2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.scienta.2008.07.036
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Regeneration from leaf explants and protoplasts of Brassica oleracea var. botrytis (cauliflower)

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
7
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
5
2
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(10 citation statements)
references
References 30 publications
(34 reference statements)
1
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Zhang and Bhalla [34] reported huge variations (0-96.7%) in seven Australian cultivars of Brassica napus. Similar genotype-dependent variations among different Brassica species have been reported in several studies [23,33,[35][36][37][38][39][40]43,[45][46][47]49].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Zhang and Bhalla [34] reported huge variations (0-96.7%) in seven Australian cultivars of Brassica napus. Similar genotype-dependent variations among different Brassica species have been reported in several studies [23,33,[35][36][37][38][39][40]43,[45][46][47]49].…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 84%
“…Regeneration in Brassica has been reported from several tissues and organs including leaves, stem sections, petioles, roots, hypocotyls, cotyledons, immature zygotic embryos, protoplasts and cell suspension cultures [16,27,[33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41]. Out of these, cotyledons, hypocotyls and roots have been frequently used for genetic transformation [2,16,19,37,42,43].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Contrarily, GA 3 could not produce the highest shoot length response in some plant species (Abbasi et al 2010a, b). Chikkala et al (2009) concluded from their study that mature leaf explants produced fewer number of shoots than younger leaves of rapid-cycling B. oleracea and broccoli, but the number of shoots and regeneration frequency was higher in cauliflower. Kuginuki et al (1997) studied varietal differences in embryogenic and regenerative ability in the microspore culture of Chinese cabbage (B. rapa spp.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To the best of our knowledge, there are still no reports on a stable genetic modification of cauliflower via the biolistic approach; only transient expression studies were reported by Brown and Wang (2004). Instead, this variety was modified by both direct DNA uptake (electroporation, PEG-mediated modification) and via the Rhizobium radiobacter and Rhizobium rhizogenes -mediated transformation (Chikkala et al 2008; Kumar Ray et al 2012; Radchuk et al 2002; Theriappan and Gupta 2014). However, despite those successful approaches, cauliflower is considered to be quite recalcitrant to genetic engineering and displays cultivar-dependent response to such modifications.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%