Somaclonal Variation in Sugarcane through Tissue Culture and Evaluation for Quantitative and Quality Traits
Abstract
Eight genotypes of Saccharum officinarum were crossed with Saccharum spontaneum and 14 genotypes of S. officinarum were crossed with Erianthus arundinaceus. A total of 39 hybrids were evolved. These 39 hybrids were raised in the field and used as donor clones for in vitro culture studies. Plantlets were regenerated from 1-month-old callus. The grown up plants were transplanted to well prepared field, to study the variations generated for the biometric as well as for biochemical characters. There were significant differences between the donor clones and their sub clones for all the character of interest. The somatic segregation was gradual and wider, showing a range of divergence from the mean towards the end of the scale. Fifty-one sub clones were selected with commercial potential which have 13% fibre, 200 cm stalk length, 10 cm internode length and pure obtainable cane sugar per cent of 10.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Favoring direct organogenesis over indirect methods minimizes variation and preserves genetic fidelity, as indirect organogenesis typically consists of a callus phase associated with prolonged cell proliferation and extended culture exposure, increasing the risk of genetic instability.
“Another crucial approach involves favoring direct organogenesis over indirect methods, as indirect organogenesis typically consists of a callus phase associated with prolonged cell proliferation and extended culture exposure, increasing the risk of genetic instability [158].”
From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [165]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 12 · Cited by 27
- Authors
- Rajeswari, S., Thirugnanakumar, S., Anandan, A., & Krishnamurthi, M.
- Affiliations
- Annamalai University (IN)
- Corresponding author
- Thirugnanakumar, S.
- ORCID
- Rajeswari, S.
- Venue
- Euphytica
- Published
- 2009-01-28
- Volume
- 168
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 0014-2336 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-5060
- OpenAlex
- W2070510315
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Euphytica (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Sugarcane Cultivation and Processing
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetics and Plant Breeding
- Keywords
- sugarcane, somaclonal variation, tissue culture, Saccharum spontaneum, Erianthus arundinaceus, interspecific hybrids, callus regeneration, somatic segregation, fiber content, stalk length, internode length
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
