Somaclonal variation for disease resistance in wheat and production of dihaploids through wheat x maize hybrids
Open accessAbstract
Seven wheat cultivars having some degree of resistance to Bipolaris sorokiniana, Magnaporthe grisea or Xanthomonas campestris pv. undulosa (Xcu) provided somaclonal variation for disease resistance. Callus induction varied from 69.4 to 100% across the cultivars, whereas regeneration frequency of R1 plants (regenerated plants of first generation) varied between 2.7 and 23.1%. Resistance variation in the R2-regenerated second generation plants was observed for B. sorokiniana and M. grisea but not for Xcu. Attempts were made to fix the resistance characteristics of R3-regenerated third generation somaclones through wheat x maize hybrids. Wheat and maize hybridization of seven wheat somaclones yielded 81 embryos. A total of 11,624 somaclone florets were pollinated, of which 8.4% produced haploid embryos across the seven wheat genotypes. Hybrid embryo production varied between 0 and 25%. The somaclones had a constant chromosome number as observed in their original hexaploid wheat genotypes (2n = 6x = 42) whereas the haploid plants had n = 21. Hybrid embryo production and haploid and dihaploid plant production were affected by 2,4-D concentration, but not by the wheat genotype.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Somaclonal variability is a source of genetic diversity that breeders can use for the generation of new plants with superior economic traits.
“At the same time, somaclonal variability is a source of genetic diversity that breeders can use for the generation of new plants with superior economic traits [29,30,31,32].”
From Somaclonal Variation—Advantage or Disadvantage in Micropropagation of the Medicinal Plants (2023) · cites this paper as [31]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Vasil, I. and Vasil, V. (1986). Regeneration in cereal and other grass species. In: Cell Culture and Somatic Cell Genetics of Plants (Vasil, I. and Vasil, V., eds.). Vol. 3. Praeger Press, New York, pp. 121-150.
- Zadoks, J.C. (1972). Reflections on disease resistance in annual crops. In: Biology of Rust Resistance in Forest Trees (Bringham, R.T., Hoff, R.J. and McDonald, G.I., eds.). US Department of Agriculture and Forest Service Miscellaneous Publications No. 1221, Washington, USA, pp. 43-63.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Somaclonal Variation in Plants: Causes and Detection Methods
Bairu, M. W., Aremu, A. O., & Van Staden, J. (2011) · Plant Growth Regulation · doi:10.1007/s10725-010-9554-x · Cited by 674 · see citing works
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
Somaclonal Variation in Tissue Culture: A Case Study with Olive
Leva, A. R., Petruccelli, R., & Rinaldi, L. M. R. (2012) · Recent Advances in Plant in vitro Culture · doi:10.5772/50367 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
Tikendra, L., Potshangbam, A. M., Dey, A., Devi, T. R., Sahoo, M. R., & Nongdam, P. (2021) · Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants · doi:10.1007/s12298-021-00939-x · Cited by 83 · see citing works
- Authors
- Mehta, Y. R., & Angra, D. C.
- Affiliations
- Instituto Agronômico do Paraná (BR)
- Federal Center for Technological Education Celso Suckow da Fonseca (BR)
- Venue
- Genetics and Molecular Biology
- Publisher
- FapUNIFESP (SciELO)
- Published
- 2000-09
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 617-622
- ISSN
- 1415-4757 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2087562865
- Cited by
- 37
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 0.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Genetics and Molecular Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- Americanae (AECID Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Wheat and Barley Genetics and Pathology
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Genetic and Mutation Studies
- Keywords
- somaclonal variation, disease resistance, wheat, dihaploids, haploid embryos, callus induction, plant regeneration, Bipolaris sorokiniana, Magnaporthe grisea, 2,4-D, wheat cultivars
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