Paper · 2024 · Fruit growing and viticulture of South Russia

Influence of concentration and formulation of macrosalts in the nutrient medium on the indicators of meristem regeneration at the stage of introduction to culture in vitro in some aboriginal Don grapes varieties

A.N. Rebrov; N.S. Ventsenostseva

5
claims
10
verbatim quotes
0
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Abstract. Rare indigenous grape varieties are of significant value for viticulture, breeding and preservation of genetic material. Often, ancient grape varieties, due to prolonged vegetative propagation, are infected with one or more chronic diseases (viruses, phytoplasmas, bacterial cancer). The most reliable way to improve the health of such plants is the method of apical meristems in in vitro culture. In which, on artificial nutrient medium, it is necessary to regenerate the plant from isolated extremely small apical explants (about 50-100 microns). One of the most important components of nutrient medium are macroelements. Not only their quantity is of great importance, but also the compounds they represent, as well as the balance and ratio of all elements in the nutrient medium. In this regard, the purpose of our study was to study the characteristics of mineral nutrition of grape plants of native Don varieties in in vitro culture. To do this, we studied the effectiveness of the most commonly used nutrient media in microclonal propagation. The experiments were carried out on four rare native Don varieties Plechistik oboepolyi, Bessergenevskiy №10, Musketnyi and Durman. Protocols used: Murashige and Skuug (MS), McCown Wood Plant (WPM), Chee and Pool (C2D), Quoirin & lepoivre (QL) and Anton Rebrov (AR1). The nutrient media differed only in the composition of macrosalts; all other components were added in equal quantities. The varietal response of the studied varieties was different. The Plechistik oboepolyi and Bessergenevskiy №10varieties regenerated best, and the Musketnyi and Durman varieties regenerated more poorly. It has been established that the composition of macroelements significantly affects the regeneration and differentiation of shoots in apical meristems. For most varieties, the most stable results were observed when using WPM and AR1 nutrient media. The worst development of explants in all varieties in the study occurred on MS and C2D media. Key words: apical meristem, introduction into in vitro culture, regeneration of explants, recipes for nutrient media, concentration of macronutrients, native Don varieties

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. 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 5

Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Plechistik oboepolyi and Bessergenevskiy No. 10 grape varieties regenerated best in apical meristem culture.

Taxon
grapest0
Material
Plechistik oboepolyi and Bessergenevskiy №10varietiese0
Outcome
regenerated beste0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

t0

“aboriginal Don grapes varieties”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 180–211 · show in text ↑
e0

“The Plechistik oboepolyi and Bessergenevskiy №10varieties regenerated best”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1510–1584 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The Musketnyi and Durman grape varieties regenerated more poorly in apical meristem culture.

Taxon
grapest0
Material
Musketnyi and Durman varietiese0
Outcome
regenerated more poorlye0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

t0

“aboriginal Don grapes varieties”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 180–211 · show in text ↑
e0

“the Musketnyi and Durman varieties regenerated more poorly”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1590–1648 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The composition of macroelements in the nutrient medium significantly affected shoot regeneration and differentiation from apical meristems of grape.

Taxon
grapest0
Treatment
composition of macroelementse0
Outcome
regeneration and differentiation of shootse0

Not reportedComparatorDirection

Verbatim

t0

“aboriginal Don grapes varieties”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 180–211 · show in text ↑
e0

“the composition of macroelements significantly affects the regeneration and differentiation of shoots in apical meristems”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1679–1800 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

For most grape varieties the most stable results were obtained on WPM and AR1 nutrient media.

Taxon
grapest0
Treatment
WPM and AR1 nutrient mediae0
Outcome
most stable resultse0
Direction
most stablee0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“aboriginal Don grapes varieties”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 180–211 · show in text ↑
e0

“For most varieties, the most stable results were observed when using WPM and AR1 nutrient media”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1802–1897 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Explant development was worst on MS and C2D media in all studied grape varieties.

Taxon
grapest0
Treatment
MS and C2D mediae0
Outcome
development of explantse0
Direction
worste0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“aboriginal Don grapes varieties”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 180–211 · show in text ↑
e0

“The worst development of explants in all varieties in the study occurred on MS and C2D media”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1899–1991 · show in text ↑

in vitro · growth · VitisPositive and negative results

54 papers: 47 positive, 7 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 47 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

50 papers more in this group

See all 54 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.