KİMERA; DOKU KÜLTÜRÜNDEKİ UYGULAMALARI VE BİTKİ ISLAHINDAKİ KULLANIMI

Yıl 2012, Cilt: 16 Sayı: 3, 9 - 17, 20.02.2014

Nesrin Örçen

Öz

Birden fazla genotipe sahip hücrenin veya dokunun bir arada canlılıklarını devam ettirebilmeleri durumu kimera olarak tanımlanmaktadır. Kimeralar fizyolojik, histolojik, biyoteknolojik, genotipik ve anatomik araştırmalar için uygun çalışma materyalleri oluşturmaktadırlar. Kimeralı bitkilerin sınıflandırmaları; mutasyonun yeri ve apikal meristemde mutasyona uğrayan hücrelerin mutasyona uğramayan hücrelere oranları temel alınarak yapılmaktadır. Kimeralar; periklinal, meriklinal ve sektöriyel kimeralar olarak sınıflandırılırlar. Periklinal kimeralar daha stabil olduklarından ve vejetatif olarak çoğaltılabildiklerinden en önemli kategoriyi oluşturmaktadırlar. Bu çalışmada; kimeralı yapıların oluşumu, kimeraların kategorileri, devam ettirilebilmeleri hususunda genel prensipler ve in vitro tekniklerin tartışılması amaçlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

doku kültürü, kimera

Kaynakça

• Abu-Qaoudt, H., Skirvin, R. M., Chevreau, E. 1990. In vitro separation of chimeral pears into their component genotypes. Euphytica 48: 189-196.
• Ardian, A. S. 1997. Stability of cytochimeras of Allium wakegi Araki during in vivo and in vitro propagation. Scientia Horticulturae 71 (1-2): 93-102.
• Arisumi, T., Frazier, L. C. 1968. Cytological and morphological evidence for the single-cell origin of vegetatively propagated shoots in thirteen species of Saintpaulia treated with colchicine. Proc. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 93: 679-685.
• Binding, H., Witt, D., Monzer J., Mordhorst G., Kollmann, R.1987.Plant cell graft chimeras obtained by co-culture of isolated protoplasts. Protoplasma 141:64-73
• Broertjes, C., Keen A. 1980. Adventitious shoots: Do they develop from one cell? Euphytica 29: 73-87.
• Burge, G. K., Morgan, Ed R., Seelye, J. F. 2002. Opportunities for synthetic plant chimeral breeding: Past and future. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture 70: 13–21.
• Burk, L. G.1975. Clonal and selective propagation of tobacco from leaves. Plt. Sci. Lett. 4: 149-154.
• Cammareri, M., Errico1, A., Filippone, E., Esposito, S., Conicella, C.2002. Induction of variability in chimeric Aster cordifolius ‘White Elegans’ through somaclonal variation Euphytica 128: 19–25.
• Canli, A. F.2003.A Review on thornless roses. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 6(19):1712-1719.
• Canli, A. F., Skirvin, R.M.2003. Separation on thornless rose chimeras into their (Rosa sp.) consistent
• -
• HR.Ü.Z.F. Dergisi, 2012, 16(3) Örçen
• -
• genotypes in vitro.Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences 6(19):1644-1648.
• Canli, F. A., Skirvin, R. M. 2008 In vitro separation of a rose chimera. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 95:353–361.
• Carlson, PS., Chaleff, RS. 1974 Heterogeneous association of cells formed in vitro. In Ledoux L (ed) Genetic Manipulations with Plant Materials (pp 245–261) Plenum Press, New York.
• Chen, L. P., Ge, Y. M., Zhu, X. Y.2006. Artificial synthesis of interspecific chimeras between tuber mustard (Brassica juncea) and cabbage (Brassica oleracea) and cytological analysis. Plant Cell Rep 25: 907–913.
• Clayberg, CD.1975. Insect resistance in a graft-induced periclinal chimera of tomato. HortScience 10: 13–15.
• Elliott, F.C.1958. Plant Breeding and Cytogenetics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, inc. p:395.
• Fourré, J-L, Berger, P., Niquet, L., André, P. 1997 Somatic embryogenesis and somaclonal variation in Norway spruce: morphogenetic, cytogenetic and molecular approaches Theor Appl Genet 94: 159–169.
• Geier, T., Sangwan, R.S.1996 Histology and chimeral segregation reveal cell-specific differences in the competence for shoot regeneration and Agrobacterium-mediated transformation in Kohleria internode explants Plant Cell Reports 15 (6): 386-390.
• George, E. F. 1993. Plant Propagation By Tissue Culture, Exegetics Ltd., Edington, Wilts. BA13 4QG, England p:574.
• Goffreda, JC., Szymkowiak, EJ., Sussex, IM., Mutschler MA. 1990. Chimeric tomato plants show that aphid resistance and triacylglucose production are epidermal autonomous characters. Plant Cell 2: 643–649.
• Hake, S. 2001. Transcription factors on the move. Trends Genet. 17:2–3.
• Hall, H. K., Quaz, M. H., Skırvın, R. M. 1986. Isolatıon of a pure Thornless Loganberry by merıstem tip culture. Euphytica 35. 1039–1044.
• Hırata, Y., Yagıshıta, N., Sugımoto, M., Yamamoto, K. 1990. İntervarietal chimera formation in cabbage (Brassıca oleracea L). Japanese Journal of Breeding 40:(4) 419- 423.
• Hirata, Y., Motegi, T., Takeda, Y., Morikawa, K. 2001. Induction of cytoplasmic male sterility in the seed progeny derived from artificially-synthesized interspecific chimera in Brassica. Euphytica 117(2):143–149.
• Jorgensen, CA. 1927. A periclinal tomato-potato chimera. Hereditas.10: 293–301.
• Li, M. Y.2005. Observation of high-frequency occurrence of chimeral adventitious shoots in tissue culture from the chimeral tissues of Pelargonium zonale. Hortscıence 40 (5 );1461-1463.
• Lindsay, GC., Hopping, ME., Binding, H., Burge, GK. 1995 Graft chimeras and somatic hybrids for new cultivars. NZ J. Bot.(33):79–92.
• Lineberger,R.D.2007.http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/tisscult/chimeras/
• chimera.html.
• Marcotrigiano, M. 1986. Experimentally synthesized plant. chimeras 3. Qualitative and quantitative characteristics of the flowers of interspecific Nicotiana chimeras. Ann. Bot. 57: 435–442
• Marcotrigiano, M., Gouin, FR. 1984. Experimentally synthesized plant chimeras 2. A comparison of in vitro and in vivo techniques for the production of interspecific Nicotiana chimeras. Ann. Bot. 54: 513–521.
• Marcotrigiano, M., Gouin, FR. 1984a. Experimentally synthesized plant chimeras 1. In vitro recovery of Nicotiana tabacum L. chimeras from mixed callus cultures. Ann. Bot. 54: 503–511.
• McPheeters, K., Skirvin, R. M. 1983. Histogenic layer manipulation in chimeral 'Thornless Evergreen' trailing blackberry. Euphytica 32: 351-360.
• Neilson-Jones, W. 1969. Plant Chimeras, 2nd edition. Methuen, London.
• Noguchi, T., Hirata, Y., Yagishita, N. 1992. Intervarietal and interspecific chimera formation by in vitro-graft culture in Brassica. Theor. Appl. Genet. 83: 727–732.
• Noguchi, T., Hirata, Y. 1994.Vegetative and floral characteristics of
• -
• HR.Ü.Z.F. Dergisi, 2012, 16(3) Örçen
• -
• interspecific Brassica chimeras produced by in vitro grafting. Euphytica 73: 273–280.
• Schepper, S. D., Leus, L., Mertens, M., Debergh, P., Bockstaele, EV., Loose, M. D. 2001. Somatic polyploidy and its consequences for flower coloration and flower morphology in azalea Plant cell rep 20:583–590.
• Sessions, A., Yanofsky, MF., Weigel, D. 2000. Cell-cell signaling and movement by the floral transcription factors LEAFY and APETALA1. Science 289: 779–781.
• Stewart, RN., Dermen, H.1970. Somatic genetic analysis of the apical layers of chimeral sports in Chrysanthemum by experimental production of adventitious shoots. Amer. J. Bot. 57 (9): 1061-1071.
• Stewart, RN, Meyer, FG., Dermen, H. 1972. Camellia+‘Daisy Eagleson’, a graft chimera of Camellia sasanqua and C. japonica. Am. J. Bot. 59: 515–524.
• Szymkowiak, EJ., Sussex, IM. 1996. What chımeras can tellus about plant development. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1996. 47:351–76.
• Tilney-Bassett, R.A.E. 1963. The structure of periclinal chimeras. Heredity 18: 265-285.
• Yamaguchi, H., Shimizu, · A., Hase, Y., Degi, K., Tanaka, A., Morishita, T. 2009.Mutation induction with ion beam irradiation of lateral buds of chrysanthemum and analysis of chimeric structure of induced mutants. Euphytica 165:97–103.
• Yentür, S.1995. Bitki Anatomisi, apikal örgütlenme kavramının evülüsyonu, İstanbul Üniversitesi Yayınları, sayı:3808, p:560.
• Zalewska, M., Lema-Ruminska, J., Miler, N. 2007. In vitro propagation using adventitious buds technique as a source of new variability in chrysanthemum. Scientia Horticulturae 113 70–73.
• Zhu, X. Y., Zhao, M, Ma, S., GeY, M., Zhang, M. F., Chen, L. P.2007. Induction and origin of adventitious shoots from chimeras of Brassica juncea and Brassica oleracea. Plant Cell Rep 26:1727–1732.
• Winkler, H. 1907. Über propfbastarde und pflanzliche chimaeren. Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. 25: 568–576.