Dear author,
Please note that changes made in the online proofing system will
be added to the article before publication but are not reflected in
this PDF.
We also ask that this file not be used for submitting corrections.
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016) xxx, xxx–xxx
No. of Pages 14
1
H O S T E D BY
Academy of Scientific Research & Technology and
National Research Center, Egypt
Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology
www.elsevier.com/locate/jgeb
4
Biotechnological advances in Vitex species, and
future perspectives
5
Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva a, Mafatlal M. Kher b, M. Nataraj b
3
a
8
P. O. Box 7, Miki-cho Post Office, Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken 761-0799, Japan
B.R. Doshi School of Biosciences, Sardar Patel University, Sardar Patel Maidan, Vadtal Rd., P.O. Box 39,
Vallabh Vidyanagar, Gujarat 388120, India
9
Received 20 April 2016; revised 6 September 2016; accepted 20 September 2016
6
7
b
10
12
13
KEYWORDS
14
Cryopreservation;
Germplasm;
Lamiaceae;
Molecular markers;
Somatic embryogenesis;
Synseeds
15
16
17
18
19
20
Ó 2016 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Academy of Scientific Research &
Technology. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/
licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
21
Contents
22
1.
2.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Abstract Vitex is a large genus consisting of 230 species of trees and shrubs with multiple (ornamental, ethnobotanic and pharmacological) uses. Despite this, micropropagation has only been
used to effectively propagate and preserve germplasm a limited number (six) of Vitex species (V.
agnus-castus, V. doniana, V. glabrata, V. negundo, V. rotundifolia, V. trifolia). This review on Vitex
provides details of published micropropagation protocols and perspectives on their application to
germplasm preservation and in vitro conservation. Such details serve as a practically useful user
manual for Vitex researchers. The importance of micropropagation and its application to synthetic
seed production, in vitro flowering, production of secondary metabolites, and the use of molecular
markers to detect somaclonal variation in vitro, are also highlighted.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Selection of suitable starting material and disinfection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.1. Alternative explant sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2. Influence of season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3. Optimized disinfection procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Light conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Medium composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Synthetic seeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In vitro flowering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Somatic embryogenesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Production of secondary metabolites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
E-mail addresses: jaimetex@yahoo.com (J.A. Teixeira da Silva), mafatlalmkher@gmail.com (M.M. Kher), mnatarajspu@gmail.com (M. Nataraj).
Peer review under responsibility of National Research Center, Egypt.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
1687-157X Ó 2016 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Academy of Scientific Research & Technology.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
No. of Pages 14
2
33
34
35
36
9. Molecular markers to detection somaclonal variation .
10. Conclusions and future perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . .
Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
00
00
00
00
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
1. Introduction
The Vitex L. genus (Lamiaceae) [51] contains mainly trees and
shrubs and several species have well-established uses in ethnobotany, medicine, pharmacology and landscaping as ornamental plants [27,30,71,109,56,76]. The socio-economic
importance of many Vitex species is thus irrefutable. However,
the over-reliance on natural populations to derive such primary resources can strain the ecological balance of the environment in which they grow naturally, making collection
from natural populations, in some cases, unsustainable. Fifteen Vitex species (V. acunae Borh. & Muniz, V. ajugaeflora
Dop., V. amaniensis W. Piep, V. cooperi Standl., V. evoluta
Däniker, V. gaumeri Greenm., V. heptaphylla A. Juss., V.
keniensis Turrill, V. kuylenii Standl., V. lehmbachii Gürke, V.
longisepala King & Gamble, V. parviflora Juss., V. urceolata
C.B. Clarke, V. yaundensis Gürke, and V. zanzibarensis Vatke)
are included in the IUCN Red Data list [46] for various reasons, but all related to unsustainable harvesting.
Depulped seeds of V. doniana Sweet germinate well after a
hot water treatment [1] or after 21 days of hydrationdehydration cycles [31]. The seed germination of other Vitex
species has not yet been studied. Thus, urgent attention is
needed to conserve Vitex species. One biotechnological tool,
in vitro propagation, provides a viable solution for the largescale propagation of medicinally important plants [53,92,65],
including cryoconservation [94] and genetic transformation
[96]. The micropropagation of three Vitex species (V. negundo,
V. agnus-castus and V. trifolia) from 29 published reports of
Vitex sp. has recently been reviewed [9]. However, that review
lacks vital details about disinfection methods, temperature,
light source and intensity, photoperiod, basal medium, plant
growth regulator type and concentrations, medium pH, carbon
source type and concentrations for culture initiation, multiplication and rooting, all of which are essential factors that influence the outcome of the in vitro protocol for Vitex species.
Consequently, our review explores these fine-scale details of
the different steps of the plant tissue culture protocols for
Vitex spp. to allow plant biotechnologists to design new and
detailed experiments. This review, which provides a detailed
analysis of reports from 1986 to 2016 of the micropropagation
of six Vitex species (V. agnus-castus L., V. doniana, V. glabrata
R. Br., V. leucoxylon L., V. negundo L., V. trifolia L.) (Tables 1
and 2), provides a solid foundation for the sustainable social
and economic use of valuable members of this genus. A brief
background of the socio-economic importance of Vitex species
for which micropropagation protocols exist is provided next.
V. agnus-castus (chast berry) is a deciduous shrub native of
Mediterranean Europe and Central Asia. The fruit extract of
V. agnus-castus is used to treat menstrual disorder (amenorrhoea, dysmenorrhoea), premenstrual syndrome, corpus
luteum insufficiency, hyperprolactinaemia, infertility, acne,
menopause and disrupted lactation [30]. The fruits and leaves
of V. doniana (black plum) are either consumed raw or after
processing while the leaves, fruits, roots, barks and seed of
the plant are used in traditional medicinal in Africa to treat
a wide range of ailments [28,29,32], and references therein].
V. glabrata is a tree commonly known as ‘‘Kai Nano” in Thailand whose bark and roots are used as an astringent because
the bark accumulates high levels of ecdysteroids, primarily
20-hydroxyecdysone or b-ecdysone [110]. The former compound, 20-hydroxyecdysone, can be synthesized in cell suspension cultures of V. glabrata [83,84,23]. V. leucoxylon is a large
deciduous tree found in India and is commonly known in Marathi as Songarbhi. The crude alcoholic extract of its leaves possesses anti-psychotic, anti-depressant, analgesic, antiparkinsonian, anti-microbial, anti-inflammatory and woundhealing properties [100]. V. negundo is a woody, aromatic
shrub used in Ayurveda, Unani, Chinese, and folk medicine
[109,56], and has mainly anti-inflammatory, analgesic, antihyperglycaemic, hepato-protective, anti-microbial and snake
venom neutralization activity [71]. V. trifolia is a component
of a number of commercially available herbal formulations
that employ its leaves, and which have antiseptic, aromatic,
febrifuge, anodyne, diuretic, and emmenagogue activity, fruits,
which have nervine, cephalic, emmenagogue, amenorrhoeatreating and anthelmintic activity, roots, which are used to
treat febrifuge, painful inflammation, cough and fever, and
flowers, which are used to treat fever [76].
This review highlights the advances made in the micropropagation (including synthetic seed technology), in vitro flowering, and production of secondary metabolites of Vitex
species. Emphasis is also given to the use of molecular markers
to detect variation arising from in vitro propagation. This
review is useful for conservation biologists, plant physiologists
and biotechnologists that aim to explore other unexplored
Vitex species or to expand the repertoire of research existent
for the currently investigated species.
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
2. Selection of suitable starting material and disinfection
126
The choice of explant often depends on the material that is
available, and sometimes even on the season. The selection
of explants in Vitex in vitro studies tends to be from young
and actively growing shoots or branches, with shoot tips and
nodal explants with dormant axillary buds being the first
choice (Table 2) due to the presence of a predetermined meristem which allows for true-to-type clonal propagation.
127
130
2.1. Alternative explant sources
134
There are several studies available in which other explants
were used. For instance, internodes or stem segments were
used for callus induction and regeneration studies in V.
negundo [103,77,26,79], V. leucoxylon [25], and V. trifolia
[15]. Stem-induced callus of V. glabrata produced 20hydroxyecdysone (20-HES) in a liquid culture system
[83,84,98]. V. negundo leaves were used for callus culture and
135
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
128
129
131
132
133
136
137
138
139
140
141
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
No. of Pages 14
Biotechnological advances in Vitex species, and future perspectives
Table 1
3
Disinfection procedures of tissues for in vitro use of Vitex species (alphabetical listing).
Species
Disinfection protocol
References
V. agnus-castus
After removal of testa by mechanical treatment ? 1.25% NaOCl (5% available chlorine) 20 min ? SDW 4–
5
Shoot tip/nodal explant ? RTW ? 0.05% BavistinÒ 5 min ? SDW 3–4 ? SDW + 2–3 drops Tween-20
10 min ? SDW 3–4 ? 70% EtOH 30 s ? SDW 3–4
Apical bud or stem with nodes from seedlings ? 75% EtOH 15 s ? 0.1% HgCl2 3–5 min ? SDW 5–6
Second pair of young leaves from 2–4 year old tree ? cleaned with cotton wool soaked in liquid soap ?
0.5% fungicide (RidomilÒ) + 2 drops of Tween 20 1 h ? 70% EtOH 30 min ? SDW 2 ? CaCl2 (1, 1.5,
2%) + 2–3 drops of Tween 20 (duration NR) ? 2% CaCl2 30 min ? SDW 2 ? quick dip in 70%
EtOH ? 2% CaCl2 15 min ? SDW 2 ? 70% contamination-free cultures obtained
Explants ? 10% NaOCl 10 min ? SDW 4–5
Young shoots ? 1% TeepolÒ (detergent) ? 0.1% HgCl2 (2 min) ? repeated wash with SDW (node with
one axillary bud 1 cm)
Shoot apices and nodal segments ? RTW 45 min ? 5% LabolineÒ (detergent) + 7% NaOCl (7–
10 min) ? 5–7 SDW ? 0.1% HgCl2 8 min ? SDDW 6–7
Shoot apices and nodal segments ? RTW ? 1% TeepolÒ 10 min ? RTW ? 80% EtOH 30 s ? 0.1%
HgCl2 3 min? SDW 3
Internode segment (1.0–1.50 cm) from 10-year-old plant ? RTW ? 1%TeepolÒ 10 min ? RTW ? 80%
EtOH 30 s ? 0.1% HgCl2 3 min
Shoot apices and nodal segments ? RTW ? 1% TeepolÒ 10 min ? RTW ? 50% EtOH 30 s ? 0.1%
HgCl2 3 min? SDW 3
Actively growing healthy shoot with 3–4 nodes from adult plant (0.5–1.0 cm node with dormant axillary
bud) ? RTW 30 min ? 5% LabolineÒ 7–8 min ? DW ? 0.05% HgCl2 20 min ? SDW 5–6
Young leaves (< 3 months) ? 2% detergent + 2.5% commercial bleach + 0.01% NaOCl ? 70%
EtOH ? SDW
Shoot tip/nodal explant with one dormant axillary bud (1.0–1.50 cm) from 6-month-old plant in March ?
RTW 30 min ? 10% Laboline 10 min ? washed thoroughly with SDW ? 0.1% HgCl2 5 min ? SDDW 6–
7
Explants ? RTW ? 5% ExtranÒ (detergent) 10 min ? 1% Bavistin (fungicide) 20 min ? SDDW ?
0.05% HgCl2 4 min ? several rinses in SDDW
Young shoots ? RTW 30 min ? 5% LabolineÒ (2007, 2008, 2013b) or TeepolÒ (2011) 10 min ? SDW 3–
4 ? 0.1% HgCl2 4 min (2007, 2013) or 5–7 min (2008, 2011) ? SDW 5–8
Shoot tips (1.0–1.5 cm) ? 0.5% Tween-20 ? 70% EtOH 10 s ? 0.1% HgCl2 3 min ? SDW 4–5
Young leaves from 3–5-month-old plant ? RTW ? 5% Tween-20 10 min ? 70% EtOH 10–15 s ? SDW
5–10 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 2–3 min ? SDW 4–5
Young shoots ? RTW ? 0.1% HgCl2 1 min ? SDW 3–4
Explants ? 5% TeepolÒ 10–15 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 5 min ? SDW 3
Twigs ? RTW ? DW ? shoot tips excised ? 0.1% HgCl2 7 min ? SDW 3–5
Explants ? RTW ? detergent 30 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 7 min ? SDW 5
Explants ? water 10–15 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 7–10 min ? SDW 5–7
Young stems 15–20 mm ? RTW 30 min ? Tween-80 ? SDW 4
Twigs ? RTW ? 1% SavlonÒ + liquid soap 5–10 min with shaking ? SDW 3–4 ? 70%
EtOH < 1 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 5–7 min ? SDW 4–5
0.1% BavistinÒ 10–15 min ? 0.1% antibiotics (streptomycin and tetracycline) 5–10 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 3–
4 min ? SW 5–6 ? 0.1% AA + 0.05% CA
RTW ? Tween-20 (2 drops/100 ml) ? 0.1% HgCl2 3–5 min ? dip in 70% EtOH ? SDW 4–5
RTW 3 min ? cut into 3–5 cm sections with 2–3 internodes ? 2 g/l BlitoxÒ (fungicide) + Tween-20
45 min ? DW 3 ? SDW 1 min ? AA + CA 2 min ? SDW 3 ? 70% EtOH 30 s ? SDW 2 ?
0.12% HgCl2 + 1 drop Tween-20 8 min ? SDW 3
Shoot tip/nodal explant ? RTW ? detergent 30 min ? 70% EtOH 1 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 5 min ? SDW
5
Nodal explant ? RTW ? 70% EtOH 10 s ? NaOCl (2% active chlorine) 15 min ? SDW 3
1-cm long nodal explants ? RTW ? 0.1% LabolineÒ 10 min ? 70% alcohol 5 min ? 0.1% HgCl2
5 min ? several rinses in DW
RTW ? BavistinÒ + Tween-20 10–15 min ? 70% EtOH 1 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 4 min ? SDDW
5–7 cm long young shoots ? RTW 20 min ? 5% LabolineÒ 5 min ? DW 3–4 ? 0.1% HgCl2 4 min ?
SDW repeatedly
Shoot tips ? RTW 10 min ? 5% Tween-20 15 min ? DW ? 0.5% NaOCl 5 min ? DDW ? 0.01%
HgCl2 10 min ? 0.1% HgCl2 5 min ? BavistinÒ 30 min ? DDW 1
5–7 cm long shoots ? 0.1% HgCl2 20 min ? rinse 4–5 in SDW
[22]
V. agnus-castus
V. agnus-castus
V. doniana
V. leucoxylon
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
V.
negundo
negundo
negundo
negundo
negundo
negundo
negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
V. negundo
Dhaka 1205
V. rotundifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
V. trifolia
[16]
[59]
[29]
[25]
[108]
[80]
[102]
[103]
[104]
[24]
[67]
[77]
[107]
[3,5,7,6]
[106]
[49]
[50]
[68]
[47]
[48]
[85]
[26]
[75]
[78]
[41]
[79]
[2]
[72]
[44]
[15]
[10,11,12,13]
[64]
[81]
AA, ascorbic acid; CA, citric acid; DDW, double distilled water; DW, distilled water; EtOH, ethyl alcohol (ethanol); HgCl2, mercuric chloride;
NaOCl, sodium hypochlorite; NR, not reported; RTW, running tap water; s, second(s); SDW, sterilized (by autoclaving) distilled water;
SDDW, sterilized (by autoclaving) double distilled water; SW, sterile water.
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
4
Micropropagation and tissue culture of Vitex species (alphabetical listing).
Explant(s) used, size and
source
Culture medium, PGRs and additives*
Culture
conditions**
Remarks, experimental outcome and maximum
productivity, acclimatization and variation
References
V. agnus-castus
Shoot tips, nodal
segments (5–10 mm
long) of mature plants
MS + 8.88 lM BA + 4.65 lM Kin. 3% sucrose.
0.8% agar (SIM). MS + 4.44 or 6.66 lM BA
+ 0.28 lM GA3. 3% sucrose. 0.8% agar (shoot
elongation). ½ MS + 0.49 lM IBA. 2% sucrose
+ 0.4% phytagel (RIM). After 25 d, PGR-free ½ MS
(root elongation). Subculture every 20 d. pH 5.8.
16-h PP. CWFT.
35–
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C.
[16]
V. agnus-castus
Apical buds or stem with
nodes from seedlings
WPM + 2.22 lM BA + 0.1 lM NAA (SIM). WPM
+ 3.33 lM BA + 0.1 lM NAA + 3% sucrose
(SMM). WPM + 0.13 lM NAA (shoot elongation;
RIM). 0.5% agar. pH 5.8
10-h PP. CWFT.
50–
60 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 1 °C
V. doniana
Second pair of leaves
from 2–4 year old tree
Darkness. 25
± 2 °C.
V. glabrata
Stem-induced callus (10y-old cultures)
½ MS + 0.50 lM TDZ + 5.55 lM myo-inositol
+ 49.74 lM AgNO3 or 6.25 lM tryptophan. 2%
sucrose. Gelling agent NR. pH 5.7–5.8.
MS + 8.88 lM BA + 4.52 lM 2,4-D + 3% sucrose
+ 0.8% agar (CIM). B5 + 8.88 lM + 4.52 lM 2,4D (cell suspension culture), rotary shaker 120 rpm.
pH NR.
V. leucoxylon
Internodes from young
shoots of 2-y-old plants
V. negundo
1 cm node with one
axillary bud (1 cm) from
young shoots
V. negundo
Young nodal segments
(0.6–0.8 cm)
MS + 4.44 lM BA + 0.11 lM GA3 + 5.55 lM
myo-inositol (SIM) subcultured every 4 w. ½ MS
+ 4.9 lM IBA + 5.71 lM IAA (RIM). pH 5.8. 3%
(SIM) or 2% (RIM) sucrose. 0.8% (SIM) or 0.7%
(RIM) agar.
16-h PP. CWFT.
35–
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 60–
65% RH.
V. negundo
Shoot tips (0.3–0.5 cm)
and nodes (1–1.5 cm)
MS + 6.66 lM BA (SIM). MS + 6.66 lM BA
+ 0.5 lM NAA (SMM). MS + 4.9 lM IBA (RIM).
pH 5.8. 3% sucrose 0.8% agar.
16-h PP. CWFT.
80 lE m 2 s 1.
26 ± 1 °C.
94.5% and 90.3% regeneration and 7.7 and 6.7
shoots/explant (shoot tips and nodal explants,
respectively). 90.4% of shoots formed roots after 30–
35 d of culture. 80% survival in autoclaved sand
combined with either organic manure, VC, or garden
soil (1:1) and watered with ½ MS every 4 d for 2 w.
Acclimatization at 16-h PP, CWFT, 35–
50 lmol m 2 s 1, 25 ± 2 °C.
Axillary buds only elongated about 3 cm within 4 w;
little callus formation at base of buds. 7–8 shoots/
node, 90% of shoots formed roots after 20 d of
culture, 85% survival in disinfectant peat soil at
25 °C, 85% RH.
Average of 6.5 somatic embryos/explant with either
AgNO3 or tryptophan. Conversion of somatic
embryos to plantlets NR.
20-hydroxyecdysone (ecdysteroid) production was
improved with the addition of precursors: 7dehydrocholesterol (10 mg/l; 1.31 mg/l/d; 1.36-fold
higher than control), ergosterol (10 mg/l; 1.12-fold
higher than control), and cholesterol (5 mg/l; 1.11fold higher than control [98].
91% of explants formed callus, and shoots from
callus (4.3/explant) after 8 weeks. 96% of shoots
formed roots (8.3/shoot). Acclimatization in garden
soil, red soil and sand (1:2:1) and watered with ½ MS
for 2 w, but survival not quantified.
Multiple shoot buds formed within 15 d of
inoculation, which developed into well-developed
shoots within 30 d. 6.66 shoots per node and 8.89
roots per shoot. Acclimatization not performed.
Shoots formed within 30 d and roots after another 30
d. Plant material collected in June–August showed
higher shoot responsiveness in vitro. 6–8 shoots per
nodal segment in first three subcultures, free of callus.
98–100% shoot induction (direct) and 94% of shoots
induced roots. Plants placed at 25 ± 1 °C, 80–85%
RH and 16-h PP of 50 lmol m 2 s 1 CWFT for 30 d.
93% survival of acclimatized plants in VC.
Frequency and number of shoots per explant
obtained from both explants but nodes produced
more shoots/explant. At shoot multiplication stage,
84.3% of nodal explants and 65% of shoot tips could
form multiple shoots. 5–7 roots/shoot. Rooted plants
MS + 2.2 lM BA + 5.4 lM NAA (CIM). MS
+ 13.3 lM BA + 5.4 lM NAA or 8.9 lM Kin
+ 2.7 lM NAA (SIM). MS + 7.2 lM BA + 8.6 lM
GA3 (SMM). ½ MS + 4.9 lM IBA (RIM). Explant
subculture NR. 3% sucrose, 0.8% agar, pH 5.8
MS + 17.76 lM BA + 0.18 lM Kin + 3% sucrose.
pH 5.8. 0.8% agar (SIM). ½ MS + 10.72 lM NAA
+ 3% sucrose + 0.8% agar (RIM).
Continuous light.
2000 lux, 25 °C.
16-h PP. CWFT.
20 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C
10-h PP. 3000 lux.
25 ± 2 °C.
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
[59]
[29]
[83,84,98,23]
[25]
[108]
[80]
No. of Pages 14
[102]
J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al.
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
Table 2
Species and/or
cultivar
16-h PP. CWFT.
80 lE m 2 s 1.
V. negundo
Shoot tips and nodes
(size NR)
MS + 4.44 lM BA + 0.5 lM NAA (SIM, FIM).
3% sucrose. pH 5.8. 0.8% agar.
V. negundo
Nodal explants (0.5–
1.0 cm)
MS + 17.8 lM BA + 2.15 lM NAA + 100 mg/l
Na2SO4. Subculture on same medium at 25 d (SMM).
½ MS + 4.9 lM IBA (RIM). MS + 9.9 lM BA
+ 1.61 lM NAA (FIM). 5% sucrose. 0.8% agar
(RIM) or 0.9% agar (SIM, SMM). pH 5.7–5.8. 5%
sucrose.
16-h PP. CWFT.
80 lE m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C.
16-h PP. CWFT.
35–
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C.
V. negundo
Callus from ex vitro
leaves
MS + 2.22 lM BA + 2.26 lM 2,4-D (CIM)
subcultured every 4 w for 2 y. No other details
reported.
NR
V. negundo
Two studies: 1) Axillary
shoot multiplication:
nodal explants (1.0–
1.5 cm)/shoot tip (0.5–
0.8 cm) of 6-m-old plant
(March); 2) Callusmediated regeneration:
leaf segments
(7 10 mm) with midrib
(adaxial surface on
medium) + stem
segment (1–1.5 cm) from
6-m-old plant (March)
Nodal explants (4–
10 mm long) of mature
plant
Two studies: 1) Axillary shoot multiplication: MS
+ 10% CW + 1.8 lM TDZ + 3% sucrose. 0.8%
agar (SIM). 2) MS + 1% PVP + 0.1–5.0 lM IAA or
0.1–5.0 lM 2,4-D alone or in combination with 0.1–
4 lM TDZ or 1–25 lM BA. (CIM, SIM). 3. SEM:
MS + GA3 2.4 lM. MS + 1.71 lM IAA + 1.62 lM
NAA (RIM).
12-h PP. CWFT.
36 lmol m 2 s 1.
25–28 °C and 70–
90% RH.
MS + 5.0 lM BA (SIM). MS + 4.4 lM BA
+ 0.53 lM NAA (SMM, FIM). ½ MS + 0.5 lM
NAA (RIM). pH 5.9. 3% sucrose. 0.8% agar.
14-h PP. CWFT.
3500 lux. 25 °C.
Nodal explants (5–
10 mm long) from young
shoots of 15-y-old tree
MS + 1.0 lM TDZ (SIM). MS + 1.0 lM BA
+ 0.5 lM NAA (SMM). All explants subcultured
every 2 w. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.8% agar.
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 60–
65% RH.
V. negundo
V. negundo
4 shoots/node (25 shoots/node on SMM after 4
subcultures) and 7.44 roots/shoot formed. 10-cm long
shoots formed in 30 d. 80% of cultures formed
flowers in vitro when the C/N ratio was 7.1; 90%
survival of acclimatized plants in VC and cocopeat
(1:1) at 90% RH. No phenotypic variation observed.
No rooting in vitro; shoot (4–5 cm long) base treated
with 500 lM IBA for 10 min then planted directly in
Soilrite, with 97% shoots forming roots.
Acclimatization at 16-h PP and 25 ± 2 °C; 24.8
shoots/node with SIM in 4 w and 13.6 roots/shoot
after 4 w. 90% survival of acclimatized plants. No
phenotypic variation observed.
[103]
[104]
[24]
[67]
[77]
[107]
[3]
No. of Pages 14
MS + 8.05 lM NAA + 2.22 lM BA (CIM). MS
+ 4.44 lM BA + 2.69 lM NAA (SIM). MS
+ 2.46 lM IBA (RIM).3% sucrose. 0.8% agar. pH
5.8
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
Internode (1.0–1.5 cm)
Biotechnological advances in Vitex species, and future perspectives
(continued on next page)
5
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
V. negundo
transferred to sterile vermiculite + soil (ratio NR).
95% plant survival.
Nearly 85% of cultures induced callus which
proliferated. 67.3% of cultures regenerated shoots
from callus: 10 shoots/callus, 51% of in vitro shoots
rooted. Rooted plants transferred to vermiculite
+ soil (1:2). Survival% NR.
About 95% of cultures flowered in vitro.
Acclimatization (vermiculte and soil mixture). Kept
in green house.
97% of explants formed multiple shoots (20.7 per
explant). 95% of shoots induced roots (9.0 per
shoot). Plants acclimatized in autoclaved garden soil
or red soil + clay + sand (3:2:1) or soilrite, 96%
survival of acclimatized plants in VC. No
morphological variation observed. In vitro flowering
results NR.
Total of 475 g of callus obtained. The profile of 7
oleanane-type triterpenes identified in callus culture
extracts stayed constant over several (number
unspecified) subcultures assessed by TLC.
Acclimatization not performed.
96% of explants formed multiple shoots (14.6 per
node) but shoot length not determined due to stunted
growth due to TDZ. Methods about acclimatization
details is not available and data on acclimatization is
not available. Resultant plantlets were without any
external defects.
6
Species and/or
cultivar
Explant(s) used, size and
source
Culture medium, PGRs and additives*
Culture
conditions**
Remarks, experimental outcome and maximum
productivity, acclimatization and variation
References
V. negundo
Shoot tips (10–15 mm
long) from 2-y-old plants
[106]
Shoot tips, nodal
segments (10–15 mm
long) of mature plants
16-h PP. CWFT.
55 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 60–
65% RH.
16-h PP. CWFT.
LI NR. 24
± 2 °C.
6.3 shoots/shoot tip within 4 w. 85% survival after 4
w in soil, sand and farmyard manure (1:1:1), with
true-to-type flowering.
V. negundo
MS + 8.87 lM BA + 2.69 lM NAA (SIM, SMM).
½ MS + 4.9 lM IBA + 2.85 lM IAA + 3 g/l AC
(RIM). Subculture every 4 w. pH 5.8. 3% (SIM,
SMM) or 2% (RIM) sucrose. 0.8% agar.
MS + 4.44 lM BA (SIM). ½ MS + 1.6 lM NAA
(RIM). Subculture every 2 w. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose.
0.7% agar.
[2]
V. negundo
Nodal segments (5–
10 mm) from 15-y-old
tree
MS + 5.0 lM BA + 0.5 lM NAA (SIM, SMM).
MS + 1.0 lM IBA (RIM). Subcultures NR. pH 5.8.
3% sucrose. 0.8% agar.
V. negundo
Leaves of 3–5-m-old
plants
MS + 1.3 lM BA + 1.7 lM IAA (CIM, SIM). MS
+ 2.46 lM IBA (RIM). Explant subculture NR. pH
5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.7% agar.
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 50–
60% RH.
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C.
V. negundo
Nodal segments
MS + 4.44 lM BA (SIM). ½ MS + 4.92 lM IBA
(RIM). Explant subculture NR. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose.
0.6% agar.
14-h PP. CWFT.
2000 lux. 25
± 2 °C.
V. negundo
Nodal segments (5–
10 mm long) of adult
plant
MS + 16.8 lM BA + 2.25 lM IBA + 589 lM
AgNO3 (SIM). Subculture every 20 d. pH 5.7–5.8.
5% sucrose. 0.9% agar.
V. negundo
Shoot tips
Nodal segments (3 mm)
from in vitro plants [6]
V. negundo
Shoot tips, nodal
segments (3–4 cm)
V. negundo
Nodal segments from
mature plants
V. negundo
Nodal segments (1–2
from the shoot tip) from
a single 3-y-old
micropropagated plant
[6]
95% of explants formed shoots (6.8/explant) with
callus, and 7 roots/shoot. Acclimatization claimed
but no data or methodology provided.
92.6% synseed to plantlet conversion. Conversion%
decreased as storage period at 4 °C from 1 to 8 w.
Encapsulated explants showed higher conversion
(71%) than unencapsulated explants (43%).
87.5% of explants formed shoots (6/shoot tip or 7/
node). 87.5% of shoots formed roots. 85% survival in
soil, compost and sand (1:1:1).
95.3% of buds broke when collected in March–May.
95% of explants formed shoots (15.1 per node) after
45 d, 85% of shoots formed roots within 2 w, 80%
survival after 3 m in soil, sand and VC (6:2:1) after
dipping cut ends of shoots in 400 mg/l IBA.
16.4 shoots/explant. 97% survival of acclimatized
plants in Soilrite. No variation observed among
micropropagated plants using 10 RAPD primers.
[47]
V. negundo
MS + 4.44 lM BA + 0.5 lM NAA (SIM). ½ MS
+ 2.46 lM IBA (RIM). Explant subculture NR. pH
5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.36% phytagel.
MS + 2.5 lM Kin + 1.0 lM NAA (synseed
germination and plant growth). pH 5.8.Synseeds of
3% Na2-alginate with 100 mM CaCl2 (1 explant/
synseed)
MS + 13.32 lM BA (SIM). MS + 11 .43 lM IAA
(RIM). Explant subculture NR. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose.
1.0% agar.
MS + 4.44 lM BA + 792.95 lM PG + 117.73 lM
AgNO3 (SIM). ½ MS + 2.46 lM IBA (RIM).
Explant subculture NR. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.8%
agar
16-h PP. CWFT.
35–
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C.
16-h PP. CWFT.
1500 lux. 26
± 2 °C.
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 55–
65% RH
16-h PP. LI NR.
25 ± 2 °C
96% of explants formed shoots (21.8/node) after 3 w.
93% of shoots formed roots. 80% survival after 4 w
in soil, compost and sand (1:1:1). Acclimatization at
12-h PP, 32 ± 2 °C, and 80% RH.
16.4 shoots/explant. 97% survival of acclimatized
plants in Soilrite watered with ½ MS without
vitamins. No variation observed among
micropropagated plants using 4 ISSR primers.
80% of explants formed callus and 13 shoots/explant
(indirect), and 11.6 roots/shoot. Plants acclimatized
in vermiculite and garden soil (3:1) at 16-h PP, 25
± 2 °C, but survival not quantified.
75.3% of explants formed shoots (8.2 per node) and
7.5 roots per shoot, 90% survival after 4 w in sterile
garden soil and sand (3:1) watered with 10-fold
dilution of MS.
98.6% of explants formed shoots (22.45/node) after
25–30 d. Acclimatization not performed.
[49]
[50]
[68]
[4]
[48]
[85]
[5]
No. of Pages 14
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1,
25 ± 2 °C
[6]
J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al.
MS + 5.0 lM BA + 0.5 lM NAA (SIM, SMM).
MS + 1.0 lM IBA (RIM). Explant subculture NR.
pH 5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.8% agar.
16-h PP. LI NR.
25 ± 1 °C
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
Table 2 (continued)
MS + 9.04 lM 2,4-D (CIM). Explant subculture
NR. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.7% agar.
V. negundo
Shoot tips, leaf and
nodal segments (5–
10 mm long)
MS + 8.88 lM BA + 2.69 lM NAA (SIM). MS
+ 8.88 lM BA + 5.71 lM IAA (shoot elongation).½
MS + 5.37 lM NAA (RIM). Explant subculture
NR. pH 5.8. Carbon source NR. 0.8% agar.
V. negundo
Shoot tips, nodal
explants (4–5 cm long)
collected in June-July
MS + 8.88 lM BA (SIM). MS + 4.44 lM BA
+ 283.5 lM AA + 130.12 lM CA + 0.57 lM IAA
(pre-SMM) for 3–4 subcultures. Pre-SMM
+ 1.16 lM Kin (SMM). ¼ MS + 16.66IBA
+ 0.01% AC (RIM). Subculture every 20–25 d. pH,
carbon source, gelling agent NR.
PP, LI,
temperature NR.
V. negundo
Shoot tips from young
shoots of mature plant
MS + 5.0 lM BA (SIM). MS + 5.0 lM BA
+ 0.5 lM NAA (SMM). Subculture every 3 w. pH
5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.8% agar.
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 60–
65% RH.
V. negundo
Nodes from mature
plant
MS + 8.88 lM BA + 2.69 lM NAA + 30%
sugarcane juice (SIM). ½ MS + 4.69 lM IBA (RIM).
0.8% agar. pH 5.8.
16-h PP.
40 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 60–
70% RH.
V. negundo
Internodes (3–4 cm)
16-h PP. CWFT.
3000 lux. 24
± 2 °C. 55%
RH.
V. rotundifolia
Nodal explants from
incubator-grown plant at
25 °C
Nodal explants (8 mm
long) from 8-y-old tree
MS + 8.88 lM BA + 9.04 lM 2,4-D + 5.37 lM
NAA (CIM). MS + 8.88 lM BA + 4.0 lM NAA
(SIM).½ MS + 2.46 lM IBA (RIM). All explants
subcultured every 3–4 w. pH 5.7. 3% sucrose. Agar
conc. NR.
Nitsch + 4.44 lM BA (SIM). ½ Nitsch + 2.69 lM
NAA (RIM). Carbon source, gelling agent NR. pH
5.8.
MS + 5.0 lM BA (SIM). ½ MS + 0.5 lM NAA
(RIM). pH 5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.8% agar.
V. trifolia
Leaf; internode (1–
1.5 cm)
[26]
Only nodes produced shoots. 93% of explants formed
shoot buds (3.6 per node) after 8–12 d. 95% of shoots
formed roots (35.6 per shoot). 82% survival in soil
and compost (1:1) with no morphological
abnormalities.
Shoots emerged after 5–6 d on SIM. 9–10-m-old
cultures with a subculture delay of 6–7 d flowered
in vitro. 100% of explants formed shoots (6.1 per
node), reaching 29.1 after 3–4 subcultures on SMM.
95% of shoots formed roots in vitro (6.1 per shoot) or
100% ex vitro after dipping cut ends of shoots in
300 mg/l IBA (5.5 roots/shoot). 85–90% survival in
sand, garden soil and organic manure (3:1:1).
3.6 shoots/shoot tip in SIM and 4.8 shoots/shoot tip
in SMM after 8 w. No rooting in vitro; rather shoot
(4–5 cm long) base treated with 500 lM IBA for
10 min then planted directly in Soilrite, with 95%
survival. Extracts of in vitro plants used for
antimicrobial assays and to measure total phenolic
content. No variation observed among
micropropagated plants and mother plant using TLC
of phytoextract.
93% of explants formed shoots (4.1 per/node). 66%
of shoots formed roots (7.4 per shoot).
Acclimatization in sterile soil and sand (3:1): plantlets
covered with transparent plastic bags and watered
with ½ MS medium every 2 d for 2 w then bags
removed. After 4 w plants transferred to pots
containing garden soil and maintained under normal
daylength. Plantlet survival NR.
Callus induction within 7–18 d. 95% of callus formed
shoots (7.0 per explant). 87% of shoots formed roots
(6.4 per shoot). Acclimatization in soil and
vermiculite (1:1) but survival not quantified.
[75]
[78]
[7]
[41]
[79]
16-h. PPFD NR.
25 ± 1 °C.
Results not available (only abstract available).
[72]
16-h PP. CWFT.
40 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C.
Nine shoots/explant and 6.9 roots/shoot formed,
90% survival of acclimatized plants in autoclaved soil
and vermiculite (1:1) at 16-h PP, 50 lmol m 2 s 1, 25
± 2 °C, 80% RH, irrigated with Hoagland’s solution
(Hoagland and Amon, 1950) once a week. No
phenotypic variation observed.
88% callus induction, 95% shoot induction (indirect)
and 85% of shoots induced roots. 75% survival of
acclimatized plants in soil and compost (1:1).
[44]
12-h PP. LI NR.
25 ± 2 °C.
[15]
(continued on next page)
7
MS + 6.78 lM 2,4-D + 0.13 lM Kin (CIM). MS
+ 8.88 lM BA + 0.16 lM NAA (SIM). MS
+ 2.46 lM IBA (RIM). pH 5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.6%
100% of explants formed callus in 8 d. Organogenesis
and acclimatization not performed.
No. of Pages 14
V. trifolia
16-h PP. CWFT.
20 lmol m 2 s 1.
26 ± 2 °C.
14-h PP. LI NR.
25 ± 2 °C.
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
Leaves, internodes of 4y-old plants
Biotechnological advances in Vitex species, and future perspectives
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
V. negundo
8
Culture medium, PGRs and additives*
Culture
conditions**
Remarks, experimental outcome and maximum
productivity, acclimatization and variation
References
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 60–
65% RH.
90% of explants formed shoots (22.3 per node) after 8
w when plant material collected from mid-Sept-Oct.
87% of shoots formed roots (4.4 per shoot), 92%
survival after 4 w in sterile Soilrite, then vermiculite
and garden soil (1:1) with true-to-type morphology.
97% of explants formed shoots (16.8 per node) after 8
w. No rooting in vitro; shoot (4–5 cm long) base
treated with 500 lM IBA for 10 min then planted
directly in sterile Soilrite, and watered with ½ MS
without organics: 95% survival after 4 w.
Acclimatization conditions NR. Genetic stability
claimed by RAPD.
15 shoots/shoot tip. 90% survival of acclimatized
plants in Soilrite, cocopeat and vermiculite (1:1:1). In
vitro flowers obtained after 20 d in response to BA,
but flowering not quantified.
Stem and petiole explants more receptive than leaves.
Globular callus formation in 3–4 w, shoots in 4 w,
and roots in 11–12 d. 87%, 77% and 58% shoot
induction (indirect) from stem, petiole and leaf
explants, respectively. 86% of shoots rooted.90%
survival of acclimatized plants in soil, sand and well
decomposed manure (1:1:1). Genetic uniformity of
regenerated plantlets of subculture 2–5 confirmed by
RAPD and ISSR.
95% of explants formed shoots (22.2/shoot tip) after
8 w. 87% of shoots formed roots (4.4 per shoot) after
4 w. 90% survival after 8 w in sterile Soilrite in the
in vitro culture room conditions. Several antioxidant
enzymes activated 28 d after transplantation.
94% of explants formed shoots (19.2 per shoot tip)
after 12 w. No rooting in vitro; shoot (4–5 cm long)
base treated with 500 lM IBA for 10 min then
planted directly in vermiculite and garden soil (1:1):
95% survival and 7 roots/shoot after 4 w.
84.9% synthetic seed formed shoots after 6 w.
Encapsulated seeds were stored at 4 °C up to 8 w with
42.5% regeneration efficiency. 90% rooting after 4 w
with avg 5.7 roots with 2.1 cm length. Plants with
fully expanded leaves were transferred to soilrite with
92% survival rate.
[10]
V. trifolia
Nodal explants (5–
10 mm long) from young
shoots of 3-y-old tree
V. trifolia
Nodal explants (5–
10 mm long) from young
shoots of 3-y-old tree
MS + 5.0 lM BA + 0.5 lM NAA (SIM).
Subculture every 3 w. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose. 0.8% agar.
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 60–
65% RH.
V. trifolia
Shoot tips
MS + 9.90 lM BA (SIM). ½ MS + 9.84 lM IBA
(RIM). pH, carbon source, agar conc. NR.
16-h PP. LI NR.
24 ± 2 °C.
V. trifolia
Stems, leaves and
petioles
MS + 0.44 lM BA + 16.11 lM NAA (CIM)
subcultured every 4 w. MS + 11.1 lM BA
+ 0.54 lM NAA + 271.5 lM AdS + 1.44 lM GA3
(SIM). ½ MS + 1.43 lM IAA or 1.23 lM NAA
(RIM). pH 5.8. 2% sucrose. 0.8% agar.
16-h PP.
61 lmol m
25 ± 2 °C.
V. trifolia
Shoot tips (5–8 mm
long) from young shoots
of 3-y-old tree
MS + 5.0 lM TDZ (SIM). MS + 1.0 lM BA
+ 0.5 lM NAA (SMM). ½ MS + 0.5 lM NAA
(RIM). Subculture every 3 w. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose.
0.7% agar.
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 60–
65% RH.
V. trifolia
Shoot tips (5–8 mm
long) from young shoots
of 3-y-old tree
MS + 5.0 lM TDZ (SIM). MS + 1.0 lM BA
+ 0.5 lM NAA (SMM). ½ MS + 0.5 lM NAA
(RIM). Subculture every 3 w. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose.
0.7% agar.
16-h PP. CWFT.
50 lmol m 2 s 1.
25 ± 2 °C. 60–
65% RH.
V. trifolia
Nodal segment derived
from 2 month old in vitro
raised shoots Same as
[10]
Encapsulation: 3% sodium alginate and 100 mM
calcium chloride. Germination: MS + 5 lM BA
+ 0.5 lM NAA. Rooting, MS + 0.5 lM,
bacteriological agar 0.8%.pH 5.8.
Same as [10]
agar.
MS + 5.0 lM TDZ (SIM). MS + 1.0 lM BA
+ 0.5 lM NAA (SMM). MS + 0.5 lM NAA
(RIM). Subculture every 3 w. pH 5.8. 3% sucrose.
0.8% agar.
2
s 1.
[8]
[64]
[81]
[12]
[11]
[13]
No. of Pages 14
Explant(s) used, size and
source
J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al.
Species and/or
cultivar
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
Table 2 (continued)
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
No. of Pages 14
2,4-D, 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid; AA, ascorbic acid; AC, activated charcoal; AdS, adenine sulphate; AgNO3, silver nitrate; B5 medium, or Gamborg medium, [38]; BA, N6-benzyladenine (BA
is used throughout even though BAP (6-benzylamino purine) may have been used in the original [86]; CA, citric acid; CIM, callus induction medium; CW, coconut water; CWFT, white fluorescent
tubes; d, day(s); FIM, flower induction medium; GA3, gibberellic acid; Hoagland medium [45]; IAA, indole-3-acetic acid; IBA, indole-3-butyric acid; ISSR, inter simple sequence repeat; Kin, kinetin
(6-furfuryl aminopurine); LI, light intensity; m, month(s); MS, Murashige and Skoogs [63] medium; NAA, a-naphthaleneacetic acid; Nitsch medium [66]; NR, not reported in the study; PG,
phloroglucinol; PGR, plant growth regulator; PP, photoperiod; PVP: polyvinyl pyrrolidone; RAPD, random amplified polymorphic DNA; RH, relative humidity; RIM, root induction medium;
rpm, revolutions per minute; SEM, shoot elongation medium; SIM, shoot induction medium; SMM, multiplication induction medium; TDZ, thidiazuron (N-phenyl-N’- 1,2,3-thiadiazol-5-ylurea);
TLC, thin layer chromatography; w, week(s); VC, vermicompost; WPM, woody plant medium [60]; White [111]; y, year(s).
*
Even though calli was used in the original, the term callus has been used here based on recommendation of Teixeira da Silva [87].
**
The original light intensity reported in each study has been represented since the conversion of lux to lmol m 2 s 1 is different for different illumination (main ones represented): for fluorescent
lamps, 1 lmol m 2 s 1 = 80 lux; the sun, 1 lmol m 2 s 1 = 55.6 lux; high voltage sodium lamp, 1 lmol m 2 s 1 = 71.4 lux [101].
V. trifolia var.
Simplicifolia
Young shoot tips of
mature plants
(1) White’s + 4.44 lM BA + 2.46 lM IBA; (2) ½
White’s + 0.4 lM BA + 2.46 lM IBA; (3) MS
+ 4.44 lM BA + 3.69 lM IBA; (4) MS + 3.33 lM
BA + 4.9 lM IBA (SIM). White’s + 2.46 lM IBA
(RIM)
8–10-h PP. 25–
30 °C
Much callus formed on media (1) and (2), callus
differentiated to 7–8 cm tall shoots after 50 d culture.
Little callus formed on media (3) and (4), and few
adventitious buds formed in these media. 3 cm long
shoots formed roots after 20 d of culture.
[35]
Biotechnological advances in Vitex species, and future perspectives
9
to produce triterpenes [67]. Leaf segments of V. negundo with a
midrib and adjacent stem segment were used to study callusmediated organogenesis, and their findings were compared
with shoot tips and nodal explants [77]. Explants from
in vitro germinated seedlings (hypocotyls, cotyledons, roots
and shoot tips) can be employed [22], although seed-derived
material is genetically dissimilar and is thus not suitable for
clonal tissue culture experiments. There is one report on
somatic embryogenesis but none on direct organogenesis
(adventitious shoot regeneration) in the Vitex genus, although
there are reports on callus-mediated organogenesis in V. trifolia [15,35,81], V. negundo [103,26,79], V. rotundifolia [72] and
V. leucoxylon [25]. The chances of somaclonal variation are
greater in the case of callus-mediated organogenesis or somatic
embryogenesis [52,62], although the latter can provide a useful
platform for genetic transformation studies. Somaclonal variation during in vitro cultures of Vitex species has not been
reported yet, and this topic should be explored in future
studies.
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
2.2. Influence of season
161
The impact of season for collecting nodal explants from V.
negundo from Bhubaneswar, Orissa, in India was compared
(1. March to May; 2. June to August; 3. September to November; 4. December to February), and collection between June
and August showed higher shoot multiplication [80]. In other
studies [10,11,12], nodes of V. trifolia collected from Aligarh,
Uttar Pradesh, in India, from January to December, or shoots
collected in March, September and October showed best bud
break. None of these studies [80,10,11,12] reported the effects
of season on explant contamination but such information is
essential as explant disinfection is the most important step in
the establishment of a tissue culture experiment [93].
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
2.3. Optimized disinfection procedures
174
Once the explant has been selected, surface disinfection is an
important step to establish contamination-free cultures. Based
on the Vitex tissue culture literature (Table 1), explants are
generally washed under running tap water followed by a wash
with a detergent used in a concentration range of 0.1–5%.
LabolineÒ applied at 0.1% for 10 min was effective for V. trifolia [44,3,5], 5% LabolineÒ or TeepolÒ for 10 min for V.
negundo [7] and V. trifolia [8], while 5% ExtranÒ for 10 min
effectively disinfected V. negundo explants [107]. Explants are
then surface disinfected with 0.01% (10 min)-0.1% mercury
chloride (HgCl2) (1–8 min; Table 1), although 0.1% HgCl2
for 3 min was sufficient to obtain a 90% contamination-free
culture for V. negundo nodes and shoot tip explants [102].
After treatment with HgCl2, explants were treated with sterile
distilled water (SDW) or sterile double-distilled water (SDDW)
three to seven times and then inoculated on basal medium supplemented with various plant growth regulators (PGRs). In
some reports, HgCl2 was omitted from the protocol. V. rotundifolia nodal explants were sterilized with 70% EtOH for 10 s
followed by treatment with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl; 2%
active chlorine) for 15 min and rinsed three times with SDW
[72]. Only 10% NaOCl for 10 min followed by 4–5 washes of
SDW was effective for V. leucoxylon [25] but the percentage
of contamination-free cultures was not reported. In summary,
175
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
No. of Pages 14
10
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
surface disinfection and explant preparation can be divided
into three stages: (1) removal of dirt and surface dust by washing under running tap water for 10–30 min followed by treatment with liquid detergent; (2) disinfection under a laminar
air hood: treatment with EtOH, preferably 70%, which can
penetrate bacterial cell walls (by disrupting hydrogen bonding)
for at most 30 s otherwise explants can be damaged [70] and
then 0.1% HgCl2 for 1–3 min depending on the explant (juvenile explants can be treated for a maximum of 1 min and
mature explants for as long as 3 min); (3) 2–3 washes with
SDW. NaOCl is a much more environmental-friendly disinfectant then HgCl2 [19]. The presence of endophytic microorganisms can cause problems during the establishment of in vitro
cultures [57].
In our experiments, we observed contamination by bacteria
in V. negundo nodal explants (Fig. 1) that were disinfected with
(1) 0.1% HgCl2 for 3 min followed by three rinses with SDW,
(2) 70% ethanol for 2 min followed by treatment with 0.1%
HgCl2 for 3 min and three rinses with SDW, and (3) 0.1%
HgCl2 for 3 min followed by disinfection with 70% ethanol
for 2 min and three rinses with SDW. Browning of explants
was observed when HgCl2 was used as the disinfectant
(Fig. 1A–C) while surface disinfection with 70% ethanol for
2 min followed by three rinses with SDW allowed explants to
remain green although contamination was still observed in
more than 50% of cultures. However, 95% of contamination
could be controlled by adding filter-sterilized antibiotics
(41.28 lM kanamycin, 59.81 lM penicillin, or 34.39 lM streptomycin) to Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium [63] (Fig. 1E–
H). Nanoparticles have been shown to control disinfection [17]
and could be used in the future to disinfect explants from other
Vitex species. Contamination by endophytes has not yet been
reported in any Vitex species and could be controlled through
meristem culture.
3. Light conditions
Most culture conditions for the in vitro growth of Vitex species
require a 16-h photoperiod (more rarely 10, 12, or 14 h
[77,15,107,108,50,75] under cool white fluorescent tubes at a
photosynthetic photon flux density of 35–50 lmol m 2 s 1
(Table 2). However, a continuous supply of light was useful
for the production of 20-HES from stem-induced callus of V.
glabrata [83,84,98].
Light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and cold-cathode fluorescent
lamps (CCFL) have seen expanded scientific applications [112],
including in plant physiological studies [69,37]. To maximize
plant production in vitro, or even to alter morphogenesis,
changes in the intensity, type of light source, spectral range
and photoperiod can be explored in the future for Vitex tissue
culture and secondary metabolite production.
248
4. Medium composition
249
MS medium was most frequently used for tissue culture studies
of Vitex species (Table 2) although Li et al. Li et al. [59] used
woody plant medium (WPM) [60] for V. agnus-castus. Park
et al. Park et al. [72] used Nitsch medium [66] for V. rotundifolia. Since there are no comparative studies between basal
media, such studies are needed to improve the efficiency of
in vitro culture of different Vitex species.
250
251
252
253
254
255
J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al.
For shoot tip and axillary shoot multiplication, the most
frequently used cytokinins were 6-benzyladenine (BA), kinetin
(Kin), and thidiazuron (TDZ) (Table 2). In V. agnus-castus,
Balaraju et al. Balaraju et al. [16] showed that BA or Kin, usually in the presence of an auxin, a-naphthaleneacetic acid
(NAA), could induce shoots from shoot tips and nodal
explants. In V. negundo, NAA induced callus formation when
used alone, but organogenesis was observed when callus was
transferred to medium containing BA and NAA [103]. Groach
et al. Groach et al. [41] studied the effect of various carbon
sources (sucrose, table sugar, sugarcane juice) and gelling
agents (agar, sago powder) and found that sugar cane juice
was a better carbon source than sucrose for axillary shoot multiplication of V. negundo.
Additives such as sodium sulphate, silver nitrate and
phloroglucinol were used for tissue culture studies of V.
negundo [24,85]. Silver nitrate is frequently used in in vitro
plant propagation as it is a well-known ethylene inhibitor
[55]. The addition of amino acids can improve the in vitro culture of many plants [105]. We conducted an experiment that
employed nodal explants of V. negundo that were inoculated
on MS medium supplemented with 4.44 lM BA, 41.28 lM
kanamycin, 59.81 lM penicillin, and 34.39 lM streptomycin.
When this medium, or medium containing 4.44 lM BA and
57.41 lM arginine, 68.43 lM glutamine or 86.86 lM proline,
was used, shoot growth improved (Fig. 1A–D). Therefore,
the effects of various additives on the morphogenic responses
of different explants of Vitex species need to be explored.
For example, Dadjo et al. Dadjo et al. [29] found that the number of somatic embryos induced from the leaves of V. doniana
could be increased when tryptophan was added to MS
medium.
Successful rooting of in vitro-raised shoots prior to their ex
vitro establishment is an important aspect of plant tissue culture that ultimately renders a protocol efficient, or not. Rooting of shoots can be performed both under in vitro and ex vitro
conditions, although the former is most common. In vitro rooting of most Vitex species was carried out using a basal medium
(half-strength MS, Nitsch or WPM) with a low salt concentration in combination with an auxin [indole-3-acetic acid (IAA),
indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) or NAA, alone, or in combination
(Table 2)]. Phloroglucinol can induce a wide range of organogenic responses in in vitro plants, the most common of which is
associated with improved rooting [91]. Ex vitro rooting of
in vitro-raised shoots was performed by dipping the cut ends
of V. negundo shoots in 1466–2442 lM IBA [7,8,85,78].
Several studies did not complete an acclimatization stage
while others did not assess the success (plantlet survival) of
acclimatization (Table 2). In general, well-rooted plantlets
are washed under running tap water to remove adhering agar
from the roots and transferred to a suitable substrate and
plantlets in containers that are held under high humidity, followed by conditions [18,40] which differ widely depending on
the species (Table 2).
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
5. Synthetic seeds
310
The use of synthetic seeds (synseeds) to transport or preserve
important germplasm, or even to serve as a module for cryopreservation is well established in many plants [82,54]. Only two
reports are available on synseed production in Vitex species.
311
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
312
313
314
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
No. of Pages 14
Biotechnological advances in Vitex species, and future perspectives
11
a-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA) resulted 92.6% conversion
to plantlets in vitro [4]. More recently, Ahmed et al. Ahmed
et al. [13] reported 92% survival of V. trifolia nodal segments
encapsulated according to the Ahmad and Anis [4] method.
This indicates that 3% Na-alginate with 100 mM CaCl2 could
be used to develop synthetic seeds of other Vitex species in the
future. Encapsulated nodal segments could be stored at 4 °C
up to 8 weeks with 42.5% regeneration efficiency and plantlets,
which rooted best on full-strength MS medium containing
0.5 lM NAA, were successfully acclimatized (92%) to field
conditions [13].
Figure 1 Endophytic contamination during in vitro culture of
Vitex negundo. (A–D) Nodal explants of V. negundo after 15 days
of culture. A. Surface disinfection with 0.1% HgCl2 for 3 min
followed by a rinse with sterilized distilled water (SDW) three
times. (B) Surface disinfection with 70% ethanol for 2 min
followed by treatment with 0.1% HgCl2 for 3 min followed by a
rinse with SDW three times. (C) Surface disinfection with 0.1%
HgCl2 for 3 min followed by disinfection with 70% ethanol for
2 min followed by a rinse with SDW three times. (D) Surface
disinfection with 70% ethanol for 2 min followed by a rinse with
SDW three times. (E–H) Axillary shoot multiplication of V.
negundo on MS medium supplemented with 41.28 lM kanamycin,
59.81 lM penicillin, and 34.39 lM streptomycin following disinfection with 70% ethanol for 2 min and three washes with SDW.
(E) 4.44 lM BA. F. 4.44 lM BA with 57.41 lM arginine. (G)
4.44 lM BA with 68.43 lM glutamine. (H) 4.44 lM BA with
86.86 lM proline. Culture conditions in all cases (culture period
45 days, growth temperature 25 °C, photoperiod 16-h, light
intensity 35 lmol m 2 s 1).
315
316
317
318
Optimum synseeds were produced when V. negundo nodal
explants were encapsulated in 3% sodium alginate (Naalginate) with 100 mM calcium chloride (CaCl2). MS medium
containing 2.5 lM kinetin (Kn) in combination with 1.0 lM
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
6. In vitro flowering
330
One of the most captivating events in the lifecycle of a flowering plant is the shift from the vegetative phase to the reproductive phase, a complex developmental shift that can be
determined by several factors. Under natural conditions, flowering duration varies widely, at least in V. rotundifolia and V.
agnus-castus [43]. Flowers that are induced in vitro are an ideal
source of explants for the production of haploids since the
chance of contamination is very low and since flower induction
can take place independent of the season [95,97]. In vitro flowering is also a useful strategy to investigate flowering physiology. Only two studies have examined in vitro flowering in V.
negundo [107,104]: details of flowering conditions are described
in Table 2). Data about in vitro flowering are not available in
Thiruvengadam and Jayabalan [104]. Ahmad et al. Vadawale
et al. [107] studied different C/N ratios (they increased the
C/N ratio by increasing the sucrose concentration and maintaining the concentration of NH4NO3 at 20.6 lM) and
observed that the addition of 146.06 mM sucrose (C/N
ratio = 7.08) resulted in in vitro flowering of 80% of cultures
within 24 days on MS medium supplemented with 4.44 lM
BA and 0.53 lM NAA. In that study, 90% of plants formed
an inflorescence with an average of 5.1 flowers per plant
[107]. Only one report is available on in vitro flowering, in V.
trifolia [64], but details about in vitro flowering induction,
specific culture conditions or data were not reported. This
leaves a wide scope for plant physiologists and biotechnologist
to explore this technique for other Vitex species.
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
7. Somatic embryogenesis
358
Somatic embryogenesis is the process by which somatic cells
differentiate into somatic embryos. Somatic embryos, which
morphologically resemble zygotic embryos, are used as a
model system in embryological studies [58]. However, the
greatest importance of somatic embryos, in medicinal plant
biotechnology, is their practical application in large-scale vegetative propagation; in some cases, somatic embryogenesis is
favoured over other methods of vegetative propagation
because of the possibility of scaling up propagation by using
bioreactors while somatic embryos or embryogenic cultures
can be cryopreserved, allowing gene banks to be established
while embryogenic cultures are also an attractive target for
genetic modification [61]. Dadjo et al. Dadjo et al. [29] induced
somatic embryos from leaf explants of V. doniana on ½ MS
medium supplemented with 0.50 lM thidiazuron, 5.55 lM
myo-inositol, and 49.74 lM silver nitrate or 6.25 lM tryptophan, but the conversion of somatic embryos to plantlets
359
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
12
379
and field transfer and survival were not reported. Therefore, an
efficient protocol should be developed for the propagation of
V. doniana and other unexplored Vitex species using somatic
embryogenesis.
380
8. Production of secondary metabolites
376
377
378
428
The medicinal properties of medicinal plants are derived from
the presence of single or multiple secondary metabolites [39].
V. glabrata produces sterols like 7-dehydrocholesterol (7DHC), a-ecdysone and 20-HES [110]. 20-HES has multiple
uses, including as a growth stimulator for shrimp culture
[21], an insecticide [33], an anabolic steroid in sports and bodybuilding, and as a tonic supplement for male and female reproductive systems [34]. Ten-year-old callus induced from stem
explants (the exact explant source, i.e., node or internode,
was not indicated) used [84] of V. glabrata (as suggested in
Thavornnithi [99]; culture conditions described in Table 2) to
study the effects of cholesterol, 7-DHC, and ergosterol fed to
callus cultures for 0, 12, 24, 72, 96 and 120 h. They found that
cholesterol did not increase 20-HES content but instead inhibited cell growth while 7-DHC and ergosterol increased 20-HES
production 1.36-fold more than the control without affecting
cell growth. Sinlaparaya et al. Sinlaparaya et al. [83], using
the same callus as in two other studies [84,99], tested ½ MS,
MS, ½ B5 and B5 medium (syn. Gamborg medium [38] supplemented
with
8.88 lM
BA
and
9.04 lM
2,4dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) for 1 to 5 weeks (detailed
culture conditions in Tables 1 and 2). They found that highest
cell dry weight (DW) (12.1 g/L) and maximum production of
20-HES (0.038% DW) was possible in B5 medium in the third
week. Thanonkeo et al. Thanonkeo et al. [98] used the same
explant as that used in two other studies [83,84], namely callus
from a 10-year-old V. glabrata culture, to test basal media,
temperatures and sucrose concentrations (MS, ½ MS, B5 and
½ B5; 25 vs 30 °C; 20, 30, 40 g/L sucrose) for 0–12 days at 2day intervals. Thanonkeo et al. Thanonkeo et al. [98] also
observed that when cells were cultured in suspension cultures
at 30 °C on B5 or ½ MS medium with 30 and 40 g/L sucrose,
the production of 20-HES increased 1.09-fold more than the
control. Feeding cholesterol at 5 mg/L as a precursor to
biosynthesize 20-HES accumulated 1.11-fold more 20-HES
than control cells. In another study [23], callus cultures were
initiated using the same explants as in the three previous
reports. Elicitation with chitosan at 50 mg/L resulted in
17.16 g/L biomass and 377.09 mg/100 g DW 20-HES, which
were 1.62 and 8.33 times higher than the control cultures,
respectively. Likewise, the addition of methyl jasmonate at
100 lM also enhanced growth and production of 20-HES.
The highest growth and 20-HES production reached 14.44 g/
L and 621.76 mg/100 g DW, which were 1.35- and 14.54-fold
higher than the control cultures [23]. Noel and Darit [67] isolated triterpenes from callus cultures derived from leaf explants
of V. negundo but triterpenes were not quantified nor was the
method used to induce callus described.
429
9. Molecular markers to detection somaclonal variation
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
430
431
Molecular markers play an important role in studies related to
genomics, evolution, and phylogeny of medicinal plants [42].
No. of Pages 14
J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al.
Only three reports (Table 2) are available on the use of molecular markers in the Vitex genus, specifically in V. negundo and
V. trifolia, primarily to verify the homogeneity of in vitroderived plant material. Ahmad and Anis [5] isolated DNA
from micropropagated and field-grown plants (plant parts
and other conditions were not reported) by the Doyle and
Doyle [36] method and used random amplified polymorphic
DNA (RAPD) markers (10 GC-rich decamer primers,
OPA1-10) to verify the genetic fidelity of two-year-old micropropagated V. negundo plants versus the mother plant (control), and detected no genetic variation. Samantaray et al.
Samantaray et al. [81] isolated DNA from fresh leaves of
micropropagated and a field-grown mother plant by the cetyltrimethyl ammonium bromide (CTAB) method [20] with
minor modifications; 1% polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) was
added to remove polyphenols and RAPD and inter simple
sequence repeats (ISSR) were used to test the genetic fidelity
of V. trifolia; they found no genetic variation relative to the
mother plant. Ahmad et al. Ahmad et al. [8] also carried out
RAPD analysis of V. trifolia plantlets developed from axillary
shoots and extracted DNA from young leaves using the [36]
protocol. No phenotypic variation was observed in micropropagated plants of V. trifolia [81,8] and V. negundo [5]. A wider
selection of molecular markers could assist in the discrimination of adulterants from pure sources, and to screen out somaclonal variants derived from bioreactors, synthetic seeds, or
cryopreservation.
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
10. Conclusions and future perspectives
459
Even though there are an estimated 707 plant species known as
Vitex sp. worldwide, 230 species have a taxonomically
accepted name, 455 names are synonyms and 22 names are
unresolved [74]. Protocols for the in vitro propagation of only
six species have been established (Table 2), and most have been
dedicated to V. negundo (27 articles from a total of 46 papers
dedicated to the genus) and V. trifolia (9/46). The only four
reports that exist for V. glabrata are related to the production
of secondary metabolites [83,84,23,98] but a micropropagation
protocol is not available for this species yet. Despite these studies, ironically, none of these studies was performed on the 15
Vitex species listed on the IUCN Red Data list [46]. Seven species are vulnerable (V. acunae, V. ajugaeflora, V. amamiensis,
V. keniensis, V. parviflora, V. urceolata and V. zanzibarensis),
five are endangered (V. cooperi, V. evoluta, V. gaumeri, V. kuylenii, V. lehmbachii), one is critically endangered (V. yaundensis), one is of low risk and least concern (V. longisepala) and
data are deficient about V. heptaphylla IUCN Red Data list
[46]. It is essential to provide useful, centralized and detailed
information about protocols and in vitro experimental conditions that could urgently be applied to the remaining species,
including the endangered ones, to establish in vitro propagation protocols suitable for clonal propagation, cryopreservation
and
genetic
transformation.
Photoautotrophic
micropropagation, the use of bioreactors, or the use of thin cell
layers [88], sonication and ultrasound [89], or magnetic fields
[90] to alter or improve tissue growth in vitro are all aspects
that merit investigation in Vitex species. Recent progress was
made in the induction of V. agnus-castus polyploids using
0.05% colchicine while irradiation with 50 Gy of c-rays
460
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
Biotechnological advances in Vitex species, and future perspectives
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
resulted in a single-stemmed plant type [14], emphasizing the
importance of mutation technology as an applied breeding
technique to induce variation.
This implies that the use of biotechnology for this genus is
still at a nascent phase of development, and that there is still
ample room for future exploration of the great majority of
Vitex species. For example, the use of molecular techniques
such as RFLP to authenticate V. glabrata [73], or the examination of explants for fungal or bacterial contaminants, e.g., in
V. trifolia [113], prior to in vitro culture, indicate that biotechnology has pure and applied applications for Vitex research.
Given the economic importance of these species, the in vitro
protocols outlined in this review provide a platform for pure
and applied studies to be conducted, including the use of bioreactors for mass production of important secondary metabolites or compounds of pharmaceutical and medicinal
importance.
507
Acknowledgements
508
We are sincerely thankful to Mr. Shubhjeet Mandal and Mr.
Abhishek Parsai, for assistance with collecting the literature.
We also thank Prof. N. Jayabalan, Department of Plant
Sciences, Bharathidasan University (India), for providing us
difficult-to-access Vitex literature and Prof. Songjun Zeng
(South China Botanical Garden, Chinese Academy of
Sciences, Guangzhou, China) for assisting with interpretation
of the Chinese literature.
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
References
[1] S. Abubakar, J.J. Saba, I.D. Umar, Int. J. Biol. Sci. 2 (2015)
27–38.
[2] F. Afroz, A.K.M.S. Hassan, L.S. Bari, R. Sultana, L. Munshi,
M.A.A. Jahan, R. Khatun, Bangladesh J. Sci. Ind. Res. 43
(2008) 345–352.
[3] N. Ahmad, M. Anis, Agrofor. Syst. 71 (2007) 195–200.
[4] N. Ahmad, M. Anis, Biol. Plant. 54 (2010) 748–752.
[5] N. Ahmad, M. Anis, Eur. J. Forest Res. 130 (2011) 135–144.
[6] N. Ahmad, S.A. Wali, M. Anis, J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 83
(2008) 313–317.
[7] N. Ahmad, M.I. Khan, S. Ahmed, S. Bin Javed, M. Faisal, M.
Anis, S. Rehman, S.M. Umair, Acta Physiol. Plant. 35 (2013)
791–800.
[8] N. Ahmad, S. Bin Javed, M.I. Khan, M. Anis, Acta Physiol.
Plant. 35 (2013) 2493–2500.
[9] N. Ahmad, A. Shahid, S. Bin Javed, M.I. Khan, M. Anis, J.
Appl. Res. Med. Arom. Plants 2 (2015) 114–123.
[10] M.R. Ahmed, M. Anis, Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 168 (2012)
957–966.
[11] R. Ahmed, M. Anis, Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 20 (2014) 385–
392.
[12] M.R. Ahmed, M. Anis, Agrofor. Syst. 88 (2014) 437–447.
[13] M.R. Ahmed, M. Anis, H.A. Al-Etta, Rendiconti Lincei 26
(2015) 133–139.
[14] E. Ari, H. Djapo, N. Mutlu, E. Gurbuz, O. Karaguzel, Sci.
Hortic. 195 (2015) 74–81.
[15] L.J.P. Arulanandam, S. Ghanthikumar, Indian J. Nat. Prod.
Resour. 2 (2011) 261–264.
[16] K. Balaraju, P. Agastian, J.P. Preetamraj, S. Arokiyaraj, S.
Ignacimuthu, In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 44 (2008) 436–441.
[17] N. Beyth, Y. Houri-Haddad, A. Domb, W. Khan, R. Hazan,
Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2015 (2015) 1–16.
No. of Pages 14
13
[18] S.S. Bhojwani, M.K. Razdan, Plant Tissue Culture: Theory
and Practice, a revised edition, Elsevier, Amsterdam,
Netherland, 1996.
[19] D.W. Boening, Chemosphere 40 (2000) 1335–1351.
[20] J. Bousquet, L. Simon, M. Lalonde, Can. J. For. Res. 20 (1990)
254–257.
[21] S. Chaiwatcharakool, Mahidol University, Thailand, 1986.
[22] F. Chamandoosti, Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 10 (2007) 4113–4117.
[23] N. Chamnipa, S. Thanonkeo, P. Thanonkeo, J. Med. Plants
Res. 6 (2012) 3317–3323.
[24] C. Chandramu, D.M. Rao, V.D. Reddy, J. Plant Biotechnol. 5
(2003) 107–113.
[25] M.A. Chordia, R.S. Kumari, R.R. Kannan, J. Med. Plants
Res. 4 (2010) 2399–2403.
[26] F.B. Chowdhury, F.M.S. Azam, M. Hassan, F.I. Jahan, R.
Chowdhury, S. Seraj, Z. Khatun, M. Rahmatullah, AmEurasian J. Sustain. Agric. 5 (2011) 6–14.
[27] S. Christie, A. Walker, European Journal of Herbal Medicine 3
(1997) 29–45.
[28] C. Dadjo, A.E. Assogbadjo, B. Fandohan, R. Glèlè Kakaı̈, S.
Chakeredza, T.D. Houehanou, P. Van Damme, B. Sinsin,
Fruits 67 (2012) 239–248.
[29] C. Dadjo, J. Kahia, C. Muthuri, L. Diby, C. Kouame, M.
Kouassi, Int. J. Biotechnol. Mol. Biol. Res. 6 (2015) 28–34.
[30] C. Daniele, J.T. Coon, M.H. Pittler, E. Ernst, Drug Saf. 28
(2005) 319–332.
[31] S.N. Danikou, D.A. Tchokponhoué, F.A. Komlan, Seed Sci.
Technol. 43 (2015) 10–19.
[32] S.N. Danikou, E.G. Achigan-Dako, D.A. Tchokponhoue, C.
O. Agossou, C.A. Houdegbe, R.S. Vodouhe, A. Ahanchede, J.
Ethnobiol. Ethnomed. 11 (2015) 28.
[33] T.S. Dhadialla, G.R. Carlson, D.P. Le, Annu. Rev. Entomol.
43 (1998) 545–569.
[34] L. Dinan, R. Lafont, J. Endocrinol. 191 (1) (2006) 1–8.
[35] T.M. Dong, Plant Physiol. Commun. 1 (1986) 39 (in Chinese).
[36] J.L. Doyle, J.L. Doyle, Focus 12 (1990) 13–15.
[37] S. Dutta Gupta, B. Jatothu, Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 7 (2013)
211–220.
[38] O.L. Gamborg, R.A. Miller, K. Ojima, Exp. Cell Res. 50
(1968) 151–158.
[39] S.G. Gandhi, V. Mahajan, Y.S. Bedi, Planta 241 (2015) 303–
317.
[40] E.F. George, M.A. Hall, G.-J. De Klerk, Plant propagation by
tissue culture, The Background, third ed., vol. 1, Springer,
Dordrecht, Netherlands, 2008.
[41] R. Groach, K. Yadav, N. Singh, Environ. Exp. Biol. 12 (2014)
149–153.
[42] P.G. Xiao Hao, Evolutionary Bioinformatics 11 (2015) 197–
212.
[43] A.J. Hershberger, Graduate Faculty of the University of
Georgia, 2008, p. 71.
[44] L.V. Hiregoudar, H.N. Murthy, J.G. Bhat, B.P. Nayeem, E.J.
Hema, K.Y. .Paek. Hahn, Biol. Plant. 50 (2006) 291–294.
[45] D.R. Hoagland, D.I. Amon, Circular 347, College of
Agriculture University of California, Berkley, 1950, pp. 1–32.
[46] The International Union for Conservation of Nature, Vitex
‘‘The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.4.”
Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/search. Accessed
August 23, 2016.
[47] M.R. Islam, R. Khan, S.N. Hossain, G. Ahmed, L. Hakim,
Plant Tissue Cult. Biotechnol. 19 (2009) 113–117.
[48] A.H.M. Jamal, A.N.M.R. Rehman, D.K. Paul, R. Islam, J.
Bio-Sci. 18 (2010) 140–145.
[49] M. Jawahar, S. Ravipaul, M. Jeyaseelan, Plant Tissue Cult.
Biotechnol. 18 (2009) 37–42.
[50] M. Johnson, S. Das, N. Yasmin, P.M. Rajasekara,
Micropropagation studies on Vitex negundo L. – a
medicinally important plant. Ethanobotanical Leaflets.
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
JGEB 160
29 September 2016
14
617
618
619
[51]
620
621
622
[52]
623
624
[53]
625
626
627
[54]
[55]
628
629
[56]
630
631
[57]
632
633
[58]
634
635
[59]
636
637
[60]
638
639
[61]
640
641
642
643
644
645
[62]
[63]
[64]
[65]
646
647
648
649
[66]
[67]
[68]
650
651
[69]
652
653
[70]
654
655
656
657
[71]
658
659
[72]
660
661
[73]
662
663
[74]
664
665
[75]
666
667
[76]
668
669
[77]
670
671
[78]
672
673
[79]
674
675
676
[80]
[81]
677
678
[82]
679
680
681
[83]
No. of Pages 14
J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al.
Available at: http://www.ethnoleaflets.com/leaflets/vitex.htm.
Accessed August 23, 2016.
W.S. Judd, C.S. Campbell, E.A. Kellog, P.F. Stevens, M.J.
Donoghue, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 2002, pp.
466–468.
S.M. Kaeppler, H.F. Kaeppler, Y. Rhee, Plant Mol. Biol. 43
(2000) 179–188.
M.M. Kher, M. Nataraj, J.A. Teixeira da Silva, Rendiconti
Lincei 27 (2016) 157–167.
D. Kulus, M. Zalewska, Sci. Hortic. 168 (2014) 88–107.
V. Kumar, G. Parvatam, G.A. Ravishankar, Electron. J.
Biotechnol. 12 (2009) 1–15.
P. Ladda, C. Magdum, Int. J. Adv. Pharm. Biol. Chem. 1
(2012) 111–120.
C. Leifert, A.C. Cassells, In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 37 (2)
(2001) 133–138.
D. Leljak-Levanić, S. Mihaljević, N. Bauer, Acta Physiol.
Plant. 37 (2015) 127.
X.-Q. Li, X. Li, X. Shi, F.-P. Zhang, L.-L. Chen, Plant Physiol.
Commun. 45 (2009) 1104 (in Chinese).
G. Lloyd, B. McCown, Int. Plant Propag. Soc. Proc. 30 (1980)
421–427.
Á. Máthé, F. Hassan, A. Abdul Kader, in: Á. Máthé (Ed.),
Medicinal and Aromatic Plants of the World, vol. 1, Springer,
Dordrecht, Netherland, 2015, pp. 305–336.
C. Miguel, L. Marum, J. Exp. Bot. 62 (2011) 3713–3725.
T. Murashige, F. Skoog, Physiol. Plant. 15 (1962) 473–497.
C. Nagaveni, L. Rajanna, Bot. Res. Int. 6 (2013) 13–16.
M. Nataraj, M.M. Kher, J.A. Teixeira da Silva, Rendiconti
Lincei 27 (2016) 169–179.
J.P. Nitsch, C. Nitsch, Science 163 (1969) 85–87.
M.G. Noel, F.M. Dayrit, Philippine J. Sci. 134 (2005) 5–19.
A.S.M. Noman, M.S. Islam, N.A. Siddique, K. Hossain, Int. J.
Agric. Biol. 10 (2008) 633–637.
A. Norikane, J.A. Teixeira da Silva, M. Tanaka, in: AoB Plants
5 (2013), plt044.
C.E. Ophardt, Denaturation of proteins ‘‘alcohol disrupts
hydrogen bonding,” Available at: http://www.elmhurst.edu/
~chm/vchembook/568denaturation.html. Accessed August 23,
2016.
K. Padmalatha, K. Jayaram, N.L. Raju, M.N.V. Prasad, R.
Arora, Bioremediation, Biodiv. Bioavailability 3 (2009) 6–14.
H.J. Park, B.-M. Min, H.C. Cha, J. Plant Biotechnol. 6 (2004)
165–169.
W. Phoolcharoen, N. Ruangrungsri, S. Sukrong, Planta Med.
77 (2011) PB19.
The Plant List, Vitex. Available at: http://www.theplantlist.
org/tpl1.1/search?q=Vitex. Accessed August 23, 2016.
M.M. Rahman, S.K. Bhadra, Int. J. Med. Aromat. Plants 1
(2011) 306–312.
D. Rajan, J. Suresh, N. Paramakrishnan, A.S.V. Reddy, M.
Nayeem, Res. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 4 (2012) 124–129.
D.N. Rani, G.M. Nair, In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 42 (2006)
69–73.
M.S. Rathore, N.S. Shekhawat, Agric. Sci. Res. J. 1 (2011)
191–198.
D.D. Reddy, S. Anitha, D.M. Rao, Int. J. Dev. Res. 4 (2014)
1611–1615.
Y. Sahoo, P.K. Chand, Plant Cell Rep. 18 (1998) 301–307.
S. Samantaray, A.K. Bishoyi, S. Maiti, Rev. Biol. Trop. 61
(2013) 1083–1094.
S. Sharma, A. Shahzad, J.A. Teixeira da Silva, Biotechnol.
Adv. 31 (2013) 186–207.
D. Sinlaparaya, P. Duanghaklang, S. Panichajakul, Chin. J.
Biotechnol. 23 (2007) 1033–1036.
[84] D. Sinlaparaya, P. Duanghaklang, S. Panichajakul, Afr. J.
Biotechnol. 6 (2007) 1639–1642.
[85] M. Steephen, S. Nagarajan, D. Ganesh, Iran. J. Biotechnol. 8
(2010) 82–89.
[86] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, The Asian and Australian Journal of
Plant Science and Biotechnology 6 (Special issue 1) (2012) 121–
124.
[87] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, Asian Aust. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 6
(Special issue 1) (2012) 125–126.
[88] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, J. Dobránszki, J. Plant Growth Regul.
32 (2013) 922–943.
[89] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, J. Dobránszki, Plant Cell Tissue Organ
Cult. 117 (2014) 131–143.
[90] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, J. Dobránszki, In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol.
Plant 51 (2015) 233–240.
[91] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, J. Dobránszki, S. Ross, In Vitro Cell.
Dev. Biol. Plant 49 (2013) 1–16.
[92] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, M.M. Kher, D. Soner, M. Nataraj, J.
Hortic. Res. 23 (2015) 5–12.
[93] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, B. Winarto, J. Dobránszki, S. Zeng,
Folia Hortic. 27 (2015) 3–14.
[94] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, H. Kim, F. Engelmann, Plant Cell
Tissue Organ Cult. 120 (2015) 423–440.
[95] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, J. Lema-Rumińska, A. Tymoszuk, D.
Kulpa, Acta Physiol. Plant. 37 (2015) 36.
[96] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, J. Dobránszki, S. Zeng, B. Winarto, A.
M. Lennon, Y. Jaufeerally-Fakim, D.A. Christopher, Plant
Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 123 (2015) 205–219.
[97] J.A. Teixeira da Silva, B. Winarto, J. Dobránszki, S. Zeng,
Acta Physiol. Plant. 37 (2015) 173.
[98] S. Thanonkeo, N. Chamnipa, P. Thanonkeo, Afr. J.
Biotechnol. 10 (2011) 10612–10617.
[99] P. Thavornnithi, Chulalongkorn University, Thailand, 1990.
[100] S. Thenmozhi, U. Subasini, D. Sathyamurthy, S. Varadharaju,
K. Soundappan, Pharmacogn. J. 4 (2012) 16–22.
[101] R.W. Thimijan, R.D. Heins, HortScience 18 (1983) 818–822.
[102] M. Thiruvengadam, N. Jayabalan, J. Plant Biotechnol. 2
(2000) 151–155.
[103] M. Thiruvengadam, N. Jayabalan, J. Med. Arom. Plant Sci. 23
(2001) 1–4.
[104] M. Thiruvengadam, N. Jayabalan, Plant Cell Biotechnol. Mol.
Biol. 2 (2001) 67–70.
[105] T.A. Thorpe, C. Stasolla, E.C. Yeung, G.J. de Klerk, A.V.
Roberts, E.F. George, in: E.F. George, M.A. Hall, G.-J. De
Klerk (Eds.), Plant Propagation by Tissue Culture vol-1. The
Background, third ed., Springer, Netherlands, Dordrecht,
2008, pp. 115–173.
[106] P.K. Usha, S. Benjamin, K.V. Mohanan, A.V. Raghu, Res. J.
Bot. 2 (2007) 102–107.
[107] A.V. Vadawale, D.M. Barve, A.M. Dave, Indian J. Biotechnol.
5 (2006) 112–116.
[108] S.K. Varghese, R.B. Subramanian, K. Kalia, M. Nataraj, J.A.
Inamdar, Indian Bot. Contactor 9 (1992) 147–150.
[109] A.S. Vishwanathan, R. Basavaraju, J. Biol. Sci. 3 (2010) 30–42.
[110] K. Werawattanametin, V. Podimuang, A. Suksamrarn, J. Nat.
Prod. 49 (1986) 365–366.
[111] P.R. White, second ed., The Ronald Press, New York, 1963, p.
228.
[112] N. Yeh, T.J. Ding, P. Yeh, Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 51
(2015) 55–61.
[113] SF. Zhan, HF. Zhang, Q. Peng, JL. Gan, YF. Fan, Y. Chen,
in: Guangdong Agric. Sci. 39 (2012), pages unknown (in
Chinese with English Abstract).
Please cite this article in press as: J.A. Teixeira da Silva et al., Journal of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jgeb.2016.09.004
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
Dr. Mafatlal M Kher