Display options
Cite
Lyznik LA, Kamo KK, Grimes HD, et al. Stable transformation of maize: the impact of feeder cells on protoplast growth and transformation efficiency. Plant Cell Rep. 1989;8(5):292-5doi: 10.1007/BF00274133.
Lyznik, L. A., Kamo, K. K., Grimes, H. D., Ryan, R., Chang, K. L., & Hodges, T. K. (1989). Stable transformation of maize: the impact of feeder cells on protoplast growth and transformation efficiency. Plant cell reports, 8(5), 292-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00274133
Lyznik, L A, et al. "Stable transformation of maize: the impact of feeder cells on protoplast growth and transformation efficiency." Plant cell reports vol. 8,5 (1989): 292-5. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00274133
Lyznik LA, Kamo KK, Grimes HD, Ryan R, Chang KL, Hodges TK. Stable transformation of maize: the impact of feeder cells on protoplast growth and transformation efficiency. Plant Cell Rep. 1989 May;8(5):292-5. doi: 10.1007/BF00274133. PMID: 24233229.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Plant Cell Rep. 1989 May;8(5):292-5. doi: 10.1007/BF00274133.

Stable transformation of maize: the impact of feeder cells on protoplast growth and transformation efficiency.

Plant cell reports

L A Lyznik, K K Kamo, H D Grimes, R Ryan, K L Chang, T K Hodges

Affiliations

  1. Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Lilly Hall of Life Sciences, Purdue University, 47907, West Lafayette, IN, USA.

PMID: 24233229 DOI: 10.1007/BF00274133

Abstract

The importance of cell culture conditions, including the use of feeder cells, on protoplast growth and transformation in maize (Zea mays L.) was investigated. Total GUS activity, measured two days after transformation, was five-fold higher in protoplasts cultured on feeder cells compared to those grown in the absence of feeder cells. Since the specific activity of GUS was only slightly higher in the transformed protoplasts plated over feeder cells, the stimulation in transient gene expression resulted mainly from the improved environment provided by the feeder system. For stable transformation, either PEG treatment or electroporation of protoplasts was used to introduce the neo gene. When PEG was used, over 85% of the putative transformants (resistant to kanamycin) contained the neo gene. The combination of PEG transformation and the optimized cell culture protocol using feeder cells enabled the selection of about 100 stably transformed lines per gFW of cells. Electroporation was less efficient.

References

  1. Genes Dev. 1987 Dec;1(10):1183-200 - PubMed
  2. Planta. 1989 Jun;178(3):325-33 - PubMed
  3. Plant Cell Rep. 1983 Oct;2(5):244-7 - PubMed
  4. Plant Cell Rep. 1988 Dec;7(7):499-503 - PubMed
  5. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1987 Jun;84(12):3962-6 - PubMed
  6. Theor Appl Genet. 1985 Dec;71(2):344-50 - PubMed
  7. Mol Cell Biol. 1982 Nov;2(11):1372-87 - PubMed
  8. Planta. 1986 Sep;168(3):395-401 - PubMed
  9. Plant Physiol. 1988 Feb;86(2):602-6 - PubMed
  10. Plant Mol Biol. 1988 Jul;11(4):433-9 - PubMed
  11. Nature. 1986 Feb 27-Mar 5;319(6056):791-3 - PubMed
  12. Science. 1988 Apr 8;240(4849):204-7 - PubMed
  13. EMBO J. 1987 Dec 20;6(13):3901-7 - PubMed
  14. Gene. 1985;39(2-3):155-63 - PubMed
  15. Planta. 1987 Oct;172(2):245-51 - PubMed
  16. J Biol Chem. 1951 Nov;193(1):265-75 - PubMed

Publication Types