Gamma Rays and CarbonIon-Beams Irradiation for Mutation ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 14. Factor of effectiveness and putative mutations by carbon ion- beams observed in ‘Williams’. Mutagen No. of total plants No. plants with variation 125 Characteristics Gy dose Carbon ion beam 40 6 Good response against to black Sigatoka inducing mutation (n) 1 (3) 8 (1) 16 (1) 128 (1) Carbon ion beam 84 1 Hexaploid 4 (1) 1.69 Factor of effectiveness 7.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 (%)
Chapter 5 General Discussion Gamma rays and Carbon ion-beams irradiation technique were applied to banana explants. The both methods acted different when banana explants were subjected. The biological effects of both Gamma rays and Carbon ion-beams irradiation were clearly elucidated as is reflected on the survival rate of the explants using four cultivars of banana. Gamma rays and Carbon ion-beams produce the same tendency of survival rate, mean that increasing dosage also increased mortality, but both methods are different in terms of linear energy transfer. Hase et al. (2004) mentioned that it is well known that high-linear energy transfer (LET) radiation such as heavy ion have higher biological effects than low-LET radiation such as gamma rays and X- rays. There is much evidence that ion beams with a LET of 100-200 keVµm -1 have the maximum effect, demonstrating that ion beams are more effective than the low LET radiation. When Gamma rays was applied to the ‘FHIA-01’, high tolerance to the irradiation even at the doses 300-500 Gy was shown, in contrast ‘Cavendish Enano’, ‘Williams’ and ‘Orito’ were affected drastically by these dosage. On the other hand, when Carbon ion-beams were used in the four cultivars, ‘Cavendish Enano’ and ‘Williams’ were affected severely at the doses of 16, 32, 64 and 128 Gy. However; ‘FHIA-01’ and ‘Orito’ that even were not irradiated with the doses of 32-128, but up to 16 Gy the tendency was to produce high mortality. Regarding to the LD50 both cultivars ‘FHIA- 01’ and ‘Orito’ show evidently high sensitivity to both Gamma rays and Carbon ion-beams, but in each irradiation method the Gy range were different. 126
Page 1 and 2:
Gamma Rays and Carbon Ion-Beams Irr
Page 3 and 4:
Table of contents Chapter 1 1.1. In
Page 5 and 6:
4.2.1.1. Cultivars of banana……
Page 7 and 8:
and ‘Valery’, which are exporte
Page 9 and 10:
‘Cavendish Enano’, ‘Williams
Page 11 and 12:
Although it is now found only in Au
Page 13 and 14:
varieties bred at the Jamaican prog
Page 15 and 16:
such as ‘Paka’ (AA) and ‘Pisa
Page 17 and 18:
Resistance (PR). In connection with
Page 19 and 20:
large number of improved mutant cro
Page 21 and 22:
which migrated faster (Rf = 0.44) t
Page 23 and 24:
is juglone (5 hydroxy-1,4-napthoqui
Page 25 and 26:
experiments involving various biolo
Page 27 and 28:
Tanaka (1999) reported novel genes
Page 29 and 30:
2. 1. Materials and Methods Chapter
Page 31 and 32:
2. 1. 1. 4. FHIA-01 ‘FHIA-01’(M
Page 33 and 34:
(Gamma room)” and “Carbon ion-b
Page 35 and 36:
esulting from “Gamma Room” expe
Page 37 and 38:
traits as female sterility and part
Page 39 and 40:
3. 2. 1. 3. Chronic irradiation ( 1
Page 41 and 42:
Gy. ‘Williams’ and ‘Orito’
Page 43 and 44:
a diploid clone (genomic constituti
Page 45 and 46:
‘Williams’ (93%), the necrotic
Page 47 and 48:
etween the irradiation doses and th
Page 49 and 50:
moment they are at the development
Page 51 and 52:
A B C D Fig. 2. Cultivars of banana
Page 53 and 54:
Weight of plantlets (g) Height of p
Page 55 and 56:
Control 50 Gy 100 Gy 150 Gy Fig. 6.
Page 57 and 58:
Control 50 Gy 100 Gy 150 Gy 200 Gy
Page 59 and 60:
Survival rate (%) for LD50 Survival
Page 61 and 62:
A B C D E F Fig. 12. A plant from
Page 63 and 64:
B D AA E Fig 14. Banana meristems a
Page 65 and 66:
A B C Orito Orito Orito Cavendish E
Page 67 and 68:
No. plants No. plants No. plants No
Page 69 and 70:
Circunference (cm) Plant height (cm
Page 71 and 72:
Table 1. Differences of the plantle
Page 73 and 74:
Table 3. Differences of the surviva
Page 75 and 76:
Table 5. Selected materials reporti
Page 77 and 78:
Table 8. Factor of effectiveness an
Page 79 and 80: deletion rather than point mutation
Page 81 and 82: were recorded. From the results, th
Page 83 and 84: 4. 2. 2. Assessment of banana plant
Page 85 and 86: placement among the plants (Fig. 30
Page 87 and 88: hours, photographs of the leaf-disc
Page 89 and 90: ‘Williams’ (B) was obtained by
Page 91 and 92: class limits values are clearly sep
Page 93 and 94: values in ‘Cavendish Enano’ ran
Page 95 and 96: Only a partial resistance was obser
Page 97 and 98: Sigatoka but also fruit quality, po
Page 99 and 100: A C Fig. 23. Banana plantlets packa
Page 101 and 102: A C Fig. 25. Acclimatization of the
Page 103 and 104: A C Fig. 27. Survival plantlets for
Page 105 and 106: A C Fig. 29. Mycosphaerella fijiens
Page 107 and 108: A C Fig. 31. Labor during transplan
Page 109 and 110: B A Fig. 33. Establishment of the j
Page 111 and 112: A B Fig. 35. Regenerated plantlets
Page 113 and 114: Survival rate (%) for LD50 Survival
Page 115 and 116: 0 0.5 1 2 4 Fig 39. Banana plantlet
Page 117 and 118: A B C Fig. 41. Regenerated explants
Page 119 and 120: Range of optimum doses (Gy) 16 15 1
Page 121 and 122: Percent of plants Percent of plants
Page 123 and 124: LDNA-% LDNA-% DDP-days 100 80 60 40
Page 125 and 126: Fig. 49. Hexaploid cells in ‘Cave
Page 127 and 128: Table 10. Infection index (II-%), d
Page 129: Table 12. DDP-days, II-% and LDNA-%
Page 133 and 134: FHIA-01 were not able to compare du
Page 135 and 136: ‘W 1 II 31’. In the case of ‘
Page 137 and 138: Summary Both Gamma rays and Carbon
Page 139 and 140: A ‘Cavendish Enano’ plant with
Page 141 and 142: I extend my gratitude also to Dr. K
Page 143 and 144: Cohan, J, P., C. Abadie, K. Tomekp
Page 145 and 146: Hase, Y., M. Yamaguchi and A. Tanak
Page 147 and 148: Molina, G. C. and J. P. Krausz (198
Page 149 and 150: Roux, N. S. (2001). Mutation induct
show all

Gamma Rays and CarbonIon-Beams Irradiation for Mutation ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?