Epigenetic changes detected in micropropagated hop plants
Open accessAbstract
Micropropagation is a widely used technique in hops (Humulus lupulus L.). However, to the best of our knowledge, the genetic and epigenetic stability of the microplants has never been tested before. In the present study, two hop accessions were established in vitro and micropropagated for 2 years. The genetic and epigenetic stability of the in vitro plants was analyzed with several molecular techniques: random amplified DNA polymorphism (RAPD), retrotransposon microsatellite amplified polymorphism (REMAP), and methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphism (MSAP). No genetic variation among control and treated plants was found, even after 12 cycles of micropropagation. Epigenetic variation was detected, first, when field and in vitro samples were compared. Nearly a 30% of the detected fragments presented the same pattern of alterations in all the vitroplants. Second, lower levels of epigenetic variation were detected among plants from the different subcultures. Part of this detected variation seemed to be accumulated along the 12 sequential subcultures tested.
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?
In hop, after 2 years of micropropagation, no genetic variation was identified between 12 cycles of micropropagated accessions and controls, but epigenetic variations were observed when plants grown from seeds and in vitro samples were compared.
“Following this research, Peredo et al. (2009) [122] tested two hop accessions that were micropropagated for 2 years, and did not identify any genetic variation between the 12 cycles of micropropagated accessions and controls, but observed epigenetic variations when the plants grown from seeds and in vitro samples were compared.”
From Somaclonal Variation—Advantage or Disadvantage in Micropropagation of the Medicinal Plants (2023) · cites this paper as Peredo et al. (2009) [122]
Cites
Peredo, E. L., Ángeles Revilla, M., & Arroyo-García, R. (2006) · Journal of Plant Physiology · doi:10.1016/j.jplph.2005.09.010 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Somaclonal Variation—Advantage or Disadvantage in Micropropagation of the Medicinal Plants
Duta-Cornescu, G., Constantin, N., Pojoga, D.-M., Nicuta, D., & Simon-Gruita, A. (2023) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms24010838 · Cited by 108 · see citing works
“(2009) [122] tested two hop accessions that were micropropagated for 2 years, and did not identify any genetic variation between the 12 cycles of micropropagated accessions and controls, but observed epigenetic variations when the plants grown from seeds and in vitro samples were compared.”
BackgroundJena, S., Ray, A., Sahoo, A., Sahoo, S., Kar, B., Panda, P. C., & Nayak, S. (2018) · Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture (PCTOC) · doi:10.1007/s11240-018-1480-z · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Gimenez, M. D., Yañez-Santos, A. M., Paz, R. C., Quiroga, M. P., Marfil, C. F., Conci, V. C., & García-Lampasona, S. C. (2016) · Plant Cell Reports · doi:10.1007/s00299-015-1874-x · Cited by 47 · see citing works
KNOX1 is expressed and epigenetically regulated during in vitro conditions in Agave spp
De-la-Peña, C., Nic-Can, G., Ojeda, G., Herrera-Herrera, J. L., López-Torres, A., Wrobel, K., & Robert-Díaz, M. L. (2012) · BMC Plant Biology · doi:10.1186/1471-2229-12-203 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Oliya, B. K., Chand, K., Thakuri, L. S., Baniya, M. K., Sah, A. K., & Pant, B. (2021) · Scientia Horticulturae · doi:10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110008 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Zhang, W., Wang, Y., Diao, S., Zhong, S., Wu, S., Wang, L., Su, X., & Zhang, B. (2021) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2021.632088 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Evaluation of Genetic Stability of In Vitro Raised Orchids Using Molecular-Based Markers
Mohapatra, P., Ray, A., & Jena, S. (2022) · Commercial Scale Tissue Culture for Horticulture and Plantation Crops · doi:10.1007/978-981-19-0055-6_13 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- Peredo, E. L., Arroyo-García, R., & Revilla, M. Á.
- Affiliations
- Universidad de Oviedo (ES)
- Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Peredo, Elena L.
- Venue
- Journal of Plant Physiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-07
- Volume
- 166
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1101-1111
- ISSN
- 0176-1617 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2003138548
- Cited by
- 56
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 1.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Plant Physiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Consultation of the Doctoral Thesis Database (TESEO) (Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- DIGITAL.CSIC (Spanish National Research Council (CSIC)) (submittedVersion)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
- Keywords
- Humulus lupulus, micropropagation, epigenetic stability, DNA methylation, genetic stability, in vitro plants, methylation-sensitive amplification polymorphism, RAPD, REMAP, plant tissue culture
- MeSH terms
- Polymorphism, Genetic, Microsatellite Repeats, Humulus, Epigenesis, Genetic
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
