Skip to content
BY 4.0 license Open Access Published by De Gruyter Open Access June 10, 2020

An efficient protocol for regenerating shoots from paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera) leaf explants

  • Siming Cui , Ying Ren , Yahan Hao , Junjie Zhang , Zhouchao Chen , Jintuo Zou , Wei Zhou EMAIL logo and Xiaoyang Chen EMAIL logo
From the journal Open Life Sciences

Abstract

Paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera) is a tree species that has many economic, ecological, and social uses. This study developed an efficient protocol for regenerating shoots from leaf explants using Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium supplemented with different concentrations of plant growth regulators (PGRs), which play vital roles in shoot regeneration. The best result, 86.67% induction frequency and 4.35 shoots per explant, was obtained in the MS medium containing 2.0 mg/L N6-benzyladenine (BA) and 0.05 mg/L indole-3-butyric acid. The effects of explant age, orientation, and genotype were also investigated. Explants from young leaves had a greater regeneration frequency than those from old leaves, and the results were better when the distal end of the leaf explant contacted the medium versus the proximal end. Approximately 70.96% of the shoots rooted well in the MS medium containing 0.4 mg/L α-naphthalene acetic acid (NAA). Although some genotypes achieved poorer results, the regeneration protocol is still applicable for mass multiplication and genetic transformation.

1 Introduction

Paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera) is a multipurpose tree or shrub belonging to the Moraceae [1] that mainly grows in eastern Asia and the Pacific islands [2,3,4]. Each organ of the tree species is valuable: bark fiber is an excellent raw material for paper-making and a potential bio-ethanol feedstock [5,6,7] and young shoots have a high feed and nutritional value [8]. There are many medicinal uses for paper mulberry as a source of flavonoids, terpenoids, polyphenols, alkaloids, and other compounds [9,10,11,12]. In summary, paper mulberry has ecological, economic, forage, and medicinal values and has good development prospects. Consequently, paper mulberry is attracting increasing attention worldwide. Paper mulberry has strong stress resistance and environmental adaptability [13,14]; it is drought resistant and has the strong anti-pollution ability [15,16], allowing it to play an important role in ecological restoration [17,18,19].

The standard method of paper mulberry proliferation is seed breeding, but the survival rate is low and uniform seeding is not obtained by seed proliferation [20]. Paper mulberry can also proliferate through root cultivation and cutting propagation [21,22], but the efficiency is relatively low and cannot meet large-scale production needs. Therefore, to meet the demand for large-scale production and achieve efficient, convenient propagation, it is important to establish an efficient regeneration protocol for paper mulberry using a genetic transformation system based on the fundamental molecular and biochemical characteristics of this plant [23]. Several B. papyrifera regeneration protocols have been reported: proliferation from stem explants cultured in various plant growth regulator (PGR) combinations [24,25]; shoot regeneration from hypocotyl explants cultured on Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium containing 0.5–1.5 mg/L N6-benzyladenine (BA) and 0.1–0.5 mg/L naphthalene acetic acid (NAA) [26,27]; and shoot proliferation from leaf explants cultured on the MS medium supplemented with 1.5–2.0 mg/L BA and 0.05–1.0 mg/L NAA [28,29,30,31]. However, the proliferation efficiency of these systems is low and not satisfactory for establishing an efficient regeneration protocol. The selection of an effective explant is a prerequisite for any plant regeneration protocol [32]. Leaves are abundant and allow for stable gene transfer, but there is no efficient regeneration protocol using leaves as explants. This study explored the effects of PGRs, age, orientation, and genotype on the regeneration efficiency to establish an efficient shoot regeneration protocol from paper mulberry leaf explants for application in mass multiplication and genetic transformation.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Plant materials, explant sources, and growth conditions

Seeds were collected from the Guangzhou cultivar in a field at South China Agricultural University (genotypes not included). Seeds were soaked in concentrated sulfuric acid for 9 min and washed with tap water for 5 min to soften the seed coat. After sterilization with 75% (v/v) ethanol for 50 s and 25% (w/v) NaClO for 15 min, the seeds were rinsed four times with sterile water and inoculated onto the MS medium [26]. When the seeds grew to seedlings after 4 weeks, seedling leaves were used as explants for experiments. All cultures were kept under cool white light (approximately 50 µmol/m2/s) with a 12 h photoperiod at 24 ± 1°C.

2.2 Induction and growth of shoot-buds

To compare the PGRs influencing the culture response, BA (0.0, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5 mg/L), indole-3-butyric acid (IBA; 0.0, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.10 mg/L), and kinetin (KT; 0.0, 0.5, and 1.0 mg/L) were used in combination in the MS basal medium. To investigate the effect of explant age on shoot regeneration, seedlings were divided into three sections from top to bottom: Section 1, top 1–3 leaves; Section 2, 4–6 leaves in the middle; and Section 3, bottom 7–9 leaves. To investigate the effect of explant orientation on shoot regeneration, we performed an experiment to examine the effects of contact of the proximal and distal ends with the medium. Four tree cultivars were used to examine the influence of genotype on shoot regeneration: NC-1, NC-2, TS-1, and ZQ-1. The percentage induction of shoot-buds and the number of shoot-buds per explant were recorded after 5 weeks of culture.

2.3 Rooting and acclimatization

The shoots were cut from the tissue and transferred onto the MS basal medium supplemented with NAA (0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.4, and 0.8 mg/L) to facilitate root initiation and the growth of intact plantlets. Plantlets with well-developed roots were removed from the culture bottles and washed under running tap water to remove any remaining medium. Then, the plantlets were placed in plastic pots filled with planting substrate in a greenhouse at high humidity. After acclimatization for 3 weeks, the plantlets were ready for transplantation in the field.

2.4 Data collection and statistical analysis

The experiments were conducted in a randomized complete block design; each treatment consisted of ten explants and was repeated three times. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was carried out using SPSS 22.0. Duncan’s multiple range test was used to detect differences among means, with a significance level of 0.05.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Effect of PGRs on shoot-bud induction

The seedlings (Figure 1a) were removed from the culture bottles aseptically, and only the leaves from Section 1 were used as explants for the experiment. The leaves were excised, cut into 5 × 5 mm2 pieces, and inoculated on the MS medium supplemented with various concentrations and combinations of BA, IBA, and KT for shoot induction. In the in vitro regeneration process, leaves began to expand gradually, the thickness gradually increased, the color changed from green to light, and the leaves were wrinkled and curled in 1 week. Shoot-buds appeared at 3 weeks (Figure 1b). Only parts of the induced shoot-buds elongated to form shoots.

Figure 1 Shoot regeneration from paper mulberry leaf explants and acclimatization of the regenerated plantlets. (a) 2 week-old seedling; (b) numerous shoot buds developed from leaf explants in the MS medium with 2.0 mg/L BA and 0.05 mg/L IBA in 3 weeks; (c) 2–3 cm-high shoots recovered from leaf explants in the MS medium with 2.0 mg/L BA and 0.05 mg/L IBA for 4 weeks; (d) root systems of regenerated shoot buds in the MS medium supplemented with 0.4 mg/L NAA; (e) an intact regenerated plantlet; and (f) an acclimatized plant transferred to a plastic pot filled with planting substrate.
Figure 1

Shoot regeneration from paper mulberry leaf explants and acclimatization of the regenerated plantlets. (a) 2 week-old seedling; (b) numerous shoot buds developed from leaf explants in the MS medium with 2.0 mg/L BA and 0.05 mg/L IBA in 3 weeks; (c) 2–3 cm-high shoots recovered from leaf explants in the MS medium with 2.0 mg/L BA and 0.05 mg/L IBA for 4 weeks; (d) root systems of regenerated shoot buds in the MS medium supplemented with 0.4 mg/L NAA; (e) an intact regenerated plantlet; and (f) an acclimatized plant transferred to a plastic pot filled with planting substrate.

The experimental results are shown in Tables 1–3. It is clear that PGRs played a vital role in shoot regeneration, and the proliferation at different concentrations was much better than when the PGRs were used alone (Tables 1 and 2). Although BA was more effective at promoting paper mulberry shoot regeneration than IBA, the best results were obtained when they were used together (Tables 1 and 2). KT had an inhibitory effect; the best results were obtained without KT (Table 3). The greatest efficiency was achieved when the MS basal medium was supplemented with 2.0 mg/L BA and 0.05 mg/L IBA: the shoot induction efficiency was 80.33% and there were 4.33 regenerated shoots (Tables 1–3).

Table 1

Effect of different BA concentrations on shoot-bud induction

BA (mg/L)Explants that regenerated shoots (%)Shoots per explant
0.00 e0 e
1.023.33 ± 13.02 cd2.33 ± 0.26 cd
1.550.00 ± 10.86 ab3.70 ± 0.34 ab
2.080.33 ± 11.68 a4.33 ± 0.56 a
2.536.67 ± 12.51 bc3.40 ± 0.42 bc

Each value represents the mean ± standard error of three replicates, each with 10 explants. The medium contained 0.05 mg/L IBA and 0.0 mg/L KT. Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different from each other at P ≤ 0.05, according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

Table 2

Effect of different IBA concentrations on shoot-bud induction

IBA (mg/L)Explants that regenerated shoots (%)Shoots per explant
0.00 13.33 ± 9.08 b2.73 ± 0.36 b
0.01 56.67 ± 13.33 ab3.57 ± 0.41 ab
0.05 80.33 ± 11.68 a4.33 ± 0.46 a
0.10 10.00 ± 8.51 c2.87 ± 0.26 c

Each value represents the mean ± standard error of three replicates, each with 10 explants. The medium contained 2.0 mg/L BA and 0.0 mg/L KT. Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different from each other at P ≤ 0.05, according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

Table 3

Effect of different KT concentrations on shoot-bud induction

KT (mg/L)Explants that regenerated shoots (%)Shoots per explant
0.0 80.33 ± 11.68 a4.33 ± 0.56 a
0.5 46.33 ± 12.98 b2.93 ± 0.34 b
1.0 26.67 ± 11.01 b1.87 ± 0.25 b

Each value represents the mean ± standard error of three replicates, each with 10 explants. The medium contained 2.0 mg/L BA and 0.05 mg/L IBA. Means followed by the same letter in the same column are not significantly different from each other at P ≤ 0.05, according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

Several regeneration protocols using leaves for explants have been reported for B. papyrifera. For example, Huang et al. [31] found that culturing paper mulberry leaf explants on the MS medium supplemented with 2.0 mg/L BA and 0.1 mg/L NAA had the best induction efficiency (81.7%), the regeneration efficiency was similar to this experiment, but the results did not show the number of shoots per explant, which was not rigorous. Liu et al. [30] found that regenerating shoots with leaf explants on the MS medium containing 1.5 mg/L BA and 1.0 mg/L NAA created the maximum number of shoots (3.88 shoots per explant), which was less than this experiment, and the experimental results did not show the regeneration efficiency, which was imperfect. However, Yu et al. [28] achieved a shoot induction efficiency of 36.4% propagating paper mulberry using leaf explants only, which was low. The effects of BA in organogenesis are supported by similar reports in other plants [33,34]. These results suggest that cell activities during shoot-bud regeneration are controlled by various internal factors including cytokinins, which may cause internal chemical and structural differences, leading to different responses when present in the medium. It is worth mentioning that NAA was used for auxin in the above studies, and IBA was used in this study. Obviously, the results of this study are better, and similar results have been reported in hemp [35]. However, the specific roles of BA and IBA remain unclear [26].

3.2 Effect of explant age on shoot-bud regeneration

Explant age affected the frequency of shoot-bud regeneration and the mean number of shoots per explant (Table 4). Explants from Section 1 had the greatest regeneration frequency (86.67%) and produced 4.35 shoot buds per explant. Therefore, the explant age plays an important role in shoot regeneration. Similar results were obtained in other plants. For example, Vaidya et al. [36] found that the age of peppermint shoot tip explants affected regeneration frequency; Singh [37] observed that the regeneration efficiency of Jatropha curcas was affected by the age of leaf explants; explants from younger seedlings (≤15 days) were still juvenile and formed callus easily, whereas beyond 30 days, the regeneration response decreased with an increase in the age of seedlings. Younger explants have greater morphogenic potential than older explants, as they might have more metabolically active cells due to hormonal, nutritional, and other physiological conditions that are responsible for increased organogenesis [33]. However, Zhang et al. [23] found that for Moringa, the explants were either too young or too old with unsatisfactory results. This may be due to the different meristematic capabilities of different plants. Each plant only has enough metabolically active cells if it grows to a specific age.

Table 4

Effect of explant age on shoot regeneration and elongation

Leaf age Explants that regenerated shoots (%)Shoots per explant
Section 186.67 ± 12.33 a4.35 ± 0.22 a
Section 276.67 ± 13.02 a3.23 ± 0.56 ab
Section 360.00 ± 11.82 ab2.53 ± 0.31 ab

Each value represents the mean ± standard error of three replicates, each with 10 explants. The medium contained 2.0 mg/L BA, 0.05 mg/L IBA, and 0.0 mg/L KT. Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ significantly from each other at the P ≤ 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

3.3 Effect of explant orientation on shoot-bud propagation

The orientation of the explants significantly influenced the shoot-bud induction response. When the distal end of the leaf explants contacted the medium, the shoot-bud regeneration rate reached 73.33%. However, this rate decreased to 13.67% when the proximal end of the explant contacted the medium. The number of induced shoot buds per explant increased from 1.02 to 3.58 after placing the distal end of the leaf explants contacted the medium (Table 5). In the cultures, shoot buds were mostly induced from the vein and edge of the cut surface of the distal end, as has been reported for sugarcane [38]. Similarly, Kumar et al. [39] found that Salvadora oleoides had a higher regeneration efficiency when the distal end of leaf explants contacted the medium. When studying the effect of explant orientation on regeneration efficiency, not only leaf explants, Liu et al. [40] found that for petiole explants of Jatropha curcas L., the method of inoculating the explants horizontally on the medium was more beneficial to the regeneration than inoculating the explants vertically. These results may be related to the transport of polar auxin, because the intensity of auxin polar transport is inversely related to the sensitivity of rooting [41]. Moreover, the logical explanation for the effects of orientation of the explants may be the oxygen tension in the meristematic cells at the explant–medium interface [38]. However, the specific reasons are not clear, and further research is needed.

Table 5

Effect of explant orientation on shoot propagation and elongation

OrientationExplants that regenerated shoots (%)Shoots per explant
Distal end 73.33 ± 14.983.58 ± 0.42
Proximal end 13.67 ± 9.911.02 ± 0.27

Each value represents the mean ± standard error of three replicates, each with 10 explants. The medium contained 2.0 mg/L BA, 0.05 mg/L IBA, and 0.0 mg/L KT. Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ significantly from each other at the P ≤ 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

3.4 Effect of explant genotype on shoot-bud regeneration

To examine the adaptability of the regeneration protocol to different paper mulberry trees, four cultivars with different genetic backgrounds were tested and their regeneration efficiencies and numbers of shoot-buds per explant were compared. As shown in Table 6, the regeneration efficiency and number of shoot-buds per explant varied greatly among the genotypes grown under the same conditions. Explants from ZQ-1 and NC-2 had higher regeneration frequencies of 83.33% and 78.58%, respectively, while explants from NC-1 and TS-1 fared much worse, with regeneration frequencies of 56.67% and 46.67%, respectively. The reason for this difference may be that the endogenous hormone levels varied amongst calli derived from different genotypes and explant types [42]. The differential behavior can be related to different mechanisms for control of the endogenous PGRs metabolism and/or contents. The regeneration capacity of calli is strongly correlated with the concentration of endogenous hormone; recently, Kudo et al. [43] suggested that the endogenous hormone levels affect the regeneration ability of calli. Similar results have been reported in other plants, including Mucuna bracteata DC. ex Kurz [44], Punica granatum L. [45], conifers [46], J. curcas [47], and jojoba [48].

Table 6

Effect of explant genotype on shoot regeneration and elongation

GenotypeExplants that regenerated shoots (%)Shoots per explant
NC-156.67 ± 13.33 b3.57 ± 0.41 a
NC-278.58 ± 10.69 a3.88 ± 0.27 a
TS-146.67 ± 9.88 b2.33 ± 0.32 b
ZQ-183.33 ± 12.33 a4.21 ± 0.38 a

Each value represents the mean ± standard error of three replicates, each with 10 explants. The medium contained 2.0 mg/L BA, 0.05 mg/L IBA, and 0.0 mg/L KT. Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ significantly from each other at the P ≤ 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

3.5 Rooting and acclimatization

Shoots 2–3 cm in height (Figure 1c) were placed on rooting medium after 4 weeks. The percentage of rooting and the number and length of roots of each seedling increased with the concentration of NAA added to the MS basal medium (Table 7). The greatest rooting percentage (Figure 1d and e) achieved was 70.96% when shoots were placed on the MS medium containing 0.4 mg/L NAA. However, roots induced on the MS medium with higher concentrations of NAA (0.8 mg/L) developed more, but shorter, weaker roots. A similar observation has been observed in Simmondsia chinensis [49].

Table 7

Effect of NAA on root induction and growth

NAA (mg/L)Rooting (%)Root no.Root length (cm)
0.010.33 ± 8.25 c3.56 ± 0.42 c0.71 ± 0.15 b
0.150.28 ± 12.33 b2.82 ± 0.25 c1.13 ± 0.18 ab
0.270.23 ± 11.28 a5.33 ± 1.58 bc1.28 ± 0.23 a
0.470.96 ± 10.56 a10.68 ± 1.33 b1.75 ± 0.31 a
0.850.34 ± 12.48 b16.53 ± 1.54 a0.73 ± 0.18 b

Each value represents the mean ± standard error of three replicates, each with 10 explants. Means followed by the same letter in the same column do not differ significantly from each other at the P ≤ 0.05 level, according to Duncan’s multiple range test.

The rooted shoots survived well after transfer to plastic pots filled with planting substrate (Figure 1f). The acclimatization of the rooted shoots was accomplished and more than 90% of the plants were successfully transferred to plastic pots in greenhouse conditions. The results indicated that the regenerated shoots had good environmental adaptability. Similar results have also been obtained in other plants. Cheng et al. [35] found that 75% of the hemp-rooted shoots survived after acclimation. Similarly, Liu et al. [40] observed that more than 80% of J. curcas were successfully transferred to plastic pots. These results suggest that most of the regenerated seedlings can survive well after transfer to plastic pots, but the survival rate of different plants is different, probably because their environmental adaptability is different.

4 Conclusions

An efficient shoot regeneration protocol from B. papyrifera leaf explants was established. The greatest shoot induction efficiency was 86.67%, and the maximum number of shoots regenerated was 4.35. The plants produced with this protocol were healthy and had good environmental adaptability. This method will be useful for subsequent application in mass multiplication and genetic transformation.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Forestry Technology Innovation Program, the Department of Forestry of Guangdong Province (grant number 2018KJCX001, grant number 2017KJCX029).

  1. Author contributions: Conceptualization, Xy.C. and W.Z.; methodology, Xy.C.; validation, Sm.C., Y.R. and Yh.H.; formal analysis, Sm.C.; investigation, Sm.C., Yh.H., Zc.C. and Jt.Z.; resources, W.Z.; data curation, Jj.Z.; writing – original draft preparation, Sm.C.; writing – review and editing, Xy.C.; project administration, W.Z.; funding acquisition, Xy.C.

  2. Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.

References

[1] González-Lorca J, Rivera-Hutinel A, Moncada X, Lobos S, Seelenfreund D, Seelenfreund A. Ancient and modern introduction of Broussonetia papyrifera ([L.] Vent.; Moraceae) into the Pacific: genetic, geographical and historical evidence. NZ J Bot. 2015;10:1080–94.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Peñailillo J, Olivares G, Moncada X, Payacán C, Chang CS, Chung KF, et al. Sexdistribution of paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera) in the Pacific. PLoS One. 2016;11:1371–90.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Chung K, Kuo W, Hsu Y, Li Y, Rubite R, Xu W. Molecular recircumscription of Broussonetia (Moraceae) and the identity and taxonomic status of B. kaempferi var. Australis. Bot Stud. 2017;58:1186–98.10.1186/s40529-017-0165-ySearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[4] Payacan C, Moncada X, Rojas G, Clarke A, Chung K, Allaby R, et al. Phylogeography of herbarium specimens of asexually propagated paper mulberry [Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) L’Hér. ex Vent.(Moraceae)] reveals genetic diversity across the Pacific. Ann Bot. 2017;120:387–404.10.1093/aob/mcx062Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[5] Lin L, Chang F, Ko C, Wang C, Wang Y. Properties of enzyme pretreated Wikstroemia sikokiana and Broussonetia papyrifera bast fiber pulps. BioResources. 2015;10:3625–37.10.15376/biores.10.2.3625-3637Search in Google Scholar

[6] Yao L, Yang H, Yoo C, Meng X, Li M, Pu Y, et al. Adsorption of cellobiohydrolases I onto lignin fractions from dilute acid pretreated Broussonetia papyrifera. Biores Technol. 2017;244:957–62.10.1016/j.biortech.2017.08.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[7] Han B, Vial J, Sakamoto S, Sablier M. Identification of traditional East Asian handmade papers through the multivariate data analysis of pyrolysis-GC/MS data. Analyst. 2019;144:1230–44.10.1039/C8AN01898GSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Si B, Tao H, Zhang X, Guo J, Cui K, Tu Y,et al. Effect of Broussonetia papyrifera L. (paper mulberry) silage on dry matter intake, milkcomposition, antioxidant capacity and milk fatty acid profile in dairy cows. Asian Australasian J Anim Sci. 2018;31:1259–66.10.5713/ajas.17.0847Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[9] Ko H, Ch W, Lu T. Antityrosinase and antioxidant effects of entkaurane diterpenes from leaves of Broussonetia papyrifera. J Nat Prod. 2008;71:1930–3.10.1021/np800564zSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

[10] Park S, Fudhaili A, Oh S, Lee K, Madhi H, Kim D, et al. Cytotoxic effects of kazinol A derived from Broussonetia papyrifera on human bladder cancer cells, T24 and T24R2. Phytomedicine. 2016;23:1462–8.10.1016/j.phymed.2016.08.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[11] Park J, Yuk H, Ryu H, Lim S, Kim K, Park K, et al. Evaluation of polyphenols from Broussonetia papyrifera as coronavirus protease inhibitors. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem. 2017;32:504–12.10.1080/14756366.2016.1265519Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[12] Xue J, Lei C, Wang P, Kim K, Li J, Hou A. Flavans and diphenylpropanes with PTP1B inhibition from Broussonetia kazinoki. Fitoterapia. 2018;130:37–42.10.1016/j.fitote.2018.08.001Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[13] Malik R, Husain S. Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) L’her. ex Vent.: an environmental constraint on the Himalayan Foothills vegetation. Aquaculture. 2007;503:146–55.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Wu Y, Liu C, Li P, Wang J, Xing D, Wang B. Photosyntheticcharacteristics involved in adaptability to Karst soil and alien invasion of papermulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) Vent.) in comparison with mulberry (Morus alba L.). Photosynihetica. 2009;47:155–60.10.1007/s11099-009-0026-3Search in Google Scholar

[15] Zeng P, Guo Z, Xiao X, Peng C, Feng W, Xin L, et al. Phytoextraction potential of Pteris vittata L. co-planted with woody species for As, Cd, Pb and Zn in contaminated soil. Sci Total Environ. 2019;650:594–603.10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.09.055Search in Google Scholar

[16] Zeng P, Guo Z, Xiao X, Peng C, Huang B, Feng W. Complementarity of co-planting a hyperaccumulator with three metal(loid)-tolerant species for metal(loid)-contaminated soil remediation. Ecotoxicol Environ Safety. 2019;169:306–15.10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.11.017Search in Google Scholar

[17] Shi X, Zhang X, Chen G, Chen Y, Wang L, Shan X. Seedling growth and metal accumulation of selected woody species in copper and lead/zinc mine tailings. J Environ Sci. 2011;23:266–74.10.1016/S1001-0742(10)60402-0Search in Google Scholar

[18] Xu Z, Yang G, Dong M, Wu L, Zhang W, Zhao Y. The complete chloroplast genome of an economic and ecological plant, paper mulberry (Broussonetiakazinoki × Broussonetiapapyifera). Mitochond DNA Part B. 2018;3:28–9.10.1080/23802359.2017.1419088Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[19] Zeng P, Guo Z, Xiao X, Peng C. Effects of tree-herb co-planting on the bacterial community composition and the relationship between specifific microorganisms and enzymatic activities in metal(loid)-contaminated soil. Chemosphere. 2019;220:237–48.10.1016/j.chemosphere.2018.12.073Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[20] Zhang JJ, Lin MF, Chen HB, Chen XY. Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of drumstick (Moringa oleifera Lam.). Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2017;31:1126–31.10.1080/13102818.2017.1368415Search in Google Scholar

[21] Han GH. Study on the effect of different root treatment on the survival rate of cutting seedling raising of Broussonetia papyrifera. J Green Sci Technol. 2012;7:82–4.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Zhu ZF. Field cutting seedling cultivation technique for Broussonetia papyrifera. Linyeyuanyi. 2018;58:175.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Zhang JJ, Yang YS, Lin MF, Li SQ, Tang Y, Chen XY, et al. An efficient micropropagation protocol for direct organogenesis from leaf explants of an economically valuable plant, drumstick (Moringa oleifera Lam.). Ind Crops Prod. 2017;103:59–63.10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.03.028Search in Google Scholar

[24] Wan W, Liu Z, Wei H. Establishiment of tissue culture and rapid propagation system of stem segment from Broussonetia papyrifera (L.)Vent. J Fujian Forestry Sci Technol. 2010;37:72–6.Search in Google Scholar

[25] Tian R, Huang Y, Lu S, Xu A, Dai Y, Gong Y, et al. Establishment of tissue culture system of hybrid Broussonetia papyrifera (L.) Vent. Hubei Agric Sci. 2019;58:120–3.Search in Google Scholar

[26] Li MR, Li HQ, Jiang HW, Wu GJ. Establishment of a highly effificient Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated leaf disc transformation method for Broussonetia papyrifera. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2008;93:249–55.10.1007/s11240-008-9369-xSearch in Google Scholar

[27] Tao W, Wei J, Cheng Y, Meng X, Zhang S, Tan F. Rapid propagation technology of Broussonetia papyrifera. J Heilongjiang Vocat Inst Ecol Eng. 2010;23:26–8.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Yu MM, Shi GX, Lv QD, Yang L, Tang RJ, Zhang HX. In vitro culture and shoot regeneration from leaves and petioles ofBroussonetia papyrifera. Forest Res. 2006;19:253–6.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Wei H, Liu Z, Ma L, Wan W, Sheng D. Callus induction and plantlet regeneration from leaves of hybrid Broussonetia papyrifera. J Beijing Forestry Univ. 2010;32:116–20.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Liu Y, Guo LM, Ren MH, Tian SM. Establishment of tissue culture and rapid propagation system of hybrid Broussonetia papyrifera. J Shanxi Agric Sci. 2016;44:1073–6.Search in Google Scholar

[31] Huang Y, Zhang HW, Tao XM, Sheng MM, Zhang J, Zhang TT, et al. Establishment of tissue culture and rapid propagation system of hybrid Broussonetia papyrifera leaves. Guizhou Agric Sci. 2018;46:z46–8.Search in Google Scholar

[32] Phulwaria M, Shekhawat NS, Rathore JS, Singh RP. An efficient in vitro regeneration and ex vitro rooting of Ceropegia bulbosa Roxb. – a threatened and pharmaceutical important plant of Indian Thar Desert. Ind Crops Prod. 2013;42:25–9.10.1016/j.indcrop.2012.05.013Search in Google Scholar

[33] Sharma S, Kumar N, Reddy PM. Regeneration in Jatropha curcas: factors affecting the efficiency of in vitro regeneration. Ind Crops Prod. 2011;34:943–51.10.1016/j.indcrop.2011.02.017Search in Google Scholar

[34] Saini RK, Shetty NP, Giridhar P, Ravishankar GA. Rapid in vitro regeneration method for Moringa oleifera and performance evaluation of fifield grown nutritionally enriched tissue cultured plants. 3 Biotech. 2012;2:187–92.10.1007/s13205-012-0045-9Search in Google Scholar

[35] Cheng CH, Zang GG, Zhao LN, Gao CS, Tang Q, Chen JH. A rapid shoot regeneration protocol from the cotyledons of hemp (Cannabis sativa L.). Ind Crops Prod. 2016;83:61–5.10.1016/j.indcrop.2015.12.035Search in Google Scholar

[36] Vaidya BN, Asanakunov B, Shahin L, Jernigan HL, Joshee N, Dhekney SA. Improving micropropagation of Mentha × piperita L. using a liquid culture system. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol – Plant. 2019;55:71–80.10.1007/s11627-018-09952-4Search in Google Scholar

[37] Singh A. Efficient micropropagation protocol for Jatropha curcasusing liquid culture medium. J Crop Sci Biotechnol. 2018;21:89–94.10.1007/s12892-017-0004-0Search in Google Scholar

[38] Lakshmanan P, Geijskes RJ, Wang L, Elliott A, Grof CP, Berding N, et al. Developmental and hormonal regulation of direct shoot organogenesis and somatic embryogenesis in sugarcane (Saccharum app. Interspecifific hybrids) leaf culture. Plant Cell Rep. 2006;25:1007–15.10.1007/s00299-006-0154-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[39] Kumar R, Najar RA, Gupta KB, Saini RG. Micropropagation protocol for Salvadora oleoides. J Forestry Res. 2019;30:87–93.10.1007/s11676-017-0566-5Search in Google Scholar

[40] Liu Y, Tong X, Hui WK, Liu T, Chen XY, Li J, Zhuang CX, et al. Efficient culture protocol for plant regeneration from petiole explants of physiologically mature trees of Jatropha curcas L. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2015;29:479–88.10.1080/13102818.2015.1013308Search in Google Scholar

[41] Tyburski J, Tretyn A. The role of light and polar auxin transport in root regeneration from hypocotyls of tomato seedling cuttings. Plant Growth Regul. 2004;42:39–48.10.1023/B:GROW.0000014896.18601.38Search in Google Scholar

[42] Hisano H, Matsuura T, Mori IC, Yamane M, Sato K. Endogenous hormone levels affect the regeneration ability of callus derived from different organs in barley. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2016;99:66–72.10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.12.005Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[43] Kudo T, Makita N, Kojima M, Tokunaga H, Sakakibara H. Cytokinin activity of cis-Zeatin and phenotypic alterations induced by overexpression of putative cis-Zeatin-O-glucosyltransferase in rice. Plant Physiol. 2012;160:319–31.10.1104/pp.112.196733Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[44] Aziz NA, Tan BC, Othman RY, Khalid N. Efficient micropropagation protocol and genome size estimation of an important cover crop, Mucuna bracteata DC. ex Kurz. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2018;132:267–78.10.1007/s11240-017-1376-3Search in Google Scholar

[45] Desai P, Patil G, Dholiya B, Desai S, Patel F, Narayanan S. Development of an efficient micropropagation protocol through axillary shoot proliferation for pomegranate variety ‘Bhagwa’. Ann Agrarian Sci. 2018;16:444–50.10.1016/j.aasci.2018.06.002Search in Google Scholar

[46] Sarmast MK. In vitro propagation of conifers using mature shoots. J Forest Res. 2018;29:565–74.10.1007/s11676-018-0608-7Search in Google Scholar

[47] Kumar N, Anand KGV, Reddy MP. In vitro regeneration from petiole explants of non-toxic Jatropha curcas. Ind Crops Prod. 2011;33:146–51.10.1016/j.indcrop.2010.09.013Search in Google Scholar

[48] Tyagi RK, Prakash S. Genotype- and sex-specific protocols for in vitro micropropagation and medium-term conservation of jojoba. Biol Plantarum. 2004;48:19–23.10.1023/B:BIOP.0000024270.02186.1fSearch in Google Scholar

[49] Singh A, Reddy MP, Patolia JS. An improved protocol for micropropagation of elite genotypes of Simmondsia chinensis (Link) Schneider. Biol Plantarum. 2008;52:538–40.10.1007/s10535-008-0105-5Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2019-12-25
Revised: 2020-03-22
Accepted: 2020-03-22
Published Online: 2020-06-10

© 2020 Siming Cui et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Downloaded on 4.5.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/biol-2020-0034/html
Scroll to top button