Paper · 2024 · Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC)

Optimization of Rhizobium rhizogenes-mediated transformation, regeneration and characterization of Malus domestica Borkh. Ri lines

Philipp Rüter; Tom Eeckhaut; Emmy Dhooghe; et al.

14
claims
30
verbatim quotes
7
citations
5
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Abstract This study explored the establishment and optimization of Ri (root inducing) technology for apple breeding, using the bacterium Rhizobium rhizogenes to obtain Ri lines with compact shoots and stronger root systems. The transformation and shoot regeneration for Malus domestica cultivars was studied in detail. Various R. rhizogenes strains, scion and rootstock genotypes, explant types, wounding methods and explant orientations were tested for hairy root induction. Most of the 16 tested strains, especially those with plasmid type III, induced hairy roots in the rootstock genotype ‘M26’. Although apple genotypes differed in response, in most of them roots were successfully induced using strains ATCC 15834, LMG 63 and LMG 150, with leaf blades outperforming petioles as explants. Wounding by scratching or sonication further improved transformation efficiency, as did placing leaf blades with their abaxial side upward on root induction medium. The majority (94%) of roots formed in one transformation experiment were tested PCR-positive for at least one T-DNA gene. Shoot regeneration experiments investigated salt concentrations, gelling agents, cytokinin types, concentrations, and a resting period on hormone-free medium. Shoot regeneration was highly genotype-dependent varying between 0 and 83%, whereas only minor, non-significant effects were observed for the treatments tested. Copy numbers of T-DNA genes were estimated using digital PCR for the first time in apple Ri lines. In the greenhouse, two Ri lines showed compact shoots and shorter leaves, but no enhanced root system. The improved protocol provides a valuable tool for breeders and scientists to obtain and further use Ri lines.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 14

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Most tested R. rhizogenes strains induced hairy roots in M26, especially plasmid type III strains.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Material
‘M26’e0
Treatment
strainse0
Interactor
Rhizobium rhizogenesMartinezella rhizogenest0other
Outcome
hairy rootse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Martinezella rhizogenes
Martinezella rhizogenes · InteractorFruitDefendu · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Most of the 16 tested strains, especially those with plasmid type III, induced hairy roots in the rootstock genotype ‘M26’.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 476–599 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rhizobium rhizogenes-mediated transformation, regeneration and characterization of Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–114 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

ATCC 15834 induced roots in most apple genotypes.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
ATCC 15834e0
Interactor
Rhizobium rhizogenesMartinezella rhizogenest0other
Outcome
rootse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Martinezella rhizogenes
Martinezella rhizogenes · InteractorFruitDefendu · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in most of them roots were successfully induced using strains ATCC 15834, LMG 63 and LMG 150”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 647–739 · show in text ↑
t0

“Rhizobium rhizogenes-mediated transformation, regeneration and characterization of Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 16–114 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

LMG 63 induced roots in most apple genotypes.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
LMG 63e0
Outcome
rootse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in most of them roots were successfully induced using strains ATCC 15834, LMG 63 and LMG 150”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 647–739 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

LMG 150 induced roots in most apple genotypes.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
LMG 150e0
Outcome
rootse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“in most of them roots were successfully induced using strains ATCC 15834, LMG 63 and LMG 150”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 647–739 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf blades outperformed petioles for root induction.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
leaf bladese0
Outcome
root inductione1
Direction
outperforminge0
Comparator
petiolese0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“leaf blades outperforming petioles as explants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 746–792 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“roots were successfully induced using strains ATCC 15834, LMG 63 and LMG 150, with leaf blades outperforming petioles as explants. Wounding by scratching or sonication further improved transformation efficiency, as did placing leaf blades with their abaxial side upward on root induction medium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 663–957 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Scratching improved transformation efficiency.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
scratchinge0
Outcome
transformation efficiencye0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Wounding by scratching or sonication further improved transformation efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 794–873 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Sonication improved transformation efficiency.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
sonicatione0
Outcome
transformation efficiencye0
Direction
improvede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Wounding by scratching or sonication further improved transformation efficiency”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 794–873 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Abaxial-side-up leaf placement improved transformation efficiency.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
placing leaf blades with their abaxial side upwarde0
Outcome
transformation efficiencye1
Direction
improvede1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“placing leaf blades with their abaxial side upward on root induction medium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 882–957 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“Wounding by scratching or sonication further improved transformation efficiency, as did placing leaf blades with their abaxial side upward on root induction medium”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 794–957 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Most formed roots tested positive for a T-DNA gene.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Organ / stage
rootse0
Outcome
PCR-positive for at least one T-DNA genee0
Value
94%e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“The majority (94%) of roots formed in one transformation experiment were tested PCR-positive for at least one T-DNA gene.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 959–1080 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
Associationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Apple shoot regeneration varied by genotype from 0 to 83%.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Material
genotypee0
Outcome
Shoot regeneratione0
Value
0 and 83%e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Shoot regeneration was highly genotype-dependent varying between 0 and 83%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1240–1314 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Tested shoot-regeneration treatments had only minor nonsignificant effects.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Treatment
treatments testede0
Outcome
Shoot regeneratione1

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“only minor, non-significant effects were observed for the treatments tested”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1324–1399 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
e1

“Shoot regeneration was highly genotype-dependent varying between 0 and 83%, whereas only minor, non-significant effects were observed for the treatments tested”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1240–1399 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Digital PCR estimated T-DNA gene copy numbers in apple Ri lines for the first time.

Outcome
Copy numbers of T-DNA genese0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Copy numbers of T-DNA genes were estimated using digital PCR for the first time in apple Ri lines.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1401–1499 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Two Ri lines had compact shoots and shorter leaves in a greenhouse.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Material
Ri linese0
Outcome
compact shoots and shorter leavese0
Setting
greenhousee0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“In the greenhouse, two Ri lines showed compact shoots and shorter leaves”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1500–1572 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Two Ri lines showed no enhanced root system.

Taxon
Malus domesticaMalus domesticat0
Outcome
root systeme0
Direction
no enhancede0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Malus domestica
Malus domestica · TaxonW.carter · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“but no enhanced root system”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1574–1601 · show in text ↑
t0

“Malus domestica”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 99–114 · show in text ↑