. 4: 8-10.
  8. Hoque E.H. and Mansfied J.W. (2004) Plant Cell. Tiss. Org. Cult. 78: 217-223.
  9. Vol. 44, No. 2, 2010 95
  10. Hoque M.E. et al. (2007) Plant Tiss. Cult. & Biotech. 171: 65-70.
  11. Jain R.K. (1997).Indian J. Expl Biol. 35.
  12. Kawata S. and Ishihara A. (1968) Japan Acad. 44: 549-553.
  13. Khatun M.M. (2003) Plant Tiss. Cult. 13: 99-107.
  14. Khalequzzaman M. (2005) Plant Tiss. Cult. 5: 33-42.
  15. Khush G.S. (1997) Plant Mol. Bio. 35: 25-34.
  16. Lee S.Y. et al. (2003) Plant cell. Tiss. & Org. Cult. 74: 243-249.
  17. Mandal A.B. et al. (2003) Plant Tiss. Cult. 13: 125-133.
  18. Murashige T. and Skoog F. (1962) Physiol. Plant 15: 473-497.
  19. Mukhopadhyay A. et al. ( 1997) Curr. Sci. 73: 465-469.
  20. Oinam G.S. and Kothari S.L. (1995) Plant Cell. Rep., 14: 245-248.
  21. Panday S.K. et al. (1994) Indian J. Genet. 54: 293-299.
  22. Paroda R.S. (1998) The International Rice Commision, (Cairo, Egypt), 7-9 September, 1-23.
  23. Putvar E.L. (1998) The International Rice Commission (Cairo, Egypt), 7-9 September, 1-23.
  24. Rout Y.R. and Lucas W.J. (1996) Planta 198: 127-138.
  25. Shahnewaz S. and Bari M.A. (2004) Plant Tiss. Cult. 14: 37-73.
  26. Xiao J. et al. (1996) Nature 383: 203-224.

Global Footprints