Effect of Ethyl Methanesulphonate (EMS) Applications on In Vitro Growth of Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L. cv. Palancı-I) under Salinity Conditions

Öz

Four ethyl methanesulphonate (EMS) doses (control, 1.0, 1.5 ve 2.0 %) were exposed to kernels

of Palancı-I sunflower variety and this kernels were cultured on MS medium added different 4 NaCl doses (0.0,

1.25, 2.5 ve 5.0 g/L) in in vitro for 4 weeks. In this study, plantlet height (cm), plantlet fresh weight (g), root length

(cm), leaf number (number), leaf width and length (mm), node number (number), total chlorophyll content (µg/g)

and proline content (Mmol/g FW) were investigated. Except for node number and leaf number the effects of

EMS applications and salinity levels significantlly affected to all characteristics. Generally, according to increasing

NaCl concentrations, other characters decreased except proline content. The higher EMS doses caused significantly

declines in investigated characters except total chlorophyll content but weren’t affect proline content. It was

concluded that EMS treatments decreased negative effects of increasing NaCl doses.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Sunflower,in vitro,ethyl methanesulphonate,salinity conditions

Ayçiçeğinin (Helianthus annuus L. cv. Palancı-I) In Vitro Tuzlu Koşullarda Gelişimi Üzerine Etil Metansülfonat (EMS) Uygulamalarının Etkisi

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Palancı-I ayçiçeği çeşidi tohumlarına ait çekirdek içlerine dört farklı dozda (kontrol, %

1.0, 1.5 ve 2.0) etil metansülfonat (EMS) uygulanmış ve çekirdek içleri farklı NaCl dozu (0.0, 1.25, 2.5 ve 5.0

g/L) içeren besi ortamlarında 4 hafta süreyle in vitro koşullarda kültüre alınmıştır. Elde edilen bitkiciklerin boyu

(cm), yaş ağırlığı (g), kök uzunluğu (cm), yaprak sayısı (adet), yaprak eni ve boyu (mm), boğum sayısı (adet),

toplam klorofil içeriği (µg/g) ve prolin içeriği (Mmol/g YA) incelenmiştir. Boğum sayısı ve yaprak sayısı hariç

incelenen tüm özelliklerde artan tuz dozları ve EMS uygulamalarının etkisi istatistiki olarak önemli bulunmuştur.

Genel olarak, artan NaCl konsantrasyonlarına bağlı olarak prolin içeriği hariç, diğer incelenen özelliklerde azalma

gözlenmiştir. Yine uygulanan yüksek EMS dozları toplam klorofil içeriği hariç incelenen diğer özelliklerde önemli

seviyede düşüşlere sebep olmuş ancak prolin içeriğini etkilememiştir. Sonuç olarak, EMS uygulamaları artan NaCl

dozlarının olumsuz etkilerini azaltmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ayçiçeği,in vitro,etil metansülfonat,tuzlu koşullar,tuzlu koşullar

Kaynakça

1. Ahloowalia BS, 1986. Limitations to the Use of Somaclonal Variation in Crop Improvement. Somaclonal Variations and Crop Improvoment. Semal, J., Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Dordrecht, 14-27.
2. Ahmad S, Ahmad R, Ashraf M, Ashraf MY, Ashraf M, Waraich EA, 2009. Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) Response to Drought Stress at Germination and Seedling Growth Stages. Pak. J. Bot, 41(2): 647-654.
3. Aktaş H, 2002. Biberde Tuza Dayanıklılığın Fizyolojik Karakterizasyonu ve Kalıtımı, Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü, Doktora Tezi.
4. Al-Jibouri AAM, Sulaiman AA, Dallulu RA, 2005. Tissue Culture Technique and Gamma Irradiation used in Evaluation of Five Genotypes of Bread Wheat to Salinity Tolerance. Iraqi Journal of Science and Technology, 2: 24-35.
5. Arnon DT, 1949. Copper Enzymes in Insolated Chloroplast Polyphenoloxidase in Beta vulgaris. Plant Physiology, 23: 1-15.
6. Arslan N, 1988. Patateste Tuzluluğa ve Sıcaklığa Toleransın İn Vitro Tesbiti Üzerine Araştırmalar. Ankara Üniversitesi Ziraat FakültesiYayınları, 1077, Ankara.
7. Badoni A, Chauhan JS, 2010. Conventional vis-a-vis Biotechnological Methods of Propagation in Potato: A Review. Stem Cell, 1 (1): 1-6.
8. Bahar B, Akkaya MS, 2009. Effects of EMS Treatment on the Seed Germination in Wheat. Journal of Applied Biological Sciences, 3 (1): 59-64.

9. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare, ID, 1973. Rapid Determination of Free Proline for Water Stress Studies. Plant and Soil, 39: 205-207.
10. Belkhodja R, Morales F, Abadia A, Gomez-Aparisi J, Abadia J, 1994. Chlorophyll Fluorescence as a Possible Tool for Salinity Tolerance Screening in Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Plant Physiology, 104: 667-673.
11. Duron M, 1992. Induced Mutations through EMS Treatment after Adventitious Bud Formation on Shoot Internodes of Weigela cv. Bristol Ruby. Acta Horticulture, 320: 113-118.
12. Fernández‐Martínez JM, Domínguez J, Pérez‐Vich B, 2010. Update on Breeding for Resistance to Sunflower Broomrape. Helia, 33 (52): 1‐12.
13. Fulda S, Mikkat S, Stegmann H, Horn R, 2011. Physiology and Proteomics of Drought Stress Acclimation in Sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.). Plant Biol., 13: 632-642.
14. Gerami M, Abbaspour H, Ghasemiomran V, Pirdashti H, 2017. Effects of Ethyl Methanesulfonate on Morphological and Physiological Traits of Plants Regenerated from Stevia (Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni) Calli. Applied Ecology and Environmental Research, 15 (3): 373-385.
15. Gill BS, Appels R, Botha-Oberholster A-M, Buell CR, Bennetzen JL, Chalhoub B, Chumley F, Dvorak J, Iwanaga M, Keller B, Li W, McCombie WR, Ogihara Y, Quetier F, Sasaki T, 2004. A Workshop Report on Wheat Genome Sequencing: International Genome Research on Wheat Consortium. Genetics, 168: 1087-1096.
16. Greene EA, Codomo CA, Taylor NE, Henikoff JG, Till BJ, 2003. Spectrum of Chemically Induced Mutations from a Large-Scale Reverse-Genetic Screen in Arabidopsis. Genetics, 164: 731-740
17. Greenway H, Munns R, 1980. Mechanisms of Salt Tolerance in Non-Hallophytes. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 31: 149-190.
18. Gürel A, 1994. Susam (Sesamum indicum L.) Anter Kültürü Üzerinde Bir Ön Çalışma. Bitki Islahı Bildirileri, Tarla Bitkileri Kongresi, İzmir, 25-29 Nisan 1994. II: 278-280.
19. Gürel A, Tosun M, Demir İ, 1993. Bazı Makarnalık ve Ekmeklik Buğday Genotiplerinin Anter Kültürüne Reaksiyonları. Anadolu Journal of Aegean Agricultural Research Institute (AARI), 2: 98-111.
20. Hassan MN, Serag SM, El-Feky MF, 2004. Changes in Nitrogen Content and Protein Profiles Following In Vitro Selection of NaCl Resistant Mung Bean and Tomato. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 26 (2): 165-175.
21. Kalaji MH, Pietkiewicz S, 1993. Salinity Effects on Plant Growth and Other Physiological Processes. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 15 (2): 89-124.
22. Karthika R, Subba Lakshmi B, 2006. Induced Genetic Variability for Quantitative Traits in M2 Soybean Population. Plant Archives, 6(1), 325-327.
23. Kodym A, Afza R, 2003. Physical and Chemical Mutagenesis. Methods and Protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology, Grotewold E, Humana Press, Inc., Totowa NJ. Plant Functional Genomics, 236, 189-203.
24. Kong Y, Zhou G, Wang Y, 2001. Physiological Characteristics and Alternative Respiratory Pathway under Salt Stress in Two Wheat Cultivars Differing an Salt Toerance. Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 48 (5): 595-600.
25. Krupa-Małkiewicz M, Kosatka A, Smolik B, Sędzik M, 2017. Induced Mutations through EMS Treatment and In Vitro Screening for Salt Tolerance Plant of Petunia x atkinsiana D. Don. Notulae Botanicae Horti Agrobotanici, 45 (1): 190-196.
26. Kumar G, Kumar Rai P, 2007. EMS Induced Karyomorphological Variations in Maize (Zea mays L.) Inbreds. TUBİTAK, Turkish Journal of Biology, 31, 187-195.
27. Levitt J, 1980. Responses of Plants to Environmental Stresses, vol 1, Academic Press, New York.
28. Luan Y-S, Zhang J, Gao X-R, An L-J, 2007. Mutation Induced by Ethyl Methanesulphonate (EMS), In Vitro Screening for Salt Tolerance and Plant Regeneration of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea batatas L.). Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture, 88: 77-81.
29. Minocha JL, Arnason TJ, 1962. Mutagenic Effectiveness of Ethyl Methane Sulphonate in Barley. Nature, 196, 499.
30. Munns R, Termaat A, 1986. Whole-Plant Responses to Salinity.Australian Journal of Plant Physiology, 13: 143-160.
31. Murashige T, Skoog F, 1962. A Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bioassays with Tobacco Tissue Cultures. Physiologia Plantarum, 15, 473-497.
32. Nehnevajova E, Herzig R, Federer G, Erismann KH, Schwitzgu´ebel JP, 2007. Chemical Mutagenesis- a Promising Technique to Increase Metal Concentration and Extraction in Sunflowers. International Journal of Phytoremediation, 9:149-165.
33. Okagaki RJ, Neuffer MG, Wessler SR, 1991. A Deletion Common to Two Independently Derived Waxy Mutations of Maize. Genetics, 127: 425-431.
34. Reddy SK, Rao AMM, Farook SA, 1993. Mutagenic Effectiveness and Efficiency of SA, DES and Gamma Rays on Helianthus annuusL.). Asian Journal of Plant Sciences, 5: 51-55.
35. Riccardi F, Gazeau P, Vienne DV, Zivy M, 1998. Protein Changes in Responses to Progressive Water Deficit in Maize. Plant Physiol., 117: 1253-1263.
36. Saltalı K, Yıldırım ÖF, 2016. Kuru Koşullarda Çerezlik Ayçiçeği (Helianthus annuus L.) Yetiştiriciliğinde Gidya Uygulamasının Bazı Toprak ve Bitki Özelliklerine Etkisi. Kahramanmaraş Sütçü İmam Üniversitesi Doğa Bilimleri Dergisi, 19 (1):84-90.
37. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ, 1995. Biometry: The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. 3rd Edition, WH Freeman and Co., New York.
38. Van Harten AM, 1998. Mutation Breeding Theory and Practical Applications. Cambridge University (Press Cambridge United Kingdom), 127-140.
39. Wang Y, Nii N, 2000. Changes in Chlorophyll, Ribulose Biphosphate Carboxylase-Oxygenase, Glycine Betaine Content, Photosynthesis and Transpiration in Amaranthus tricolor Leaves during Salt Stress. Journal of Horticultural Science and Biotechnology, 75: 623-627.
40. Winicov I, 1996. Characterization of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Plants Regenerated from Salt-Tolerant Cell Lines. Plant Science, 113: 105-111.
41. Yang WR, Zhang QX, Pan HT, Sun M, 2010. In Vitro Regeneration of Lilium tsingtauense Gilg. and Analysis of Genetic Variability in Micropropagated Plants Using RAPD and ISSR Techniques. Propagation of Ornamental Plants, 10 (2): 59-66.