2011
DOI: 10.1007/s11274-011-0991-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of factors affecting Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of the unicellular green alga, Chlorella vulgaris

Abstract: The successful establishment of an Agrobacterium-mediated transformation method and optimisation of six critical parameters known to influence the efficacy of Agrobacterium T-DNA transfer in the unicellular microalga Chlorella vulgaris (UMT-M1) are reported. Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain LBA4404 harbouring the binary vector pCAMBIA1304 containing the gfp:gusA fusion reporter and a hygromycin phosphotransferase (hpt) selectable marker driven by the CaMV35S promoter were used for transformation. Transformatio… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

2
45
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(52 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
2
45
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Among the various methods established, agitation with glass beads needs protoplast generation [3]–[5], silicon carbon whiskers based-method has been reported to be toxic to human [5], [6], electroporation [5][7], [9] and biolistic microparticle bombardment [5][7] needs expensive instrumentation and protoplast generation, and Agrobacterium tumefaciens -mediated gene transfer is inefficient [5][8], [10]. Hence, in spite of such efforts, genetic engineering in eukaryotic microalgae is not well-established, compared with bacterial transformation [2], [5], [7], [11][13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Among the various methods established, agitation with glass beads needs protoplast generation [3]–[5], silicon carbon whiskers based-method has been reported to be toxic to human [5], [6], electroporation [5][7], [9] and biolistic microparticle bombardment [5][7] needs expensive instrumentation and protoplast generation, and Agrobacterium tumefaciens -mediated gene transfer is inefficient [5][8], [10]. Hence, in spite of such efforts, genetic engineering in eukaryotic microalgae is not well-established, compared with bacterial transformation [2], [5], [7], [11][13].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method has several advantages over other direct transformation methods which include stability, inexpensive and simple procedure, integration of large DNA fragments with little rearrangements in the host genome and wide host range [2,3]. Recent studies involving genetic manipulation among microalgae through the Agrobacterium-mediated transformation has been demonstrated in different species such as Chlamydomonas reinhardtii [4,5], Haematococcus pluvialis [6], Schizochytrium [7], Chlorella vulgaris [8], Nannochloropsis [2], Scenedesmus almeriensis [9], and Dunaliella [10].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation was successful in a variety of freshwater algal strains such as Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Kumar et al, 2004), Haematococcus pluvialis (Kathiresan and Sarada, 2009), Chlorella vulgaris (Cha et al, 2012) and marine microalgal strains Parachlorella kessleri (Rathod et al, 2013), Schizochytrium (Cheng et al, 2012), Nanno chloropsis sp. (Cha et al, 2011) and Dunaliella bardawil (Anila et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%