Blog List

Friday, 18 November 2016

Pinus halepensis somatic embryogenesis is affected by the physical and chemical conditions at the initial stages of the process

Published Date
Volume 21, Issue 3pp 143–150

Original article
DOI: 10.1007/s10310-016-0524-7

Cite this article as: 
Pereira, C., Montalbán, I.A., García-Mendiguren, O. et al. J For Res (2016) 21: 143. doi:10.1007/s10310-016-0524-7

  • Catia Pereira
  • Itziar Aurora Montalbán
  • Olatz García-Mendiguren
  • Tomás Goicoa
  • Maria Dolores Ugarte
  • Sandra Correia
  • Jorge Manuel Canhoto
  • Paloma Moncaleán

Pinus halepensis has been described as a drought-tolerant species with high plasticity to growth in different environments. Its eco-physiological characteristics could facilitate the use of this species in large afforestations in the future scenery of climate change. Somatic embryogenesis is a biotechnological tool with potential for large-scale clonal propagation. In order to establish an improved regeneration protocol for Pinus halepensis, the effects of different temperatures (18, 23, and 28 °C) and water availability conditions (2, 3, and 4 g L−1Gelrite®), during initiation of embryonal masses on the rate of initiation, proliferation, maturation, and the number of embryos developed, were evaluated. It was found that environmental conditions during the initiation stage of Pinus halepensis somatic embryogenesis influence the success of initiation and proliferation. In contrast, there was no effect of these conditions on the maturation rates and the number of somatic embryos. Somatic embryos were obtained in all treatments tested, indicating that plants can be produced from extreme conditions of induction, such as high temperatures (28 °C) and low water availability conditions (4 g L−1).


  1. Aitken-Christie J, Singh AP, Davies H (1988) Multiplication of meristematic tissue: a new tissue culture system for radiata pine. In: Hanover JW, Keathley DE (eds) Genetic manipulation of woody plants. Plenum, New York, pp 413–432CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Becwar M, Chesick E, Handley L III, Rutter M (1995) Method for regeneration of coniferous plants by somatic embryogenesis. US Patent 5,413,930
  3. Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D (2001) The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat 29:1165–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonga JM, Klimaszewska KK, von Aderkas P (2010) Recalcitrance in clonal propagation, in particular of conifers. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 100:241–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botella L, Santamaría O, Diez JJ (2010) Fungi associated with the decline of Pinus halepensis in Spain. Fungal Divers 40:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carneros E, Celestino C, Klimaszewska K, Park YS, Toribio M, Bonga JM (2009) Plant regeneration in Stone pine (Pinus pinea L.) by somatic embryogenesis. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 98:165–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cerda F, Aquea F, Gebauer M, Medina C, Arce-Johnson P (2002) Stable transformation of Pinus radiata embryogenic tissue by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 70:251–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choudhury H, Kumaria S, Tandon P (2008) Induction and maturation of somatic embryos from intact megagametophyte explants in Khasi pine (Pinus kesiya Royle ex. Gord.). Curr Sci 95:1433–1438Google Scholar
  9. Fehér A (2008) The initiation phase of somatic embryogenesis: what we know and what we don’t. Acta Biol Szegediensis 52:53–56Google Scholar
  10. Fehér A, Pasternak TP, Dudits D (2003) Transition of somatic plant cells to an embryogenic state. Plant Cell Tiss Org Cult 74:201–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. García-Mendiguren O, Montalbán IA, Goicoa T, Ugarte D, Moncaleán P (2015) Environmental conditions at the initial stages of Pinus radiata somatic embryogenesis affect the production of somatic embryos. Trees Struct Funct. doi:10.1007/s00468-015-1336-7Google Scholar
  12. Gil L, Aránzazu PM (1993) Pines as basic species for restoration of forests in the Mediterranean environment. Ecología 7:113–125Google Scholar
  13. Gupta PK, Durzan DJ (1985) Shoot multiplication from mature trees of Douglas fir and sugar pine. Plant Cell Rep 4:177–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hargreaves CL, Reeves CB, Find JI, Gough K, Josekutty P, Skudder DB, Van der Maas SA, Sigley MR, Menzies MI, Low CB, Mullin TJ (2009) Improving initiation, genotype capture, and family representation in somatic embryogenesis of Pinus radiata by a combination of zygotic embryo maturity, media, and explant preparation. Can J For Res 39:1566–1574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harry IS, Thorpe TA (1991) Somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from mature zygotic embryos of red spruce. Bot Gaz 152:446–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klein T, Cohen S, Yakir D (2011) Hydraulic adjustments underlying drought resistance of Pinus halepensis. Tree Physiol 31:637–648CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Kvaalen H, Johnsen O (2007) Timing of bud set in Picea abies is regulated by a memory of temperature during zygotic and somatic embryogenesis. New Phytol 177:49–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Maestre FT, Cortina J (2004) Are Pinus halepensis plantations useful as a restoration tool in semiarid Mediterranean areas? For Ecol Manag 198:303–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCulloch CE, Searle SR (2001) Generalized, linear and mixed models. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Montalbán IA, De Diego N, Moncaleán P (2010) Bottlenecks in Pinus radiata somatic embryogenesis: improving maturation and germination. Trees 24:1061–1071CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Montalbán IA, De Diego N, Moncaleán P (2012) Enhancing initiation and proliferation in radiata pine (Pinus radiata D. Don) somatic embryogenesis through seed family screening, zygotic embryo staging and media adjustments. Acta Physiol Plant 34:451–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Montalbán IA, Setién-Olarra A, Hargreaves CL, Moncaleán P (2013) Somatic embryogenesis in Pinus halepensis Mill.: an important ecological species from the Mediterranean forest. Trees-Struct Funct 27:1339–1351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Montalbán IA, García-Mendiguren O, Moncaleán P (2015a) Somatic embryogenesis in Pinus spp. In: Germana MA, Lambardi M (eds) In vitro embryogenesis in higher plants. Methods in molecular biology, vol. 1359. doi 10.1007/978-1-4939-3061-6_21, Springer,New York, pp 405-415
  24. Montalbán IA, García-Mendiguren O, Goicoa T, Ugarte MD, Moncaleán P (2015b) Cold storage of initial plant material affects positively somatic embryogenesis in Pinus radiata. New For 46:309–317CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Montero JL, Alcanda P (1993) Reforestación y biodiversidad. Montes 33:57–76Google Scholar
  26. Morel A, Teyssier C, Trontin JF, Eliásová K, Pesĕk B, Beaufour M, Morabito D, Boizot N, Le Metté C, Belal-Bessai L, Reymond I, Harvengt L, Cadene M, Corbineau F, Vágner M, Label P, Lelu-Walter MA (2014) Early molecular events involved in Pinus pinaster Ait. somatic embryo development under reduced water availability: transcriptomic and proteomic analyses. Physiol Plant 152:184–201CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Oliveras I, Martínez-Vilalta J, Jimenez-Ortiz T, Lledó MJ, Escarré A, Piñol J (2003) Hydraulic properties of Pinus halepensisPinus pinea and Tetraclinis articulata in a dune ecosystem of Eastern Spain. Plant Ecol 169:131–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Percy RE, Klimaszewska K, Cyr DR (2000) Evaluation of somatic embryogenesis for clonal propagation of western white pine. Can J For Res 30:1867–1876CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pullman GS, Bucalo K (2014) Pine somatic embryogenesis: analyses of seed tissue and medium to improve protocol development. New For 45:353–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pullman GS, Skryabina A (2007) Liquid medium and liquid overlays improve embryogenic tissue initiation in conifers. Plant Cell Rep 6:873–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Quoirin M, Lepoivre P (1977) Études des milieu adaptés aux cultures in vitro de Prunus. Acta Hortic 78:437–442 (in French)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sánchez-Salguero R, Navarro-Cerrillo RM, Camarero JJ, Fernández-Cancio A (2012) Selective drought-induced decline of pine species in southeastern Spain. Climate Change 113:767–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith DR (1996) Growth medium US patent number 5,565,355
  34. Van Winkle SC, Pullman GS (2005) Achieving desired plant growth regulator levels in liquid plant tissue culture media that include activated carbon. Plant Cell Rep 24:201–208CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

For further details log on website :

No comments:

Post a Comment

Mangrove Forest Management & Restoration

The Sabah Forestry Department has conserved most if not all Mangrove Forests under Class V for marine life conservation and as a natural me...