Paper · 2022 · Heliyon

Generation of doubled haploids in cauliflower

Ramandeep Singh; Ruma Devi; Navraj Kaur Sarao

7
claims
14
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Hybrids of cauliflower are in high demand world over due to their high yield potential, earliness, better quality, better resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Conventionally, hybrids are developed from the intercrossing of two diverse inbred parental lines which are developed through continuous inbreeding for 8-10 generations and still don't attain complete homozygosity. Doubled haploid technology on the other hand generate completely homozygous inbred lines in a single step. Therefore, a study was undertaken at Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, to develop a protocol for the development of doubled haploid lines in cauliflower. The anthers were excised from the flower buds of different genotypes viz. Jyoti, Pusa Sharad, Kartiki, CAUMH-2, CAUMH-10, LS-2, LS-3, and LS-5 followed by their culture on five different callus induction media compositions. Genotypes differed significantly in the ability to induce callus which was maximum in Jyoti followed by LS-2. Different media compositions also varied significantly in callus induction efficiency which was maximum on MS media+1.5 mg/L 2,4-D +1.0 mg/L NAA. Maximum shoot regeneration was recorded in genotype Kartiki followed by LS-2 when cultured on MS media+3.0 mg/L BAP+2.0 mg/L Kin. The regenerated shoots thus obtained were rooted on ½ MS media +1.0 mg/L IBA. Ploidy analysis of root tips revealed that 22.2% of the regenerated plantlets were haploids, 27.8% were spontaneous doubled haploids, 16.7% were tetraploids and remaining 33.3% were mixoploids.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 7

Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Jyoti had the greatest callus induction, followed by LS-2.

Material
Jyotie0
Outcome
ability to induce calluse0
Direction
maximume0
Comparator
LS-2e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–45 · show in text ↑
e0

“Genotypes differed significantly in the ability to induce callus which was maximum in Jyoti followed by LS-2.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 873–982 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Callus induction efficiency was highest on MS media with 2,4-D and NAA.

Treatment
MS media+1.5 mg/L 2,4-D +1.0 mg/L NAAe0
Outcome
callus induction efficiencye0
Direction
maximume0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–45 · show in text ↑
e0

“Different media compositions also varied significantly in callus induction efficiency which was maximum on MS media+1.5 mg/L 2,4-D +1.0 mg/L NAA.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 983–1128 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Kartiki had the highest shoot regeneration, followed by LS-2, on the stated medium.

Material
Kartikie0
Treatment
MS media+3.0 mg/L BAP+2.0 mg/L Kine0
Outcome
shoot regeneratione0
Direction
Maximume0
Comparator
LS-2e0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–45 · show in text ↑
e0

“Maximum shoot regeneration was recorded in genotype Kartiki followed by LS-2 when cultured on MS media+3.0 mg/L BAP+2.0 mg/L Kin.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1129–1258 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Haploids constituted 22.2% of regenerated plantlets.

Outcome
regenerated plantlets were haploidse0
Value
22.2%e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–45 · show in text ↑
e0

“22.2% of the regenerated plantlets were haploids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1380–1428 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Spontaneous doubled haploids constituted 27.8% of regenerated plantlets.

Outcome
spontaneous doubled haploidse0
Value
27.8%e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–45 · show in text ↑
e0

“27.8% were spontaneous doubled haploids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1430–1469 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Tetraploids constituted 16.7% of regenerated plantlets.

Outcome
tetraploidse0
Value
16.7%e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–45 · show in text ↑
e0

“16.7% were tetraploids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1471–1493 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Mixoploids constituted 33.3% of regenerated plantlets.

Outcome
mixoploidse0
Value
33.3%e0

Not reportedDirection

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Brassica oleracea var. botrytis
Brassica oleracea var. botrytis · TaxonSusan Slater · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“cauliflower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–45 · show in text ↑
e0

“remaining 33.3% were mixoploids”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1498–1529 · show in text ↑

2,4-D · growth · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

9 papers: 7 positive, 2 negative or no effect

6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. no effect
  3. negative

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

1-naphthaleneacetic acid · growth · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

27 papers: 26 positive, 1 negative or no effect

25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
  3. positive

23 papers more in this group

See all 27 papers →

in vitro · growth · Brassica oleracea (wild cabbage)Positive and negative results

38 papers: 35 positive, 3 negative or no effect

34 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

34 papers more in this group

See all 38 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.