Abstract
The in vitro tissue cultures are, beyond all difficulties, an essential tool in basic research as well as in commercial applications. Numerous works devoted to plant tissue cultures proved how important this part of the plant science is. Despite half a century of research on the issue of obtaining plants in in vitro cultures, many aspects remain unknown. The path associated with the reprogramming of explants in the fully functioning regenerants includes a series of processes that may result in the appearance of morphological, physiological, biochemical or, finally, genetic and epigenetic changes. All these changes occurring at the tissue culture stage and appearing in regenerants as tissue culture-induced variation and then inherited by generative progeny as somaclonal variation may be the result of oxidative stress, which works at the step of explant preparation, and in tissue culture as a result of nutrient components and environmental factors. In this review, we describe the current status of understanding the genetic and epigenetic changes that occur during tissue culture.
Key message
Variation appeared in regenerated plants as well as variation inherited by generative progeny of regenerants can may many, positive or negative impact, of gained plant materials. This review focused on factors that triggered this phenomenon with underlying oxidative stress.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Plant tissue cultures (PTC) play a crucial role in modern biotechnology. They are extensively used in studies on plant developmental processes (Firn et al. 1994), gene functioning (Deng et al. 2010), micropropagation (Kumar and Redd 2011) and generation of transgenic plants with specific industrial and agronomical traits (Loyola-Vargas and Ochoa-Alejo 2018). Therefore, PTC may impact in crop improvement and plant breeding by elimination of viruses for healthy plant material (Perotto et al. 2009; Taşkın et al. 2013), by preservation of germplasm of vegetatively propagated plant crops (Rajasekharan and Sahijram 2015) and by threatened or endangered plant species rescue (Sarasan et al. 2006). The plant in vitro cultures are of interest for the production of secondary metabolites of commercial interest (Loyola-Vargas and Ochoa-Alejo 2018). Plants obtained via PTC were used in genetic studies to generate mapping population for dissection of QTLs linked to agronomic traits (Tyrka et al. 2018) and in studies of mobile elements (Shingote et al. 2019). For a long time, in vitro culture methods were considered as the way of generating plants that are identical to the donor plants (Metakovsky et al. 1987). They were also used to obtain genetically uniform materials, e.g., for breeding purposes (Weyen 2009). However, even earlier studies (Heinz 1973; Larkin and Scowcroft 1981) demonstrated that in vitro tissue cultures are prone to mutations (Kaeppler et al. 1998) and many phenotypic changes were described (Zhang et al. 2014). With the development of modern techniques, it became evident that PTC are also affected by epigenetic changes exhibited at, e.g. histone methylation/demethylation (Grafi et al. 2007), DNA methylation levels (Han et al. 2018), changes in gene expression (Kabita et al. 2019) and involve a wide range of small RNAs (Li et al. 2012). Numerous such examples were published in the literature (Jiang et al. 2011; Miyao et al. 2011; Neelakandan and Wang 2012; Sabot et al. 2011). However, the mechanisms explaining the somaclonal variation phenomenon are still to be assessed. Nevertheless, some steps seem to be foreseen. Firstly, stressful environment (tissue cultures itself) is the inductor that affects the cell membrane and wall; then some signals are transmitted to organelles resulting in reactive oxygen species (ROS) (Wachsman 1997) possibly via changed balance in biochemical pathways (Kumaravel et al. 2017). The change is transmitted to the nucleus via signaling (retrograde) pathway (Apel and Hirt 2004; Chi et al. 2015) inducing (epi)genetic reaction that leads towards cell dedifferentiation and differentiation. The later processes involve histone modification (Grafi 2004), DNA methylation changes (Ikeuchi et al. 2015; Lee and Seo 2018), and alterations in gene expression (Wibowo et al. 2018). As soon as the new balance is established, the signal is transmitted back to the chloroplasts and mitochondria (anterograde). In the given review, the state of knowledge concerning the induction of tissue culture induced variation will be discussed.
Tissue cultures as a stressful environment
Stressful environments (Benderradji et al. 2012; Grafi and Barak 2015; Leljak-Levanić et al. 2004) are known to play a pivotal role in plant regeneration via tissue cultures (Fortes and Gallusci 2017; Hirsch et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2015). Cold and osmotic stresses applied in darkness are the most common once used to regenerate plants (Sood and Dwivedi 2015). Such conditions induce oxidative stress that leads towards the production of pro-oxidants or ROS (Wachsman 1997).
Firstly, stress is sensed by the plasma membrane and cell wall (Das and Roychoudhury 2014). In the membrane, the NADPH-dependent-oxidases are the enzymes that respond to stress (Apel and Hirt 2004; Kwak et al. 2003) producing O ·−2 , which may spontaneously convert to H2O2. The cell wall, generates OH·, O ·−2 , H2O2, and 1O2 with the help of diamine oxidases that utilize diamines or polyamines.
Stresses accompanying tissue culture plant regeneration (Nivas and de Souza 2014), affect the proper functioning of the chloroplast, mitochondria, peroxisomes, and apoplasts (Roychoudhury et al. 2008); however, endoplasmic reticulum, cell membrane, cell wall, and the apoplasts functions are also disturbed (Das and Roychoudhury 2014) resulting in ROS. Under normal conditions, ROS are removed via antioxidants (Foyer and Noctor 2005), but under stresses, their production and elimination are not in balance (Karuppanapandian et al. 2011; Krishna et al. 2016; Wachsman 1997). Free radicals like O ·−2 , OH· and non-radicals like H2O2 and 1O2 are the leading players controlling growth, development in plants, and response to environmental stimuli. Under stress like cold, heavy metals, used in tissue cultures cellular homeostasis is not preserved, and the excess of ROS may manifest in the degradation of pigments, proteins, lipids and DNA affecting cellular functioning (Das and Roychoudhury 2014) than inducing tissue culture variation.
Chloroplasts and peroxisomes are the primary sources of ROS under light conditions, while in the dark the mitochondria is the source of ROS (Choudhury et al. 2013). In chloroplasts the photosystems, PSI and PSII are the key sources of ROS production. Abiotic conditions (e.g., water stress and limited CO2 concentration), in the excess of light induces the formation of O ·−2 at the PSII (the Mehler reaction). The PSI converts O ·−2 into H2O2 ending with OH· radicals (Miller et al. 2010). PSII is also involved in the production of 1O2. This element can initiate growth inhibition in plants (EXECUTOR1 and EXECUTOR2 programs) (Lee et al. 2007).
The peroxisomes are also the source of H2O2 due to their integral oxidative metabolism (Palma et al. 2009). They also produce O ·−2 , during the various metabolic processes.
Mitochondria also generate H2O2 and O ·−2 (Navrot et al. 2007), though on a smaller scale. Plant mitochondria produce O2 and carbohydrate-rich environment (Rhoads et al. 2006) and are involved in photorespiration. The mitochondrial electron transfer chain (mtETC) encompassing Complex I and III (Møller et al. 2007; Noctor et al. 2002) reduces O2 to form the ROS. The NADH Dehydrogenase or Complex I reduces O2 to O ·−2 in its flavoprotein region. The reverse electron flow from Complex III to I is enhanced due to lack of NAD+-linked substrates favoring leakage of electrons to O2 generating O ·−2 (Murphy Michael 2009). The O ·−2 is converted to H2O2 (Sharma et al. 2012). Mitochondria produces ROS during normal conditions, but is boosted at abiotic stress conditions (Pastore et al. 2007) affecting the tight coupling of ETC and ATP synthesis, resulting in over reduction of electron carriers pool, generating ROS (Blokhina and Fagerstedt 2010; Rhoads et al. 2006) regulated by antioxidant machinery (Das and Roychoudhury 2014).
ROS can affect the exchange of signals between chloroplasts or mitochondria with the nucleus, namely retrograde or anterograde signaling (Suzuki et al. 2012). As the result of retro- and anterograde chromosome number changes (from polyploidy to aneuploidy), chromosome strand breakage, rearrangements, and DNA base deletions and substitutions (Czene and Harms-Ringdahl 1995) may appear. The changes are ruled by epigenetic mechanisms affecting the whole (epi)genetic network influencing the in vitro tissue culture induced variation (Kaeppler et al. 2000). Growing number of studies make a shift from genetic towards epigenetic mechanisms influencing tissue culture induced or somaclonal variation (Rodriguez-Enriquez et al. 2011).
Epigenetic aspects of plant regeneration via in vitro tissue cultures
It is well recognized that differentiated plant cells do not lose their developmental potentialities but retain plasticity to dedifferentiate and acquire new fates. To switch from differentiated to toti- or pluripotentiality, plant cells need to undergo reprogramming (Cao and Jacobsen 2002b; Neelakandan and Wang 2012) the process that assumes the conversion of a differentiated somatic cell to the dedifferentiated without passing through the cell cycle (Hirochika et al. 1996b) followed by redifferentiation (Grafi 2004). Thus, the dedifferentiation means the withdrawal from a given differentiated state into a state where cell’s developmental potency increases (Fehér 2019) and may loss of epigenetic markers-specify (Tanurdzic et al. 2008). Epigenetic variation has been reported during and after being exposed to in vitro culture conditions (De-la-Peña et al. 2012) during cell differentiation and dedifferentiation in plant regeneration systems (Yang et al. 2013).
A change in chromatin organization accompanies the dedifferentiation stage. The portion of heterochromatin in somatic cells becomes euchromatin, and a new balance between the two is established altering gene expression. The process is conveyed by the reduction and/or lack of coordination of DNA methyltransferases and 5-methylcytosine glycosylases expression. Under downregulation of the genes usually, genome-wide (epi)genetic instability was observed. However, when the genes are upregulated genetic stability is maintained (Zhang et al. 2009). Moreover, expression of genes for histones and histone variants, as well as genes involved in post-translational modifications and chromatin regulation (histone methyltransferases and histone deacetylases), increases in suspension cells (Chiu et al. 2010). These changes were linked to the expression patterns of genes for non-coding RNA epigenetic systems (heterochromatic RNA silencing and RNA-dependent DNA methylation). Additionally, the decrease in the RNA endonuclease DCL1 (processor of microRNA precursors), ARGONAUTE family (e.g. AGO1 catalyzing microRNA target transcript cleavage and transcriptional repression) and AGO2 (binds to 21-nt small RNAs), is post-transcriptionally regulated by miR403 (Mallory and Vaucheret 2010) that suppresses its level if AGO1 is present (Harvey et al. 2011).
Firstly, it was thought that miRNAs contributed to cleavage of the homologous transcript (via ARGONAUTE 1 activity). However, miRNAs also act as transcriptional repressors (mediated via AGO1 and AGO10) (Brodersen et al. 2008) and guide DNA methylation in plants (Chellappan et al. 2010). It is evident that trans-acting siRNAs (tasiRNAs) and miRNAs are essential regulators of plant development (Poethig 2009). They participate in physiological regulation and stress tolerance (Sunkar 2010). Moreover, microRNA genes, as well as their biogenesis, are susceptible to aberrant regulation in vitro (Rodriguez-Enriquez et al. 2011). An example of such regulation was described for micropropagated strawberry, where during in vitro culture, the miR156 is upregulated whereas other miRNAs (miR164, miR172, and miR390) are down-regulated (Li et al. 2012). miR156 is one of the eminently conserved plant microRNAs (Axtell and Bowman 2008) and is involved in many fundamental biological processes that include for example plant phase changes (Massoumi et al. 2017; Wu et al. 2009), stress response (Matthews et al. 2019) or regulating somatic embryogenesis induction (Long et al. 2018; Szyrajew et al. 2017). Thus, under in vitro conditions, various miRNAs even from the same family, may differ in their expression manner. Also, the regulation of miRNAs is controlled by different factors in the culture media, such as auxins, allowing differentiated tissue to reach the growth potential (Us-Camas et al. 2014). Epigenetic regulation may contribute to the tissue culture-induced variation and may lead towards fixed changes at the DNA methylation level.
DNA methylation pattern alterations
Alterations of DNA methylation and/or the DNA methylation status maintenance is the balance between DNA demethylation and de novo methylation. Different sets of enzymes direct each of the processes. It was long thought that DNA demethylation in plants was not an active process. It was assumed that disrupted maintenance of DNA methyltransferases might result in a decreased level of DNA methylation. However, there is evidence that DNA glycosylase-lyases may participate in an active mechanism (Piccolo and Fisher 2014). In plants, such enzymes were first identified in Arabidopsis and are called HhD-GPD (helix–hairpin–helix—Gly/Pro/Asp) DNA glycosylases. The enzymes are responsible for the recognition and excision of bases modified or damaged by oxidation, alkylation, and deamination (Fromme and Verdine 2004). They seem to be involved in transcriptional silencing (Choi et al. 2002; Gong et al. 2002).
In plants, there are separate sequence contexts subjected to demethylation (Gehring and Henikoff 2008) including the symmetric (CG, CHG), and asymmetric (CHH; where H is A, C, or T) ones (Gehring 2013). The demethylation controlled by the DNA glycosylase-lyases is performed via the excision of 5mC of fully or hemimethylated substrates with specificity towards CG, CHG or CHH sites. While HhH-GPD DNA glycosylases are the largest class of glycosylases among all organisms, the DME family appears to be unique to plants. However, how 5-methylcytosine DNA glycosylases recognize their substrate is not apparent. One possibility is that they recognize the ends of genes (Gehring and Henikoff 2008).
The process opposite to demethylation is called de novo methylation. It may take place after DNA replication using a maintenance class of DNA methyltransferases (DRM2, MET1, and CMT3) recognizing the methylation marks on the parental strand of DNA and transferring methylation to the daughters’ strands (Cao and Jacobsen 2002a). Alternatively, de novo methylation may involve RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) accompanied by the action of the DRM2 de novo DNA methyltransferase (Miki and Shimamoto 2008). The post-replication mechanism of DNA methylation is common for the symmetric CG, CHG sequences (by MET1, CMT3 methyltransferases, respectively (Gehring 2013), whereas the DRM2 maintains asymmetric sites that require siRNA guide and reestablishment after each cycle of DNA replication or CMT2 (Du et al. 2012; Law and Jacobsen 2010; Matzke and Mosher 2014). The CMT3 and DRM2 are capable of methylating non-CG sites. The methyltransferases (MET1, CMT3, and DRM2) maintain existing DNA methylation patterns. However, only the RdDM pathway, involving numerous RNAs (Wendte and Pikaard 2017) establishes the mark in all sequence contexts (Greenberg 2012).
At the DNA level, the DNA methylation alterations are usually common in the case of the in vitro tissue culture-induced variation (Machczyńska et al. 2015). In some species, they may reach up to several percentages of detected changes (Bednarek et al. 2007; Fiuk et al. 2010; Machczyńska et al. 2014a). The in vitro tissue culture-induced DNA methylation pattern alterations were described, for example, in maize (Brown 1989) and rice (Müller et al. 1990; Zheng et al. 1987). They were also detected in the rye (Aydin et al. 2016), triticale (Bednarek et al. 2017; Brown 1989; Machczyńska et al. 2014a, b, 2015) or barley (Bednarek et al. 2007; Orłowska et al. 2016). Depending on the species the increase (Bednarek et al. 2007; Fiuk et al. 2010) or decrease (Bednarek et al. 2017; Machczyńska et al. 2014a, b, 2015) in DNA methylation level was documented. It was also noted that, at least in garlic (Allium sativum), the genetic changes accumulated along the time of in vitro culture, whereas epigenetic (CG demethylation and methylation) once stabilized within initial 6 months of the in vitro tissue cultures (Gimenez et al. 2016).
It is being assumed that in vitro propagation passing through callus phase (e.g., somatic or androgenesis) is prone to (epi)genetic changes among the regenerants (Miguel and Marum 2011; San et al. 2018; Vining et al. 2013) possibly due to the fact that the dedifferentiation process may not be complete (Rodriguez Lopez et al. 2010). It was demonstrated that regenerants derived via somatic embryogenesis from leaves of cacao (Theobraroma cacao) retained the C-methylation pattern of the explant tissue. Thus, the DNA methylation pattern was not entirely wiped during callus phase and was partially preserved in regenerants (Kitimu et al. 2015) leading to somaclonal variants. Moreover, variation in DNA methylation between lines established from different nodes on the same parent plant was reported (Baranek et al. 2010). Furthermore, DNA methylation changes were evaluated under in vitro conditions in the early embryo stages leading to defects in gene expression and development (Deshmukh et al. 2011; Fernández-Gonzalez et al. 2007; Reis e Silva et al. 2012). Dedifferentiation of specialized mesophyll cells of Arabidopsis thaliana into protoplasts resulted in a dramatic reduction of heterochromatin decondensation of major repeats except for the 45s rDNA one (Tessadori et al. 2007). The process could be reversed upon prolonged culturing. The hypermethylation of euchromatic DNA was described in a long-term cell suspension of Arabidopsis thaliana (Tanurdzic et al. 2008). Rapid and reversible changes in DNA methylation were also shown in potato cell suspension (Law and Suttle 2005). Lowered genomic DNA methylation of regenerants derived from shoots compared to young leaves or petals was described in case of bush lily (Clivia miniata), suggesting that the variation in methylation of regenerated plantlets was related to the nature of the explants (Wang et al. 2012).
While some (epi)mutations arise spontaneously (Rapp and Wendel 2005; Sano 2002) the others seem to be not random. The so-called hotspots of DNA methylation pattern shared among regenerants and arising during in vitro tissue culture were described (Bednarek et al. 2007; Han et al. 2018; San et al. 2018). The notion of the presence of preferred sites for epimutations is supported by Tanurdzic et al. (2008). Such sites could arise in response to environmental signaling under in vitro culture conditions at specific genic regions (Us-Camas et al. 2014). It could be speculated that such regions should not be covered with proteins, or they may reflect some genomic regions that surmount stresses. The data is consistent with the hypothesis of the presence of a particularly labile portion of the genome susceptible to the stress imposed during tissue culture (Oh et al. 2007).
Extensive and transgenerational epigenetic remodeling associated with plant tissue culture was described in the literature (Hirochika et al. 1996b; Liu et al. 2004; Stroud et al. 2013). In some cases, the DNA methylation changes were inherited by the regenerants’ progeny (Han et al. 2018; Koukalova et al. 2005; Zhang et al. 2014). Moreover, the inheritance of alterations among successive progeny depended on species. In triticale, the methylation pattern decreased during several generative cycles following its partial reestablishment (Machczyńska et al. 2014a), in barley, the level of DNA methylation remained unchanged after initial increase among regenerants compared to the explant donors. Interestingly, no morphological variants both among regenerants and the progeny were observed (Bednarek et al. 2007; Machczyńska et al. 2015; Orłowska et al. 2016). However, others showed that such variants linked to DNA methylation change could arise and were related to morphological differences between oil-palm somatic embryos (Sianipar et al. 2008), physiological change in rice (Akimoto et al. 2007) and cell wall differentiation state in sugar beet cell lines (Causevic et al. 2005).
Transposons
It is becoming evident that expression and movement of transposable elements (TEs) are under epigenetic control necessary for proper genome functioning (Le et al. 2015). Multiple epigenetic pathways silence TEs in plants (Law and Jacobsen 2010) depending on the chromosome region (coding, non-coding) they occupy. Methylated and silenced TEs originate mostly from genic regions, possibly reflecting a compromise between TE silencing and gene expression (Hollister and Gaut 2009). Active genes are mostly methylated at CG sites, whereas silenced TEs in all contexts, including non-CG methylation reflecting inactive heterochromatin (Cokus et al. 2008; Lister et al. 2008). Genes within the vicinity of silenced TEs usually have a low expression (Hollister and Gaut 2009). Still, there are considerable numbers of intragenic TEs in plants (West et al. 2014).
Furthermore, numerous factors required for transcription of genes containing heterochromatic domain have been identified in plants (Coustham et al. 2014; Lei et al. 2014). Moreover, the intragenic TEs are less methylated than intergenic TEs in CG and CHG contexts, while this difference between intronic and exonic TEs was not observed (Le et al. 2015). Also, even longer TEs than those identified within intergenic and intragenic genome regions, were less methylated, in almost all sequence contexts. Possibly though there is selection against methylated TEs in intragenic and proximal regions, due to a downregulated expression of methylated genes (Le et al. 2015), alternatively, pseudogenization may explain the lower expression level of genes with TE insertions (Yang et al. 2010). However, the hypothesis was not confirmed in the case of intronic TEs (Le et al. 2015).
Moreover, some epigenetic mechanisms may neutralize such TEs. Thus, the RdDM pathway may selectively remove TEs from genic regions. Additionally, the intronic TEs are not strongly activated in epigenetic mutants, including met1 and ddm1 (Le et al. 2015), suggesting that heterochromatic epigenetic marks carried by intronic TEs might be necessary for correct transcription of associated genes as shown in the case of transcription of exons downstream of heterochromatic domains (Lei et al. 2014). Likewise intergenic TEs, intragenic TEs are recognized by the epigenetic factors maintaining CG and non-CG methylation, even within the actively transcribed regions. Thus, both RdDM-dependent and -independent pathways may participate in DNA methylation of intragenic TEs in case of small euchromatic and long heterochromatic elements (Zemach et al. 2013).
TEs mobility is under epigenetic control of the host genome. Nevertheless, some elements may escape epigenetic silencing, if they are AT-rich and thus, target AT-rich genomic regions (Naito et al. 2009). Another option is targeting to transcriptionally silent heterochromatic regions as described for Ty3-gypsy retrotransposons (Gao et al. 2008). Remarkably, some TEs may self-regulate their activity in response to stress by gaining stress-responsive motifs recognized by host regulatory proteins. It was shown that TEs are activated due to, e.g., elevated temperatures (Cavrak et al. 2014), cold, drought, salinity, wounding, UV light, pathogen attack (Grandbastien 2015), due to interspecific hybridization and polyploidization (Vicient and Casacuberta 2017) and tissue cultures (Azman et al. 2014; Cheng et al. 2006). However, in the latter case, the contrasting data are available (Planckaert and Walbot 1989).
It has been evidenced that epigenetic changes that occur through the culture process are responsible for the activation of transposable elements (Azman et al. 2014; Grzebelus 2018; Ishizaki and Kato 2005; Miyao et al. 2011; Neelakandan and Wang 2012; Sabot et al. 2011). However, this is not always the case (Ishizaki and Kato 2005; Orłowska et al. 2016). In studies on Arabidopsis, no transposition of TEs was detected (Jiang et al. 2011). The same was also demonstrated for some TEs in barley (Orłowska et al. 2016). However, in the regenerants of rice (Miyao et al. 2011; Sabot et al. 2011), and barley (Orłowska et al. 2016), several TE families were active. In other studies, also on rice, remodeling of cytosine methylation of Tos17 (5′LTR region), possibly due to the RNA-directed DNA methylation pathway responsible for repressive control of Tos17, was detected as the result of tissue culture (Zhang et al. 2014). Moreover, tissue culture-induced TE activity has been widely reported in various plant species (Hirochika et al. 1996a), rye (Alves et al. 2005), maize (Barret et al. 2006; Geiger 2009) and rice (Huang et al. 2009; Picault et al. 2009). Conceivably, specific stresses activate some transposons (Cavrak et al. 2014), whereas others are activated in other different cases (Ikeda et al. 2001).
At least under some conditions, the host control over TEs is reduced and to some extent could be reestablished in the progeny as demonstrated for barley regenerants derived via anther cultures and their generative progeny (Orłowska et al. 2016). The burst of TEs activity is different from single nucleotide mutations as they are generated at a relatively constant rate per generation. In the case of active MITE family up to 40 new changes per plant per generation were observed (Naito et al. 2009) exceeding the rate of point mutations. Thus, although retrotransposon activity is considered to be one of the causes of variability induced in tissue cultures, it should be emphasized that they can also be responsible for pre-existing variation (Peschke et al. 1987) and with higher rearrangement and mutation rates within specific genome regions (Oh et al. 2007).
Among TEs that can be studied in tissue cultures in cereals, the group of long terminal repeats (LTR) and the non-LTR retrotransposons seems suitable (Flavell et al. 1992; Suoniemi et al. 1998). For example, BARE-1 has homologs in different species e.g., barley, oat, wheat, or rye (Gribbon et al. 1999; Pearce et al. 1997). Moreover, its activity, linked to the in vitro tissue cultures and DNA methylation (Chandler and Walbot 1986; Chomet et al. 1987) is also documented in barley (Orłowska et al. 2016). Moreover, TEs movement may be a source of mutations, duplication, and rearrangements transmitted to the progeny or their movement may influence gene expression. They may also contribute to genome instability (Walbot and Cullis 1985) observed, e.g., among triticale regenerants derived via anther tissue cultures (Oleszczuk et al. 2011).
In vitro phenomena regulated by epigenetic processes
The habituation, rejuvenation, and morphological changes (Smulders and de Klerk 2011) are the in vitro phenomena regulated by epigenetic changes in plants. Subculturing and the habituation are among the negative factors that spur epigenetic and phenotype changes, which can be heritable (Meins 1989; Peredo et al. 2006) but reversible (Meins and Foster 1985; Smulders 2005; Smulders and de Klerk 2011). Meins and Thomas (2003) demonstrated that cultured tobacco cells exhibited a constitutive cytokinin-habituated phenotype that was avoided in some regenerated plants. Thus, changes in DNA methylation during in vitro plant regeneration might be responsible for the phenomenon. The role of DNA methylation seems to be confirmed in studies on the transcriptome-based characterization of habituated and non-habituated cell culture of Arabidopsis thaliana (Pischke et al. 2006). The Authors analyzing differences in regulation of methyltransferase MET1, chromomethylases CMT1, and CMT3 suggested that there is a precise regulation in methylation patterns between habituated and non-habituated cultures.
In many cases, the method of regeneration in PTC leads to the formation of callus, a mass of proliferating cells, that may appear e.g. after injury, in de novo organogenesis and in somatic embryogenesis (Sugimoto et al. 2011). The tissue culture environment rich in various plant hormones triggers the callus cells to produce organized structures like roots or shots that end up with regenerants. The formation of callus in PTC conditions undergoes epigenetic control involved changes in chromatin structure (DNA methylation, histone modification, and deposition) (Lee and Seo 2018). Firstly during callus formation is observed the burst of hypomethylation in symmetric (CG, CHG) and asymmetric (CHH) contexts (Zakrzewski et al. 2017). Such phenomena favored the movement of mobile elements while the callus is formed (Lanciano et al. 2017) what may lead to genomic instability as in case of rice plants regenerated from tissue culture (Stroud et al. 2013). The acquisition by callus of the pluripotent properties may proceed via histone modification. In studies devoted to Arabidopsis shoot regeneration competency Authors described the mechanism how during callus formation LYSINE-SPECIFIC DEMETHYLASE 1-LIKE 3 (LDL3) specifically demethylated dimethylated lysine 4 of histone H3 (H3K4me2) (Ishihara et al. 2019). That epigenetic mechanism let callus to acquire shoot regenerative competency. Also, global changes in the deposition of histone variants (H1A, H1B, H2A.Z, H3.3) are involved in cellular reprogramming (Jullien et al. 2012). The histone variant H2A.Z, which is conserved among eukaryotes, is also involved in callus formation in rice (Zhang et al. 2017). Zhang et al. (2017) underline that the occupancy of H2A.Z is associated with H3 lysine 4 trimethylation (H3K4me3) and H3 lysine 27 trimethylation (H3K27me3) histone marks in callus and seedling tissues. Also, the deposition of H2A.Z is negatively correlated with genes participates in rice tissue development. Summing up the in vitro callogenesis is tightly associated with DNA methylation as well as with histone modification. The epigenetic marks are essential for cell fate reprograming from mature not differentiated tissue to pluripotent root stem cells that may have the ability to regeneration (Berger et al. 2018).
Genetic changes in tissue cultures
For many years, there was a belief that the genetic variation occurring in regenerants could be induced de novo as a result of tissue culture environment or its source may originate from explant as a “pre-existing” variation (Larkin and Scowcroft 1981). Studies conducted on Saintpaulia stressed that the variability observed in regenerants might both come from the explant as “pre-existing” variation as well as de novo, and moreover, it turns out that among the mentioned variation types, predominant changes occur during the tissue culture (Sato et al. 2011).
Obtaining plants through tissue cultures is burdened with the appearance of changes of various nature. One of many types of these changes is genetic variation, manifested in the increased frequency of point mutations (Jiang et al. 2011), in chromosomal breakages (Dogramaci-Altuntepe et al. 2001), and in the activation of mobile elements (Ong-Abdullah et al. 2015). What’s more, the coexistence of genetic and epigenetic changes promoted by in vitro culture in regenerated crop plants (rye, barley, triticale, wheat, rice, corn) was documented (Baranek et al. 2016; Bednarek et al. 2007; Linacero et al. 2011; Machczyńska et al. 2015; Wang et al. 2013; Yu et al. 2011). Through the use of methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes, it was determined that genetic changes occurred in 73% (Aile’s cultivar) and 30% (Merced cultivar) of the rye plants, while epigenetic changes happened in 50 and 73% of the Aile’s and Merced cultivars, respectively (Linacero et al. 2011). It was also found that the genetic variation was related to the presence of the CCGG targets, suggesting that there is a common mechanism connecting genetic and epigenetic phenomena. Some authors postulate that discrimination between genetic and epigenetic changes that appeared in tissue cultures is tricky (Smulders and de Klerk 2011; Vázquez 2001). The example of such tangled mechanisms is the activation of mobile elements. DNA methylation is the most important epigenetic mark that preserves the genome against TE disruption (Zakrzewski et al. 2017).
Among genetic changes affecting the regenerants, the DNA sequence changes, as well as gene amplification, transposition, and chromosomal alterations, are the most common. Chromosomal changes include several different phenomena such as disturbed ploidy and chromosome number as well as changes in chromosome architecture (duplications, translocation, deletion and inversions of chromosome segments). Moreover, Kaeppler and Phillips (1993) underlined that changes in chromosome architecture are more common than in chromosome number in plants derived via tissue culture. In studies devoted to potatoes (Solanum tuberosum) regenerated from either protoplasts or stem explants, all regenerants revealed aneuploidy or structural chromosomal changes. Between structural changes, there were segmental deletions and duplications (Fossi et al. 2019). In the case of potato, the tissue culture environment caused genomic instability that may end up with altered plant phenotype.
The genetic variation related to DNA sequence changes is frequent in plants obtained via tissue culture although it does not have to manifest in phenotypic level (Machczyńska et al. 2014b; Orłowska et al. 2016). Single base pair changes may appear as a result of deamination of methylated cytosine to thiamine that leads to transition (Brettell et al. 1986). DNA point mutations may have many sources, among them, are polymerase errors during DNA replication, incorrect mismatch repair mechanism, DNA damage made by ROS, light, UV or deamination of methylated cytosine (Maki 2002). Comparison of frequency between genetic changes and alteration at the chromosomal level showed that the first one is more ubiquitous in regenerants (Kaeppler et al. 1998). In many cases, the precise nature of the DNA point mutation is unidentified as such kind of changes are frequently detected indirectly via PCR and electrophoresis mode (Jin et al. 2008).
Moreover, the frequency of tissue culture-induced base substitution is much higher than the expected spontaneous mutation rate (Rodríguez López et al. 2010). Otherwise, some bases are more mutable than others, and transitions are more frequent than transversions (Wang et al. 1998). Moreover, point mutations in plant tissue cultures are generally of the same kind as those occurring in vivo (Rodríguez López et al. 2010).
Conclusions
In the given review, we have focused on some aspects of cell functioning under stress conditions that may participate in the induction of the so-called TCIV or SV. We have tried to give a comprehensive overlook of how the stressing factors may influence the cell wall and membrane inducing signal that is transmitted to cellular organelles and then discussed (epi)genetic mechanisms working in the nucleus. Moreover, the current state of knowledge summarizing the role of a wide range of chromosomal changes was presented.
References
Akimoto K, Katakami H, Kim H-J, Ogawa E, Sano CM, Wada Y (2007) Epigenetic inheritance in rice plants. Ann Bot-London. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm110
Alves E, Ballesteros I, Linacero R, Vázquez AM (2005) RYS1, a foldback transposon, is activated by tissue culture and shows preferential insertion points into the rye genome. Theor Appl Genet 111:431–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-005-2013-9
Apel K, Hirt H (2004) Reactive oxygen species: metabolism, oxidative stress, and signal transduction. Annu Rev 55:373–399. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141701
Axtell MJ, Bowman JL (2008) Evolution of plant microRNAs and their targets. Trends Plant Sci 13:343–349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2008.03.009
Aydin M, Arslan E, Taspinar MS, Karadayi G, Agar G (2016) Analyses of somaclonal variation in endosperm-supported mature embryo culture of rye (Secale cereale L.). Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 30:1082–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2016.1224980
Azman AS, Mhiri C, Grandbastien MA, Tam SM (2014) Transposable elements and the detection of somaclonal variation in plant tissue culture: a review. Malays Appl Biol 43:1–12
Baranek M, Krizan B, Ondrusikova E, Pidra M (2010) DNA-methylation changes in grapevine somaclones following in vitro culture and thermotherapy. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 101:11–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-009-9656-1
Baranek M et al (2016) Use of combined MSAP and NGS techniques to identify differentially methylated regions in somaclones: a case study of two stable somatic wheat mutants. PLoS ONE 11:e0165749. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165749
Barret P, Brinkman M, Beckert M (2006) A sequence related to rice Pong transposable element displays transcriptional activation by in vitro culture and reveals somaclonal variations in maize. Genome 49:1399–1407. https://doi.org/10.1139/g06-109
Bednarek PT, Orłowska R, Koebner RMD, Zimny J (2007) Quantification of the tissue-culture induced variation in barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). BMC Plant Biol 7:10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-7-10
Bednarek PT, Orlowska R, Niedziela A (2017) A relative quantitative methylation-sensitive amplified polymorphism (MSAP) method for the analysis of abiotic stress. BMC Plant Biol 17:79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-017-1028-0
Benderradji L, Brini F, Kellou K, Ykhlef N, Djekoun A, Masmoudi K, Bouzerzour H (2012) Callus induction, proliferation, and plantlets regeneration of two bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes under saline and heat stress conditions. ISRN Agron 2012:8. https://doi.org/10.5402/2012/367851
Berger MMJ, Gallusci P, Teyssier E (2018) Roles of epigenetic mechanisms in grafting and possible applications, vol 88. Academic Press Inc., London. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.abr.2018.10.003
Blokhina O, Fagerstedt KV (2010) Reactive oxygen species and nitric oxide in plant mitochondria: origin and redundant regulatory systems. Physiol Plant 138:447–462. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2009.01340.x
Brettell RIS, Dennis BE, Scowcroft WR, Peacok WJ (1986) Molecular analysis of somaclonal mutant of maize alcohol dehydrogenase. Mol Gen Genet 202:235–239
Brodersen P, Sakvarelidze-Achard L, Bruun-Rasmussen M, Dunoyer P, Yamamoto YY, Sieburth L, Voinnet O (2008) Widespread translational inhibition by plant miRNAs and siRNAs. Science 320:1185–1190. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1159151
Brown PTH (1989) DNA methylation in plants and its role in tissue culture. Genome 31:717–729
Cao X, Jacobsen SE (2002a) Locus-specific control of asymmetric and CpNpG methylation by the DRM and CMT3 methyltransferase genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 99(Suppl 4):16491–16498. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.162371599
Cao X, Jacobsen SE (2002b) Role of the Arabidopsis DRM methyltransferases in de novo DNA methylation and gene silencing. Curr Biol 12:1138–1144. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(02)00925-9
Causevic A et al (2005) DNA methylating and demethylating treatments modify phenotype and cell wall differentiation state in sugarbeet cell lines. Plant Physiol Biochem 43:681–691. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2005.05.011
Cavrak VV, Lettner N, Jamge S, Kosarewicz A, Bayer LM, Scheid OM (2014) How a retrotransposon exploits the plant’s heat stress response forits activation. PLoS Genet 10:e1004115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004115
Chandler VL, Walbot V (1986) DNA modification of a maize transposable element correlates with loss of activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci 83:1767–1771. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.83.6.1767
Chellappan P et al (2010) siRNAs from miRNA sites mediate DNA methylation of target genes. Nucleic Acids Res 38:6883–6894. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkq590
Cheng C, Daigen M, Hirochika H (2006) Epigenetic regulation of the rice retrotransposon Tos17. Mol Genet Genom 276:378–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00438-006-0141-9
Chi W, Feng P, Ma J, Zhang L (2015) Metabolites and chloroplast retrograde signaling. Curr Opin Plant Biol 25:32–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2015.04.006
Chiu L-W, Zhou X, Burke S, Wu X, Prior RL, Li L (2010) The purple cauliflower arises from activation of a MYB transcription factor. Plant Physiol 154:1470–1480. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.164160
Choi Y et al (2002) DEMETER, a DNA glycosylase domain protein, is required for endosperm gene imprinting and seed viability in Arabidopsis. Cell 110:33–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(02)00807-3
Chomet PS, Wessler S, Dellaporta SL (1987) Inactivation of the maize transposable element Activator (Ac) is associated with its DNA modification. EMBO J 6:295–302
Choudhury S, Panda P, Sahoo L, Panda SK (2013) Reactive oxygen species signaling in plants under abiotic stress. Plant Signal Behav 8:e23681
Cokus SJ et al (2008) Shotgun bisulphite sequencing of the Arabidopsis genome reveals DNA methylation patterning. Nature 452:215–219. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature06745
Coustham V et al (2014) SHOOT GROWTH1 maintains Arabidopsis epigenomes by regulating IBM1. PLoS ONE 9:e84687. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084687
Czene S, Harms-Ringdahl M (1995) Detection of single-strand breaks and formamidopyrimidine-DNA glycosylase-sensitive sites in DNA of cultured human fibroblasts. Mutat Res/DNA Repair 336:235–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/0921-8777(94)00058-E
Das K, Roychoudhury A (2014) Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and response of antioxidants as ROS-scavengers during environmental stress in plants. Front Environ Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2014.00053
De-la-Peña C, Nic-Can G, Ojeda G, Herrera-Herrera JL, López-Torres A, Wrobel K, Robert-Díaz ML (2012) KNOX1 is expressed and epigenetically regulated during in vitro conditions in Agave spp. BMC Plant Biol 12:203. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-12-203
Deng Y, Johnson DR, Guan X, Ang CY, Ai J, Perkins EJ (2010) In vitro gene regulatory networks predict in vivo function of liver. BMC Syst Biol 4:153. https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-0509-4-153
Deshmukh RS et al (2011) DNA methylation in porcine preimplantation embryos developed in vivo and produced by in vitro fertilization, parthenogenetic activation and somatic cell nuclear transfer. Epigenetics 6:177–187
Dogramaci-Altuntepe M, Peterson TS, Jauhar PP (2001) Anther culture-derived regenerants of durum wheat and their cytological characterization. Am Genet Assoc 92:56–64
Du J et al (2012) Dual binding of chromomethylase domains to H3K9me2-containing nucleosomes directs DNA methylation in plants. Cell 151:167–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2012.07.034
Fehér A (2019) Callus, dedifferentiation, totipotency, somatic embryogenesis: what these terms mean in the era of molecular plant biology? Front Plant Sci 10:536. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.00536
Fernández-Gonzalez R, Ramirez MA, Bilbao A, De Fonseca FR, Gutiérrez-Adán A (2007) Suboptimal in vitro culture conditions: an epigenetic origin of long-term health effects. Mol Reprod Dev 74:1149–1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/mrd.20746
Firn RD, Sharma N, Digby J (1994) Physiology, growth and development of plants and cells in culture—the way ahead. In: Lumsden PJ, Nicholas JR, Davies WJ (eds) Physiology, growth and development of plants in culture. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0790-7_46
Fiuk A, Bednarek PT, Rybczyński JJ (2010) Flow cytometry, HPLC-RP, and metAFLP analyses to assess genetic variability in somatic embryo-derived plantlets of Gentiana pannonica Scop. Plant Mol Biol Report 28:413–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-009-0167-3
Flavell AJ, Dunbar E, Anderson R, Pearce SR, Hartley R, Kumar A (1992) Ty1–copia group retrotransposons are ubiquitous and heterogeneous in higher plants. Nucleic Acids Res 20:3639–3644. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/20.14.3639
Fortes A, Gallusci P (2017) Plant stress responses and phenotypic plasticity in the Epigenomics era: perspectives on the grapevine scenario, a model for perennial crop plants. Front Plant Sci. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00082
Fossi M, Amundson K, Kuppu S, Britt A, Comai L (2019) Regeneration of Solanum tuberosum plants from protoplasts induces widespread genome instability. Plant Physiol 180:78–86. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.18.00906
Foyer CH, Noctor G (2005) Redox homeostasis and antioxidant signaling: a metabolic interface between stress perception and physiological responses. Plant Cell 17:1866–1875. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.105.033589
Fromme JC, Verdine GL (2004) Base excision repair. Advances in protein chemistry, vol 69. Academic Press, London, pp 1–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-3233(04)69001-2
Gao X, Hou Y, Ebina H, Levin HL, Voytas DF (2008) Chromodomains direct integration of retrotransposons to heterochromatin. Genome Res 18:359–369. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.7146408
Gehring M (2013) Genomic imprinting: insights from plants. Annu Rev Genet 47:187–208. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-110711-155527
Gehring M, Henikoff S (2008) DNA methylation and demethylation in Arabidopsis. Arabidopsis Book 6:e0102–e0102. https://doi.org/10.1199/tab.0102
Geiger HHGGA (2009) Doubled haploids in hybrid maize breeding. Maydica 54:485–499
Gimenez MD, Yañez-Santos AM, Paz RC, Quiroga MP, Marfil CF, Conci VC, García-Lampasona SC (2016) Assessment of genetic and epigenetic changes in virus-free garlic (Allium sativum L.) plants obtained by meristem culture followed by in vitro propagation. Plant Cell Rep 35:129–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-015-1874-x
Gong Z, Morales-Ruiz T, Ariza RR, Roldán-Arjona T, David L, Zhu J-K (2002) ROS1, a repressor of transcriptional gene silencing in Arabidopsis, encodes a DNA glycosylase/lyase. Cell 111:803–814. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-8674(02)01133-9
Grafi G (2004) How cells dedifferentiate: a lesson from plants. Dev Biol 268:1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2003.12.027
Grafi G, Barak S (2015) Stress induces cell dedifferentiation in plants. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA)—Gene Regul Mech 1849:378–384. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.07.015
Grafi G, Ben-Meir H, Avivi Y, Moshe M, Dahan Y, Zemach A (2007) Histone methylation controls telomerase-independent telomere lengthening in cells undergoing dedifferentiation. Dev Biol 306:838–846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2007.03.023
Grandbastien MA (2015) LTR retrotransposons, handy hitchhikers of plant regulation and stress response. Biochim Biophys Acta 1849:403–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.07.017
Greenberg MV (2012) The genetics of de novo methylation in Arabidopsis thaliana UCLA. ProQuest ID: Greenberg_ucla_0031D_10138. Merritt ID: ark:/13030/m5nk3ftd
Gribbon BM et al (1999) Phylogeny and transpositional activity of Ty1-copia group retrotransposons in cereal genomes. Mol Gen Genet MGG 261:883–891. https://doi.org/10.1007/pl00008635
Grzebelus D (2018) The functional impact of transposable elements on the diversity of plant genomes. Diversity 10:18
Han Z, Crisp PA, Stelpflug S, Kaeppler SM, Li Q, Springer NM (2018) Heritable epigenomic changes to the maize methylome resulting from tissue culture. Genetics 209:983–995. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.118.300987
Harvey JJW, Lewsey MG, Patel K, Westwood J, Heimstädt S, Carr JP, Baulcombe DC (2011) An antiviral defense role of AGO2 in plants. PLoS ONE 6:e14639. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0014639
Heinz DJ (1973) Sugar-cane improvement through induced mutations using vegetative propagules and cell culture techniques. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Vienna
Hirochika H, Otsuki H, Yoshikawa M, Otsuki Y, Sugimoto K, Takeda S (1996a) Autonomous transposotion of the tobacco retrotransposon. Plant Cell 8:725–734
Hirochika H, Sugimoto K, Otsuki Y, Tsugawa H, Kanda M (1996b) Retrotransposons of rice involved in mutations induced by tissue culture. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:7783–7788. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.15.7783
Hirsch S, Baumberger R, Grossniklaus U (2012) Epigenetic variation, inheritance, and selection in plant populations. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 77:97–104. https://doi.org/10.1101/sqb.2013.77.014605
Hollister JD, Gaut BS (2009) Epigenetic silencing of transposable elements: a trade-off between reduced transposition and deleterious effects on neighboring gene expression. Genome Res 19:1419–1428. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.091678.109
Huang J, Zhang K, Shen Y, Huang Z, Li M, Tang D (2009) Identification of a high frequency transposon induced by tissue culture, nDaiZ, a member of the hAT family in rice. Genomics. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygeno.2008.11.007
Ikeda K, Nakayashiki H, Takagi M, Tosa Y, Mayama S (2001) Heat shock, copper sulfate and oxidative stress activate the retrotransposon MAGGY resident in the plant pathogenic fungus Magnaporthe grisea. Mol Genet Genom 266:318–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s004380100560
Ikeuchi M, Iwase A, Sugimoto K (2015) Control of plant cell differentiation by histone modification and DNA methylation. Curr Opin Plant Biol 28:60–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2015.09.004
Ishihara H et al (2019) Primed histone demethylation regulates shoot regenerative competency. Nat Commun. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-09386-5
Ishizaki T, Kato A (2005) Introduction of the tobacco retrotransposon Tto1 into diploid potato. Plant Cell Rep 24:52–58. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-005-0919-y
Jiang C et al (2011) Regenerant Arabidopsis lineages display a distinct genome-wide spectrum of mutations conferring variant phenotypes. Curr Biol 21:1385–1390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.07.002
Jin N et al (2008) VAC14 nucleates a protein complex essential forthe acute interconversion of PI3P and PI(3,5)P2 in yeast and mouse. EMBO J 27:3221–3234. https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2008.248
Jullien J, Astrand C, Szenker E, Garrett N, Almouzni G, Gurdon JB (2012) HIRA dependent H3.3 deposition is required for transcriptional reprogramming following nuclear transfer to Xenopus oocytes. Epigenet Chromatin 5:17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-8935-5-17
Kabita KC, Sharma SK, Sanatombi K (2019) Analysis of capsaicinoid biosynthesis pathway genes expression in callus cultures of Capsicum chinense Jacq. cv. ‘Umorok’. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult (PCTOC). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-019-01591-w
Kaeppler SM, Phillips RL (1993) DNA methylation and tissue culture-induced variation in plants. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 29:125–130
Kaeppler SM, Phillips RL, Olhoft P (1998) Molecular basis of heritable tissue culture—induced variation in plants. In: Jain SM, Brar DS, Ahloowalia BS (eds) Somaclonal variation and induced mutation in crop improvement. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, pp 465–484
Kaeppler SM, Kaeppler HF, Rhee Y (2000) Epigenetic aspects of somaclonal variation in plants. Plant Mol Biol 43:179–188. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1006423110134
Karuppanapandian T, Moon J-C, Kim C, Manoharan K, Kim W (2011) Reactive oxygen species in plants: their generation, signal transduction, and scavenging mechanisms. Aust J Plant Sci 5:709–725
Kitimu SR, Taylor J, March TJ, Tairo F, Wilkinson MJ, Rodríguez López CM (2015) Meristem micropropagation of cassava (Manihot esculenta) evokes genome-wide changes in DNA methylation. Front Plant Sci 6:590. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00590
Koukalova B, Fojtova M, Lim KY, Fulnecek J, Leitch AR, Kovarik A (2005) Dedifferentiation of tobacco cells is associated with ribosomal RNA gene hypomethylation, increased transcription, and chromatin alterations. Plant Physiol 139:275–286. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.105.061788
Krishna H, Alizadeh M, Singh D, Singh U, Chauhan N, Eftekhari M, Sadh RK (2016) Somaclonal variations and their applications in horticultural crops improvement. 3 Biotech 6:54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13205-016-0389-7
Kumar N, Redd MP (2011) In vitro plant propagation: a review. J For Sci 27:61–72
Kumaravel M, Uma S, Backiyarani S, Saraswathi MS, Vaganan MM, Muthusamy M, Sajith KP (2017) Differential proteome analysis during early somatic embryogenesis in Musa spp. AAA cv Grand Naine. Plant Cell Rep 36:163–178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-016-2067-y
Kwak JM et al (2003) NADPH oxidase AtrbohD and AtrbohF genes function in ROS-dependent ABA signaling in Arabidopsis. EMBO J 22:2623–2633. https://doi.org/10.1093/emboj/cdg277
Lanciano S et al (2017) Sequencing the extrachromosomal circular mobilome reveals retrotransposon activity in plants. PLoS Genet 13:e1006630. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006630
Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation—a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvment. Theor Appl Genet 60:197–214
Law JA, Jacobsen SE (2010) Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals. Nat Rev Genet 11:204. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg2719
Law RD, Suttle JC (2005) Chromatin remodeling in plant cell culture: patterns of DNA methylation and histone H3 and H4 acetylation vary during growth of asynchronous potato cell suspensions. Plant Physiol Biochem 43:527–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2005.03.014
Le TN, Miyazaki Y, Takuno S, Saze H (2015) Epigenetic regulation of intragenic transposable elements impacts gene transcription in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nucleic Acids Res 43:3911–3921. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkv258
Lee K, Seo PJ (2018) Dynamic epigenetic changes during plant regeneration. Trends Plant Sci 23:235–247. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2017.11.009
Lee KP, Kim C, Landgraf F, Apel K (2007) EXECUTER1- and EXECUTER2-dependent transfer of stress-related signals from the plastid to the nucleus of Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104:10270–10275. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0702061104
Lei M et al (2014) Arabidopsis EDM2 promotes IBM1 distal polyadenylation and regulates genome DNA methylation patterns. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111:527–532. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320106110
Leljak-Levanić D, Bauer N, Mihaljević S, Jelaska S (2004) Changes in DNA methylation during somatic embryogenesis in Cucurbita pepo L. Plant Cell Rep. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-004-0819-6
Li H, Zhang Z, Huang F, Chang L, Ma Y (2009) MicroRNA expression profiles in conventional and micropropagated strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) plants. Plant Cell Rep 28:891–902. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-009-0693-3
Li H, Zhao X, Dai H, Wu W, Mao W, Zhang Z (2012) Tissue culture responsive microRNAs in strawberry. Plant Mol Biol Report 30:1047–1054. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-011-0406-2
Linacero R, Rueda J, Esquivel E, Bellido A, Domingo A, Vázquez AM (2011) Genetic and epigenetic relationship in rye, Secale cereale L., somaclonal variation within somatic embryo-derived plants. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 47:618–628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11627-011-9407-y
Lister R, O’Malley RC, Tonti-Filippini J, Gregory BD, Berry CC, Millar AH, Ecker JR (2008) Highly integrated single-base resolution maps of the epigenome in Arabidopsis. Cell 133:523–536. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.03.029
Liu ZL et al (2004) Activation of a rice endogenous retrotransposon Tos17 in tissue culture is accompanied by cytosine demethylation and causes heritable alteration in methylation pattern of flanking genomic regions. Theor Appl Genet 109:200–209. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1618-8
Liu R et al (2015) A DEMETER-like DNA demethylase governs tomato fruit ripening. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:10804–10809. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1503362112
Long J-M, Liu C-Y, Feng M-Q, Liu Y, Wu X-M, Guo W-W (2018) miR156-SPL modules regulate induction of somatic embryogenesis in citrus callus. J Exp Bot 69:2979–2993. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ery132
Loyola-Vargas VM, Ochoa-Alejo N (2018) An introduction to plant tissue culture: advances and perspectives. In: Loyola-Vargas VM, Ochoa-Alejo N (eds) Plant cell culture protocols. Springer, New York, NY, pp 3–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8594-4_1
Machczyńska J, Orłowska R, Mańkowski DR, Zimny J, Bednarek PT (2014a) DNA methylation changes in triticale due to in vitro culture plant regeneration and consecutive reproduction. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 119:289–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-014-0533-1
Machczyńska J, Orłowska R, Zimny J, Bednarek PT (2014b) Extended metAFLP approach in studies of the tissue culture induced variation (TCIV) in case of triticale. Mol Breed 34:845–854. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-014-0079-2
Machczyńska J, Zimny J, Bednarek P (2015) Tissue culture-induced genetic and epigenetic variation in triticale (× Triticosecale spp. Wittmack ex A. Camus 1927) regenerants. Plant Mol Biol 89:279–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-015-0368-0
Maki H (2002) Origins of spontaneous mutations: specificity and directionality of base-substitution, frameshift, and sequence-substitution mutageneses. Annu Rev Genet 36:279–303. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.genet.36.042602.094806
Mallory A, Vaucheret H (2010) Form, function, and regulation of ARGONAUTE proteins. Plant Cell 22:3879–3889. https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.110.080671
Massoumi M, Krens FA, Visser RGF, De Klerk G-JM (2017) Azacytidine and miR156 promote rooting in adult but not in juvenile Arabidopsis tissues. J Plant Physiol 208:52–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2016.10.010
Matthews C, Arshad M, Hannoufa A (2019) Alfalfa response to heat stress is modulated by microRNA156. Physiol Plant 165:830–842. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12787
Matzke MA, Mosher RA (2014) RNA-directed DNA methylation: an epigenetic pathway of increasing complexity. Nat Rev Genet 15:394. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3683
Meins F Jr (1989) Habituation: heritable variation in the requirement of cultured plant cells for hormones. Annu Rev Genet 23:395–408
Meins F Jr, Foster R (1985) Reversible, cell-heritable changes duringthe development of tobacco pith tissues. Dev Biol 108:1–5
Meins F Jr, Thomas M (2003) Meiotic transmission of epigenetic changes in the cell-division factor requirement of plant cells. Development 130:6201–6208
Metakovsky EV, Novoselskaya AY, Sozinov AA (1987) Problems of interpreting results obtained in studies of somaclonal variation in gliadin proteins in wheat. Theor Appl Genet 73:764–766. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00260788
Miguel C, Marum L (2011) An epigenetic view of plant cells cultured in vitro: somaclonal variation and beyond. J Exp Bot 62:3713–3725. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/err155
Miki D, Shimamoto K (2008) De novo DNA methylation induced by siRNA targeted to endogenous transcribed sequences is gene-specific and OsMet1-independent in rice. Plant J 56:539–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03624.x
Miller GAD, Suzuki N, Ciftci-Yilmaz S, Mittler RON (2010) Reactive oxygen species homeostasis and signalling during drought and salinity stresses. Plant Cell Environ 33:453–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02041.x
Miyao A et al (2011) Molecular spectrum of somaclonal variation in regenerated rice revealed by whole-genome sequencing. Plant Cell Physiol 53:256–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcr172
Møller IM, Jensen PE, Hansson A (2007) Oxidative modifications to cellular components in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 58:459–481. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.58.032806.103946
Müller E, Brown PTH, Hartke S, Lörz H (1990) DNA variation in tissue-culture-derived rice plants. Theor Appl Genet 80:673–679
Murphy Michael P (2009) How mitochondria produce reactive oxygen species. Biochem J 417:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj20081386
Naito K et al (2009) Unexpected consequences of a sudden and massive transposon amplification on rice gene expression. Nature 461:1130. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08479
Navrot N, Rouhier N, Gelhaye E, Jacquot J-P (2007) Reactive oxygen species generation and antioxidant systems in plant mitochondria. Physiol Plant 129:185–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2006.00777.x
Neelakandan AK, Wang K (2012) Recent progress in the understanding of tissue culture-induced genome level changes in plants and potential applications. Plant Cell Rep 31:597–620. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-011-1202-z
Nivas SK, de Souza LGM (2014) Genetic fidelity in micropropagated plantlets of Anacardium occidentale L. (Cashew) an important fruit tree. Int J Sci Res (IJSR) 3:2142–2146
Noctor G, Veljovic-Jovanovic S, Driscoll S, Novitskaya L, Foyer CH (2002) Drought and oxidative load in the leaves of C3 plants: a predominant role for photorespiration? Ann Bot 89:841–850. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcf096
Oh TJ, Cullis MA, Kunert K, Engelborghs I, Swennen R, Cullis CA (2007) Genomic changes associated with somaclonal variation in banana (Musa spp.). Physiol Plant 129:766–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2007.00858.x
Oleszczuk S, Rabiza-Swider J, Zimny J, Lukaszewski AJ (2011) Aneuploidy among androgenic progeny of hexaploid triticale (XTriticosecale Wittmack). Plant Cell Rep 30:575–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-010-0971-0
Ong-Abdullah M et al (2015) Loss of Karma transposon methylation underlies the mantled somaclonal variant of oil palm. Nature 525:533. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature15365
Orłowska R, Machczyńska J, Oleszczuk S, Zimny J, Bednarek PT (2016) DNA methylation changes and TE activity induced in tissue cultures of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). J Biol Res (Thessalonike, Greece) 23:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40709-016-0056-5
Palma JM, Corpas FJ, del Río LA (2009) Proteome of plant peroxisomes: new perspectives on the role of these organelles in cell biology. Proteomics 9:2301–2312. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.200700732
Pastore D, Trono D, Laus MN, Di Fonzo N, Flagella Z (2007) Possible plant mitochondria involvement in cell adaptation to drought stress: a case study: durum wheat mitochondria. J Exp Bot 58:195–210. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl273
Pearce SR, Harrison G, Heslop-Harrison JS, Flavell AJ, Kumar A (1997) Characterization and genomic organization of Ty1-copia group retrotransposons in rye (Secale cereale). Genome 40:1–9
Peredo EL, Revilla MA, Arroyo-Garcia R (2006) Assessment of genetic and epigenetic variation in hop plants regenerated from sequential subcultures of organogenic calli. J Plant Physiol 163:1071–1079
Perotto MC, Cafrune EE, Conc VC (2009) The effect of additional viral infections on garlic plants initially infected with Allexiviruses European. J Plant Pathol 126:489–495
Peschke VM, Phillips RL, Genggenbach BG (1987) Discovery of transposable element activity among progeny of tissue-culture derived plants. Science 238:804–807
Picault N et al (2009) Identification of an active LTR retrotransposon in rice. Plant J 58:754–765. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03813.x
Piccolo FM, Fisher AG (2014) Getting rid of DNA methylation. Trends Cell Biol 24:136–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2013.09.001
Pischke MS, Huttlin EL, Hegeman AD, Sussman MR (2006) A transcriptome-based characterization of habituation in plant tissue culture. Plant Physiol 140:1255–1278. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.105.076059
Planckaert F, Walbot V (1989) Molecular and genetic characterizatioonf Mu transposable elements in Zea mays: behavior in callus culture and regenerated plants. Genetics 123:567–578
Poethig RS (2009) Small RNAs and developmental timing in plants. Curr Opin Genet Dev 19:374–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gde.2009.06.001
Rajasekharan PE, Sahijram L (2015) Plant biology and biotechnology. In: Bahadur B, Venkat Rajam M, Sahijram L, Krishnamurthy KV (eds) Plant biology and biotechnology, vol II. Plant genomics and biotechnology. Springer, New Delhi, pp 417–443. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2283-5_30
Rapp RA, Wendel JF (2005) Epigenetics and plant evolution. New Phytol 168:81–91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01491.x
Reis e Silva AR et al (2012) Alteration of DNA demethylation dynamics by in vitro culture conditions in rabbit pre-implantation embryos. Epigenetics 7:440–446. https://doi.org/10.4161/epi.19563
Rhoads DM, Umbach AL, Subbaiah CC, Siedow JN (2006) Mitochondrial reactive oxygen species. Contribution to oxidative stress and interorganellar signaling. Plant Physiol 141:357–366. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.106.079129
Rodriguez Lopez CM, Wetten AC, Wilkinson MJ (2010) Progressive erosion of genetic and epigenetic variation in callus-derived cocoa (Theobroma cacao) plants. New Phytol 186:856–868. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03242.x
Rodríguez López CM, Bravo HS, Wetten AC, Wilkinson MJ (2010) Detection of somaclonal variation during cocoa somatic embryogenesis characterised using cleaved amplified polymorphic sequence and the new freeware Artbio. Mol Breed 25:501–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-009-9348-x
Rodriguez-Enriquez J, Dickinson HG, Grant-Downton RT (2011) MicroRNA misregulation: an overlooked factor generating somaclonal variation? Trends Plant Sci 16:242–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2011.03.002
Roychoudhury A, Basu S, Sarkar SN, Sengupta DN (2008) Comparative physiological and molecular responses of a common aromatic indica rice cultivar to high salinity with non-aromatic indica rice cultivars. Plant Cell Rep 27:1395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-008-0556-3
Sabot F et al (2011) Transpositional landscape of the rice genome revealed by paired-end mapping of high-throughput re-sequencing data. Plant J 66:241–246. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2011.04492.x
San B et al (2018) Genetic and epigenetic regulation of zebrafish intestinal development. Epigenomes 2:19
Sano H (2002) DNA methylation and Lamarckian inheritance. Proc Japan Acad Ser B 78(10):293–298
Sarasan V, Cripps R, Ramsay MM, Atherton C, McMichen M, Prendergast G, Rowntree JK (2006) Conservation in vitro of threatened plants—progress in the past decade. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 42:206–214. https://doi.org/10.1079/ivp2006769
Sato M, Hosokawa M, Doi M (2011) Somaclonal variation is induced de novo via the tissue culture process: a study quantifying mutated cells in Saintpaulia. PLoS ONE 6:e23541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023541
Sharma P, Jha AB, Dubey RS, Pessarakli M (2012) Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, and antioxidative defense mechanism in plants under stressful conditions. J Bot 2012:26. https://doi.org/10.1155/2012/217037
Shingote PR et al (2019) LTR retrotransposons and highly informative ISSRs in combination are potential markers for genetic fidelity testing of tissue culture-raised plants in sugarcane. Mol Breed 39:25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-019-0931-5
Sianipar NF, Wattimena GA, Thenawijaya Soehartono M, Aswidinnoor H, Toruan-Mathius N, Ginting G (2008) DNA methylation detection of oil palm (Elaeis guineensis Jacq) somatic embryo by randomly amplified DNA finger-printing with methylation–sensitive (RAF-SM) and RP-HPLC JOURNAL of BIOTECHNOLOGY RESEARCH in TROPICAL REGION 1
Smulders MJM (2005) Are there adequate methods for assessing somaclonal variation in tissue culture-propagated plants? Published in Book of abstracts, COST 843 Final Conference/COST 843 and COST 851 Joint Meeting (Libiaková G, Gajdosová A, eds), Stara Lesna, Slovakia, June 28-July 3,:201-203
Smulders MJM, de Klerk GJ (2011) Epigenetics in plant tissue culture. Plant Growth Regul 63:137–146. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10725-010-9531-4
Sood S, Dwivedi S (2015) Doubled haploid platform: an accelerated breeding approach for crop improvement. In: Bahadur B, Venkat Rajam M, Sahijram L, Krishnamurthy KV (eds) Plant biology and biotechnology, vol II. plant genomics and biotechnology. Springer, New Delhi, pp 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2283-5_5
Stroud H et al (2013) Plants regenerated from tissue culture contain stable epigenome changes in rice. Elife 2:e00354. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00354
Sugimoto K, Gordon SP, Meyerowitz EM (2011) Regeneration in plants and animals: dedifferentiation, transdifferentiation, or just differentiation? Trends Cell Biol. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcb.2010.12.004
Sunkar R (2010) MicroRNAs with macro-effects on plant stress responses. Semin Cell Dev Biol 21:805–811. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semcdb.2010.04.001
Suoniemi A, Tanskanen J, Schulman AH (1998) Gypsy-like retrotransposons are widespread in the plant kingdom. Plant J 13:699–705. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1998.00071.x
Suzuki N, Koussevitzky S, Mittler R, Miller G (2012) ROS and redox signalling in the response of plants to abiotic stress. Plant Cell Environ 35:259–270. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2011.02336.x
Szyrajew K et al (2017) MicroRNAs are intensively regulated during induction of somatic embryogenesis in Arabidopsis. Front Plant Sci 8:18. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00018
Tanurdzic M et al (2008) Epigenomic consequences of immortalized plant cell suspension culture. PLoS Biol 6:e302. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0060302
Taşkın H, Baktemur G, Kurul M, Büyükalaca S (2013) Use of tissue culture techniques for producing virus-free plant in garlic and their identification through real-time PCR. Sci World J 2013:5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/781282
Tessadori F et al (2007) Large-scale dissociation and sequential reassembly of pericentric heterochromatin in dedifferentiated Arabidopsis cells. J Cell Sci 120:1200–1208. https://doi.org/10.1242/jcs.000026
Tyrka M et al (2018) Populations of doubled haploids for genetic mapping in hexaploid winter triticale. Mol Breed 38:46. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-018-0804-3
Us-Camas R, Rivera-Solís G, Duarte-Aké F, De-la-Peña C (2014) In vitro culture: an epigenetic challenge for plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult (PCTOC) 118:187–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-014-0482-8
Vázquez AM (2001) Insight into somaclonal variation. Plant Biosyst 135:57–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263500112331350650
Vicient CM, Casacuberta JM (2017) Impact of transposable elements on polyploid plant genomes. Ann Bot 120:195–207. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcx078
Vining K, Pomraning KR, Wilhelm LJ, Ma C, Pellegrini M, Di Y (2013) Methylome reorganization during in vitro dedifferentiation and regeneration of Populus trichocarpa. BMC Plant Biol. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-13-92
Wachsman JT (1997) DNA methylation and the association between genetic and epigenetic changes: relation to carcinogenesis. Mutat Res/Fundam Mol Mech Mutagen 375:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0027-5107(97)00003-1
Walbot V, Cullis CA (1985) Rapid genomic change in higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 36:367–396. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.36.060185.002055
Wang D, Kreutzer DA, Essigmann JM (1998) Mutagenicity and repair of oxidative DNA damage: insights from studies using defined lesions. Mutat Res 400:99–115
Wang QM et al (2012) Direct and indirect organogenesis of Clivia miniata and assessment of DNA methylation changes in various regenerated plantlets. Plant Cell Rep 31:1283–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-012-1248-6
Wang X et al (2013) Tissue culture-induced genetic and epigenetic alterations in rice pure-lines, F1 hybrids and polyploids. BMC Plant Biol 13:77
Wendte JM, Pikaard CS (2017) The RNAs of RNA-directed DNA methylation. Biochim Biophys Acta (BBA) - Gene Regul Mech 1860:140–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagrm.2016.08.004
West PT et al (2014) Genomic distribution of H3K9me2 and DNA methylation in a maize genome. PLoS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105267
Weyen J (2009) Barley and wheat doubled haploids in breeding. In: Touraev A, Forster BP, Jain M (eds) Advances in haploid production in higher plants. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 179–188
Wibowo A et al (2018) Partial maintenance of organ-specific epigenetic marks during plant asexual reproduction leads to heritable phenotypic variation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 115:E9145–E9152. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805371115
Wu G, Park MY, Conway SR, Wang J-W, Weigel D, Poethig RS (2009) The sequential action of miR156 and miR172 regulates developmental timing in Arabidopsis. Cell 138:750–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2009.06.031
Yang L, Takuno S, Gaut BS, Waters ER (2010) Lowly expressed genes in Arabidopsis thaliana bear the signature of possible pseudogenization by promoter degradation. Mol Biol Evol 28:1193–1203. https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msq298
Yang X, Wang L, Yuan D, Lindsey K, Zhang X (2013) Small RNA and degradome sequencing reveal complex miRNA regulation during cotton somatic embryogenesis. J Exp Bot 64:1521–1536. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert013
Yu X et al (2011) Tissue culture-induced genomic alteration in maize (Zea mays) inbred lines and F1 hybrids. Ann Appl Biol 158:237–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2011.00458.x
Zakrzewski F, Schmidt M, Van Lijsebettens M, Schmidt T (2017) DNA methylation of retrotransposons, DNA transposons and genes in sugar beet (Beta vulgaris L.). Plant J 90:1156–1175. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.13526
Zemach A et al (2013) The Arabidopsis nucleosome remodeler DDM1 allows DNA methyltransferases to access H1-containing heterochromatin. Cell 153:193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.02.033
Zhang M, Xu C, Yan H, Zhao N, Von Wettstein D, Liu B (2009) Limited tissue culture-induced mutations and linked epigenetic modifications in F1 hybrids of sorghum pure lines are accompanied by increased transcription of DNA methyltransferases and 5-methylcytosine glycosylases. Plant J 57:666–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2008.03719.x
Zhang D et al (2014) Tissue culture-induced heritable genomic variation in rice, and their phenotypic implications. PLoS ONE 9:e96879. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0096879
Zhang K, Xu W, Wang C, Yi X, Zhang W, Su Z (2017) Differential deposition of H2A.Z in combination with histone modifications within related genes in Oryza sativa callus and seedling. Plant J 89:264–277. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.13381
Zheng KL, Castiglione S, Biasini MG, Biroli A, Morandi C, Sala F (1987) Nuclear DNA amplification in cultured cells of Oryza sativa L. Theor Appl Genet 74:65–70
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
PTB and RO compiled the literature sources and wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Communicated by M. Paula Watt.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Bednarek, P.T., Orłowska, R. Plant tissue culture environment as a switch-key of (epi)genetic changes. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 140, 245–257 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-019-01724-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-019-01724-1