Songül GÜREL, Ekrem GÜREL, Canan YÜKSEL ÖZMEN, Ferzat TURAN, Kemal KAZAN, Muhammet Çağrı OĞUZ, Ali ERGÜL

Utilization of sucrose during cocultivation positively affects Agrobacterium-mediated transformation efficiency in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.)

Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) is one of the most important industrial crops throughout world. With the availability of suitablegenetic transformation technologies, the yield, quality, and stress tolerance of sugar beet could be improved significantly. However, lowtransformation efficiencies seriously limit the application of molecular technologies to the genetic improvement of sugar beet. Withthe aim of improving gene transfer techniques for sugar beet, the effect of different sucrose concentrations during cocultivation onthe initial Agrobacterium-mediated transformation efficiencies in sugar beet was tested. To develop an efficient experimental systemthrough which the effect of sucrose could be tested, first, a prolific regeneration system was optimized by testing the effect of differentplant growth regulators on in vitro regeneration and rooting efficiencies from sugar beet cotyledonary node explants. The highestmean number of regenerated shoots per explant was obtained when the cotyledonary node explants excised from young seedlingswere grown on MS medium supplemented with 1.0 mg/L 6-benzylaminopurine. Using this regeneration system, the effect of differentconcentrations of sucrose included in the cocultivation medium on the initial genetic transformation efficiencies observed in T0 plantswas tested using an Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain carrying the pBin19/35S:GUS-INT construct. The inclusion of 4.5% sucrose inthe cocultivation medium resulted in significantly higher transformation (34.09%) and expression efficiencies (22.72%), confirmedby polymerase chain reaction and β-glucuronidase assays, respectively, in regenerated T0 seedlings. If translated into stably inheritedtransformation efficiencies, these findings could contribute to the success of genetic transformation studies in sugar beet and other cropsrecalcitrant to Agrobacterium-mediated transformation.

PDF

___

Ahmad S, Raza I, Muhammad D, Ali H, Hussain S, Doğan H, Zia-UlHaq M (2015). Radiation, water and nitrogen use efficiencies of Gossypium hirsutum L. Turk J Agric For 39: 1-13.
Alt-Mörbe J, Kühmann H, Schröder (1989). Differences in induction of Ti-plasmid virulence genes virG and virD and continued control of virD expression by four external factors. Mol Plant Mic In 2: 301-308.
Cesur C, Eryılmaz T, Uskutoglu T, Doğan H, Coşge Şenkal B (2018). Cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium L.) seed oil and its properties as an alternative biodiesel source. Turk J Agric For 42: 29-37.
Ercisli S, Ipek A, Barut E (2011). SSR marker-based DNA fingerprinting and cultivar identification of olives (Olea europaea). Biochem Genet 49: 555-561.
Ergül A, Khabbazi S, Oğuz MÇ, Özmen CY, Gürel S, Gürel E (2018). In vitro multiplication of wild relatives in genus Beta conserves the invaluable threatened germplasms. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 134: 169-175.
Jin S, Zhang X, Nie Y, Guo X, Huang C (2005). Factors affecting transformation efficiency of embryogenic callus of upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 81: 229-237.
Konwar BK (1994). Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated genetic transformation of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). J Plant Biochem Biotech 3: 37-41.
Krens FA, Trifonova A, Keizer LP, Hall RD (1996). The effect of exogenously-applied phytohormones on gene transfer efficiency in sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.). Plant Sci 116: 97-106.
Kumlehn J, Serazetdinova L, Hensel G, Becker D, Loerz H (2006). Genetic transformation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) via infection of androgenetic pollen cultures with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Biotechnol J 4: 251-261.
Lefort F, Lally M, Thompson D, Douglas G (1998). Morphological traits, microsatellite fingerprinting and genetic relatedness of a stand of elite oaks (Q. robur L.) at Tullynally, Ireland. Silvae Genet 47: 257-261.
Lindsey K, Gallois PJ (1990). Transformation of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. J Exp Bot 41: 529-536.
Lytvyn D, Syvura V, Kurylo V, Olenieva V, Yemets A, Blume YB (2017). Creation of transgenic sugar beet lines expressing insect pest resistance genes cry1C and cry2A. Tisitol Genet 48: 69-75.
Mishutkina YV, Gaponenko A (2006). Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.) morphogenesis in vitro: effects of phytohormone type and concentration in the culture medium, type of explants, and plant genotype on shoot regeneration frequency. Genetika 42: 150-157.
Mishutkina YV, Kamionskaya A, Skryabin K (2010). The creation of sugar beet transgenic plants expressing bar gene. Appl Biochem Microbiol 46: 80-86.
Murashige T, Skoog F (1962). A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15: 473-497.
Norouzi P, Malboobi MA, Zamani K, Yazdi-Samadi H (2005). Using a competent tissue for efficient transformation of sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris L.). In Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 41: 11-16.
Okonechnikov K, Golosova O, Fursov M (2012). UniproUGENE: A unified bioinformatics toolkit. Bioinformatics 28: 1166-1167.
Opabode JT (2006). Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of plants: emerging factors that influence efficiency. Biotechnol Mol Biol Rev 1: 12-20.
Pathi KM, Tula S, Tuteja N (2013). High frequency regeneration via direct somatic embryogenesis and efficient Agrobacteriummediated genetic transformation of tobacco. Plant Signal Behav 8: e24354.
Ritchie G, Short K, Davey MR (1989). In vitro shoot regeneration from callus, leaf axils and petioles of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). J Exp Bot 40: 277-283.
Rivera AL, Gomez-Lim M, Fernandez F, Loske AM (2012). Physical methods for genetic plant transformation. Phys Life Rev 9: 308-345.
Shimoda N, Toyoda-Yamamoto A, Nagamine J, Usami S, Katayama M, Sakagami Y, Machida, Y (1990). Control of expression of Agrobacterium Vir genes by synergistic actions of phenolic signal molecules and monosaccharides. P Natl Acad Sci USA 87: 6684-6688.
Stachel SE, Zambryski P (1986). VirA and VirG control the plantinduced activation of the T-DNA transfer process of A. tumefaciens. Cell 46: 325-333.
Uranbey S, Sevimay C, Kaya M, Ipek A, Sancak C, Başalma D, Er C, Özcan S (2005). Influence of different co-cultivation temperatures, periods and media on Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated gene transfer. Biol Plantarum 49: 53-57.
Vancanneyt G, Schmidt R, O’Connor-Sanchez A, Willmitzer L, Rocha-Sosa M (1990). Construction of an intron-containing marker gene: splicing of the intron in transgenic plants and its use in monitoring early events in Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation. Mol General Genet 220: 245-250.
Vijayan K, Chakraborti SP, Ercisli S, Ghosh PD (2008). NaCI induced morpho-biochemical and anatomical changes in mulberry (Morus spp.). Plant Growth Reg 56: 61-69.
Yanofsky MF, Porter SG, Young C, Albright LM, Gordon MP, Nester EW (1986). The virD operon of Agrobacterium tumefaciens encodes a site-specific endonuclease. Cell 47: 471-477.