Cited by 98Plant tissue culture and regenerationPlant Genetic and Mutation StudiesChromosomal and Genetic Variations

Somaclonal Variation in Tissue Culture: A Case Study with Olive

Open access
Leva, A.R., Petruccelli, R., Rinaldi, L.M.R.·2012·Recent Advances in Plant in vitro Culture

Abstract

Micropropagation of woody plants and fruit crops constitutes a major success in the commercial application of in vitro cultures. An important aspect to be considered when deriving perennial plants from micropropagation is the maintenance of genetic integrity with regard to the mother plant. In this regard, somaclonal variation has been reported at different levels (morphological, cytological, cytochemical, biochemical, and molecular) in micropropagated plants [1]. The economic consequence of somaclonal variation among regenerated plants is enormous in fruit crops and woody plants, because they have long life cycles. In consequence, the behaviour of micropropagated plants should be assessed after their long juvenile stage in field conditions. The occurrence of somaclonal variation is a matter of great concern for any micropropagation system. In order to evaluate its presence several strategies were used to detect somaclonal variants, based on one or more determinants from among morphological traits, cytogenetic analysis (numerical and structural variation in the chromosomes), and molecular and biochemical markers [2]. In addition, studies on somaclonal variation are important for its control and possible suppression with the aim of producing genetically identical plants, and for its use as a tool to produce genetic variability, which will enable breeders the genetic improvement. Somaclonal variation has been studied extensively in herbaceous plants, whereas few studies have focused on temperate perennial fruit crops.

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 · 10.5772/50367

Cites

135 of 135 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?

  • Somaclonal variation is a complicated phenomenon, and it remains difficult to fully understand how genetic and epigenetic mechanisms interact within in vitro culture environments.

    “Somaclonal variation is a complicated phenomenon, and it remains difficult to fully understand the ways in which genetic and epigenetic mechanisms interact within in vitro culture environments (Figure 1) [27,28].”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [27]

    Section 3, “Origin and causes” (page unavailable), says the mechanisms of somaclonal variation remain largely unknown or speculative in perennial fruit crops. Sections 2 and 4 describe genetic and epigenetic changes during in vitro culture, but do not specifically say that how those mechanisms interact is difficult to understand, or extend the uncertainty beyond perennial fruit crops. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

4 of the 139 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 14

  1. Skirvin RM, McPheeters KD, Norton M. Sources and frequency of somaclonal variation. HortScience 1994; 29 : 1232-1237.
  2. Thorpe TA. Frontiers of plant tissue culture. Canada: University of Calgary Press; 1978.
  3. Thorpe TA. In vitro somatic embryogenesis. ISI atlas of science-animal and plant sciences. 1988; 1: 81-88.
  4. Rodrigues PHV, Tulmann Neto A, Cassieri Neto P, Mendes BMJ. Influence of the number of subcultures on somoclonal variation in micropropagated Nanico (Musa spp., AAA group). Acta Horticulturae 1998; 490:469-473.
  5. Shepherd K, Dos Santos JA Mitotic instability in banana varieties. I. Plants from callus and shoot tip cultures. Fruit 1996; 51:5-11.
  6. Stover RH. Somaclonal variation in Grande Naine and Saba bananas in the nursery and in the field. In: Persley GJ, De Langhe E (eds.) ACIAR proceeding no. 21, Canberra; 1987.
  7. Martin K, Pachathundikandi S, Zhang C, Slater A, Madassery J. RAPD analysis of a variant of banana (Musa sp.) cv. grande naine and its propagation via shoot tip culture. Plant 2006; 42:188-192.
  8. Mujib A, Banerjee S, Dev Ghosh P. Callus induction, somatic embryogenesis and chromosomal instability in tissue culture raised hippeastrum (Hippeastrum hybridum cv. United Nations). Propagation of Ornamental Plants 2007; 7:169-174.
  9. Nas M N, Multu N, Read PE. Random amplified polimorfic DNA (RAPD) analysis. HortScience 2004; 39:1079-1082.
  10. Xiangqian Li, Mingliang Xu, Schuyler S. Korban DNA methylation profiles differ between field-and in vitro-grown leaves of apple. Journal Plant Physiology 2002; 159: 1229-1234.
  11. Sarmento D, Martins M, Oliveira MM. Evaluation of somaclonal variation in almond using RAPD and ISSR. Options Méditerranéennes, Série A 2005; 63: 391-395.
  12. Roselli G, Mariotti P, Tessa A. Caratterizzazione di progenie di olivo mediante analisi chimica e sensoriale degli olii. Proceedings del Simposio Nazionale : "Germoplasma olivicolo e tipicità dell'olio" tenuto a Perugia 5 dicembre, 2003. pp 278-283
  13. Mencuccini M.Produzione di somacloni da cultivar di olivo e prime osservazioni in campo Acta Italus Hortus 2011; 1: 113-116.
  14. Leva AR, Muleo R, Petruccelli R. Stabilità in campo di diversi habitus vegetativi in individui di Olea europaea L (cv Frangivento) derivati da embriogenesi somatica.Proceedings of the National Congress : Biodiversità-Opportunità di Sviluppo Sostenibile. Istituto Agronomico Mediterraneo, Bari, Italy. 2001.Volume II. 407-414.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Leva, A. R., Petruccelli, R., & Rinaldi, L. M. R.
Venue
Recent Advances in Plant in vitro Culture
Publisher
InTech
Published
2012-10-17
OpenAlex
W1567009339
Cited by
98
References
139
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
6.57
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • InTech eBooks (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • BiblioBoard Library Catalog (Open Research Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Contact-less Assessment of In-vivo Body Signals Using Microwave Doppler Radar (InTech) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Chromosomal and Genetic Variations
Keywords
somaclonal variation, olive, micropropagation, in vitro culture, genetic stability, perennial fruit crops, genetic variation

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