Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
H O S T E D BY
KEYWORDS
Cryopreservation;
Germplasm;
Lamiaceae;
Molecular markers;
Somatic embryogenesis;
Synseeds
Abstract Vitex is a large genus consisting of 230 species of trees and shrubs with multiple (ornamental, ethnobotanic and pharmacological) uses. Despite this, micropropagation has only been
used to effectively propagate and preserve germplasm a limited number (six) of Vitex species (V.
agnus-castus, V. doniana, V. glabrata, V. negundo, V. rotundifolia, V. trifolia). This review on Vitex
provides details of published micropropagation protocols and perspectives on their application to
germplasm preservation and in vitro conservation. Such details serve as a practically useful user
manual for Vitex researchers. The importance of micropropagation and its application to synthetic
seed production, in vitro owering, production of secondary metabolites, and the use of molecular
markers to detect somaclonal variation in vitro, are also highlighted.
2016 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Academy of Scientific Research &
Technology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Contents
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Selection of suitable starting material and disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1. Alternative explant sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Inuence of season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3. Optimized disinfection procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Light conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Medium composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Synthetic seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In vitro owering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Somatic embryogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production of secondary metabolites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
E-mail addresses: jaimetex@yahoo.com (J.A. Teixeira da Silva), mafatlalmkher@gmail.com (M.M. Kher), mnatarajspu@gmail.com (M. Nataraj).
Peer review under responsibility of National Research Center, Egypt.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
1687-157X 2016 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Academy of Scientic Research & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
2
9. Molecular markers to detection somaclonal variation .
10. Conclusions and future perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
1. Introduction
The Vitex L. genus (Lamiaceae) [51] contains mainly trees and
shrubs and several species have well-established uses in ethnobotany, medicine, pharmacology and landscaping as ornamental plants [27,30,71,109,56,76]. The socio-economic
importance of many Vitex species is thus irrefutable. However,
the over-reliance on natural populations to derive such primary resources can strain the ecological balance of the environment in which they grow naturally, making collection
from natural populations, in some cases, unsustainable. Fifteen Vitex species (V. acunae Borh. & Muniz, V. ajugaeflora
Dop., V. amaniensis W. Piep, V. cooperi Standl., V. evoluta
Daniker, V. gaumeri Greenm., V. heptaphylla A. Juss., V.
keniensis Turrill, V. kuylenii Standl., V. lehmbachii Gurke, V.
longisepala King & Gamble, V. parviflora Juss., V. urceolata
C.B. Clarke, V. yaundensis Gurke, and V. zanzibarensis Vatke)
are included in the IUCN Red Data list [46] for various reasons, but all related to unsustainable harvesting.
Depulped seeds of V. doniana Sweet germinate well after a
hot water treatment [1] or after 21 days of hydrationdehydration cycles [31]. The seed germination of other Vitex
species has not yet been studied. Thus, urgent attention is
needed to conserve Vitex species. One biotechnological tool,
in vitro propagation, provides a viable solution for the largescale propagation of medicinally important plants [53,92,65],
including cryoconservation [94] and genetic transformation
[96]. The micropropagation of three Vitex species (V. negundo,
V. agnus-castus and V. trifolia) from 29 published reports of
Vitex sp. has recently been reviewed [9]. However, that review
lacks vital details about disinfection methods, temperature,
light source and intensity, photoperiod, basal medium, plant
growth regulator type and concentrations, medium pH, carbon
source type and concentrations for culture initiation, multiplication and rooting, all of which are essential factors that inuence the outcome of the in vitro protocol for Vitex species.
Consequently, our review explores these ne-scale details of
the different steps of the plant tissue culture protocols for
Vitex spp. to allow plant biotechnologists to design new and
detailed experiments. This review, which provides a detailed
analysis of reports from 1986 to 2016 of the micropropagation
of six Vitex species (V. agnus-castus L., V. doniana, V. glabrata
R. Br., V. leucoxylon L., V. negundo L., V. trifolia L.) (Tables 1
and 2), provides a solid foundation for the sustainable social
and economic use of valuable members of this genus. A brief
background of the socio-economic importance of Vitex species
for which micropropagation protocols exist is provided next.
V. agnus-castus (chast berry) is a deciduous shrub native of
Mediterranean Europe and Central Asia. The fruit extract of
V. agnus-castus is used to treat menstrual disorder (amenorrhoea, dysmenorrhoea), premenstrual syndrome, corpus
luteum insufciency, hyperprolactinaemia, infertility, acne,
menopause and disrupted lactation [30]. The fruits and leaves
of V. doniana (black plum) are either consumed raw or after
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
00
00
00
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
Disinfection procedures of tissues for in vitro use of Vitex species (alphabetical listing).
Species
Disinfection protocol
References
V. agnus-castus
After removal of testa by mechanical treatment ? 1.25% NaOCl (5% available chlorine) 20 min ? SDW 4
5
Shoot tip/nodal explant ? RTW ? 0.05% Bavistin 5 min ? SDW 34 ? SDW + 23 drops Tween-20
10 min ? SDW 34 ? 70% EtOH 30 s ? SDW 34
Apical bud or stem with nodes from seedlings ? 75% EtOH 15 s ? 0.1% HgCl2 35 min ? SDW 56
Second pair of young leaves from 24 year old tree ? cleaned with cotton wool soaked in liquid soap ?
0.5% fungicide (Ridomil) + 2 drops of Tween 20 1 h ? 70% EtOH 30 min ? SDW 2 ? CaCl2 (1, 1.5,
2%) + 23 drops of Tween 20 (duration NR) ? 2% CaCl2 30 min ? SDW 2 ? quick dip in 70%
EtOH ? 2% CaCl2 15 min ? SDW 2 ? 70% contamination-free cultures obtained
Explants ? 10% NaOCl 10 min ? SDW 45
Young shoots ? 1% Teepol (detergent) ? 0.1% HgCl2 (2 min) ? repeated wash with SDW (node with
one axillary bud 1 cm)
Shoot apices and nodal segments ? RTW 45 min ? 5% Laboline (detergent) + 7% NaOCl (7
10 min) ? 57 SDW ? 0.1% HgCl2 8 min ? SDDW 67
Shoot apices and nodal segments ? RTW ? 1% Teepol 10 min ? RTW ? 80% EtOH 30 s ? 0.1%
HgCl2 3 min? SDW 3
Internode segment (1.01.50 cm) from 10-year-old plant ? RTW ? 1%Teepol 10 min ? RTW ? 80%
EtOH 30 s ? 0.1% HgCl2 3 min
Shoot apices and nodal segments ? RTW ? 1% Teepol 10 min ? RTW ? 50% EtOH 30 s ? 0.1%
HgCl2 3 min? SDW 3
Actively growing healthy shoot with 34 nodes from adult plant (0.51.0 cm node with dormant axillary
bud) ? RTW 30 min ? 5% Laboline 78 min ? DW ? 0.05% HgCl2 20 min ? SDW 56
Young leaves (< 3 months) ? 2% detergent + 2.5% commercial bleach + 0.01% NaOCl ? 70%
EtOH ? SDW
Shoot tip/nodal explant with one dormant axillary bud (1.01.50 cm) from 6-month-old plant in March ?
RTW 30 min ? 10% Laboline 10 min ? washed thoroughly with SDW ? 0.1% HgCl2 5 min ? SDDW 6
7
Explants ? RTW ? 5% Extran (detergent) 10 min ? 1% Bavistin (fungicide) 20 min ? SDDW ?
0.05% HgCl2 4 min ? several rinses in SDDW
Young shoots ? RTW 30 min ? 5% Laboline (2007, 2008, 2013b) or Teepol (2011) 10 min ? SDW 3
4 ? 0.1% HgCl2 4 min (2007, 2013) or 57 min (2008, 2011) ? SDW 58
Shoot tips (1.01.5 cm) ? 0.5% Tween-20 ? 70% EtOH 10 s ? 0.1% HgCl2 3 min ? SDW 45
Young leaves from 35-month-old plant ? RTW ? 5% Tween-20 10 min ? 70% EtOH 1015 s ? SDW
510 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 23 min ? SDW 45
Young shoots ? RTW ? 0.1% HgCl2 1 min ? SDW 34
Explants ? 5% Teepol 1015 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 5 min ? SDW 3
Twigs ? RTW ? DW ? shoot tips excised ? 0.1% HgCl2 7 min ? SDW 35
Explants ? RTW ? detergent 30 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 7 min ? SDW 5
Explants ? water 1015 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 710 min ? SDW 57
Young stems 1520 mm ? RTW 30 min ? Tween-80 ? SDW 4
Twigs ? RTW ? 1% Savlon + liquid soap 510 min with shaking ? SDW 34 ? 70%
EtOH < 1 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 57 min ? SDW 45
0.1% Bavistin 1015 min ? 0.1% antibiotics (streptomycin and tetracycline) 510 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 3
4 min ? SW 56 ? 0.1% AA + 0.05% CA
RTW ? Tween-20 (2 drops/100 ml) ? 0.1% HgCl2 35 min ? dip in 70% EtOH ? SDW 45
RTW 3 min ? cut into 35 cm sections with 23 internodes ? 2 g/l Blitox (fungicide) + Tween-20
45 min ? DW 3 ? SDW 1 min ? AA + CA 2 min ? SDW 3 ? 70% EtOH 30 s ? SDW 2 ?
0.12% HgCl2 + 1 drop Tween-20 8 min ? SDW 3
Shoot tip/nodal explant ? RTW ? detergent 30 min ? 70% EtOH 1 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 5 min ? SDW
5
Nodal explant ? RTW ? 70% EtOH 10 s ? NaOCl (2% active chlorine) 15 min ? SDW 3
1-cm long nodal explants ? RTW ? 0.1% Laboline 10 min ? 70% alcohol 5 min ? 0.1% HgCl2
5 min ? several rinses in DW
RTW ? Bavistin + Tween-20 1015 min ? 70% EtOH 1 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 4 min ? SDDW
57 cm long young shoots ? RTW 20 min ? 5% Laboline 5 min ? DW 34 ? 0.1% HgCl2 4 min ?
SDW repeatedly
Shoot tips ? RTW 10 min ? 5% Tween-20 15 min ? DW ? 0.5% NaOCl 5 min ? DDW ? 0.01%
HgCl2 10 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 5 min ? Bavistin 30 min ? DDW 1
57 cm long shoots ? 0.1% HgCl2 20 min ? rinse 45 in SDW
[22]
V. agnus-castus
V. agnus-castus
V. doniana
V. leucoxylon
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
negundo
negundo
negundo
negundo
negundo
negundo
negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
Dhaka 1205
V. rotundifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
[16]
[59]
[29]
[25]
[108]
[80]
[102]
[103]
[104]
[24]
[67]
[77]
[107]
[3,5,7,6]
[106]
[49]
[50]
[68]
[47]
[48]
[85]
[26]
[75]
[78]
[41]
[79]
[2]
[72]
[44]
[15]
[10,11,12,13]
[64]
[81]
AA, ascorbic acid; CA, citric acid; DDW, double distilled water; DW, distilled water; EtOH, ethyl alcohol (ethanol); HgCl2, mercuric chloride;
NaOCl, sodium hypochlorite; NR, not reported; RTW, running tap water; s, second(s); SDW, sterilized (by autoclaving) distilled water;
SDDW, sterilized (by autoclaving) double distilled water; SW, sterile water.
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
Culture
conditions**
References
V. agnus-castus
[16]
V. agnus-castus
V. doniana
Darkness. 25
2 C.
V. glabrata
V. leucoxylon
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
Continuous light.
2000 lux, 25 C.
[59]
[29]
[83,84,98,23]
[25]
[108]
[80]
[102]
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
Table 2
Species and/or
cultivar
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
NR
V. negundo
Nodal explants (5
10 mm long) from young
shoots of 15-y-old tree
V. negundo
V. negundo
[103]
[104]
[24]
[67]
[77]
[107]
[3]
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
V. negundo
Species and/or
cultivar
Culture
conditions**
References
V. negundo
[106]
V. negundo
[2]
V. negundo
Nodal segments (5
10 mm) from 15-y-old
tree
V. negundo
Leaves of 35-m-old
plants
V. negundo
Nodal segments
V. negundo
Nodal segments (5
10 mm long) of adult
plant
V. negundo
Shoot tips
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
[47]
V. negundo
[6]
[49]
[50]
[68]
[4]
[48]
[85]
[5]
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
Table 2 (continued)
V. negundo
V. negundo
PP, LI,
temperature NR.
V. negundo
V. negundo
16-h PP.
40 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 2 C. 60
70% RH.
V. negundo
V. rotundifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
Leaf; internode (1
1.5 cm)
[26]
[75]
[78]
[7]
[41]
[79]
[72]
[44]
[15]
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
V. negundo
Species and/or
cultivar
V. trifolia
Nodal explants (5
10 mm long) from young
shoots of 3-y-old tree
V. trifolia
Nodal explants (5
10 mm long) from young
shoots of 3-y-old tree
V. trifolia
Shoot tips
V. trifolia
16-h PP.
61 lmol m
25 2 C.
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
Same as [10]
agar.
MS + 5.0 lM TDZ (SIM). MS + 1.0 lM BA
+ 0.5 lM NAA (SMM). MS + 0.5 lM NAA
(RIM). Subculture every 3 w. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose.
0.8% agar.
Culture
conditions**
References
[10]
s 1.
[8]
[64]
[81]
[12]
[11]
[13]
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
Table 2 (continued)
2,4-D, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; AA, ascorbic acid; AC, activated charcoal; AdS, adenine sulphate; AgNO3, silver nitrate; B5 medium, or Gamborg medium, [38]; BA, N6-benzyladenine (BA
is used throughout even though BAP (6-benzylamino purine) may have been used in the original [86]; CA, citric acid; CIM, callus induction medium; CW, coconut water; CWFT, white uorescent
tubes; d, day(s); FIM, ower induction medium; GA3, gibberellic acid; Hoagland medium [45]; IAA, indole-3-acetic acid; IBA, indole-3-butyric acid; ISSR, inter simple sequence repeat; Kin, kinetin
(6-furfuryl aminopurine); LI, light intensity; m, month(s); MS, Murashige and Skoogs [63] medium; NAA, a-naphthaleneacetic acid; Nitsch medium [66]; NR, not reported in the study; PG,
phloroglucinol; PGR, plant growth regulator; PP, photoperiod; PVP: polyvinyl pyrrolidone; RAPD, random amplied polymorphic DNA; RH, relative humidity; RIM, root induction medium;
rpm, revolutions per minute; SEM, shoot elongation medium; SIM, shoot induction medium; SMM, multiplication induction medium; TDZ, thidiazuron (N-phenyl-N- 1,2,3-thiadiazol-5-ylurea);
TLC, thin layer chromatography; w, week(s); VC, vermicompost; WPM, woody plant medium [60]; White [111]; y, year(s).
*
Even though calli was used in the original, the term callus has been used here based on recommendation of Teixeira da Silva [87].
**
The original light intensity reported in each study has been represented since the conversion of lux to lmol m 2 s 1 is different for different illumination (main ones represented): for uorescent
lamps, 1 lmol m 2 s 1 = 80 lux; the sun, 1 lmol m 2 s 1 = 55.6 lux; high voltage sodium lamp, 1 lmol m 2 s 1 = 71.4 lux [101].
V. trifolia var.
Simplicifolia
810-h PP. 25
30 C
[35]
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
10
surface disinfection and explant preparation can be divided
into three stages: (1) removal of dirt and surface dust by washing under running tap water for 1030 min followed by treatment with liquid detergent; (2) disinfection under a laminar
air hood: treatment with EtOH, preferably 70%, which can
penetrate bacterial cell walls (by disrupting hydrogen bonding)
for at most 30 s otherwise explants can be damaged [70] and
then 0.1% HgCl2 for 13 min depending on the explant (juvenile explants can be treated for a maximum of 1 min and
mature explants for as long as 3 min); (3) 23 washes with
SDW. NaOCl is a much more environmental-friendly disinfectant then HgCl2 [19]. The presence of endophytic microorganisms can cause problems during the establishment of in vitro
cultures [57].
In our experiments, we observed contamination by bacteria
in V. negundo nodal explants (Fig. 1) that were disinfected with
(1) 0.1% HgCl2 for 3 min followed by three rinses with SDW,
(2) 70% ethanol for 2 min followed by treatment with 0.1%
HgCl2 for 3 min and three rinses with SDW, and (3) 0.1%
HgCl2 for 3 min followed by disinfection with 70% ethanol
for 2 min and three rinses with SDW. Browning of explants
was observed when HgCl2 was used as the disinfectant
(Fig. 1AC) while surface disinfection with 70% ethanol for
2 min followed by three rinses with SDW allowed explants to
remain green although contamination was still observed in
more than 50% of cultures. However, 95% of contamination
could be controlled by adding lter-sterilized antibiotics
(41.28 lM kanamycin, 59.81 lM penicillin, or 34.39 lM streptomycin) to Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium [63] (Fig. 1E
H). Nanoparticles have been shown to control disinfection [17]
and could be used in the future to disinfect explants from other
Vitex species. Contamination by endophytes has not yet been
reported in any Vitex species and could be controlled through
meristem culture.
3. Light conditions
Most culture conditions for the in vitro growth of Vitex species
require a 16-h photoperiod (more rarely 10, 12, or 14 h
[77,15,107,108,50,75] under cool white uorescent tubes at a
photosynthetic photon ux density of 3550 lmol m 2 s 1
(Table 2). However, a continuous supply of light was useful
for the production of 20-HES from stem-induced callus of V.
glabrata [83,84,98].
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and cold-cathode uorescent
lamps (CCFL) have seen expanded scientic applications [112],
including in plant physiological studies [69,37]. To maximize
plant production in vitro, or even to alter morphogenesis,
changes in the intensity, type of light source, spectral range
and photoperiod can be explored in the future for Vitex tissue
culture and secondary metabolite production.
4. Medium composition
MS medium was most frequently used for tissue culture studies
of Vitex species (Table 2) although Li et al. Li et al. [59] used
woody plant medium (WPM) [60] for V. agnus-castus. Park
et al. Park et al. [72] used Nitsch medium [66] for V. rotundifolia. Since there are no comparative studies between basal
media, such studies are needed to improve the efciency of
in vitro culture of different Vitex species.
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
11
One of the most captivating events in the lifecycle of a owering plant is the shift from the vegetative phase to the reproductive phase, a complex developmental shift that can be
determined by several factors. Under natural conditions, owering duration varies widely, at least in V. rotundifolia and V.
agnus-castus [43]. Flowers that are induced in vitro are an ideal
source of explants for the production of haploids since the
chance of contamination is very low and since ower induction
can take place independent of the season [95,97]. In vitro owering is also a useful strategy to investigate owering physiology. Only two studies have examined in vitro owering in V.
negundo [107,104]: details of owering conditions are described
in Table 2). Data about in vitro owering are not available in
Thiruvengadam and Jayabalan [104]. Ahmad et al. Vadawale
et al. [107] studied different C/N ratios (they increased the
C/N ratio by increasing the sucrose concentration and maintaining the concentration of NH4NO3 at 20.6 lM) and
observed that the addition of 146.06 mM sucrose (C/N
ratio = 7.08) resulted in in vitro owering of 80% of cultures
within 24 days on MS medium supplemented with 4.44 lM
BA and 0.53 lM NAA. In that study, 90% of plants formed
an inorescence with an average of 5.1 owers per plant
[107]. Only one report is available on in vitro owering, in V.
trifolia [64], but details about in vitro owering induction,
specic culture conditions or data were not reported. This
leaves a wide scope for plant physiologists and biotechnologist
to explore this technique for other Vitex species.
7. Somatic embryogenesis
Somatic embryogenesis is the process by which somatic cells
differentiate into somatic embryos. Somatic embryos, which
morphologically resemble zygotic embryos, are used as a
model system in embryological studies [58]. However, the
greatest importance of somatic embryos, in medicinal plant
biotechnology, is their practical application in large-scale vegetative propagation; in some cases, somatic embryogenesis is
favoured over other methods of vegetative propagation
because of the possibility of scaling up propagation by using
bioreactors while somatic embryos or embryogenic cultures
can be cryopreserved, allowing gene banks to be established
while embryogenic cultures are also an attractive target for
genetic modication [61]. Dadjo et al. Dadjo et al. [29] induced
somatic embryos from leaf explants of V. doniana on MS
medium supplemented with 0.50 lM thidiazuron, 5.55 lM
myo-inositol, and 49.74 lM silver nitrate or 6.25 lM tryptophan, but the conversion of somatic embryos to plantlets
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
12
and eld transfer and survival were not reported. Therefore, an
efcient protocol should be developed for the propagation of
V. doniana and other unexplored Vitex species using somatic
embryogenesis.
8. Production of secondary metabolites
The medicinal properties of medicinal plants are derived from
the presence of single or multiple secondary metabolites [39].
V. glabrata produces sterols like 7-dehydrocholesterol (7DHC), a-ecdysone and 20-HES [110]. 20-HES has multiple
uses, including as a growth stimulator for shrimp culture
[21], an insecticide [33], an anabolic steroid in sports and bodybuilding, and as a tonic supplement for male and female reproductive systems [34]. Ten-year-old callus induced from stem
explants (the exact explant source, i.e., node or internode,
was not indicated) used [84] of V. glabrata (as suggested in
Thavornnithi [99]; culture conditions described in Table 2) to
study the effects of cholesterol, 7-DHC, and ergosterol fed to
callus cultures for 0, 12, 24, 72, 96 and 120 h. They found that
cholesterol did not increase 20-HES content but instead inhibited cell growth while 7-DHC and ergosterol increased 20-HES
production 1.36-fold more than the control without affecting
cell growth. Sinlaparaya et al. Sinlaparaya et al. [83], using
the same callus as in two other studies [84,99], tested MS,
MS, B5 and B5 medium (syn. Gamborg medium [38] supplemented
with
8.88 lM
BA
and
9.04 lM
2,4dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) for 1 to 5 weeks (detailed
culture conditions in Tables 1 and 2). They found that highest
cell dry weight (DW) (12.1 g/L) and maximum production of
20-HES (0.038% DW) was possible in B5 medium in the third
week. Thanonkeo et al. Thanonkeo et al. [98] used the same
explant as that used in two other studies [83,84], namely callus
from a 10-year-old V. glabrata culture, to test basal media,
temperatures and sucrose concentrations (MS, MS, B5 and
B5; 25 vs 30 C; 20, 30, 40 g/L sucrose) for 012 days at 2day intervals. Thanonkeo et al. Thanonkeo et al. [98] also
observed that when cells were cultured in suspension cultures
at 30 C on B5 or MS medium with 30 and 40 g/L sucrose,
the production of 20-HES increased 1.09-fold more than the
control. Feeding cholesterol at 5 mg/L as a precursor to
biosynthesize 20-HES accumulated 1.11-fold more 20-HES
than control cells. In another study [23], callus cultures were
initiated using the same explants as in the three previous
reports. Elicitation with chitosan at 50 mg/L resulted in
17.16 g/L biomass and 377.09 mg/100 g DW 20-HES, which
were 1.62 and 8.33 times higher than the control cultures,
respectively. Likewise, the addition of methyl jasmonate at
100 lM also enhanced growth and production of 20-HES.
The highest growth and 20-HES production reached 14.44 g/
L and 621.76 mg/100 g DW, which were 1.35- and 14.54-fold
higher than the control cultures [23]. Noel and Darit [67] isolated triterpenes from callus cultures derived from leaf explants
of V. negundo but triterpenes were not quantied nor was the
method used to induce callus described.
9. Molecular markers to detection somaclonal variation
Molecular markers play an important role in studies related to
genomics, evolution, and phylogeny of medicinal plants [42].
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
Acknowledgements
We are sincerely thankful to Mr. Shubhjeet Mandal and Mr.
Abhishek Parsai, for assistance with collecting the literature.
We also thank Prof. N. Jayabalan, Department of Plant
Sciences, Bharathidasan University (India), for providing us
difcult-to-access Vitex literature and Prof. Songjun Zeng
(South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Guangzhou, China) for assisting with interpretation
of the Chinese literature.
References
[1] S. Abubakar, J.J. Saba, I.D. Umar, Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2 (2015)
2738.
[2] F. Afroz, A.K.M.S. Hassan, L.S. Bari, R. Sultana, L. Munshi,
M.A.A. Jahan, R. Khatun, Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res. 43
(2008) 345352.
[3] N. Ahmad, M. Anis, Agrofor. Syst. 71 (2007) 195200.
[4] N. Ahmad, M. Anis, Biol. Plant. 54 (2010) 748752.
[5] N. Ahmad, M. Anis, Eur. J. Forest Res. 130 (2011) 135144.
[6] N. Ahmad, S.A. Wali, M. Anis, J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 83
(2008) 313317.
[7] N. Ahmad, M.I. Khan, S. Ahmed, S. Bin Javed, M. Faisal, M.
Anis, S. Rehman, S.M. Umair, Acta Physiol. Plant. 35 (2013)
791800.
[8] N. Ahmad, S. Bin Javed, M.I. Khan, M. Anis, Acta Physiol.
Plant. 35 (2013) 24932500.
[9] N. Ahmad, A. Shahid, S. Bin Javed, M.I. Khan, M. Anis, J.
Appl. Res. Med. Arom. Plants 2 (2015) 114123.
[10] M.R. Ahmed, M. Anis, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 168 (2012)
957966.
[11] R. Ahmed, M. Anis, Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 20 (2014) 385
392.
[12] M.R. Ahmed, M. Anis, Agrofor. Syst. 88 (2014) 437447.
[13] M.R. Ahmed, M. Anis, H.A. Al-Etta, Rendiconti Lincei 26
(2015) 133139.
[14] E. Ari, H. Djapo, N. Mutlu, E. Gurbuz, O. Karaguzel, Sci.
Hortic. 195 (2015) 7481.
[15] L.J.P. Arulanandam, S. Ghanthikumar, Indian J. Nat. Prod.
Resour. 2 (2011) 261264.
[16] K. Balaraju, P. Agastian, J.P. Preetamraj, S. Arokiyaraj, S.
Ignacimuthu, In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 44 (2008) 436441.
[17] N. Beyth, Y. Houri-Haddad, A. Domb, W. Khan, R. Hazan,
Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2015 (2015) 116.
13
[18] S.S. Bhojwani, M.K. Razdan, Plant Tissue Culture: Theory
and Practice, a revised edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Netherland, 1996.
[19] D.W. Boening, Chemosphere 40 (2000) 13351351.
[20] J. Bousquet, L. Simon, M. Lalonde, Can. J. For. Res. 20 (1990)
254257.
[21] S. Chaiwatcharakool, Mahidol University, Thailand, 1986.
[22] F. Chamandoosti, Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 10 (2007) 41134117.
[23] N. Chamnipa, S. Thanonkeo, P. Thanonkeo, J. Med. Plants
Res. 6 (2012) 33173323.
[24] C. Chandramu, D.M. Rao, V.D. Reddy, J. Plant Biotechnol. 5
(2003) 107113.
[25] M.A. Chordia, R.S. Kumari, R.R. Kannan, J. Med. Plants
Res. 4 (2010) 23992403.
[26] F.B. Chowdhury, F.M.S. Azam, M. Hassan, F.I. Jahan, R.
Chowdhury, S. Seraj, Z. Khatun, M. Rahmatullah, AmEurasian J. Sustain. Agric. 5 (2011) 614.
[27] S. Christie, A. Walker, European Journal of Herbal Medicine 3
(1997) 2945.
[28] C. Dadjo, A.E. Assogbadjo, B. Fandohan, R. Gle`le` Kaka , S.
Chakeredza, T.D. Houehanou, P. Van Damme, B. Sinsin,
Fruits 67 (2012) 239248.
[29] C. Dadjo, J. Kahia, C. Muthuri, L. Diby, C. Kouame, M.
Kouassi, Int. J. Biotechnol. Mol. Biol. Res. 6 (2015) 2834.
[30] C. Daniele, J.T. Coon, M.H. Pittler, E. Ernst, Drug Saf. 28
(2005) 319332.
[31] S.N. Danikou, D.A. Tchokponhoue, F.A. Komlan, Seed Sci.
Technol. 43 (2015) 1019.
[32] S.N. Danikou, E.G. Achigan-Dako, D.A. Tchokponhoue, C.
O. Agossou, C.A. Houdegbe, R.S. Vodouhe, A. Ahanchede, J.
Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 11 (2015) 28.
[33] T.S. Dhadialla, G.R. Carlson, D.P. Le, Annu. Rev. Entomol.
43 (1998) 545569.
[34] L. Dinan, R. Lafont, J. Endocrinol. 191 (1) (2006) 18.
[35] T.M. Dong, Plant Physiol. Commun. 1 (1986) 39 (in Chinese).
[36] J.L. Doyle, J.L. Doyle, Focus 12 (1990) 1315.
[37] S. Dutta Gupta, B. Jatothu, Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 7 (2013)
211220.
[38] O.L. Gamborg, R.A. Miller, K. Ojima, Exp. Cell Res. 50
(1968) 151158.
[39] S.G. Gandhi, V. Mahajan, Y.S. Bedi, Planta 241 (2015) 303
317.
[40] E.F. George, M.A. Hall, G.-J. De Klerk, Plant propagation by
tissue culture, The Background, third ed., vol. 1, Springer,
Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2008.
[41] R. Groach, K. Yadav, N. Singh, Environ. Exp. Biol. 12 (2014)
149153.
[42] P.G. Xiao Hao, Evolutionary Bioinformatics 11 (2015) 197
212.
[43] A.J. Hershberger, Graduate Faculty of the University of
Georgia, 2008, p. 71.
[44] L.V. Hiregoudar, H.N. Murthy, J.G. Bhat, B.P. Nayeem, E.J.
Hema, K.Y. .Paek. Hahn, Biol. Plant. 50 (2006) 291294.
[45] D.R. Hoagland, D.I. Amon, Circular 347, College of
Agriculture University of California, Berkley, 1950, pp. 132.
[46] The International Union for Conservation of Nature, Vitex
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.4.
Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/search. Accessed
August 23, 2016.
[47] M.R. Islam, R. Khan, S.N. Hossain, G. Ahmed, L. Hakim,
Plant Tissue Cult. Biotechnol. 19 (2009) 113117.
[48] A.H.M. Jamal, A.N.M.R. Rehman, D.K. Paul, R. Islam, J.
Bio-Sci. 18 (2010) 140145.
[49] M. Jawahar, S. Ravipaul, M. Jeyaseelan, Plant Tissue Cult.
Biotechnol. 18 (2009) 3742.
[50] M. Johnson, S. Das, N. Yasmin, P.M. Rajasekara,
Micropropagation studies on Vitex negundo L. a
medicinally important plant. Ethanobotanical Leaets.
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
14
[51]
[52]
[53]
[54]
[55]
[56]
[57]
[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
[66]
[67]
[68]
[69]
[70]
[71]
[72]
[73]
[74]
[75]
[76]
[77]
[78]
[79]
[80]
[81]
[82]
[83]
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004