In vitro conservation of American elm (Ulmus americana): Potential role of auxin metabolism in sustained plant proliferation

Canadian Journal of Forest Research

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 686-697

  Shukla, Mukund R ^a   Jones, A Maxwell P ^a   Sullivan, J Alan ^a   Liu, Chunzhao ^a,b   Gosling, Susan ^a,c   Saxena, Praveen K ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GUELPH   (Canada)

^b INSTITUTE OF PROCESS ENGINEERING   (China)

^c The Gosling Foundation   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUXIN METABOLISM; BENZYLAMINOPURINE; DISEASE RESISTANCE; DUTCH ELM DISEASE; EFFECTIVE MEDIUM; ENDANGERED TREES; GERMPLASMS; GIBBERELLIC ACID; GREENHOUSE ENVIRONMENT; IN-VITRO; INDOLE-3-BUTYRIC ACID; KEY FACTORS; LONG-TERM CONSERVATION; MATURE TREES; MICROSHOOTS; MULTIPLICATION RATE; PLANTLETS; POTENTIAL SOURCES; SHOOT DEVELOPMENT; SURVIVAL RATE;

CLONING; FORESTRY; PLANTS (BOTANY); TISSUE;

CONSERVATION;

CLONE; DECIDUOUS TREE; DISEASE RESISTANCE; ENDANGERED SPECIES; EPIDEMIOLOGY; GERMPLASM; GREENHOUSE ECOSYSTEM; GROWTH RATE; GROWTH REGULATOR; LONG-TERM CHANGE; METABOLISM; ROOTING; SHOOT GROWTH; SPECIES CONSERVATION; SURVIVAL; SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT;

CONSERVATION; FORESTRY; PLANTS; TISSUE;

ULMUS; ULMUS AMERICANA;

EID: 84859017133     PISSN: 00455067     EISSN: 12086037     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1139/X2012-022     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Anna, M.-S., Mariella, L., and Lorenzo, M. 1998. Elm tissue culture: micropropagation of clones resistant to Dutch Elm Disease. Acta Hortic. 457: 235-242.
2. Berardi, G., Infante, R., and Neri, D. 1993. Micropropagation of Pyrus calleryana Dcn. from seedlings. Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam), 53(1-2): 157-165. doi:10.1016/0304-4238(93)90146-H.
3. Bino, R.J., Devries, J.N., Kraak, H.L., and Pijlen, V. 1992. Flow cytometric dtetrmination of nuclear replication stages in tomato seeds during priming and germination. Ann. Bot. (Lond.), 69: 231-263.
4. Birosciková, M., Spisáková, K., Lipták, Š., Pichler, V., and Ďurkovič, J. 2004. Micropropagation of mature wych elm (Ulmus glabra Huds.). Plant Cell Rep. 22(9): 640-644. doi:10.1007/s00299-003-0749-8. PMID:14758503.
5. Burstrom, H. 1950. Studies on growth and metabolism of roots. IV. Positive and negative auxin effects on cell elongation. Physiol. Plant. 3(3): 277-292. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1950.tb07508.x.
6. Cassells, A.C. 2005. Principles of micropropagation. In Journey of a single cell to a plant. Edited by S.J. Murch and P.K. Saxena. Science Publishers, Enfield, N.H. pp. 145-157.
7. Chanon, A.M., Kamalay, J.C., and Jourdan, P. 1997. Micropropagation of juvenile and mature American Elms from stem nodal sections. In 11th Central Harwood Forest Conference. Edited by S. G. Pallardy et al. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Columbia, Mo. pp. 242-250.
8. Civínová, B., and Sladský, Z. 1990. Stimulation of the regeneration capacity of tree shoot segment explants in vitro. Biol. Plant. 32(6): 407-413. doi:10.1007/BF02890885.
9. Conde, P., Sousa, A., Costa, A., and Santos, C. 2008. A protocol for Ulmus minor Mill. micropropagation and acclimatization. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 92(1): 113-119. doi:10.1007/s11240-007-9310-8.
10. Dolezel, J., Greilhuber, J., Lucretti, S., Meister, A., Lysak, M.A., Nardi, L., and Obermayer, R. 1998. Plant genome size estimation by flow cytometry: inter-laboratory comparison. Ann. Bot. (Lond.), 82: 17-26. doi:10.1006/anbo.1998.0730.
11. Driver, J., and Kuniyuki, A. 1984. In vitro propagation of Paradox walnut rootstock. Hortic. Sci. 19: 507-509.
12. Durzan, D.J., and Lopushanski, S.M. 1975. Propagation of American elm via cell suspension cultures. Can. J. For. Res. 5(2): 273-277. doi:10.1139/x75-036.
13. Eshita, S.M., Kamalay, J.C., Gingas, V.M., and Yaussy, D.A. 2000. Establishment and characterization of American elm cell suspension cultures. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 61: 245-249. doi:10. 1023/A:1006454801055.
14. Fenning, T.M., Gartland, K.M.A., and Brasier, CM. 1993. Micro-propagation and regeneration of English Elm, Ulmus procera Salisbury. J. Exp. Bot. 44(7): 1211-1217. doi:10.1093/jxb/44.7. 1211.
15. Fink, C.V.M., Sticklen, M., Lineberger, R.D., and Domir, S.C. 1986. In vitro organogenesis from shoot tip, internode, and leaf explants of Ulmus × 'Pioneer'. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 7(3): 237-245. doi:10.1007/BF00037740.
16. George, M.W., and Tripepi, R.R. 1994. Cytokinins, donor plants and time in culture affect shoot regenerative capacity of American elm leaves. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 39(1): 27-36. doi:10.1007/ BF00037588.
17. Giri, C, Shyamkumar, B., and Anjaneyulu, C. 2004. Progress in tissue culture, genetic transformation and applications of biotechnology to trees: an overview. Trees (Berl.), 18(2): 115-135. doi:10.1007/s00468-003-0287-6.
18. Harvengt, L., Meier-Dinkel, A., Dumas, E., and Collin, E. 2004. Establishment of a cryopreserved gene bank of European elms. Can. J. For. Res. 34(1): 43-55. doi:10.1139/x03-193.
19. Hubbes, M. 1999. The American elm and Dutch elm disease. For. Chron. 75: 265-273.
20. Ingwell, L.L., and Preisser, E.L. 2011. Using citizen science programs to identify host resistance in pest-invaded forests. Conserv. Biol. 25(1): 182-188. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2010. 01567.x. PMID:20735452.
21. Kron, P., and Husband, B.C. 2009. Hybridization and the reproductive pathways mediating gene flow between native Malus coronaria and domestic apple, M. domestica. Botany, 87(9): 864-874. doi:10.1139/B09-045.
22. Lloyd, G, and McCown, B. 1980. Commercially feasible micro-propagation of mountain laurel, Kalmia latifolia, by use of shoot-tip culture. Proc. Int. Plant Propagators Soc. 30: 421-427.
23. Marriott, P., and Sarasan, V. 2010. Novel micropropagation and weaning methods for the integrated conservation of a critically endangered tree species, Medusagyne oppositifolia. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant, 46(6): 516-523. doi:10.1007/s11627-010-9321-8.
24. McRae, D.H., and Bonner, J. 1953. Chemical structure and antiauxin activity. Physiol. Plant. 6(3): 485-510. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054. 1953.tb08406.x.
25. Murashige, T., and Skoog, F 1962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 15(3): 473-497. doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1962.tb08052.x.
26. Murch, S J., and Saxena, P.K. (Editors). 2005. The Skoog and Miller legacy. In Journey of a single cell to a plant. Edited by S.J. Murch and P.K. Saxena Science Publishers, Enfield, N.H. pp. 187-202.
27. Murch, S.J., Campbell, S.S.B., and Saxena, P.K. 2001. The role of serotonin and melatonin in plant morphogenesis: regulation of auxin-induced root organogenesis in in vitro-cultured explants of St. John's wort (Hypericum perforatum L.). In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant, 37(6): 786-793. doi:10.1007/s11627-001-0130-y.
28. Murch, S.J., Ragone, D., Shi, W.L., Alan, A.R., and Saxena, P.K. 2007. In vitro conservation and sustained production of breadfruit (Artocarpus altilis, Moraceae): modern technologies for a traditional tropical crop. Naturwissenschaften, 95(2): 99-107. doi:10.1007/s00114-007-0295-2. PMID:17710379.
29. Newhouse, A.E., Schrodt, F, Maynard, C.A., and Powell, W.A. 2006. American Elm (Ulmus americana). In Agrobacterium protocols. Edited by K. Wang. Humana Press Inc., Totowa, N.J. pp. 99-112.
30. Oono, Y., Ooura, C, Rahman, A., Aspuria, E.T., Hayashi, K.-I., Tanaka, A., and Uchimiya, H. 2003. p-Chlorophenoxyisobutyric acid impairs auxin response in Arabidopsis root. Plant Physiol. 133(3): 1135-1147. doi:10.1104/pp.103.027847. PMID: 14526108.
31. Pence, V.C. 2002. In vitro collecting - a tool for wild or endangered species conservation. In In vitro collecting techniques for germplasm conservation. Edited by V.C. Pence, JA. Sandoval, V.M. Villalobos, and F Engelmann. IPGRI Tech. Bull. No. 7. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. pp. 26-29.
32. Pence, V.C. 2011. Evaluating costs for the in vitro propagation and preservation of endangered plants. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant, 47(1): 176-187. doi:10.1007/s11627-010-9323-6.
33. Pence, V.C, and Sandoval, JA. 2002. Controlling contamination during in vitro collecting. In In vitro collecting techniques for germplasm conservation. Edited by V.C. Pence, J.A. Sandoval, V M. Villalobos, and F. Engelmann. IPGRI Tech. Bull. No. 7. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute, Rome, Italy. pp. 30-40.
34. Preece, J.E. 2008. Stock plant physiological factors affecting growth and morphogenesis. In Plant propagation by tissue culture. 3rd ed. Vol. 1. Edited by E.F George, MA. Hall, and G.-J. De Klerk. Springer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands. pp. 403-422.
35. Preece, J.E., and Read, PE. 2003. Novel methods in micropropagation. Acta Hortic. 616: 71-76.
36. Quraishi, A., Koche, V, and Mishra, S.K. 1996. In vitro micropropagation from nodal segments of Cleistanthus collinus. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 45(1): 87-91. doi:10.1007/BF00043433.
37. Reed, B.M., Sarasan, V, Kane, M., Bunn, E., and Pence, V.C. 2011. Biodiversity conservation and conservation biotechnology tools. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant, 47(1): 1-4. doi:10.1007/s11627-010-9337-0.
38. Santamour, F.S.J., and Ware, G.H. 1997. Chromosome numbers of new Ulmus (elm) taxa introduced from China. Rhodora, 99: 148-151.
39. Sarasan, V 2010. Importance of in vitro technology to future conservation programmes worldwide. Kew Bull. 65(4): 549-554.doi:10.1007/s12225-011-9250-7.
40. Sarasan, V, Cripps, R., Ramsay, M.M., Atherton, C, McMichen, M., Prendergast, G., and Rowntree, J.K. 2006. Conservation in vitro of threatened plants - progress in the past decade. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant, 42(3): 206-214. doi:10.1079/IVP2006769.
41. Sherald, J.L., Santamour, F.S.J., Jr, Hajela, R.K., Hajela, N, and Sticklen, M.B. 1994. A Dutch elm disease resistant triploid elm. Can. J. For. Res. 24(4): 647-653 doi:10.1139/x94-087.
42. Singh, S.K., and Syamal, M.M. 2000. Anti-auxin enhance Rosahybrida L. micropropagation. Biol. Plant. 43(2): 279-281. doi:10.1023/A:1002768613872.
43. Skoog, F, and Miller, CO. 1957. Chemical regulation of growth and organ formation in plant tissue cultures in vitro. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 11: 118-130. PMID:13486467.
44. Smalley, E.B., and Guries, R.P. 1993. Breeding elms for resistance to dutch elm disease. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 31(1): 325-354. doi:10.1146/annurev.py.31.090193.001545.
45. Thakur, R.C, and Karnosky, D.F 2007. Micropropagation and germplasm conservation of Central Park Splendor Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia Jacq. 'A/Ross Central Park') trees. Plant Cell Rep. 26(8): 1171-1177. doi:10.1007/s00299-007-0334-7. PMID:17431632.
46. Townsend, A.M. 2000. USDA genetic research on elms. In The elms: breeding, conservation, and disease management. Edited by C.P. Dunn. Kluwer Academic Press, Boston, Mass. pp. 271-278.
47. Townsend, A.M., and Douglass, L.W. 2004. Evaluation of elm clones for tolerance to Dutch elm disease. J. Arboriculture, 30: 179-183.
48. Townsend, A.M., Bentz, S.E., and Douglass, L.W. 2004. Evaluation of 19 American elm clones for tolerance to Dutch elm disease. J. Environ. Hort. 23: 21-24.
49. Trick, H.N., and Finer, J.J. 1999. Induction of somatic embryogenesis and genetic transformation of Ohio buckeye (Aesculus glabra Willd). In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant, 35(1): 57-60. doi:10.1007/s11627-999-0010-4.
50. Whittemore, A.T., and Olsen, R.T 2011. Ulmus Americana (Ulmaceae) is polyploid complex. Am. J. Bot. 98(4): 754-760. doi:10.3732/ajb.1000372. PMID:21613171.
51. Zhao, Y., and Hasenstein, K.H. 2010. Physiological interactions of antiauxins with auxin in roots. J. Plant Physiol. 167(11): 879-884. doi:10.1016/j.jplph.2010.01.012. PMID:20149478.
52. Zhu, J.K. 2002. Salt and drought stress signal transduction in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 53(1): 247-273. doi:10.1146/annurev. arplant.53.091401.143329. PMID:12221975.