Chapter title |
Somatic Versus Zygotic Embryogenesis: Learning from Seeds.
|
---|---|
Chapter number | 2 |
Book title |
In Vitro Embryogenesis in Higher Plants
|
Published in |
Methods in molecular biology, January 2016
|
DOI | 10.1007/978-1-4939-3061-6_2 |
Pubmed ID | |
Book ISBNs |
978-1-4939-3060-9, 978-1-4939-3061-6
|
Authors |
Winkelmann, Traud, Traud Winkelmann |
Abstract |
Plant embryogenesis is a fascinating developmental program that is very successfully established in nature in seeds. In case of in vitro somatic embryogenesis this process is subjected to several limitations such as asynchronous differentiation and further development of somatic embryos, malformations and disturbed polarity, precocious germination, lack of maturity, early loss of embryogenic potential, and strong genotypic differences in the regeneration efficiency. Several studies have shown the similarity of somatic and zygotic embryos in terms of morphological, histological, biochemical, and physiological aspects. However, pronounced differences have also been reported and refer to much higher stress levels, less accumulation of storage compounds and a missing distinction of differentiation and germination by a quiescent phase in somatic embryos. Here, an overview on recent literature describing both embryogenesis pathways, comparing somatic and zygotic embryos and analyzing the role of the endosperm is presented. By taking zygotic embryos as the reference and learning from the situation in seeds, somatic embryogenesis can be improved and optimized in order to make use of the enormous potential this regeneration pathway offers for plant propagation and breeding. |
X Demographics
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Bachelor | 10 | 18% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 16% |
Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
Researcher | 4 | 7% |
Student > Postgraduate | 3 | 5% |
Other | 4 | 7% |
Unknown | 17 | 31% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 24 | 44% |
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 7 | 13% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
Immunology and Microbiology | 1 | 2% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 1 | 2% |
Other | 1 | 2% |
Unknown | 20 | 36% |