Cited by 45Banana Cultivation and ResearchPlant tissue culture and regenerationPlant Genetic and Mutation Studies

A review of somaclonal variation in plantain (Musa spp): mechanisms and applications

Open access
Nwauzoma, AB, Jaja, ET·2013·Journal of Applied Biosciences

Abstract

Micropropagation or tissue culture is an integral component of applied biotechnology, and is routinely used in different laboratories worldwide. Plant tissue has contributed immensely in large-scale production of resistant and pest free plantlets, germplasm exchange and conservation. A common feature of in vitro-regenerated plants is the potential of genetic variation generated during tissue culture called somaclonal variation, which can be passed onto progeny.Objective: This paper reviews the factors responsible for this phenomenon, its occurrence in some crops, with emphasis on banana and plantain and its application in the genetic improvement of Musa.Key words: Plant cell culture, Somaclonal variation, Disease resistance, Banana, Biotechnology

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4314/jab.v67i0.95046

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • One explanation for the high chromosomal abnormalities in callus/protoplast cultures is that regenerants result from a long series of mitoses during which numerous mutations appear spontaneously and uncontrolled, and the greater the number of subcultures, the more these mutations affect a greater amount of genetic material, as a result of disruption of cell division control mechanisms.

    “One explanation is the fact that the regenerants are the result of a long series of mitoses during which numerous mutations appear spontaneously and uncontrolled, and the greater the number of subcultures, the more these mutations affect a greater amount of genetic material, as a result of the disruption of the cell division control mechanisms [29].”

    From Somaclonal Variation—Advantage or Disadvantage in Micropropagation of the Medicinal Plants (2023) · cites this paper as [29]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • 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].”

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

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. Ahloowalia BS, 1976. Chromosomal changes in parasexually produced ryegrass. In: K. Jones and P. E. Brandham (eds.). Current chromosome research, pp. 115-122. Elsevier Press, Amsterdam.
  2. Chen QJ, Su J, Nandy S, Kereliuk G, 2007. Screening potato genotypes for antioxidant capacity and total phenolics. Annual Meeting of CPS-SCP (with Plant Canada 2007), Saskatoon, SK, Canada, June 10-14: pp. 142.
  3. Heinz DJ, 1973. Sugarcane improvement through induced mutations using vegetative propagules and cell culture techniques. In: Induced mutations in vegetatively propagated plants. Proc. of a Panel, Intern. Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna 11-15 September 1972, pp. 53-59.
  4. Hwang SC and Ko WH, 1987. Somaclonal variation of bananas and screening for resistance to Fusarium wilt, pp. 151-156. In: (eds.
  5. Persley G. H. and De Langhe E. A.) Proc. Intl. Wkshp. Cairns, Australia, 13-17 Oct. 1986. ACIAR Proc. No. 21. Australian Center for International Agricultural Research, Canberra.
  6. Hwang SC, 1988. Tissue-culture derived mutants of 'Giant Cavendish' resistant to race 4 of Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. cubense. In: ACORBAT Memorias VIII Reunion, Proceedings, 8 th ACORBAT meeting, Santa Marta, Colombia, 27 September-3 rd Oct., 1987, pp. 77-90 (eds. R. Jaramillo, A. Restrepo and R. Bayona), AUGURA, Medellin, Colombia.
  7. Krishnamurthi M and Tlaskal J, 1974. Fiji disease resistant Saccharum officinarum var Pandar subclones from tissue cultures. Proc. Int. Soc. Sugarcane Technol. 15: 130-137.
  8. Krishnamurthi M, 1981. Sugarcane improvement through tissue culture and review of progress. In: AN Rao (ed.) Tissue culture of economically important plants. Pp. 7-77. Asian Network for Biological Science, Singapore.
  9. Li X, Xu M, Korban SS, 2002. DNA methylation profiles differ between field-and in vitro grown leaves of apple. Journal of Plant Physiology; 159: 1129- 1134.
  10. Mujib A, Banerjee S, Dev Ghosh P, 2007. Callus induction, somatic embryogenesis and chromosomal instability in tissue culture raised hippeastrum (Hippeastrum hybridum cv. United Nations). Propagation of Ornamental Plants; 7:169-174.
  11. Nwauzoma AB, 1999. Somaclonal variation and disease response in Musa germplasm. PhD Thesis, Rivers State University of Science and Technology, Port Harcourt, Nigeria, pp. 141.
  12. Oono K, 1978a. High frequency mutations in rice plants regenerated from seed callus, pp. 52, (Abstr.). 4 th Int. Congr. Plant Tissue Cell Culture, Calgary, Canada.
  13. G. A. Tuskan) Proc. North Central Tree Improvement Conf., Fargo, N. D. Ramos Leal M A, Ruiz I, Sandoval and Maribona R H, 1991. Effect of DS toxin upon the permeability of sugarcane leaf and callus tissue. Plant Breeding. 107: 242-247.
  14. Solmon-Blackburn RM and Baker H, 2001. Breeding resistance virus potatoes (Solanum tuberosum L.): a review of traditional and molecular approaches. Heredity, 86: 17-35.
  15. Tabares E, Pachon J, Roca WW, 1993. Varacion somaclonal y su applicacion al mejoramiento de cultivos. Pp. 337-359 in Cultivo de Tejidos en la Agricultura; Fundamentos y Applicaciones (Cap 14).Strategies for obtaining somaclonal variants resistant to yellow Sigatoka (Mycosphaerella musicola). Infomusa, 5: 12-13.
  16. Davies, D.R. Hopwood, D.A.), pp. 185-196. The John Innes Charity, Norwich.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Nwauzoma, A., & Jaja, E.
Affiliations
Rivers State University (NG)
Venue
Journal of Applied Biosciences
Published
2013-10-09
Volume
67
Issue
0
Pages
5252
ISSN
1997-5902 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2067764008
Cited by
45
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4
FWCI
2.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
Journal of Applied Biosciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Banana Cultivation and Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Plant tissue culture and regeneration
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Genetic and Mutation Studies
Keywords
somaclonal variation, plantain, Musa, banana, micropropagation, tissue culture, genetic variation, disease resistance, genetic improvement, germplasm conservation

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