Transformation of Sugarcane

Birch, Robert G.; Maretzki, Andrew

doi:10.1007/978-3-642-78037-0_27

Cited by 12 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previously, genetic transformation has been used to transfer herbicide resistance (Gallo‐Meagher and Irvine, 1996; Falco et al, 2000; Leibbrandt and Snyman, 2003) and insect resistance (Arencibia et al, 1999) into sugarcane. Birch and Maretzki (1993) noted that genetic engineering in sugarcane would be a useful tool for reversing single flaws, such as disease susceptibility, in commercial cultivars. Sugarcane may benefit from genetic transformation because its high ploidy level makes traditional breeding programs difficult, while vegetative propagation of sugarcane allows for relatively stable transfer and multiplication of transgenic materials (Gallo‐Meagher and Irvine, 1996).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Agronomic Evaluation of Sugarcane Lines Transformed for Resistance to Sugarcane mosaic virus Strain E

Gilbert

Gallo‐Meagher

Comstock³

et al. 2005

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

zki (1993) noted that genetic engineering in sugarcane would be a useful tool for reversing single flaws, such Genetic transformation of sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) holds promas disease susceptibility, in commercial cultivars. Sugarise for increasing yields and disease resistance. However, the tissue cane may benefit from genetic transformation because its culture and transformation process may produce undesirable field characteristics in transgenic sugarcane. The primary objective of this high ploidy level makes traditional breeding programs study was to evaluate variability in agronomic characteristics and difficult, while vegetative propagation of sugarcane allows field disease resistance of sugarcane transformed for resistance to for relatively stable transfer and multiplication of trans- Sugarcane mosaic virus (SCMV) strain E. One hundred plants derivedgenic materials (Gallo-Meagher and Irvine, 1996). from cultivars CP 84-1198 (n ϭ 82) and CP 80-1827 (n ϭ 18), consisting Birch (1996) predicted that new gene technologies of independent virus resistant lines VR 1 (n ϭ 14), VR 4 (n ϭ 24), would reshape the sugar industry, yet obstacles to their VR 14 (n ϭ 4), and VR 18 (n ϭ 58) were evaluated in Exp. 1. implementation remain. For example, somaclonal varia-Transgenics derived from CP 84-1198 had significantly greater tonnes tion caused by tissue culture procedures may produce of sucrose per hectare (TSH) and significantly lower SCMV disease undesirable field characteristics in genetically transincidence than those from CP 80-1827 in the plant-cane (PC), firstformed sugarcane that are not readily identifiable in the ratoon (1R), and second-ratoon (2R) crops. Plants from the VR 18 line had significantly greater economic indices and lower SCMV disease laboratory or greenhouse (Lourens and Martin, 1987; incidence than the VR 4 line in all three crops. Phenotypic variation Burner and Grisham, 1995; Oropeza and De Garcia, 1996; was high in Exp. 1, with tonnes of cane per hectare (TCH) ranging Sreenivasan and Jalaja, 1998; Arencibia et al., 1999). from 26 to 211 and TSH from 3.2 to 28.9 in the PC crop. Agronomic Burner and Grisham (1995) report significant somatrait variation decreased with increased selection pressure in Exp. 2, clonal variation in CP 74-383 sugarcane subjected to evaluating 30 VR 18 lines, with TCH ranging from 70 to 149 and TSH different propagation procedures. Normal variants infrom 8.5 to 19.0 in PC. The large variability in yield characteristics creased from the PC to 1R crops, but still totaled Ͻ22% and disease resistance encountered in this study demonstrates the of all plants. Lourens and Martin (1987) reported sonecessity of thorough field evaluation of transgenic sugarcane while maclonal variation in two sugarcane cultivars, CP 65-357 selecting genetically stable and agronomically acceptable material for and CP 72-356. The frequency of variants and suitability commercial use.of tissue culture treatments varied between cultivars, and they recommended that the effects of tissue culture on ...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Agronomic Evaluation of Sugarcane Lines Transformed for Resistance to Sugarcane mosaic virus Strain E

Gilbert

Gallo‐Meagher

Comstock³

et al. 2005

Crop Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such factors have delayed for almost two decades the development of genetically modified sugarcane cultivars in comparison with other relevant crops, like maize, soybean, and cotton. Despite these complications, the establishment of genetic transformation protocols and reporter/selection genes, have demonstrated Agrobacterium-mediated and particle bombardment transformation of sugarcane with sufficient efficiency to produce commercial varieties (Birch and Maretzki, 1993;Bower et al, 1996;Birch, 1997;Irvine and Mirkov, 1997;Arencibia et al, 1998;Elliott et al, 1998Elliott et al, , 1999Enríquez-Obregón et al, 1998;Joyce et al, 1998a,b;Allsopp et al, 2000).…”

Section: Metabolomics From the Elucidation Of The Metabolic Network U...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Applying Molecular Phenotyping Tools to Explore Sugarcane Carbon Potential

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.), a C4 grass, has a peculiar feature: it accumulates, gradient-wise, large amounts of carbon (C) as sucrose in its culms through a complex pathway. Apart from being a sustainable crop concerning C efficiency and bioenergetic yield per hectare, sugarcane is used as feedstock for producing ethanol, sugar, high-value compounds, and products (e.g., polymers and succinate), and bioelectricity, earning the title of the world’s leading biomass crop. Commercial cultivars, hybrids bearing high levels of polyploidy, and aneuploidy, are selected from a large number of crosses among suitable parental genotypes followed by the cloning of superior individuals among the progeny. Traditionally, these classical breeding strategies have been favoring the selection of cultivars with high sucrose content and resistance to environmental stresses. A current paradigm change in sugarcane breeding programs aims to alter the balance of C partitioning as a means to provide more plasticity in the sustainable use of this biomass for metabolic engineering and green chemistry. The recently available sugarcane genetic assemblies powered by data science provide exciting perspectives to increase biomass, as the current sugarcane yield is roughly 20% of its predicted potential. Nowadays, several molecular phenotyping tools can be applied to meet the predicted sugarcane C potential, mainly targeting two competing pathways: sucrose production/storage and biomass accumulation. Here we discuss how molecular phenotyping can be a powerful tool to assist breeding programs and which strategies could be adopted depending on the desired final products. We also tackle the advances in genetic markers and mapping as well as how functional genomics and genetic transformation might be able to improve yield and saccharification rates. Finally, we review how “omics” advances are promising to speed up plant breeding and reach the unexplored potential of sugarcane in terms of sucrose and biomass production.

show abstract

“…For example, first transgenic sugarcane plants were generated by Bower and Birch [28], from embryonic callus, they easily recovered transgenic sugarcane plant with high DNA coated microprojectile by bombardment because the surface layer of sugarcane embryogenic callus obviously has a higher proportion of cells that are able to regenerate and proliferate that permit the selection of transformed plants [29]. Under the control of promoter Emu, transformation of a gene npt-II was delivered into sugarcane [30]. Subsequently, this transformation was confirmed by Southern hybridization.…”

Section: Microprojectile Bombardmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Novel Techniques for Gene Delivery into Plants and Its Applications for Disease Resistance in Crops

Rashid¹,

Lateef²

2016

AJPS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the early past to the present, biotechnologies have produced the ability to genetically transform a wide variety of plant species. The plant transformation technologies have changed the face of agriculture and plant biology. Plant genetic transformation is one of the key technologies for crop improvement in addition to emerging approach for producing recombinant proteins in plants. Both plastid genomes and plant nuclear can be genetically modified. Until now, essential functional differences between the prokaryotic-like genome of the plastid and the eukaryotic genome of the plant cell nucleus will have an impact on characteristics of transgenic organism. Thus, the main goals are to generate transgenic plants with the traits of interest as well as minimizing the amount of transgenic DNA in plants while maximizing stability of gene expression and trait performance. In this review, two broad groups of gene delivery methods will be discussed namely, (bilogical and physical methods) and subsequently there applications for improving disease resistance will be discussed.

show abstract

Transformation of Sugarcane

Cited by 12 publications

References 34 publications

Agronomic Evaluation of Sugarcane Lines Transformed for Resistance to Sugarcane mosaic virus Strain E

Agronomic Evaluation of Sugarcane Lines Transformed for Resistance to Sugarcane mosaic virus Strain E

Applying Molecular Phenotyping Tools to Explore Sugarcane Carbon Potential

Novel Techniques for Gene Delivery into Plants and Its Applications for Disease Resistance in Crops

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About