You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
  • Review
  • Open Access

2 February 2020

An Overview of Orchid Protocorm-Like Bodies: Mass Propagation, Biotechnology, Molecular Aspects, and Breeding

,
and
1
Laboratory of Plant Physiology and Tissue Culture, Department of Biotechnology, Plant and Animal Production, Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, Rodovia Anhanguera, km 174, CEP 13600-970 Araras, SP, Brazil
2
Masterscience degree by Programa de Pós Graduação em Produção Vegetal e Bioprocessos Associados, Centro de Ciências Agrárias, Universidade Federal de São Carlos, CEP 13600-970 Araras, SP, Brazil
3
Department of Life Sciences, National University of Kaohsiung, Kaohsiung 811, Taiwan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Orchid Biochemistry

Abstract

The process through induction, proliferation and regeneration of protocorm-like bodies (PLBs) is one of the most advantageous methods for mass propagation of orchids which applied to the world floricultural market. In addition, this method has been used as a tool to identify genes of interest associated with the production of PLBs, and also in breeding techniques that use biotechnology to produce new cultivars, such as to obtain transgenic plants. Most of the molecular studies developed have used model plants as species of Phalaenopsis, and interestingly, despite similarities to somatic embryogenesis, some molecular differences do not yet allow to characterize that PLB induction is in fact a type of somatic embryogenesis. Despite the importance of species for conservation and collection purposes, the flower market is supported by hybrid cultivars, usually polyploid, which makes more detailed molecular evaluations difficult. Studies on the effect of plant growth regulators on induction, proliferation, and regeneration of PLBs are the most numerous. However, studies of other factors and new technologies affecting PLB production such as the use of temporary immersion bioreactors and the use of lighting-emitting diodes have emerged as new tools for advancing the technique with increasing PLB production efficiency. In addition, recent studies on Phalaenopsis equestris genome sequencing have enabled more detailed molecular studies and the molecular characterization of plantlets obtained from this technique currently allow the technique to be evaluated in a more comprehensive way regarding its real applications and main limitations aiming at mass propagation, such as somaclonal variation.

1. Introduction

Orchids (Family Orchidaceae) represent one of the two largest plant families, including from 736 [1] to 899 genera and 27,800 accepted species names [2] and over 100,000 hybrids produced by artificial pollination [3]. In addition to their unquestionable botanical and ecological importance, orchids participate in current cultivation systems using high-tech horticulture, grown in environments with good climate control, especially temperature, which allows the induction of flowering regardless of the time of year, especially aiming at the scheduled supply of potted and cut flowers in the competitive world flower market. Some species of orchids, such as the genera Dendrobium, Gastrodia, and Bletilla, have also been used for medicinal purposes, using the basis of traditional Chinese medicine [4] and some Vanilla species is also used for food purposes [5].
In this economic context, family Orchidaceae currently represents one of the most important in the world commercial floriculture, with emphasis on the genus Phalaenopsis as well as its interspecific hybrids, which is currently the main potted flower marketed in the main world flower markets. To have an idea of the importance of this genus in the expansion of world floriculture, only in the Dutch market, the largest in the world, in 2014, 121 million pots of Phalaenopsis were sold generating approximately US$ 500 million [6]. In addition to Phalaenopsis, other genera of economic importance to floriculture include the genera Cattleya, Dendrobium, and Oncidium and their hybrids [7,8,9] as well as Cymbidium and Vanda used for production of potted or even cut flowers.
Despite the individual importance of these genera, a commercial classification for orchids must be set separately from the botanical classification. This is because although genera have a greater genetic and morphological contribution to commercial plants, most commercial flower production of these genera occurs through the production of hybrids from interspecific crosses, which include the use of crosses between species of the same genus, but also species of different genera (intergeneric hybrids) [9]. An example of this case is the very frequent use of Doritis in crossings with Phalaenopsis, generating the hybrid genus known as Doritaenopsis [10,11]. Nevertheless, commercially these hybrids are all called Phalaenopsis because considering the morphological similarity and commercialization value, there is no commercial justification for separation into two classes.
Another justification for the separation of botanical and commercial classification is the recent changes of genera in many species, including those of commercial importance and resulting from the advancement of available molecular techniques that allow genetic rather than just morphological comparisons [1]. An example would be the genera Laelia and Sophronitis, commonly used in crossings with the genus Cattleya to incorporate hybrids with red, yellow and orange flowers, little present in Cattleya. Both Laelia and Sophronitis have undergone more than one change in their names in the last decade, with new changes possibly still remaining due to advances in molecular markers and phylogenetic aspects related to this complex and diverse plant family [12,13].
Thus, it is important to highlight this botanical difference from the commercial one, due to the complexity of the family and its high hybridization capacity. Thus, using as an example the commercial classification encompassing these genera includes not only the genus, but its many hybrids used for the genetic improvement and development of new cultivars for the world floriculture. When mentioning Cattleya, this includes genera such as Laelia, Sophronitis, Broughtonia, Epidendrum, Encyclia, Caularthron, among other correlates and with possible hybridization with Cattleya. The same occurs in Oncidium, in which plants of different genera such as Brassia, Ionopsis, Odontoglossum, Miltonia, among others [14] are used for breeding intergeneric hybrids and many commercial hybrids are the result of combinations of more than two genera.
In few plant families it is possible to obtain so many viable and fertile combinations of progenies from very different morphologically species and genera. This allows breeders to incorporate numerous traits of interest into a single plant, which brings the innovative aspect of flower production as well as the advance in breeding, using these same mostly fertile hybrids for the advancement of generations of crosses and obtaining new hybrids. This high hybridization capacity may be a result of the specific process of embryogenic development and later protocorm development that occur in orchids [15]. In other species, it has been reported that lack of hybridization and hybrid seed abortion is associated with disruption of proper endosperm development or mismatch between endosperm development and embryo [16]; and zygotic embryogenesis in family Orchidaceae, embryo development occurs in the absence of endosperm [15].
After obtaining the hybrid of commercial interest, propagation is the factor that defines the time for this hybrid to be available in the market for clonal propagation, which ensures the maintenance of the selected characteristics in propagated plants, quickly, on a large scale and allowing the production of plantlets throughout the year. These propagation characteristics, in addition to ensuring the quality of the plantlets produced, also aim to maintain the commercial scale necessary to meet the target market. The only viable technique that combines all these characteristics has been in vitro micropropagation of orchids [17].
Among the in vitro cultivation techniques used for the in vitro seedling or plantlets production of orchids, it can be used the in vitro asymbiotic germination and micropropagation techniques aiming at the large-scale production of clonal plantlets.
Asymbiotic germination involves the in vitro inoculation and germination of orchid seeds with the aid of a sucrose-containing culture medium [18,19], under conditions free of microorganisms; including those symbionts that assist in germination, especially under natural conditions, a technique known as symbiotic germination, which can be done in vitro [19,20], ex vitro, or in situ and which, unlike asymbiotic, considers the use of symbiotic microorganisms to assist in the germination and early development of newly germinated seedlings, and lacking nutritional reserves to support early seedling development [20,21].
Techniques involving the germination of orchid seeds under in vitro conditions are especially used in: Conservation and production of seedlings of native species; germination of seedlings from crosses aiming at genetic improvement and production of new orchid cultivars [8]; aiming at the production of protocorms in order to study somatic embryogenesis in vitro, also known as protocorm-like bodies or simply PLBs [17,22]. They can also be used for commercial propagation and seedlings production, but with high genetic variability inherent in the family Orchidaceae, including commercial groups used for flower production [8].
In vitro germination of orchids makes it possible to increase the efficiency of conservation and breeding programs, since in vitro germination rates higher than 70% are commonly reported [23], while in ex vitro conditions under natural environmental conditions, these rates hardly exceed 5% germinated seeds [24]. This is especially due to the fact that orchid seeds do not contain nutritional reserves [25], and the embryo and seedlings at early germination are highly dependent on symbiosis with microorganisms known as mycorrhizae, which nutritionally supply these plants during a long time until the complete establishment of the seedling in the natural environment [26]. In Serapias vomeracea orchid, in symbiosis with Tulasnella calospora there was observed a differential gene expression related to organic nitrogen transport and metabolism, showing the nutritionally supply of fungus to orchids in early development of protocorms [27].
A characteristic of the in vitro asymbiotic germination of orchids is the formation of the so-called protocorms, prior to budding, mainly containing the first leaves and undeveloped stem, followed by the roots [25] and later on with the development of the leaf and pseudobulb.
The term protocorm-like bodies (PLBs) is used as a reference to this type of protocorm-producing germination, characteristic of orchids. The main difference between the germination and the sexual reproduction process, which includes the fertilization process, zygotic embryogenesis, followed by the germination and formation of protocorms, is that PLBs comes from somatic tissues, therefore being considered a type of vegetative propagation.
The production of PLBs, therefore, can be compared to a specific type of somatic embryogenesis that occurs in orchids, and the anatomy, development and characteristics of cells and some cell wall markers at the beginning of PLB formation are similar to those in the development of protocorms in orchids [28]. These authors observed that in non-embryogenic callus of Phalaenopsis orchids, the inability to synthesize some cell wall components such as the JIM11 and JIM20 epitopes resulted in loss of morphogenic capacity of these calli, and the correct formation of the cell wall is directly associated with the ability of cell division and elongation in these cell types. In contrast, embryogenic calli synthesized these components, similar to what occurred in zygotic embryogenesis [28].
Despite these anatomical and cellular similarities between PLB induction and zygotic embryogenesis, molecularly, zygotic embryogenesis in Phalaenopsis aphrodite is considered different from PLB formation, and that induction of PLBs follows a different route from the embryogenic program [29]. One explanation for these differences is a consequence of the degree of speciation for the development of the embryogenic program in orchids, which follows a very specific pattern and different from the conventional embryogenic program occurring in species of other families, such as the absence of endosperm development and gene expression for establishing symbiotic relationships during seed germination process [15].
Due to these still-present doubts regarding comparisons of zygotic embryogenesis with induction of PLBs in orchids, we have adopted the term IPR–PLB (induction, proliferation, and regeneration of PLBs) as the standard to describe this technique in this paper. IPR–PLBs in orchids have different applications in the world flower industry. Undoubtedly the one with the largest commercial application is aimed at the mass propagation of clonal plants to meet the world’s demanding flower production market, in which orchids play a significant part in both the pot and cut flower market [6,30]. However, other applications such as for species conservation purposes [31] and obtaining transgenic plants [32] can be found in the literature.
Despite a significant amount of studies with IPR-PLB in different orchid species and hybrids, such as Coelogyne cristata and C. flaccida [33,34], Cyrtopodium paludicolum [35], Grammatophyllum speciosum [36] among others, this review has as its main objective to compile the recent studies and advances found in the induction, proliferation and regeneration of PLBs from the two most important genera in the world flower market, especially Phalaenopsis and Oncidium hybrid groups.

3. Oncidium Hybrids Group

According to the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families of the Kew Botanical Garden, in December 2019, there are 374 accepted names of Oncidium species with more than 90% of accepted names allocated in Southern America and the last in Northern America. In addition to the species, thousands more interspecific and intergeneric hybrids have been registered with the Royal Horticultural Society and are used in the commercial production of cut and pot flowers worldwide [9,109]. Different chemical and physical factors alter the response to PLB induction in Oncidium. Using Oncidium ’Gower Rampsey’ shoot tips, [109] observed a higher percentage of shoot tips induced to produce PLBs (96.7%) in monochromatic red-light emitting diodes (RR), compared to blue LED (83.3%) and fluorescent white light (76.7%) used as control. However, the use of RR, as well as green LEDs, increased in inhibition of differentiation of PLBs into green buds, while blue LEDs enhanced differentiation. Associated with this response, the authors also observed that in blue light, PLBs contained higher contents of carotenoids, chlorophyll, soluble proteins, lower amounts of soluble sugars and carbohydrates. The authors further argue that in red LEDs, where a higher PLB induction response was obtained, there was a greater accumulation of soluble sugars, starch and carbohydrates, while in blue light, where there was a greater differentiation of PLBs, there was a greater accumulation of proteins and pigments such as chlorophylls and carotenoids.
PGRs are one of the most tested factors in IPR–PLBs in Oncidium (Table 2). Benzyladenine (BA) at 2.0 mg L−1 + 0.2 mg L−1 Naphthaleneacetic Acid (NAA) has been shown to be the most efficient treatment for inducing PLBs in Oncidium ’Sweet Sugar’ apical and axillary buds [110] and the combination of 0.1 mg L−1 BA + 0.2 mg L−1 ANA resulted in better response for Oncidium Aloha ’Iwanaga’ [111]. In this context, BA can be used efficiently to obtain PLBs in Oncidium in 31.8% of the papers, and auxin NAA is the one most used along with BAP (Table 2).
Table 2. Compliance of studies with induction, proliferation and regeneration of PLBs (IPR-PLBs) technique used with Oncidium species and hybrids.
Interestingly, [112] reported the individual and combined effects of BA and NAA PGRs at different stages of in vitro induction, proliferation and regeneration of PLBs on Oncidium sp. These authors identified that previous callus production in culture medium containing 2,4-D at 1.0 mg L−1, prior to induction, was beneficial for the production of PLBs from in vitro shoots, and from callus it was possible to observe up to 98 PLBs/callus cluster using 0.75 mg L−1 NAA, while only 28.2 PLBs/shoot cluster were directly obtained using the combination of 0.5 + 0.5 mg L−1 NAA and BA, respectively. The use of 1.0 mg L−1 NAA alone allowed PLB proliferation (up to 79.2 PLBs/sample), while the addition of 1.0 mg L−1 BA resulted in shoot bud formation (up to 12.4 shoots/PLB). Similarly, [113] observed that the concentration of 2.0 mg L−1 BA resulted in the highest number of shoot buds obtained from PLBs (4.3/PLB) in Oncidium ‘Sweet Sugar’.
Thidiazuron (TDZ) also appears to have a pronounced effect on direct induction of PLBs in Oncidium leaf segments and were reported in 54.5% of the papers (Table 2), being higher for the percentage of explants directly forming PLBs (60–75%) and number of PLBs per explant (10.3–10.7) compared to other cytokinins such as kinetin, zeatin, 2-isopentenyladenine and BA itself [114]. Ref. [115] reported direct regeneration of PLBs from mainly the epidermis and cut regions of young leaf segments of Oncidium ‘Gower Ramsey’ using TDZ alone (0.3–3.0 mg L−1), rather than BA in the culture medium, while the combination 2,4-D and TDZ was not beneficial for induction of PLBs. The production of PLBs from tissue damaged regions of inflorescence segments (65%) of Oncidium ‘Gower Ramsey’ using 3 mg L−1 TDZ [116] has also been reported. A similar experiment using the same cultivar observed that calli from root apexes and stem segments produced PLBs in medium containing 0.3–3.0 mg L−1 TDZ, being beneficial the addition of NAA for the formation of embryos n root and leaf calli [117], being a tissue-specific response.
Other PGRs as GA3 is reported as an inhibitor of PLB induction in Oncidium, while the use of antigibberellins, as ancymidol and Paclobutrazol, increased the percentage of leaf explants with PLBs and the number of PLBs obtained [118].
The use of liquid medium, rather than semi-solidified with Agar, is also an alternative for in vitro PLB proliferation (Figure 2). Ref. [113] used 5 L balloon-type air-lift bioreactor to provide mass propagation of Oncidium ‘Sweet Sugar’, and show that this system provides 326.3 g PLBs and growth ratio of 10.2, and is more efficient than semi-solid (2.7 g PLBs and Growth ratio of 3.4) and liquid-agitated flask culture (3.5 g PLBs and growth ratio of 4.4). In bioreactor, the lag phase was observed in the first 10-d culture, accompanied by a sharp drop in pH (5.7 to 4.7) and EC (3.2 to 1.5 mS cm−1) in the first 20-d of cultivation, followed by an intense mass growth from 10 to 40 days of cultivation, when the pH increased again to 5.9. An interesting fact was the dynamics of sugars in the culture medium, and a fast and drastic reduction of sucrose in the medium was observed, from 27 (day zero) to 5.5 (day five), 1.2 (day 10) and zero (day 20), associated with a substantial increase in glucose and fructose in the first 10 days of cultivation, with the exhaustion of these sugars at 40 days of cultivation, when the PLBs entered the stationary phase, demonstrating that during a certain period the PLBs release invertases in the culture medium to reduce sugars, and these are metabolized during the exponential phase of production of PLBs [113].
Figure 2. Somaclonal variations observed in Phalaenopsis induction, proliferation and regeneration of protocorm-like Bodies in Phalaenopsis Hybrid “908”. Normal vegetative developed plant (A) and somaclonal variation observed in vegetative development with “creased leaves” (red arrow) (B); (C,D), Normal vegetative developed plants with somaclonal variations in flower development, with first and last flower without of labellum (red arrow, wl) in the same inflorescence with normal flowers (nf). All figures are unpublished photos from J.C.C.
Another study conducted in a gelled medium by [124] observed that the use of 2% fructose resulted in 95% explants containing PLBs in Oncidium Gower Ramsey or 2% glucose resulted in 85% explants containing PLBs in Oncidium Sweet Sugar [124]. However, for the number of PLBs per explant, the best results were obtained with 2–3% sucrose (31.1–33.7 PLBs/explants), demonstrating that sucrose is the most suitable sugar for IPR–PLB. The use of other types of sugars, cellobiose, maltose and trehalose do not result in benefits for number of PLBs from callus in Oncidium Gower Ramsey [122] or for direct production of PLBs from young leaves [124].
There are no doubt about the application of PLBs in mass clonal production of Oncidium [132], but recent studies also showed and confirmed the presence of somaclonal variation in Oncidium obtained from IPR–PLBs [133], similar to observed with Phalaenopsis genus.

4. Some News with Cymbidium, Dendrobium, and Others

The most of results obtained with Phalaenopsis and Oncidium were similar to reported with other species of orchids of importance in floriculture, as Cymbidium and Dendrobium genera, such as the main PGRs used for IPR–PLBs. As example, the combination of cytokinin BA (5.0 mg L−1) and auxin NAA (2.5 mg L−1) were used to induce PLBs (20.55 PLB per primary protocorm) in Cymbidium mastersii protocorms [134]. Thin cell layers (TCL) from different types of tissues was a technique used to improve the production of PLBs in Cymbidium [135], Dendrobium [136,137], Oncidium [129], and Phalaenopsis [93].
In Dendrobium, a wide and complete study about molecular research was exhaustively carried out by [138], and considered especially the identification, classification and breeding of Dendrobium. Similarly, other study with micropropagation of Dendrobium was realized by [17] and concluded that PLBs were used as explants in 21.8% of studies, and together with nodal or nodal segments explants is one of the major method used for Dendrobium micropropagation.
Thidiazuron was also an important PGR for induction of PLBs in Dendrobium orchids, but the response to different cytokinins depends on genotype. In Dendrobium aqueum, only the cytokinin 2iP [N-6-(2-isopentyl) adenine] at 1.5 mg L−1 proved it efficiency in production of PLBs (42.7 PLBs per explants) from callus, compared to other cytokinins BA, Kin and Zea, and cytokinin-like compound TDZ. These authors also observed that arginine at 25 mg L−1 increased direct somatic embryogenesis, instead of callus derived PLBs [137]. Meta-Topolins, a natural aromatic type of cytokinin, were also reported used in induction and regeneration of PLBs in D. nobile, which combined with 0.5 mg L−1 NAA resulted in best PLBs formation (92%) and shoots/explants (9.2) [139]. These same authors observed that addition of polyamines, such as spermidine and putrescine increased regeneration of shoots from PLBs and secondary PLB formation.
In our laboratory, PLBs of Dendrobium Hybrid ‘H3’, could be induced and proliferated in one-step, and obtained from in vitro shoots, using liquid MS½ medium with 1.0 mg L−1 BA, and under agitation of 80 rpm (Figure 1D).

5. Applications of IPR–PLB Technique on Orchid Propagation and Breeding and Main Limitations of the Technique

Induction, proliferation, and regeneration of PLBs in orchids have many advantages to conventional micropropagation by shoot proliferation or use of shoots from inflorescence stalk segments as in Phalaenopsis [140], as increased rate of proliferation/multiplication [141] and single-cell derived PLBs [123], which could be used for propagation, but also for breeding purposes and to obtain disease free plantlets.
In breeding programs using in vitro techniques, PLBs could be used to obtain autotetraploid plants with use of anti-mytotic agents as oryzalin [142] and colchicine [143], and to obtain mutants by the use of chemical mutagens as sodium azide [144] or physical mutagens as gamma-irradiation [145].
PLBs can be also used for transformation protocols and successful protocols were developed and obtained stable transgenics with target characteristics for floriculture [146,147]. In genetic transformation of orchids, the use of PLBs derived directly from individual epidermal cells resulted in solid transgenic plants with clonal identity of Oncidium Sharry Baby ‘OM8’ [32], an exceptional advantage over PLBs from callus and with multicellular origin [126], which may result in the emergence of somaclonal variants [42] and chimeric tissues when used for genetic transformation, which are difficult to characterize and separate [32]. Using this technique, these authors reported 33–43% PLBs expressing the β-glucuronidase gene (GUS) and obtained six lineages that amplified the transgenes pepper ferredoxin-like protein (pflp) and hygromycin phosphotransferase (hpt) using the particle bombardment technique. Agrobacterium tumefasciens-mediated transformation has also been successfully used in the production of transgenic plants of Oncidium ‘Sharry Baby OM8’ and Oncidium Gower Ramsey using the induction of secondary PLBs from in vitro-maintained PLBs [148,149].
From a phytosanitary point of view, it is known that the use of seeds for in vitro asymbiotic sowing of orchids is a real way to obtain virus-free seedlings in orchids from contaminated mother plants, as observed for Cymbidium species [150,151]. Ref. [152] confirmed on a large scale (1000 plants) that in vitro plants from seeds are free of Cymbidium Mosaic Virus (CyMV) and Ondontoglossum Ringspot Virus (ORSV).
The technique of culturing apical meristems may also be effective in eliminating viral diseases in orchids, but it requires great manual skill for excision of tiny meristems leading to contamination-free tissue [153]. These requirements and the individual characteristics of viral diseases may lead to breakthroughs in the technique, which may result in in vitro plantlets containing viral diseases, as reported in Brassolaeliocattleya, Cattleya, Dendrobium, Epicattleya, Oncidium, and Mokara grown in vitro, for which CyMV virus was reported to be present in 27.6% of 880 plantlets evaluated, while ORSV was not detected in these samples [152].
Furthermore, in genera such as Phalaenopsis, the most commercially important in the world, only stem apex culture may not be effective in completely eliminating important viral diseases in the crop [140], and may still result in the need to kill the mother plant to obtain the apical meristem, since these plants are monopodial and have poorly developed stem [150]. In this sense, in vitro IPR–PLBs is an alternative to the production of virus-free clonal plants in orchids. In Phalaenopsis hybrid ‘V3’, Ref. [140] obtained PLBs from stem apexes of donor plants contaminated with Ondontoglossum ringspot virus and Cymbidium mosaic virus, and observed that the first PLBs produced directly from the stem apex had 31.25% PLBs with viruses, identified by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and RT-PCR and were only eliminated in the process after some subcultures. The PLBs identified as virus-free were subcultured in PLB proliferation medium, and in the second subculture 18.18% positive PLBs were identified for both viruses. Only in the third subculture of PLB proliferation, it was possible to obtain 100% virus-free PLBs, which remained until the end of the experiment.
PLBs can also be used for orchid propagation using the synthetic seed technique and for cryopreservation. In Dendrobium ‘Sonia’, the use of PLBs stored at 4 °C for 15 days in the pro-meristematic and leaf primordium stages and encapsulated with 3–4% sodium alginate + 75–100 mM CaCl2*2H2O resulted in 100% germinated PLBs, with the appearance of the first leaf at 22–27 days and the first root at 30–35.8 days, and the technique can be replicated with similar results for Oncidium ‘Gower Ramsay’ and Cattleya leopoldii [154].
In Dendrobium candidum and Dendrobium nobile, PLBs have also been used to increase the production of bioactive compounds. In D. nobile, an increase was observed in the production of secondary metabolites such as phenols, flavonoids and alkaloids extracted from PLB-micropropagated plants, when compared to the mother plant [139]. In D. candidum, the increase in methyl-jasmonate elicitor concentrations, although resulting in a proportional reduction in PLBs mass gain, increased the concentrations of alkaloids, polysaccharides, phenols and flavonoids when used between 75 and 100 µM [155].
Although the IPR–PLB technique is widely used for large scale plantlet production, breeding and conservation, some difficulties still limit the wider use of the technique on a commercial scale. Among the main limitations are the high genotype-dependence of PLB induction and proliferation responses in vitro, and the occurrence of undesirable somaclonal variations, which greatly hinder the proliferation of clonal propagation of PLBs for a wide range of commercial cultivars available and required by the market.
Ref. [30] used NDM culture medium plus TDZ (0.25 mg L−1) and NAA (1.0 mg L−1) and observed distinct responses between ’908’ genotype (45% explants with PLBs and up to 25 PLBs/leaf segment) and ’RP3’ genotype (10% explants with PLBs and only 2 PLBs/leaf segment), the latter being highly recalcitrant to the induction and proliferation of PLBs from leaf segments of plants grown in vitro. A study by [59] also noted important differences between the PLBs induction responses between P. amabilis (up to 50% explants with PLBs and 15.6 PLBs/explant) and the commercial cultivar P. nebula (80% explants with PLBs and up to 5.3 PLBs/explant). The same occurred in another study with the same cultivars, in which the cytokinin types and concentrations that resulted in the highest percentage of explants with PLBs were 13.32 µM BAP in P. amabilis (80%) and 13.62 µM TDZ in P. nebula (65%). The largest number of PLBs per explant was obtained with 13.62 µM TDZ in P. amabilis (7.8 PLBs/explant) and 4.65 µM Kin in P. nebula (16 PLBs/explant) [77].
Ref. [156] point out that one of the biggest difficulties in Phalaenopsis micropropagation by PLBs is that not all genotypes respond to a single protocol and the same cultivation conditions, and often result in plants with undesirable characteristics. Ref. [41] compared eight cultivars of Phalaenopsis and Doritaenopsis to obtain PLBs from shoot tips of inflorescence stalk buds with best percentage of PLB formation in four genotypes using 1.0 mg L−1 BAP (26.9–71.4% depending on genotype), while two respond better with 2.0 mg L−1 (60–75% explants with PLBs) and one produced 50% PLBs independently of the concentration of BAP (1, 2, or 5.0 mg L−1). Testing other four genotypes authors reported ranges from 7.1% to 40% of PLBs formation only in NDM culture medium, while in ½MS only two cultivars produced PLBs [41].
Ref. [156] have been associated undesirable characteristics observed in some plantlets with the identification of somaclonal variants from PLBs, which can be morphologically identified even at the shoot bud regeneration and in vitro plantlet production stage. According to [157], the occurrence of SV in the IPR–PLBs technique is higher than that observed from adventitious bud propagation, and that most commercial laboratories use a maximum of three generations of PLBs subcultures to avoid high frequencies of somaclonal variations in this type of propagation.
In our laboratory conditions, using leaf segments from in vitro plantlets to obtain PLBs (Figure 1A,B) somaclonal variations are observed in rooting phase of PLB-derived plantlets of Phalaenopsis ‘Ph908’, while were not observed in plantlets derived from shoot-proliferation using inflorescence stem nodal segments (Figure 2A). The main symptoms were the limited development of plantlets that remains in acclimatized plantlets, with morphological abnormalities in leaves (Figure 2B), also observed and called as ‘creased leaves’ by [66] and flowers deformities as absence of lip in some flowers of the inflorescence (Figure 2C,D) possibly associated with mutations rather than epigenetic variations.
Ref. [139] used induction of PLBs from pseudostems from in vitro germinated Dendrobium nobile plants in MS + 1.5 mg L−1 TDZ and 0.25% activated charcoal medium and verified 94% explants producing PLBs and up to 11.6 PLBs/explant. These authors observed a somaclonal variation rate close to 6% in the obtained plants, being the main cause of the somaclonal variations detected by molecular markers Random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD) and Start codon targeted (SCoT), attributed by the authors to the use and exposure time to TDZ.
Although the cytokinin-like compound TDZ is appointed as one of the major causes of SV in orchid PLB induction, there were some contradictory reports.
As example, the cytokinin Kinetin at 1.5 mg L−1 resulted in increases of somaclonal variations frequency of PLBs in Dendrobium Sabin Blue, detected by ISSR and DAMD molecular markers, when compared with use of TDZ at 4.0 mg L−1 added activated charcoal [158].
In addition, [159] observed somaclonal variants in Phalaenopsis True Lady ‘B79-19’, obtained from the induction of PLBs and from young leaves obtained from in vitro plants in VW culture medium containing only BA and NAA as phytoregulators, i.e., without using TDZ. These authors also reported that variant plants were discarded during in vitro subcultures (not quantified), and out of the plants obtained and without morphological variations in the leaves, only 20 out of a total of 1360 obtained (1.5%) were somaclonal variants, indicated by the different flowers of the original clone.
Also the use of topolins meta-Topolins (mT) and meta-Topolins Riboside (mTR), a natural aromatic cytokinin reported as reducing phytotoxic effects in micropropagation, it use not solved the problem of somaclonal variation obtained in vitro [160] and, although was reported increasing efficiency of PLB induction it use not resulted in absence of somaclonal variation in orchids [139].
These observations with other cytokinins PGRs diminish the importance of TDZ as the unique or main factor for VS inducing in orchid IPR–PLBs, and include other causes, such as the differential susceptibility of genotype and the number of subcultures under proliferation stage of PLB production.
Genotype susceptibility is appointed one of the main factors lead to VS in Phalaenopsis and Doritaenopsis orchids micropropagation, ranging from zero to 100% SV depending on genotype and is not exclusive of the PLB technique [72,161]. Similarly, [70] also observed that some genotypes of Phalaenopsis not presented any variants, while others showed until 47.9% of variants. Among them, most of SV in this genus were reported in flowering stage [161], by modification of inflorescence and flower characteristics, such as the perloric and semi-perloric mutants observed in Phalaenopsis Zuma Pixie ‘#1’, P. Little Mary and Doritaenopsis Minho Diamond ‘F607’ [162]. Lose of part of flowers were also reported, such as pollinia [162] and absence of labellum (Figure 2C,D).
Ref. [161] evaluated until the flowering stage (1.0–1.5 years after acclimatization) plants of 10 genotypes of Phalaenopsis and Doritaenopsis hybrids micropropagated by the PLB technique, and subcultured in vitro for 5 to 10x and identified the presence of seven types of VS, possible to be identified only at the flowering stage. The plants had deficiencies or divergences in the petals and sepals or in the development of the inflorescence, but with similar vegetative development in relation to the mother plant. These authors observed that the produced VS were not polyploid mutants, maintaining the same amount of genetic material as the mother plants.
Although most of SV was reported in flowering stage, transcript analysis by Real-Time PCR demonstrated that mutants has also many other alterations in factors of transcription and transcripts were detailed reported in Phalaenopsis and Doritaenopsis by [162]. In Oncidium ‘Milliongolds’ were also observed chlorophyll SV (whole yellow or with streaked leaves) in vegetative development of in vitro plantlets [133].
Another factor related to the origin of VS in PLBs in orchids is the phase in which VS occurs. It has been reported that in the proliferation phase, undesirable VS induction from PLBs occurs at a higher intensity and frequency, and it is necessary to establish a number of subcultures to keep the VS frequencies low in clonal propagation. Ref. [92] reported increases in SV after the third subcultures of PLBs in proliferation medium (NDM + 0.1 mg L−1 TDZ and 10 mg L−1 chitosan) with same ISSR profile until third subculture, 95% at fourth and 80% at fifth subculture of PLBs.
The use of RAPD molecular markers (total of 1116 bands) did not allow the identification of these somaclonal variants in these plants, but isozyme pattern analysis demonstrates the difficulty of observing mutations in materials obtained from PLBs using RAPD molecular markers and the occurrence of conclusion errors or even underestimated data of somaclonal variants in the confirmation of clonal origin in other studies conducted with these markers [159].
Ref. [82] also used RAPD markers to analyze the clonal origin of PLBs and induced seedlings in in vitro leaf segments of Phalaenopsis bellina in ½MS medium with 3.0 mg L−1 TDZ. They observed that most somaclonal variants are obtained at the proliferation/multiplication phase, with no VS observed in the origin phase of the PLBs of the mother plant.
Analyses of SCoT and Target Region Amplification Polymorphism (TRAP) markers also showed the presence of somaclonal variants in Dendrobium Bobby Messina PLBs cryopreserved or not [163].
These differences in the frequencies of VS observed in different orchid species and genotypes are probably associated with higher sensitivity of different genotypes to the occurrence of mutations. Ref. [164] observed that the frequency of VS at the vegetative and reproductive stages in Phalaenopsis PLBs was dependent on the genotype used. These authors observed that there was a reduction in DNA methyltransferase (Dnmt)-related gene expression in Phalaenopsis ‘Little Mary’ VS.
Current advances in molecular marker techniques allow increasing the number of tools and the accuracy of these analyses and the greater possibility of identifying possible VS. There is little information about wide molecular genome characterization in Oncidium, and [133] used specific-locus amplified fragment sequencing (SLAF-seq) to analyze possible variations in single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in Oncidium ‘Milliongolds’ obtained by PLBs grown for 10 years and observed high rates of variation and that adjacent SNPs adenine and thymine were more frequent than those related to guanine and cytosine, with prominence of mononucleotideInDels.
Ref. [157] isolated two most expressed transposable elements and identified a new Instability Factor (PIF)-like, one of which, called PePIF1 was identified by similarity to the Phalaenopsis equestris genome sequence, and which was transposed in the somaclonal variants of cultivars of Phalaenopsis from micropropagation, which resulted in the insertion of new genes identified and sequenced by the authors.

6. Conclusions

Induction, proliferation, and regeneration of PLBs (IPR–PLBs) in orchids is one of the most promising techniques to replace current conventional micropropagation techniques, in particular because it has wide application in clonal conservation, propagation, breeding, and phytossanitary-cleaning of elite plants used in the flower market. Although many authors used somatic embryogenesis to describe IPR–PLBs technique or their origin, recent molecular studies about the origin route of PLBs, at least in Phalaenopsis orchids, showed that IPR–PLBs routes are not the same of somatic embryonic origin. Some limitations of IPR–PLBs in orchids such as low repeatability of responses due to high genotype dependence and the presence of somaclonal variations (SV) still limit their large-scale use in the production of clone plantlets. Although the main causes of SV described in papers were the genotype-sensibility, the use of cytokinin thidiazuron and subsequent PLBs proliferation, only genotype sensibility looks conclusive, because SV was also observed in protocols using other cytokinins, such as BA and Kin. Nevertheless, the new findings associated with the identified instability factors, associated with the recent sequencing of the Phalaenopsis equestris genome, and the use of new molecular tools that increase the accuracy of quantitative identification analyses and the causes of somaclonal variation, are in agreement with the evolution of this technique, which represents the tool of greatest potential today to replace other less efficient micropropagation techniques in the production of plantlets in orchids.

Author Contributions

J.C.C. and C.A.Z. designed and wrote the manuscript. J.C.C. and J.-T.C. comprehensively revised and improved the quality of manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This study was financed in part (English editing service and scholarship to C.A.Z.) by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brasil (CAPES) Finance Code 001.

Acknowledgments

J.C.C. thanks to São Paulo Research Foundation for the project number 2018/20673-3 and to Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico for the project number 311083/2018-8.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest, either financially or otherwise.

References

  1. Chase, M.W.; Cameron, K.M.; Freudestein, J.V.; Pridgeon, A.M.; Salazar, G.; Van den Berg, C.; Schuiteman, A. An update classification of Orchidaceae. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2015, 177, 151–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. The Plant List. 2019. Orchidaceae Family. Available online: http://www.theplantlist.org/1.1/browse/A/Orchidaceae/#statistics (accessed on 31 December 2019).
  3. RHS 2019. The International Orchid Register. Available online: https://apps.rhs.org.uk/horticulturaldatabase/orchidregister/orchidregister.asp (accessed on 31 December 2019).
  4. Bulpitt, C.J.; Li, Y.; Bulpitt, P.F.; Wang, J. The use of orchids in Chinese medicine. J. R. Soc. Med. 2007, 100, 558–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Zuraida, A.R.; Izzati, K.H.F.L.; Nazreena, O.A.; Zaliha, W.S.W.; Radziah, C.M.Z.C.; Zamri, Z.; Sreeramanan, S. A simple and efficient protocol for the mass propagation of Vanilla planifolia. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 1685–1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Chen, C. The Fundamental Issue in the Phalaenopsis Industry. 2018. Available online: http://amebse.nchu.edu.tw/orchids_cultivation21.htm (accessed on 30 December 2019).
  7. Cardoso, J.C. Dendrobium ‘Brazilian Fire 101’-New option of color of flowers for the orchid market. Hortic. Bras. 2012, 30, 561–564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Cardoso, J.C.; Martinelli, A.P.; Teixeira da Silva, J.A. A novel approach for the selection of Cattleya hybrids for precocious and season-independent flowering. Euphytica 2016, 210, 143–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cardoso, J.C. Ionocidium ‘Cerrado101’: Intergeneric orchid hybrid with high quality of blooming. Ornam. Hortic. 2017, 23, 351–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  10. Ho, T.-T.; Kwon, A.-R.; Yoon, Y.-J.; Paek, K.-Y.; Park, S.-Y. Endoreduplication level affects flower size and development by increasing cell size in Phalaenopsis and Doritaenopsis. Acta Physiol. Plant 2016, 38, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Lakshman, C.; Pathak, P.; Rao, A.N.; Rajeevan, P.K. Commercial Orchids; De Gruyter Open: Beijing, China, 2014; p. 322. [Google Scholar]
  12. Van den Berg, C. Reaching a compromise between conflicting nuclear and plastid phylogenetic trees: A new classification for the genus Cattleya (Epidendreae; Epidendroideae; Orchidaceae). Phytotaxa 2014, 186, 75–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Peraza-Flores, L.N.; Carnevali, G.; Van den Berg, C. A molecular phylogeny of the Laelia Alliance (Orchidaceae) and reassessment of Laelia and Schomburgkia. Taxon 2017, 65, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dalström, S.; Higgins, W.E. New combinations and transfers to Odontoglossum Oncidiinae (Orchidaceae): Avoid creating new names. Harv. Pap. Bot. 2016, 21, 97–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yeung, E.C. A perspective on orchid seed and protocorm development. Bot. Stud. 2017, 58, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Oneal, E.; Willis, J.H.; Franks, R. Disruption of endosperm development is a major cause of hybrid seed inviability between Mimulus guttatus and M. nudatus. New Phytol. 2010, 210, 029223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Cardoso, J.C.; Dobránszki, J.; Zeng, S. Dendrobium micropropagation: A review. Plant Cell Rep. 2015, 34, 671–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Tsavkelova, E.A.; Ng, T.B.; Parthibhan, S.; Dobránszki, J.; Cardoso, J.C.; Rao, M.V.; Zeng, S. Asymbiotic in vitro seed propagation of Dendrobium. Plant Cell Rep. 2015, 34, 1685–1706. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Li, Y.-Y.; Chen, X.-M.; Zhang, Y.; Cho, Y.-H.; Wang, A.-R.; Yeung, E.C.; Zeng, X.; Guo, S.-X.; Lee, Y.-I. Immunolocalization and changes of hydroxyproline-rich glycoproteins during symbiotic germination of Dendrobium officinale. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Mala, B.; Kuegkong, K.; Sa-ngiaemsri, N.; Nontachaiyapoom, S. Effect of germination media on in vitro symbiotic seed germination of three Dendrobium orchids. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2017, 112, 521–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Arditti, J. Factors affecting the germination of orchid seeds. Bot. Rev. 1967, 33, 1–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Santos, S.A.; Smidt, E.C.; Padial, A.A.; Ribas, L.L.F. Asymbiotic seed germination and in vitro propagation of Brasiliorchis picta. Afr. J. Biotech. 2016, 15, 134–144. [Google Scholar]
  23. Kunakhonnuruk, B.; Inthima, P.; Kongbangkerd, A. In vitro propagation of Epipactis flava Seidenf, an endangered rheophytic orchid: A first study on factors affecting asymbiotic seed germination, seedling development and greenhouse acclimatization. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2018, 135, 419–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Rao, A.N. Tissue culture in orchid industry. In Applied and Fundamental Aspects of Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture; Reinert, J., Bajaj, Y.P.S., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1977; pp. 44–49. [Google Scholar]
  25. Parmar, G.; Pant, B. In vitro seed germination and seedling development of the orchid Coelogyne stricta (D. Don) Schltr. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2016, 15, 105–109. [Google Scholar]
  26. Huang, H.; Zi, X.-M.; Lin, H.; Gao, J.-Y. Host-specificity of symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi for enhancing seed germination, protocorm formation and seedling development of over-collected medicinal orchid, Dendrobium devonianum. J. Microb. 2018, 56, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Fochi, V.; Chitarra, W.; Kohler, A.; Voyron, S.; Singan, V.R.; Lindquist, E.A.; Barry, K.W.; Girlanda, M.; Grigoriev, I.V.; Martin, F.; et al. Fungal and plant gene expression in the Tulasnella calospora-Serapias vomeracea symbiosis provides clues about nitrogen pathways in orchid mycorrizas. New Phytol. 2016, 213, 10–12. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee, Y.; Hsu, S.; Yeung, E.C. Orchid protocorm-like bodies are somatic embryos. Am. J. Bot. 2013, 100, 2121–2131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Fang, S.; Chen, J.C.; WEI, M.J. Protocorms and protocorm-like bodies are molecularly distinct from zygotic embryonic tissues. Plant Physiol. 2016, 171, 2682–2700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zanello, C.A.; Cardoso, J.C. PLBs induction and clonal plantlet regeneration from leaf segment of commercial hybrids of Phalaenopsis. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotech. 2019, 94, 627–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chookoh, N.; Chiu, Y.; Chang, C.; Hu, W.; Dai, T. Micropropagation of Tolumnia orchids through induction of protocorm-like bodies from leaf segments. Hortscience 2019, 54, 1230–1236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Li, S.H.; Kuoh, C.S.; Chen, Y.H.; Chen, H.H.; Chen, W.H. Osmotic sucrose enhancement of single-cell embryogenesis and transformation efficiency in Oncidium. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2005, 81, 183–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Naing, A.H.; Chung, J.D.; Park, I.S.; Lim, K.B. Efficient plant regeneration of the endangered medicinal orchid, Coelogyne cristata using protocorm-like bodies. Acta Physiol. Plant 2011, 33, 659–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kalyan, K.; Sil, S. Protocorm-like bodies and plant regeneration from foliar explants of Coelogyne flaccida, a horticulturally and medicinally important endangered orchid of eastern himalaya. Lanke 2015, 15, 151–158. [Google Scholar]
  35. Picolotto, D.R.N.; Paiva Neto, V.B.; Barros, F.; Padilha, D.R.C.; Cruz, A.C.F.; Otoni, W.C. Micropropagation of Cyrtopodium paludicolum (Orchidaceae) from root tip explants. Crop Breed. App. Biotech. 2017, 17, 191–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  36. Samala, S.; Te-chato, S.; Yenchon, S.; Thammasiri, K. Protocorm-like body of Grammatophyllum speciosum through asymbiotic seed germination. ScienceAsia 2014, 40, 379–383. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  37. Chen, C. Cost analysis of plant micropropagation of Phalaenopsis. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2016, 126, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Tanaka, M.; Sakanishi, Y. Clonal propagation of Phalaenopsis by leaf culture. Am. Orc. Soc. Bull. 1977, 46, 733–737. [Google Scholar]
  39. Tanaka, M.; Sakanishi, Y. Clonal propagation of Phalaenopsis through tissue culture. In Proc. 9th World Orchid Conference; Kashemsanta, M.R.S., Ed.; Amarin Press: Bangkok, Thailand, 1980; pp. 215–221. [Google Scholar]
  40. Tanaka, M.; Sakanishi, Y. Regenerative capacity of in vitro cultured leaf segments excised from mature Phalaenopsis plants. Bull. Univ. Osaka Ser. B 1985, 37, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  41. Tokuhara, K.; Mii, M. Micropropagation of Phalaenopsis and Doritaenopsis by culturing shoot tips of flower stalk buds. Plant Cell Rep. 1993, 13, 7–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ishii, Y.; Takamura, T.; Goi, M.; Tanaka, M. Callus induction and somatic embryogenesis of Phalaenopsis. Plant Cell Rep. 1998, 17, 446–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Vacin, E.F.; Went, F.W. Some pH in nutrient solutions. Bot. Gaz. 1949, 110, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Huan, L.V.T.; Takamura, T.; Tanaka, M. Callus formation and plant regeneration from callus through somatic embryo structures in Cymbidium orchid. Plant Sci. 2004, 166, 1443–1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ulisses, C.; Pereira, J.A.F.; Silva, S.S.; Arruda, E.; Morais, M. Indução e histologia de embriões somáticos primários e secundários do híbrido Phalaenopsis Classic Spotted Pink (Orchidaceae). Acta Biol. Col. 2016, 21, 571–580. [Google Scholar]
  46. Goussard, P.G.; Wiid, J.; Kasdor, G.G.F. The effectiveness of in vitro somatic embryogenesis in eliminating fanleaf virus and leafroll associated viruses from grapevines. S. Afr. J. Enol. Vitic. 1991, 12, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Quainoo, A.K.; Wetten, A.C.; Allainguillaume, J. The effectiveness of somatic embryogenesis in eliminating the cocoa swollen shoot virus from infected cocoa trees. J. Virol. Met. 2008, 149, 91–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Gambino, G.; Di Matteo, D.; Gribaudo, I. Elimination of Grapevine fanleaf virus from three Vitis vinifera cultivars by somatic embryogenesis. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2009, 123, 57–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nkaa, F.A.; Ene-Obong, E.E.; Taylor, N.; Fauquet, C.; Mbanaso, E.N.A. Elimination of African Cassava Mosaic Virus (ACMV) and East African Cassava Mosaic Virus (EACMV) from cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz) cv. ‘Nwugo’ via somatic embryogenesis. Am. J. Biotech. Molec. Sci. 2013, 3, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  50. Chai, M.L.; Xu, C.-J.; Senthil, K.; Kim, J.Y. Stable transformation of protocorm-like bodies in Phalaenopsis orchid mediated by Agrobacterium tumefasciens. Sci. Hort. 2002, 96, 213–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Mishiba, K.; Chin, D.P.; Mii, M. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Phalaenopsis by targeting protocorms at an early stage after germination. Plant Cell Rep. 2005, 24, 297–303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Huang, Y.W.; Tsai, Y.J.; Chen, F.C. Characterization and expression analysis of somatic embryogenesis receptor-like kinase genes from Phalaenopsis. Genet. Mol. Res. 2014, 13, 10690–10703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hecht, V.; Vielle-Calzada, J.P.; Hartog, M.V.; Schmidt, E.D.; Boutilier, K.; Grossniklaus, U.; De Vries, S.C. The Arabidopsis SOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR KINASE 1 gene is expressed in developing ovules and embryos and enhances embryogenic competence in culture. Plant Physiol. 2001, 127, 803–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chardin, C.; Girin, T.; Roudier, F.; Meyer, C.; Krapp, A. The plant RWP-RK transcription factors: Key regulators of nitrogen responses and of gametophyte development. J. Exp. Bot. 2014, 65, 5577–5587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Mursyanti, E.; Purwantoro, A.; Moeljopawiro, S.; Semiarti, E. Induction of somatic embryogenesis through overexpression of ATRKD4 genes in Phalaenopsis “Sogo Vivien”. Ind. J. Biotech. 2015, 20, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Setiari, N.; Purwantoro, A.; Moeljopawiro, S.; Semiarti, E. Micropropagation of Dendrobium phalaenopsis orchid through overexpression of embryo gene AtRKD4. Agriv. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 40, 284–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Cai, J.; Liu, X.; Vanneste, K.; Proost, S.; Tsai, W.-C.; Liu, K.-W.; Chen, L.-J.; He, Y.; Xu, Q.; Bian, C.; et al. The genome sequence of the orchid Phalaenopsis equestris. Nat. Genet. 2015, 47, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Huang, J.-Z.; Lin, C.-P.; Cheng, T.-C.; Huang, Y.-W.; Tsai, Y.-J.; Cheng, S.-Y.; Chen, Y.-W.; Lee, C.-P.; Chung, W.-C.; Chang, B.C.-H.; et al. The genome and transcriptome of Phalaenopsis yield insights into floral organ development and flowering regulation. PeerJ 2016, 4, e2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Gow, W.; Chen, J.; Chang, W. Effects of genotype, light regime, explant position, and orientation on direct somatic embryogenesis from leaf explants of Phalaenopsis orchid. Acta Physiol. Plant 2009, 31, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Mehraj, H.; Alam, M.M.; Habiba, S.U.; Mehbub, H. LEDs combined with CHO sources and CCC priming PLB regeneration of Phalaenopsis. Horticulture 2019, 5, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Winarto, B. Somatic embryogenesis in two orchid genera (Cymbidium, Dendrobium). Meth. Mol. Biol. 2016, 1359, 371–386. [Google Scholar]
  62. Reuter, E. The importance of propagating Phalaenopsis by tissue culture. Orchid Rev. 1983, 91, 199–201. [Google Scholar]
  63. Meilasari, D.; Prayogo, I. Regeneration of plantlets through PLB (protocorm-like body) formation in Phalaenopsis ‘Join Angle × Sogo Musadian’. J. Math. Fund. Sci. 2016, 48, 204–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, Y.-C.; Chang, C.; Chang, W.C. A reliable protocol for plant regeneration from callus culture of Phalaenopsis. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2000, 36, 420–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Park, S.Y.; Murthy, H.N.; Paek, K.Y. Mass multiplication of protocorm-like bodies using bioreactor system and subsequent plant regeneration in Phalaenopsis. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2000, 63, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  66. Tokuhara, K.; Mii, M. Induction of embryogenic callus and cell suspension culture from shoot tips excised from flower stalk buds in Phalaenopsis (Orchidaceae). Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2001, 37, 457–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Park, S.-Y.; Murthy, H.N.; Paek, K.Y. Rapid propagation of Phalaenopsis from flower stalk-derived leaves. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2002, 38, 168–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Park, S.Y.; Yeung, E.C.; Chakrabarty, D.; Paek, K.Y. An efficient direct induction of protocorm-like bodies from leaf subepidermal cells of Doritaenopsis hybrid using thin-section culture. Plant Cell Rep. 2002, 21, 46–51. [Google Scholar]
  69. Park, S.-Y.; Hosakatte, N.M.; Paek, K.Y. Protocorm-like body induction and subsequent plant regeneration from root tip cultures of Doritaenopsis. Plant Sci. 2003, 164, 919–923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tokuhara, K.; Mii, M. Highly-efficient somatic embryogenesis from cell suspension cultures of Phalaenopsis orchids by adjusting carbohydrate sources. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2003, 39, 635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Kuo, H.; Chen, J.; Chang, W. Efficient plant regeneration through direct somatic embryogenesis from leaf explants of Phalaenopsis ‘Little Steve’. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2005, 41, 453–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Chen, J.T.; Chang, W.C. Direct somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from leaf explants of Phalaenopsis amabilis. Biol. Plant 2006, 50, 169–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Murdad, R.; Hwa, K.S.; Seng, C.K.; Latip, M.A.; Aziz, Z.A.; Ripin, R. High frequency multiplication of Phalaenopsis gigantea using trimmed bases protocorms technique. Sci. Hortic. 2006, 111, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Minamiguchi, J.; Machado Neto, N.B. Embriogênese somática direta em folhas de Phalaenopsis: Orchidaceae. Colloq. Agrar. 2007, 3, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Sinha, P.; Hakim, M.; Alam, M. Efficient micropropagation of Phalaenopsis amabilis (L.) BL. cv. ’Cool Breeze’ using inflorescence axis thin sections as explants. Propag. Ornam. Plants 2007, 7, 9–15. [Google Scholar]
  76. Ling, A.C.K.; Yap, C.P.; Shaib, J.M.; Vilasini, P. Induction and morphogenesis of Phalaenopsis callus. J. Trop. Agric. Food Sci. 2007, 35, 147–152. [Google Scholar]
  77. Gow, W.; Chen, J.; Chang, W. Influence of growth regulators on direct embryo formation from leaf explants of Phalaenopsis orchid. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2008, 30, 507–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Gow, W.; Chen, J.; Chang, W. Enhancement of direct somatic embryogenesis and plantlet growth from leaf explants of Phalaenopsis by adjusting culture period and explant length. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2010, 32, 621–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chen, W.H.; Tang, C.Y.; Kao, Y.L. Ploidy doubling by in vitro culture of excised protocorms or protocorm-like bodies in Phalaenopsis species. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2009, 98, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Subramaniam, S.; Balasubramaniam, V.R.M.T.; Poobathy, R.; Sasidharan, S. Chemotaxis Movement and Attachment of Agrobacterium tumefaciens to Phalaenopsis violacea Orchid Tissues an Assessment of Early Factors Influencing the Efficiency of Gene Transfer. Trop. Life Sci. Res. 2009, 20, 39–49. [Google Scholar]
  81. Sinha, P.; Jahan, M.A.A.; Munshi, J.L.; Khatun, R. High frequency regeneration of Phalaenopsis amabilis (L.) Bl. cv. Lovely through in vitro culture. Plant Tissue Cult. Biotech. 2010, 20, 185–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Khoddamzadeh, A.A.; Sinniah, U.R.; Kadir, M.A.; Kadzimin, S.B.; Mahmood, M.; Sreeramanan, S. Detection of somaclonal variation by random amplified polymorphic DNA analysis during micropropagation of Phalaenopsis bellina (Rchb.f.) Christenson. Afr. J. Biotech. 2010, 9, 6632–6639. [Google Scholar]
  83. Khoddamzadeh, A.A.; Sinniah, U.R.; Kadir, M.A.; Kadzimin, S.B.; Mahmood, M.; Sreeramanan, S. In vitro induction and proliferation of protocorm-like bodies (PLBs) from leaf segments of Phalaenopsis bellina (Rchb.f.) Christenson. Plant Grow. Reg. 2011, 65, 381–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Niknejad, A.; Kadir, M.A.; Kadzimin, S.B. In vitro plant regeneration from protocorms-like bodies (PLBs) and callus of Phalaenopsis gigantea (Epidendroideae: Orchidaceae). Afr. J. Biotech. 2001, 10, 11808–11816. [Google Scholar]
  85. Sinha, P.; Jahan, M.A.A. Clonal propagation of Phalaenopsis amabilis (L.) BL. Cv. ‘Golden Horizon’ through in vitro culture of leaf segments. BangladeshJ. Sci. Ind. Res. 2011, 46, 163–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Van Thanh, P.; Teixeira Da Silva, J.A.; Huy, H.E.; Tanaka, M. The effects of permanent magnetic fields on in vitro growth of Phalaenopsis plantlets. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotech. 2011, 86, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Rittirat, S.; Kongruk, S.; Te-Chato, S. Induction of protocorm-like bodies (PLBs) and plantlet regeneration from wounded protocorms of Phalaenopsis cornu-cervi (Breda) Blume & Rchb. f. J. Agric. Tech. 2012, 8, 2397–2407. [Google Scholar]
  88. Samarfard, S.; Kadir, M.A.; Kadzimin, S.B.; Ravanfar, S.; Saud, H.M. Genetic stability of in vitro multiplied Phalaenopsis gigantea protocorm-like bodies as affected by chitosan. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2013, 41, 177–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Antensari, F.; Mariani, T.S.; Wicaksono, A. Micropropagation of Phalaenopsis ‘R11 × R10’ Through Somatic Embryogenesis Method. Asian J. Appl. Sci. 2014, 2, 145–150. [Google Scholar]
  90. Huang, Y.-W.; Tsai, Y.-J.; Cheng, T.-C.; Chen, J.-J.; Chen, F.C. Physical wounding and ethylene stimulated embryogenic stem cell proliferation and plantlet regeneration in protocorm-like bodies of Phalaenopsis orchids. Genet. Mol. Res. 2014, 13, 9543–9557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Rittirat, S.; Klaocheed, S.; Thammasiri, K. Enhanced efficiency for propagation of Phalaenopsis cornu-cervi (Breda) Blume & Rachb. F. using trimmed leaf technique. Int. J. Agric. Biosyst. Eng. 2014, 8, 336–339. [Google Scholar]
  92. Samarfard, S.; Kadir, M.A.; Kadzimin, S.B.; Saud, H.M.; Ravanfar, S.A.; Danaee, M. In vitro propagation and detection of somaclonal variation in Phalaenopsis gigantea as affected by chitosan and thidiazuron combinations. Hortscience 2014, 49, 82–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Soe, K.W.; Myint, K.T.; Naing, A.H.; Kim, C.K. Optimization of efficient protocorm-like body (PLB) formation of Phalaenopsis and Dendrobium hybrids. Curr. Res. Agric. Life Sci. 2014, 32, 179–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Feng, J.; Chen, J. A novel in vitro protocol for inducing direct somatic embryogenesis in Phalaenopsis aphrodite without taking explants. Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 263642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Balilashaki, K.; Vahedi, M.; Karimi, R. In vitro direct regeneration from node and leaf explants of Phalaenopsis cv. ‘Surabaya’. Plant Tissue Cult. Biotech. 2015, 25, 193–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  96. Sultana, K.S.; Hasan, K.M.; Hasan, K.M.; Sultana, S.; Mehraj, H.; Ahasan, M.; Shimasaki, K.; Habiba, S.U. Effect of two elicitors on organogenesis in protocorm-like bodies (PLBs) of Phalaenopsis ‘Fmk02010’ cultured in vitro. World Appl. Sci. J. 2015, 33, 1528–1532. [Google Scholar]
  97. Balilashaki, K.; Ghehsareh, M.G. Micropropagation of Phalaenopsis amabilis var. ’Manila’ by leaves obtained from in vitro culturing the nodes of flower stalks. Not. Sci. Biol. 2016, 8, 164–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  98. Mose, W.; Indrianto, A.; Purwantoro, A.; Semiarti, E. The influence of Thidiazuron on direct somatic embryo formation from various types of explant in Phalaenopsis amabilis Blume Orchid. Hayati J. Biosci. 2017, 24, 201–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Murashige, T.; Skoog, F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 1962, 15, 473–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kano, K. Studies on the media for orchid seed germination. Mem. Fac. Agri. Kagawa Univ. 1965, 20, 1–68. [Google Scholar]
  101. Ernst, R. Effects of thidiazuron on in vitro propagation of Phalaenopsis and Doritaenopsis (Orchidaceae). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 1994, 39, 273–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Semiarti, E.; Indrianto, A.; Purwantoro, Y.H.; Martiwi, I.N.A.; Feroniasanti, Y.M.A.; Nadifah, F.; Mercuriana, I.S.; Dwiyani, R.; Iwakawa, H.; Yoshioka, Y.; et al. High-frequency genetic transformation of Phalaenopsis amabilis orchid using tomato extract-enriched medium for the pre-culture of protocorms. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotech. 2010, 85, 205–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Chuanjun, X.; Zhiwei, R.; Ling, L.; Biyu, Z.; Junmei, H.; Wen, H.; Ou, H. The effects of polyphenol oxidase and cycloheximide on the early stage of Browning in Phalaenopsis explants. Hortic. Plant J. 2015, 1, 172–180. [Google Scholar]
  104. Novak, S.D.; Luna, L.J.; Gamage, R.N. Role of auxin in orchid development. Plant Sign. Behav. 2014, 9, e972277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Bairu, M.W.; Aremu, A.O.; Van Staden, J. Somaclonal variation in plants: Causes and detection methods. Plant Grow. Reg. 2011, 63, 147–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Raynalta, E.; Elina, J.; Sudarsono, S.; Sukma, D. Clonal fidelity of micropropagated Phalaenopsis plantlets based on assessment using eighteen Ph-Pto SNAP marker loci. J. Agric. Sci. 2018, 40, 390–402. [Google Scholar]
  107. Park, S.I.; Yeung, E.C.; Paek, K.Y. Endoreduplication in Phalaenopsis is affected by light quality from light-emitting diodes during somatic embryogenesis. Plant Biotec. Rep. 2010, 4, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Young, P.S.; Murthy, H.N. Clonal fidelity of micropropagated Phalaenopsis plantlets based on assessment using eighteen Ph-Pto SNAP marker loci. Yoeup, P.K. Mass multiplication of protocorm-like bodies using bioreactor system Clonal fidelity of micropropagated Phalaenopsis plantlets based on assessment using eighteen Ph-Pto SNAP marker loci. and subsequent plant regeneration in Phalaenopsis. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2000, 63, 67–72. [Google Scholar]
  109. Liu, M.; Xu, Z.; Yang, Y.; Feng, Y. Effects of different spectral lights on Oncidium PLBs induction, proliferation, and plant regeneration. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2011, 106, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  110. Wei, C.H. Optimization of PLB induction conditions for Oncidium. Fuj. J. Agr. Sci. 2007, 22, 332–335. [Google Scholar]
  111. Li, W.-L.; Zhai, L.-S.; Ziu, Y.-P. Study on induction and culture of Oncidium protocorm-like body (PLB). Hen. Sci. 2004, 3. [Google Scholar]
  112. Tran, M.V.; Nguyen, K.V.; Hoa, B.T. Rapid micropropagation of Vu Nu Orchid (Oncidium sp.) by using tissue culture technique. In Proceedings of the CBU International Conference, Prague, Czech Republic, 22–24 March 2017. [Google Scholar]
  113. Yang, J.F.; Piao, X.C.; Sun, D.; Lian, M.L. Production of protocorm-like bodies with bioreactor and regeneration in vitro of Oncidium ‘Sugar Sweet’. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 125, 712–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Chen, J.T.; Chang, W.C. Effects of auxins and cytokinins on direct somatic embryogenesis from leaf explants of Oncidium ‘Gower Ramsey’. Plant Growth Regul. 2001, 34, 229–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Chen, J.-T.; Chang, C.; Chang, W.C. Direct somatic embryogenesis from leaf explants of Oncidium ‘Gower Ramsey’ and subsequent plant regeneration. Plant Cell Rep. 1999, 19, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Chen, J.-T.; Chang, W.C. Plant regeneration via embryo and shoot bud formation from flower-stalk explants of Oncidium Sweet Sugar. Plant Cell. Tiss. Organ Cult. 2000, 62, 95–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Chen, J.; Chang, W. Efficient plant regeneration through somatic embryogenesis from callus cultures of Oncidium (Orchidaceae). Plant Sci. 2000, 160, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Chen, J.-T.; Chang, W.-C. Effects of GA3, ancymidol, cycocel and paclobutrazol on direct somatic embryogenesis of Oncidium in vitro. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2003, 72, 105–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Kerbauy, G.B. Plant regeneration of Oncidium varicosum (Orchidaceae) by means of root tip culture. Plant Cell Rep. 1984, 3, 27–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Flachsland, E.A.; Graciela-Mroginski, L.A. Regeneración de Protocormos y Yemas de Oncidium bifolium Sims. Por cultivo in vitro de láminas foliares. 2001. Available online: researchgate.net/publication/267300737_Regeneracion_de_protocormos_y_yemas_de_Oncidium_bifolium_Sims_por_cultivo_in_vitro_de_laminas_foliares (accessed on 30 January 2020).
  121. Chen, J.T.; Chang, W.C. Effects of tissue culture conditions and explant characteristics on direct somatic embryogenesis in Oncidium ‘Gower Ramsey’. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2002, 69, 41–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Rahman, S.M.M.; Islam, M.S.; Sen, P.K.; Begum, F. In vitro propagation of Oncidium taka. Biotechnology 2005, 4, 225–229. [Google Scholar]
  123. Jheng, F.Y.; Do, Y.Y.; Liauh, Y.W.; Chung, J.P.; Huang, P.L. Enhancement of growth and regeneration efficiency from embryogenic callus cutures of Oncidium “Gower Ramsey” by adjusting carbohydrate sources. Plant Sci. 2006, 170, 1133–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Hong, P.I.; Chen, J.T.; Chang, W.C. Promotion of direct somatic embryogenesis of Oncidium by adjusting carbon sources. Biol. Plant. 2008, 52, 597–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Wang, A.-S.; Lin, M.-G.; Liu, F.-X. Rapid propagation of cut flower varieties of Oncidium by tissue culture. Guangxi Agric. Sci. 2009, 40, 801–806, (In Chinese with abstract in English). [Google Scholar]
  126. Chung, J.P.; Huang, C.Y.; Dai, T.E. Spectral effects on embryogenesis and plantlet growth of Oncidium Gower Ramsey. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 124, 511–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Mayer, J.L.S.; Stancato, G.C.; Appezzato-da-Glória, B. Direct regeneration of Protocorm-like bodies (PLBs) from leaf apices of Oncidium flexuosum Sims (Orchidaceae). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2010, 103, 411–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Chen, J.-T. Induction of petal-bearing embryos from root-derived callus of Oncidium ‘Gower Ramsey’. Acta Physiol. Plant 2012, 34, 1337–1343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Gomes, L.R.P.; Franceschi, C.R.B.; Ribas, L.L.F. Micropropagation of Brasilidium forbesii (Orchidaceae) through transverse and longitudinal thin cell layer culture. Acta Sci. Biol. Sci. 2015, 37, 143–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Mahesh, R.; Kumar, H.G.A.; Satyanarayana, S. Synthesis and characterization of 2-mercapto-N methyl imidazole substituted benzimidazole derivatives and investigation of their effect on production of plantlets in Oncidium Gower Ramsey. Mater. Today Proc. 2018, 5, 21505–21511. [Google Scholar]
  131. Lloyd, G.; McCown, B. Commercially-feasible micropropagation of mountain laurel, Kalmia latifolia, by use of shoot-tip culture. Int. Plant Propag. Soc. Proc. 1980, 30, 421–427. [Google Scholar]
  132. Chen, Y.H.; Chang, Y.S.; Chen, W.H. Tissue culture advances for mass propagation of Oncidium mericlones. Rep. Taiwan Sugar Res. Inst. 2001, 173, 67–76. [Google Scholar]
  133. Wang, T.C.; Zhang, M.; Tong, Y.O. Molecular specstrum of somaclonal variation in PLB-regenerated Oncidium revealed by SLAF-seq. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2019, 137, 541–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Mohanty, P.; Paul, S.; Das, M.C.; Kumaria, S.; Tandon, P. A simple and efficient protocol for the mass propagation of Cymbidium mastersii: An ornamental orchid from Northeast India. Aob Plants. 2012, 2012, pls023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Tanaka, M. Multiple regeneration pathways via Thin Cell Layers in hybrid Cymbidium (Orchidaceae). J. Plant Growth Regul. 2006, 25, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Malabadi, R.B.; Mulgund, G.S.; Kallappa, N. Micropropagation of Dendrobium nobile from shoot tip sections. J. Plant Physiol. 2005, 162, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Parthibhan, S.; Venkateswara Rao, M.; Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Senthil Kumar, T. Somatic embryogenesis from stem thin cell layers of Dendrobium aqueum. Biol. Plant. 2018, 62, 439–450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Teixeira da Silva, J.A.; Jin, X.; Dobránszki, J.; Lu, J.; Wang, H.; Zotz, G.; Cardoso, J.C.; Zeng, S. Advances in Dendrobium molecular research: Applications in genetic variations, identification and breeding. Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 2016, 95, 196–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Bhattacharyya, P.; Kumaria, S.; Tandon, P. High frequency regeneration protocol for Dendrobium nobile: A model tissue culture approach for propagation of medicinally important orchid species. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2016, 104, 232–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Chien, K.W.; Agrawal, D.C.; Tsay, H.S.; Chang, C.A. Elimination of mixed ‘Odontoglossum ringspot’ and ‘Cymbidium mosaicviruses from Phalaenopsis hybrid ‘V3’ through shoot-tip culture and protocorm-like body selection. Crop Protect. 2015, 67, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Chen, F.C. Phalaenopsis in Vitro Cloning: Strategy for PLB or Shoots? Taiwan International Orchid Symposium: Taipei, Taiwan, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  142. Miguel, T.P.; Leonhardt, K.W. In vitro polyploid induction of orchids using oryzalin. Sci. Hortic. 2011, 130, 314–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Sarathum, S.; Hegele, M.; Tantiviwat, S.; Nanakorn, M. Effect of concentration and duration of colchicine treatment on polyploid induction in Dendrobium scabrilingue L. Eur. J. Hort. Sci. 2010, 75, 123–127. [Google Scholar]
  144. Wannajindaporn, A.; Kativat, C.; Tantasawat, P.A. Mutation induction of Dendrobium ‘Earsakul’ using sodium azide. Hortscience 2016, 51, 1363–1370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Billore, V.; Mirajkar, S.J.; Suprasanna, P.; Jain, M. Gamma irradiation induced effects on in vitro shoot cultures and influence of monochromatic light regimes on irradiated shoot cultures of Dendrobium sonia orchid. Biotech. Rep. 2019, 22, e00343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Chew, Y.-C.; Abdullah, W.; Kok, D.A.; Ong-Abdullah, J.; Mahmood, M.; Lai, K.-S. Development of an efficient particle bombardment transformation system for de endemic orchid Phalaenopsis bellina. Sains Malays. 2019, 48, 1867–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Mii, M.; Chin, D.P. Genetic transformation of orchid species: An overview of approaches and methodologies. In Orchid Propagation: From Laboratories to Greenhouses – Methods and Protocol; Lee, Y.I., Yeung, E.T., Eds.; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 347–365. [Google Scholar]
  148. Liau, C.-H.; You, S.-J.; Prasad, V.; Hsiao, H.-H.; Lu, J.-C.; Yang, N.-S.; Chan, M.-T. Agrobacterium tumefasciens-mediated transformation of Oncidium orchid. Plant Cell Rep. 2003, 21, 993–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Thiruvengadam, M.; Hsu, W.-H.; Yang, C.-H. Phosphomannose-isomerase as a selectable marker to recover transgenic orchid plants (Oncidium Gower Ramsey). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2011, 104, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Morel, G.M. Producing virus free Cymbidiums. Am. Orchid Soc. Bull. 1960, 29, 495–497. [Google Scholar]
  151. Pradhan, S.; Regmi, T.; Ranjit, M.; Pant, B. Production of virus-free orchid Cymbidium aloifolium (L.) Sw. by various tissue culture techniques. Heliyon 2016, 2, e00176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
  152. Khentry, Y.; Paradornuwat, A.; Tantiwiwat, S.; Phansiri, S.; Thaveechail, N. Incidence of Cymbidium mosaic virus and Odontoglossum Ringspot Virus on in vitro Thai native orchid seedlings and cultivated orchid Mericlones. Kasertsat J. Nat. Sci. 2006, 40, 49–57. [Google Scholar]
  153. Shen, R.-S.; Hsu, S.-T. Virus elimination through meristem culture and rapid clonal propagation using a temporary immersion system. In Orchid Propagation: From Laboratories to Greenhouses–Methods and Protocols; Lee, Y.I., Yeung, E.T., Eds.; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 267–282. [Google Scholar]
  154. Saiprasad, G.V.S.; Polisetty, R. Propagation of three orchid genera using encapsulated protocorm-like bodies. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2003, 39, 42–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Wang, H.-Q.; Jin, M.-Y.; Paek, K.-Y.; Piao, X.-C.; Lian, M.-L. An efficient strategy for enhancement of bioactive compounds by protocorm-like body culture of Dendrobium candidum. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2016, 84, 121–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Paek, K.Y.; Hahn, E.J.; Park, S.Y. Micropropagation of Phalaenopsis orchids via protocorms and protocorm-like bodies. Methods Mol. Biol. 2011, 710, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  157. Hsu, C.-C.; Lai, P.-H.; Chen, T.-C.; Tsai, W.-C.; Hsu, J.-L.; Hsiao, Y.-Y.; Wu, W.-L.; Tsai, C.-H.; Chen, W.-H.; Chen, H.-H. PePIF1, a P-lineage of PIF-like transposable element identified in protocorm-like bodies of Phalaenopsis orchids. Bmc Genom. 2019, 20, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  158. Chin, C.K.; Lee, Z.H.; Mubbarakh, S.A.; Antony, J.J.J.; Chew, B.L.; Subramanian, S. Effects of plant growth regulators and activated charcoal on somaclonal variations of protocorm-like bodies (PLBs) of Dendrobium Sabin Blue orchid. Biocatal. Agric. Biotech. 2019, 22, 101426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Chen, W.H.; Chen, T.M.; Fu, Y.M.; Hsieh, R.M. Studies on somaclonal variation in Phalaenopsis. Plant Cell Rep. 1998, 18, 7–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Bairu, M.W.; Stirk, W.A.; Dolezal, K.; van Staden, J. The role of topolins in micropropagation and somaclonal variation of banana cultivars ‘Williams’ and ‘Grand Naine’ (Musa spp. AAA). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2008, 95, 373–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Tokuhara, K.; Mii, M. Somaclonal variation in flower and inflorescence axis in micropropagated plants through flower stalk bud culture of Phalaenopsis and Doritaenopsis. Plant Biotech. 1998, 15, 23–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Chen, Y.H.; Tsai, Y.J.; Huang, J.Z.; Chen, F.C. Transcription analysis of peloric mutants of Phalaenopsis orchids derived from tissue culture. Cell Res. 2005, 15, 639–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  163. Antony, J.J.J.; Shanshir, R.A.; Poobathy, R.; Chew, B.L.; Subramanian, S. Somaclonal variations were not induced by cryopreservation: Levels of somaclonal variation of in vitro and thawed protocorms of Dendrobium Bobby Messina analysed by SCoT and TRAP DNA markers. South Afr. J. Bot. 2015, 100, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Chen, F.-C.; Yu, J.-Y.; Chen, P.-Y.; Huang, Y.-W. Somaclonal variation in orchids and the application of biotechnology. Acta Hortic. 2008, 766, 315–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.