走马胎的组织培养与快速繁殖

doi:10.11983/CBB18181

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 以走马胎(Ardisia gigantifolia)幼嫩茎段为外植体, 通过腋芽增殖的方式进行组织培养和快速繁殖研究。结果表明, 培养基MS+1.0 mg·L ^-1 6-BA+0.2 mg·L ^-1NAA和MS+0.5 mg·L ^-1 ZT均可用于腋芽的诱导和前期继代培养, 诱导率分别为89.3%和85.7%; 芽增殖最佳培养基为MS+0.5 mg·L ^-16-BA+0.1 mg·L ^-1ZT+0.1 mg·L ^-1NAA, 增殖系数为4.3倍; 根诱导最佳培养基为1/2MS+1.5 mg·L ^-1 IAA+1.0 mg·L ^-1 NAA, 生根率达92.3%, 且根系发达, 植株健壮; 生根苗在混合基质园土:泥炭:珍珠岩=3:1:1 (v/v/v )中移栽成活率为82%。该研究建立了走马胎种苗的组织培养快速繁殖技术体系, 且可应用于规模化生产。

关键词: 走马胎, 腋芽, 组织培养

Abstract: In this research, to establish a tissue culture and rapid propagation system of Ardisia gigantifolia, tender stem segments was selected as explants, and axillary buds were used to study proliferation. Culture medium of MS+1.0 mg·L ^-16-BA+0.2 mg·L ^-1 NAA and MS+0.5 mg·L ^-1 ZT had a significant effect on axillary bud induction and subculture of previous generations; the induction rates were 89.3% and 85.7%, respectively. The best culture medium for the multiplication was MS+0.5 mg·L ^-1 6-BA+0.1 mg·L ^-1 ZT+0.1 mg·L ^-1 NAA, and the propagation coefficient was 4.3. The optimal medium for rooting was 1/2MS+1.5 mg·L ^-1 IAA+1.0 mg·L ^-1NAA; the rooting rate reached 92.3%. The roots developed well and plantlets grew vigorously. Plantlets were transplanted to garden soil:peat soil:perlite=3:1:1 (v/v/v), and 82% rooted plants survived. The study established a fast propagation system for A. gigantifolia that could be applied to factory production.

Key words: Ardisia gigantifolia, axillary bud, tissue culture

唐凤鸾,赵健,赵志国,夏科,仇硕. 走马胎的组织培养与快速繁殖. 植物学报, 2019, 54(3): 378-384.

Fengluan Tang,Jian Zhao,Zhiguo Zhao,Ke Xia,Shuo Qiu. Tissue Culture and Rapid Propagation of Ardisia gigantifolia. Chinese Bulletin of Botany, 2019, 54(3): 378-384.

导出引用管理器 EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

链接本文: https://www.chinbullbotany.com/CN/10.11983/CBB18181

https://www.chinbullbotany.com/CN/Y2019/V54/I3/378

图/表 3

参考文献 18

[1]	戴卫波, 董鹏鹏, 梅全喜, 何鉴洪, 张远军 ( 2018). 走马胎石油醚提取物抗类风湿性关节炎的作用机制. 中药材 41, 459-463. DOI URL
[2]	邓小梅, 戴小英, 万小婷 ( 2003). 紫金牛的组织培养. 江西林业科技( 1), 1, 24.
[3]	丁爱萍, 史正军 ( 2010). 6-BA对红掌组织培养中红叶变异的影响. 植物生理学通讯 46, 571-573.
[4]	符运柳, 徐立, 李志英, 黄碧兰, 李克烈 ( 2017). 走马胎离体培养及植株再生. 北方园艺 ( 4), 98-101. DOI URL
[5]	刘拥海, 俞乐, 丁君辉, 王若仲, 黄志刚, 萧浪涛 ( 2012). 植物激素对分枝发育的协同调控作用研究进展. 植物生理学报 48, 941-948.
[6]	毛世忠, 唐文秀, 骆文华, 邓涛, 丁莉, 隗红燕 ( 2010). 广西紫金牛属药用植物资源及可持续利用初探. 福建林业科技 37, 119-126. DOI URL
[7]	穆丽华, 张静, 刘屏 ( 2018). 走马胎三萜皂苷衍生物的生物转化制备及其抗肿瘤活性研究. 中草药 49, 1266-1271. DOI URL
[8]	穆丽华, 赵海霞, 龚强强, 周小江, 刘屏 ( 2011). 走马胎中的三萜皂苷类成分及其体外抗肿瘤活性研究. 解放军药学学报 27, 1-6. DOI URL
[9]	孙英坤, 胡绍庆, 庞基良, 高凯, 刘华红, 陈焕伟, 姚涛, 陈林敬, 沈柏春 ( 2017). 珍稀濒危物种堇叶紫金牛高效快繁体系的建立. 植物学报 52, 764-773. DOI URL
[10]	王清, 王蒂, 戴朝曦, 王玉萍 ( 1997). 萘乙酸、2,4-D对马铃薯愈伤组织细胞染色体倍性的影响. 甘肃农业大学学报 32, 304-307.
[11]	王燕, 汪一婷, 吕永平, 牟豪杰, 李海营, 陈剑平 ( 2015). 组培增殖方式对网纹草嵌合性状稳定性的影响. 植物学报 50, 372-377. DOI URL
[12]	张宝红, 李秀兰, 李凤莲, 李付广 ( 1996). 棉花组织培养中异常苗的发生与转化. 植物学报 38, 845-852.
[13]	Barbier F, Péron T, Lecerf M, Perez-Garcia MD, Barrière Q, Rolčík J, Boutet-Mercey S, Citerne S, Lemoine R, Porcheron B, Roman H, Leduc N, Le Gourrierec J, Bertheloot J, Sakr S ( 2015). Sucrose is an early modulator of the key hormonal mechanisms controlling bud outgrowth in Rosa hybrida. J Exp Bot 66, 2569-2582. DOI URL PMID
[14]	Faiss M, Zalubìlová J, Strnad M, Schmülling T ( 1997). Conditional transgenic expression of the ipt gene indicates a function for cytokinins in paracrine signaling in whole tobacco plants. Plant J 12, 401-415. DOI URL
[15]	Janssen BJ, Drummond RSM, Snowden KC ( 2014). Regulation of axillary shoot development. Curr Opin Plant Biol 17, 28-35. DOI URL PMID
[16]	Mason MG, Ross JJ, Babst BA, Wienclaw BN, Beveridge CA ( 2014). Sugar demand, not auxin, is the initial regulator of apical dominance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111, 6092-6097. DOI URL
[17]	Müller D, Leyser O ( 2011). Auxin, cytokinin and the control of shoot branching. Ann Bot 107, 1203-1212. DOI URL PMID
[18]	Müller D, Waldie T, Miyawaki K, To JPC, Melnyk CW, Kieber JJ, Kakimoto T, Leyser O ( 2015). Cytokinin is required for escape but not release from auxin mediated apical dominance. Plant J 82, 874-886. DOI URL PMID

No.	Plant growth regulator (mg·L^-1)			Average height (cm)	Average propagation coefficient	State of growth
No.	6-BA	ZT	NAA	Average height (cm)	Average propagation coefficient	State of growth
1	0.1	0.1	0	5.5	2.5	Buds grew generally; leaves were medium, dark red
2	0.1	0.2	0.1	8.0	3.5	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
3	0.1	0.4	0.5	8.3	3.5	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
4	0.1	0.8	1.0	6.5	3.0	Buds grew generally; leaves were big, dark red
5	0.5	0.1	0.1	8.6	4.3	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
6	0.5	0.2	0	7.2	3.5	Buds grew well; leaves were medium, dark red
7	0.5	0.4	1.0	7.5	4.0	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
8	0.5	0.8	0.5	6.5	3.2	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
9	1.0	0.1	0.5	5.5	4.0	Buds grew generally; leaves were medium; there are two or four lateral buds
10	1.0	0.2	1.0	6.5	4.5	Buds grew well; leaves were medium; there are two or four lateral buds
11	1.0	0.4	0	4.8	3.5	Buds grew generally; leaves were small; there are one or three lateral buds
12	1.0	0.8	0.1	3.5	3.0	Buds grew generally; leaves were small; there are one or two lateral buds
13	2.0	0.1	1.0	3.0	2.5	Buds grew poorly; leaves were small and yellow; base of seedlings had many calli
14	2.0	0.2	0.5	3.0	1.8	Seedlings had variation; leaves were small and yellow; base of seedlings had many calli
15	2.0	0.4	0.1	2.0	1.5	Buds grew poorly; leaves were very small and some of them had fell off; base of seedlings had many calli
16	2.0	0.8	0	1.8	0.9	Buds grew poorly and died partially

No.	Plant growth regulator (mg·L^-1)			Average height (cm)	Average propagation coefficient	State of growth
No.	6-BA	ZT	NAA	Average height (cm)	Average propagation coefficient	State of growth
1	0.1	0.1	0	5.5	2.5	Buds grew generally; leaves were medium, dark red
2	0.1	0.2	0.1	8.0	3.5	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
3	0.1	0.4	0.5	8.3	3.5	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
4	0.1	0.8	1.0	6.5	3.0	Buds grew generally; leaves were big, dark red
5	0.5	0.1	0.1	8.6	4.3	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
6	0.5	0.2	0	7.2	3.5	Buds grew well; leaves were medium, dark red
7	0.5	0.4	1.0	7.5	4.0	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
8	0.5	0.8	0.5	6.5	3.2	Buds grew well; leaves were big, dark red
9	1.0	0.1	0.5	5.5	4.0	Buds grew generally; leaves were medium; there are two or four lateral buds
10	1.0	0.2	1.0	6.5	4.5	Buds grew well; leaves were medium; there are two or four lateral buds
11	1.0	0.4	0	4.8	3.5	Buds grew generally; leaves were small; there are one or three lateral buds
12	1.0	0.8	0.1	3.5	3.0	Buds grew generally; leaves were small; there are one or two lateral buds
13	2.0	0.1	1.0	3.0	2.5	Buds grew poorly; leaves were small and yellow; base of seedlings had many calli
14	2.0	0.2	0.5	3.0	1.8	Seedlings had variation; leaves were small and yellow; base of seedlings had many calli
15	2.0	0.4	0.1	2.0	1.5	Buds grew poorly; leaves were very small and some of them had fell off; base of seedlings had many calli
16	2.0	0.8	0	1.8	0.9	Buds grew poorly and died partially

	Average height			Average propagation coefficient
	6-BA	ZT	NAA	6-BA	ZT	NAA
Range analysis and multiple comparisons
K₁	7.1 a	5.7	4.8	3.1 a	3.3	2.6
K₂	7.4 a	6.2	5.5	3.8 a	3.3	3.1
K₃	5.1 b	5.7	5.8	3.8 a	3.1	3.1
K₄	2.5 c	4.8	5.9	1.7 b	2.5	3.5
Range	5.0	1.6	1.1	2.1	0.8	0.9
Variance analysis
Degrees of freedom	3	3	3	3	3	3
DEVSQ	63.1	5.4	2.8	11.5	1.7	1.7
F value	4.1*	0.4	0.2	3.7*	0.6	0.5

	Average height			Average propagation coefficient
	6-BA	ZT	NAA	6-BA	ZT	NAA
Range analysis and multiple comparisons
K₁	7.1 a	5.7	4.8	3.1 a	3.3	2.6
K₂	7.4 a	6.2	5.5	3.8 a	3.3	3.1
K₃	5.1 b	5.7	5.8	3.8 a	3.1	3.1
K₄	2.5 c	4.8	5.9	1.7 b	2.5	3.5
Range	5.0	1.6	1.1	2.1	0.8	0.9
Variance analysis
Degrees of freedom	3	3	3	3	3	3
DEVSQ	63.1	5.4	2.8	11.5	1.7	1.7
F value	4.1*	0.4	0.2	3.7*	0.6	0.5