Download (26Mb) - OAR@ICRISAT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

larvae of certaln Insects were unable to develop l~orli~ally on soybean products. Subsequently the trypslti inhibitors present 111 soybean uere shown to be toxic to the larv;ie of tlour beetle, Tri6oiilr111 co~rfirslr~~~ (Llpke et al.. 1954). Following tliese early studies. there I~JYC been riiany exa~i~ples of protcase ~~~l~ibrrors active against certalli inscct species. both in ~n vltro assays agalnst insect gut proteases (Panneticr et al. 1907: Koiwa et al. 1998) and in in vivo artificial diet bioassays (Urwi~i ct al. 1997; Vain ct al. 1998). The tcrrn "protcase" includes both "endopeptidases" and "exopcptidases" wlierc:is, thc tcrlii "prote~nabe" 1s used to describc only "endopeptidases" (Ryan, 1900). Several lion- lloniologoi~s farnilres of proteinase inhibitors arc recognized anlong tlie animal, microorgaliisriis and plant kingdom. Maijority of protei11;ise rnhibitors studicd in plarlt kingdom originates fro111 three main fiimllies liarnely Ieguminosae, solanoceae and graniineae (Ricliardsoli, 199 I). A Iiirgr 11u111ber of protease rnliib~tor gc11i.s wit11 distilict niodes ofactioli liavc beeti isolated from a wide range of crop species. Drvelop~ne~it of tra~isgenic crops lia\,e coriic ;I long way from tlie tirst transgeliic developed by H~ldcr et al. (1987). Considering tlic I11gl1 cornplex~ty of proteaselinhibitor interactions ill host pest systems and the d~versity of proteolytic elizyliies used by pests and palllogens ro liydrolyre dietary protelns or to cleave peptide bonds in more specific processes (Graham et al. 1997), the choice of an appropilate proreinane inhtb~tor (1'1) or set of PIS represents a primary determ~rl;int In the succcsa or failure of any pest control strategy relying 011 protease inliibition. Firstly, tlle choice of su~table PIS should be based oil a detailed understanding of the biological system assessed. Resistant biotypes of insects may evolve aAer prolonged exposure to selection pressure that is medlated by an insect~cidal proteln or plant resistance gene (Sparber, 1985). Seco~ld
point to consider would be the targeted expesslon of Pls ill response to pest attack. Tills will be controlled by using inducible plolnoiers, sucl~ as !liosu of PI-1185 al~d TobRB7, tllat are act~vated at tlle site of lnvaslon by pests, pa!lioge~l atid nematodes, respectively (Oppemian et a1.1904). An ideal promoter should be highly responsive to ~nv;~sion of tlic lios! plallt by ;I pest, or rcglilated by i11ducel.s just prlor to pest attack. Tlic promoter should be sufficiently active to mediate 8 sub~tal~t~al defenbc, spscinlly loculiiecl to tile site of],cat usefulness of reconlbinont Pls in plant protection still re~l~ains to be dcmonstriltcd 111sect resista~~ce genes other tllnn Cry cl:tss of genes transferred to crop species Bean I ----- 4 Snowdrop lect~n-GNA I Cereal I Pea leclin I 1 1 I I Protra~e ii~/ribi/ors Wllrat germ ;lgglutinin-WGA Soybean (serine protease) Jacalill 1 I I F Barley (tryps~n) - --. - -- lllcc Iectin 1 _ 1 . . ' I Cowpca (trypsin) Bcan cliit~r~nse ! I I i .-I I Mustard (ser~nc protease) Tobacco peroxitlase ~ I i Rice (cystelnc proteuse) Tomato chitinase I I Potato (protease inl~ibitoss 1 2nd ,I) Tlyptophan decarboxylase i I Soybean (Kunitz trypsin inhibitor) Atibi~ul gcties 'I I Torneto (protease ~nllibltors I and 11) Various enzyme inh~b~tors
Page 1:
GENETIC TRANSFORMATION OF Cicer ari
Page 4 and 5:
Certificate Ger/$ed /La/ /Ae eldire
Page 6 and 7:
I deem il as a great pleastire to e
Page 8 and 9:
CONTENTS ABBREVIAI'IONS SUMMARY LIS
Page 10 and 11:
3.2.2.3 Shoot elongat~on 3.2.2.4 Ro
Page 12 and 13:
ABBREVIATIONS 2-il' 2-isopci~~cnpl
Page 14 and 15:
frequency was observed wit11 2,4,5-
Page 16 and 17:
in vitro grown plants w;is ocli~eve
Page 18 and 19:
LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Pr~~iier c
Page 20 and 21:
Table 4.1 1 Effect ul'age uf lhe ex
Page 22 and 23:
Figure 4.1 A - D inducl~on of sonla
Page 24 and 25:
Figure 4.9 A - C Alternative llleti
Page 26 and 27:
Figure 4.15 A, B Restriction analys
Page 28 and 29:
Figure 4.20 A, B DNA profile of gen
Page 30 and 31: 1'1.0 INTRODUCTION L~fe is the ter~
Page 32 and 33: them. About 10% of the Earth's land
Page 34 and 35: observations GkI Shull's experiment
Page 36 and 37: (Nene and Haware, 1980). The legume
Page 38 and 39: jf.0 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Large par
Page 40 and 41: plants from them enlhuscd scientist
Page 42 and 43: introduction into protoplasts using
Page 44 and 45: evident by 1983 that the Agrobacter
Page 46 and 47: The above promoters were found to b
Page 48 and 49: gained an illstant popi~larity owi~
Page 50 and 51: legume crop species. Cotyledon expl
Page 52 and 53: 1994). Clonal propagation of FI int
Page 54 and 55: were induced to for111 callus when
Page 56 and 57: ' the ernblyos into plantlets on MS
Page 58 and 59: and nprII for selection. PCR and So
Page 60 and 61: Agrobacleriuiii and ill otlier expe
Page 62 and 63: ioteclinologicsl i~iiprovemel~t of
Page 64 and 65: combinat~ons and concentrdtions of
Page 66 and 67: egenerated via somatic eliibryogene
Page 68 and 69: egenerat~on from protoplasts and ca
Page 70 and 71: transformants were identified by sy
Page 72 and 73: urgent econoniical control measures
Page 74 and 75: applications of traps. Technically
Page 76 and 77: in the laboratory and releasing tl~
Page 78 and 79: have been exhaustively reviewd (Dai
Page 82 and 83: 3.1 Pl:~nt 111nteri:il sllrl cultur
Page 84 and 85: 0.5. 2.0 and 5.0 pM were added. 111
Page 86 and 87: Lec!/i?is: Young anci juve~iile lea
Page 88 and 89: AM3 explant: This was a by-product
Page 90 and 91: PM) 2nd GAJ (2 5 PM), eltller singl
Page 92 and 93: of the plastic bag was removed rwlc
Page 94 and 95: - . -- laopropyl alcoliol ; Absolul
Page 96 and 97: The sl~des were Illell muiaited and
Page 98 and 99: 6. The bupcniatant \\,I,, t,ikcli i
Page 100 and 101: 5. Microcal~lers were allowed to se
Page 102 and 103: till the growtli of bacterial cells
Page 104 and 105: ;I! 37 'C for 3-24 Iiours 111 d;irL
Page 106 and 107: PCN for 111cl.4 ge!iiJ: I'C'I< tbr
Page 108 and 109: 4. Tliu pel \\as \r;~alicd 3 ti~iir
Page 110 and 111: 4.0 RESULTS $loaf of tllc c\l~cr~~l
Page 112 and 113: These combi~iatiori sl~owed liiorc
Page 114 and 115: egeneratloll \!;IS dli'licull ;~nti
Page 116 and 117: decreased a[ cllkalinc pH \+li~le 1
Page 118 and 119: either side of'bws;tl portiol~ oill
Page 120 and 121: IBA sl~owed bro\\~~i~~g i~lld de:~l
Page 122 and 123: humidity uf 50% 111 the dayrinie a1
Page 124 and 125: 4.2 Histological studies ~II nlultl
Page 126 and 127: sliowetl no liirtlie~ yrowlli Tllc
Page 128 and 129: Conlirmntioll of plllati!e t~.~ll~a
Page 131 and 132:
5.0 DISCUSSION During tile la31 dcc
Page 133 and 134:
leatlets (Dilieshkuniar er al.. 109
Page 136 and 137:
used with an add111ou;ll care :u~d
Page 138 and 139:
tissue to regenerate illto lesser i
Page 140 and 141:
prololigcd culture on TUL sho\\~d 1
Page 142 and 143:
exceed 5 cni Icngtl~. Loiigcr shoot
Page 144 and 145:
stem and lravca Secol~d;lrq ~'IIICI
Page 146 and 147:
arnplitication of the sopccIi\i. 90
Page 148 and 149:
Explant Preparation -Geminate seeds
Page 150 and 151:
6.0 REFERENCES Adkins, A.L.. Godwin
Page 152 and 153:
Avenido, R.A., Hattori, I
Page 154 and 155:
Benfey, P.N., Chua, N.1-I., Ilcgiii
Page 156 and 157:
Cnrvalho. IC1.H C dc , Uui Vat1 LC
Page 158 and 159:
Chu, P.W.G., Andersoli. B.J., Khan.
Page 160 and 161:
Deblaere, R., Reyneerts, A., Hotte,
Page 162 and 163:
Drun~mond, M.H., Gordoil. M.P., Nes
Page 164 and 165:
Foster, J.G., Coulombe, B.A., Van S
Page 166 and 167:
Gill, R., Saxstla, I'.K., (1992) Di
Page 168 and 169:
Hess, D., (1970) Versueche zur tran
Page 170 and 171:
Hopkinson, M.J. ;md Collins, I1.M.,
Page 172 and 173:
Karthikeyan, A.S., Sarina, K.S., Ve
Page 174 and 175:
Krens, F.A., Molendijk, L., L., Wul
Page 176 and 177:
Li, Z.Y., Tanner, G.J., Larkin. P.J
Page 178 and 179:
Maxan~, A.M., Gilbert, W., (1977) A
Page 180 and 181:
field conditions. Procc.rdbigs o/Na
Page 182 and 183:
Ohara, A., Akasako, Y., Daimon, H.,
Page 184 and 185:
llechrnlics sur les prnidilies des
Page 186 and 187:
Rand, G.M. (Ed.) (1995) Ftordir~~rc
Page 188 and 189:
Richardson, M.J., (199 I ) Seed sto
Page 190 and 191:
Sarria, R., Calderon, A., Thro, A.M
Page 192 and 193:
Shri, P.V., Davls, T.M., (1992) Zen
Page 194 and 195:
Tegeder, M. Koli~i, I-I., Nibbbe, M
Page 196 and 197:
Venkatachalam, P., Klshor, P.B.K.,
Page 198 and 199:
Winans, S.C., (1992) Tiyo way chemi
Page 200 and 201:
1 APPENDIX 1. hIURASRICE AND SI(SO)
Page 203 and 204:
Table 4.1 Induction of sorrlalic er
Page 205 and 206:
Table 4.3 111ducti011 of en~bryos O
Page 208 and 209:
'Table 4.6 Dificrent combinations o
Page 210 and 211:
Table 4.8 Effect oI'TDZ, 2-iP :~nd
Page 212 and 213:
Table 4.10 Effect of i~lclusio~~ or
Page 214 and 215:
Table 4.12 Induction of multiple sh
Page 216 and 217:
Table 4.14 Effect of media constitu
Page 218:
Figure 3.1 Dii~gralll~l~i~tic rcpre
Page 222:
Figure 3.3 A - C Diagrn~nn~atic rep
Page 225 and 226:
I . Nhu 1 51 ?C,%- .pal5125 &pa1512
Page 228:
I
Page 232:
Induction of somatic embryos from m
Page 238:
I.iy111. J.5 SI:i;i.\ iil ~ ~ l ~ ~
Page 254:
IIistologic:~l stutlic\ of dcveiopr
Page 258:
Rc\[ricfiot~ ;111;1l)si\ ur ill? ~
Page 262:
I'C'R :~llipLiiir:iriuil 01'700 bl)
Page 266:
Fixi1r.c 17 \r:15 -l)K,.\ ;!lid J"
Page 272:
1:igurr 4.22 Sui~lllcrn :III:II!s~$
show all

Download (26Mb) - OAR@ICRISAT

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?