Cited by 44Plant tissue culture and regenerationGenetic diversity and population structureChromosomal and Genetic Variations

Assessment of genetic stability of two micropropagated wild olive species using flow cytometry and microsatellite markers

Open access
Brito, Gina, Lopes, Tina, Loureiro, João, Rodriguez, Eleazar, Santos, Conceição·2010·Trees

Abstract

Micropropagated plants from two wild-olive species, Olea maderensis and O. europaea ssp. europaea var. sylvestris were screened for genetic stability. O. maderensis shoots were elongated/multiplied on OMG medium with zeatin (9.12 μM), and rooted on 1/2 OMG with NAA (3.22 μM). O. europaea var. sylvestris shoots were elongated/multiplied on OM medium with zeatin, and rooting was optimal after a hormonal shock (IBA 100 μM) followed by transfer to the same medium without growth regulators. In both species, acclimatization was successful and plants looked normal and morphologically identical to the donor field trees. Genetic variability was assessed at several stages of the micropropagation process using flow cytometry (FCM) and nuclear microsatellites (SSR). No changes in ploidy level were found among micropropagated plants, though small deviations, putatively due to the negative effects of cytosolic compounds on propidium iodide staining, between these and field plants were observed. In SSRs analyses, ten SSR markers were able to distinguish between genotypes. No mutations were found in these tested SSR loci among the donor tree and micropropagated plants, suggesting, for the tested markers, genetic uniformity throughout the process. The FCM and SSR results obtained do not exclude the occurrence of other changes in the nuclear genome but, considering the morphological stability of micropropagated plants, indicate that both protocols are suitable and efficient for large scale, tr…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00468-010-0442-9

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brito, G., Lopes, T., Loureiro, J., Rodriguez, E., & Santos, C.
Affiliations
Centro de Estudos do Ambiente e do Mar (PT)
Corresponding author
Brito, Gina
Venue
Trees
Published
2010-05-25
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
723-732
ISSN
  • 0931-1890 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2285
OpenAlex
W1989109447
Cited by
44
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trees (publishedVersion)
  • Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
genetic stability, micropropagation, wild olive, Olea europaea var. sylvestris, ploidy level, microsatellite markers, flow cytometry, acclimatization, shoot multiplication, rooting, genotype discrimination

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review