In-vivo and in-vitro mutagenesis in marigold (Tagetes erecta) using 60Co gamma rays

JYOTI SARKAR; S K SINGH; KANWAR PAL SINGH; S K GUHA

doi:10.56093/ijas.v86i7.59738

Authors

JYOTI SARKAR Directorate of Floricultural Research, Pune, Maharashtra
S K SINGH Directorate of Floricultural Research, Pune, Maharashtra
KANWAR PAL SINGH Directorate of Floricultural Research, Pune, Maharashtra
S K GUHA Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v86i7.59738

Keywords:

Gamma rays, In vivo, In vitro, Marigold, Mutation

Abstract

This study was conducted to induce novelty in marigold cultivar Pusa Narangi Gainda through gamma irradiation via in vivo and in vitro approaches. The seedlings grown under in vivo and the proliferated cultures under in vitro, were exposed to different doses of 60Co gamma rays (5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 Gy). 20 Gy and 15 Gy dose was identified as LD₅₀ value for in vivo and in vitro conditions (53.24 % and 52.55 % plant survival), respectively. There were morphological variations in between irradiated and non irradiated plants. Treatment with 20 Gy induced early flower bud (49, 18 days) compared to control (55.56 days) under in vivo study. Under in vitro condition, the flower color changed to yellow (yellow 10 YR) compared to the control (orange 5 YR) at 15 Gy. In M₁ generation, two mutants in flower form (m1 and m3), one in colour (m4) and another one in flower earliness (m2) were isolated under in vivo mutation, whereas, five mutants in flower colour (nm1, nm2, nm5, nm6 and nm7) and two in flower form (nm3 and nm4) were isolated in irradiated plants which were quite distinct compared to non-irradiated. Variability caused by induced mutations need not to be essentially different from variability caused by spontaneous mutation during evolution, therefore, it is necessary to carry on the M₂ generation. The mutants which were selected from the M₁ generation were selfed to raise the M₂ generation. The study revealed six putative mutants (pm1, pm2, pm3, pm4, pm5 and pm6), which could successfully maintain their distinct traits. Among them, pm3 produced early flowering in 47.89 days and pm4 gave light orange coloured flower (orange 10 YR).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Arunyanart S and Soontronyatara S. 2002. Mutation induction by gamma ray and X-ray irradiation in tissue cultured lotus. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 70: 119–20. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016021627832

Bandyopadhyay P, Das D K and Chattopadhyay T K. 1997. Correlation and path analysis in seed production of marigold as affected by the micronutrient application. Horticulture Journal 10: 73–8.

Benetka V. 1985. Some experience of methodology with the isolation of somatic mutation in rose cultivar ‘Sonia’. Acta Pruhoniciana 50: 9–25.

Bhatt M S. 1990. Studies on in vivo and in vitro propagation techniques in rose (Rosa hybrida L.). Ph D thesis, PG. School, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.

Dhaduk B K. 1992. Induction of mutation in garden gladiolus (Gladiolus L.) by gamma rays. Ph D thesis, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi.

Kasumi M, Takatsu Y, Manabe T and Hayashi M. 2001. The effects of irradiating gladiolus cormels with gamma rays on callus formation, somatic embryogenesis and flower colour variation in the regenerated plants. Journal of Japanese Society of Horticulture Science 70: 126–8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2503/jjshs.70.126

Kuksova V B, Piven N M. and Gleba Y Y. 1997. Somaclonal variation and in vitro induced mutagenesis in grapevine. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 49: 17–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005830305206

Kumar S. 2002. Studies on in vitro mutagenesis in rose (Rosa hybrida). Ph D thesis, CCS University, Meerut.

Lee Y I, Lee I S and Lim Y P. 2002. Variation in sweet potato regenerates from gamma ray irradiated embryogenic callus. Journal of Plant Biotechechnology 4: 163–70.

Lefort F and Douglas G C. 1999. An efficient micro-method of DNA isolation from mature leaves of four hard-wood tree species. Annals of Forest Science 56: 259–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1051/forest:19990308

Leyser, M 2000. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits, 980p. Sinaure Assocs. Inc., Sunderland, Massachusetts, USA. Maluszynski M, Nichterlein K, van Zanten L and Ahloowalia B

S. 2005. Officially released mutant varieties—the FAO/IAEA database. Mutation Breeding Review 12: 1–84.

Maple A J and Moller J P. 2007. Cytogenetics of mutants in triticale. Plant Breeding Review 5: 41–93.

Omar C, Alikarnanoglub S, Acik L and Canbolatb Y. 2008. Plant breeding program aided by radiation treatment. California Aggriculture 14(7): 4.

Raghava S P S. 1995. Genetic improvement of African marigold. (In) Proceeding of National Seminar on Ornamental Horticulture and Environment, Calcutta, 6-8 October 1995,pp 111–9.

Reiter R S, Williams J G K, Feldman K A, Rafalski A, Tingey S V and Scolnik P A. 1992. Global and local genome mapping in Arabidopsis thaliana by using recombinant inbred lines and random amplified polymorphic DNAs. Proceeding of National Academy of Science USA. 89: 1477–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.89.4.1477

Roy P K, Mamun A N K and Ahmed G. 2004. In vitro plantlets regeneration of rose. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 14(4): 149–54.

Singh K P, Singh B, Raghava S P S and Kalia C S. 1999. In vitro induction of mutation in carnation through in vitro application of chemical mutagen. Indian Journal of Genetics 60(4): 535– 9.

Yamaguchi H, Shimizu A, Degi K and Morishita T. 2008. Effects of dose rate of gamma ray irradiation on mutation induced and nuclear DNA content in chrysanthemum. Breeding Science 58: 331–5. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.58.331