Next Article in Journal
Mass and Nutrient Content of Beans and Husks of Coffea racemosa and Coffea zanguebariae Grown in Mozambique
Previous Article in Journal
CaPHOT1 Negatively Regulates the Pepper Resistance to Phytophthora capsici Infection
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Plant Growth Regulators Use in the In Vitro Culture of Agave Species

by
Estefany Alejandra Sánchez-Mendoza
1,*,
Eugenio Pérez-Molphe-Balch
2,
Rafael Guzmán-Mendoza
3,
Graciela Ruiz-Aguilar
4,
Alberto M. García-Munguía
5,
Rogelio Costilla-Salazar
4 and
Héctor Gordon Núñez-Palenius
3,*
1
División de Ciencias de la Vida, Campus Irapuato-Salamanca, Universidad de Guanajuato, Irapuato 36500, Mexico
2
Unidad de Biotecnología Vegetal, Centro de Ciencias Básicas, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, Aguascalientes 20131, Mexico
3
Departamento de Agronomía, División de Ciencias de la Vida, Campus Irapuato-Salamanca, Universidad de Guanajuato, Irapuato 36500, Mexico
4
Departamento de Ciencias Ambientales, División de Ciencias de la Vida, Campus Irapuato-Salamanca, Universidad de Guanajuato, Irapuato 36500, Mexico
5
Laboratorio de Parasitología Agrícola, Centro de Ciencias Agropecuarias, Universidad Autónoma de Aguascalientes, Jesús María 20900, Mexico
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2025, 14(21), 3402; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14213402
Submission received: 5 September 2025 / Revised: 29 October 2025 / Accepted: 4 November 2025 / Published: 6 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Tissue Culture for Regeneration and Propagation)

Abstract

Agave species possess substantial cultural, ecological, and economic significance, particularly in Mexico, where they are traditionally utilized for food, fiber, and beverages. Their industrial relevance has expanded to include bioenergy, nutraceuticals, and sustainable agriculture. However, conventional propagation methods are constrained by long life cycles, low seed germination rates, and susceptibility to phytopathogens. In vitro culture has emerged as a pivotal biotechnological strategy for clonal propagation, germplasm conservation, and physiological enhancement. This review presents a critical synthesis of plant growth regulators (PGRs) employed in agave micropropagation, emphasizing their roles in organogenesis, somatic embryogenesis, shoot proliferation, and rooting. Classical PGRs such as 6-benzylaminopurine (BAP), benzyladenine (BA), 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), and indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) are widely utilized, with BA + 2,4-D and BA + IAA combinations demonstrating high efficiency in embryogenic callus induction and shoot multiplication. Additionally, non-traditional regulators such as abscisic acid (ABA) and putrescine (Put) have been shown to affect embryo maturation. This review synthesizes recent studies on agave in vitro culture protocols, identifies trends in PGR use, and highlights key research gaps. These insights reveal opportunities for innovation and underscore the need for species-specific optimization and molecular validation to improve reproducibility and scalability.

1. Introduction

The Agave genus represents a plant resource of exceptional cultural, ecological, and economic importance, with Mexico recognized as its primary center of origin and diversification [1,2]. Historically, Agave species have been widely used in the production of fibers, food, and fermented beverages [3,4,5]. In recent decades, their applications have expanded to include the production of syrups, prebiotics, livestock feed, by-product valorization, and biofuels [6,7,8,9]. This versatility has driven increasing scientific interest in optimizing the cultivation and propagation of Agave species, particularly in response to industrial demand and the urgent need for biodiversity conservation [10].
Plant tissue culture is a fundamental biotechnological tool, as the ability to precisely control the physicochemical conditions of the culture environment has enabled its application in clonal propagation, genetic conservation, and physiological improvement of various plant species [11,12,13]. Furthermore, this technique has proven effective for generating cell suspensions, protoplasts, and callus tissues, which represent viable biomass alternatives to produce secondary metabolites of industrial and pharmacological interest [14,15,16]. Likewise, tissue culture is employed as a strategy for conserving germplasm and plants with low reproductive capacity. By maintaining explants under controlled conditions and using media supplemented with growth regulators that inhibit development, it is possible to preserve genetic material in a reduced growth state, facilitating long-term storage and significantly reducing labor and maintenance costs [17].
In the case of agave, these methodologies offer a solution to overcome limitations associated with long life cycles, low germination rates, and reproductive constraints, thereby enabling more efficient and sustainable utilization [18,19,20,21]. Although other applications, such as cell suspensions or secondary metabolite production, remain limited in Agave species, in vitro propagation and conservation systems have been successfully implemented, relying primarily on the appropriate use of key factors that regulate cellular responses. Among these, PGRsplay a central role in modulating physiological, morphogenetic, and biochemical processes, thereby increasing the efficiency and reproducibility of established protocols [22,23]. These systems provide a controlled environment that facilitates the analysis of interactions between PGRs and genetic factors, which is essential for understanding plant physiology and developing optimized strategies for the propagation and conservation of Agave species [12].
This review highlights the broad diversity in the use of PGRs in tissue culture protocols applied to Agave species, aiming to evaluate their effectiveness in morphogenic induction, clonal propagation, and germplasm conservation. The compiled data demonstrate significant progress, with PGRs playing a central role in the development of micropropagation strategies, primarily through direct and indirect organogenesis, as well as somatic embryogenesis.
Among the most frequently used PGRs are benzyladenine (BA), 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), and abscisic acid (ABA), applied in various combinations and concentrations [17]. BA stands out as the most versatile regulator, promoting organogenesis, somatic embryogenesis, and axillary shoot proliferation; however, its effectiveness depends on the type of explant and the species [13]. The morphogenic responses induced include direct and indirect organogenesis, somatic embryogenesis, callus formation, and rooting.
Given the predominance of auxins and cytokinins in current studies, the exploration of novel PGR groups such as brassinosteroids, polyamines, strigolactones, and signaling peptides remains scarce [23].
To support this analysis, the present review employed a structured methodological strategy that facilitated a systematic and critical examination of the relevant scientific literature. The research question was formulated using the SPIDER framework, proposed by Cooke, Smith, and Booth [24], designed to guide qualitative and thematic reviews. This framework comprises five components: S (Sample), referring to plant tissue culture in Agave species; Pi (Phenomenon of Interest), focused on the application of PGRs; D (Design), including experimental studies, scientific reviews, and academic book chapters addressing theoretical principles, protocols, and PGR-induced responses; E (Evaluation), involving the analysis of morphogenesis, shoot proliferation, root development, biomass accumulation, and physiological or biochemical changes; and R (Research Type), encompassing qualitative, descriptive, and experimental research. Additionally, the methodological approach proposed by Pardal-Refoyo and Pardal-Peláez [25] was adapted, encompassing stages such as formulating the research question, defining eligibility criteria, designing the methodological approach, conducting a database search, assessing bias, interpreting results, and updating the review. The integration of these frameworks enabled precise delimitation of search and selection criteria, facilitating the identification of trends, effects, limitations, and future perspectives regarding the use of PGRs in the tissue culture of Agave species, and providing a critical and up-to-date synthesis of the scientific evidence.

2. Historical, Economic, and Biotechnological Relevance of the Agave Species

The genus Agave belongs to the family Asparagaceae, subfamily Agavoideae [26], and is one of the most diverse plant genera in Mexico. Approximately 79% of Agave species are found in Mexico, with nearly 84% being endemic [1,27]. These species thrive across a wide range of habitats, including valleys, plains, rocky hillsides, and high-altitude mountainous regions, reflecting their broad geographical distribution within the country [28]. Agave is a plant of considerable cultural, ecological, and economic significance in many Mexican regions [29].
Historical knowledge of the Agave genus in Mexico dates back to pre-Hispanic times. Mesoamerican cultures extensively utilized various Agave species, integrating them into daily life, the economy, and regional cultural identity [29,30]. Among these, Agave salmiana L. and Agave americana L. were particularly valued for their roles in food, textiles, and ritual practices [2,10,31]. Approximately 70 traditional uses of agave have been documented, showcasing its continued importance from pre-Columbian times to the present day [32].
Among the earliest uses were fibers extracted from Agavefourcroydes Lem. and Agave sisalana Perr., used to produce baskets and textiles. Various species were also consumed as food, including their flowers, the inflorescence (known as “quiote”), and the basal stem (known as “piña”) [32]. One of the most culturally significant uses has been the production of fermented beverages. A. salmiana Otto ex Salm-Dyck and A. mapisaga Trel. are used to extract aguamiel, which, when fermented, yields pulque, a beverage with deep cultural roots and high nutritional value [33,34]. Following European colonization, distillation techniques were introduced, giving rise to spirits such as tequila, from Agave tequilana Weber, and mezcal, produced from various species, including A. angustifolia Haw., A. potatorum Zucc., A. americana var. Oaxacensis Gentry, A. duranguensis Gentry, and A. cupreata Trel. & Berger [35,36,37].
The cultivation of agave and the production of distilled spirits in Mexico represent not only a significant cultural heritage but also one of the most important activities in the agricultural and food sector [35]. Economically, Tequila ranks as the second highest export-generating product. In 2023, international tequila sales increased by 3.06% compared to the previous year [37].
Considering this, it is essential to promote the growth and diversification of the agave industry in Mexico to maintain global leadership. Although the country is currently a leader in the production of agave-derived spirits, other nations are beginning to explore this plant as a basis for new industries [35,36,37].
Beyond traditional uses, the potential of agave for bioproduct development continues to expand, particularly in the industrial, pharmaceutical, and energy sectors [38,39,40]. Its biochemical richness and adaptability make it a strategic crop for arid and semi-arid regions [10].
Several species have been identified as valuable sources of agavins (inulin from agave), a type of dietary fiber with prebiotic properties widely used as a nutritional supplement due to its digestive health benefits [41,42,43]. Moreover, industrial processing of agave generates substantial by-products and waste, including discarded leaves, bagasse, and vinasse [44]. These residues have drawn increasing attention for their potential as raw materials in the production of biofuels, fodder, and other high-value bioproducts [45,46].
Globally, countries such as Brazil have conducted studies on Agave species to produce dietary carbohydrates, fiber, and biofuels [9,47]. The use of agave as a biomass source for energy generation presents a strategic alternative for the energy transition, owing to its high biomass accumulation, physiological efficiency, and adaptation to semi-arid conditions [48]. Its non-competitive use of food crops further enhances its sustainability [49]. Brazil, the world’s largest producer of A. sisalana Perr. (sisal), presents an opportunity to valorize agave waste through anaerobic digestion processes, thereby contributing to bioenergy generation and reducing environmental impacts [50].
Among the most agriculturally important Agave species in Mexico is A. tequilana Weber, which has also attracted international attention as a sustainable, high value crop [37]. It is now considered a strategic species for the sustainable production of bioethanol, hydrogen, and distilled beverages due to its high biomass yield and low water requirements. In Australia, commercial cultivation is still in its early stages, with production limited to Queensland and pilot studies underway in other regions. In 2019, thirty hectares were planted, producing between 400 and 900 tons of biomass after five years. Its ability to grow in dry or semi-arid conditions with minimal inputs makes it a viable option for boosting rural economies [51,52]. Current global initiatives emphasize the need to transform the agave industry into a viable biomass-based sector [53].
Given the growing importance of Agave species and the rising demand for strategies to select improved genotypes and establish more productive plantations, optimizing propagation protocols is crucial. These protocols should ensure higher reproducibility, reduced costs, and enhanced plant resilience under stress conditions. This calls for the development of innovative techniques, including the use of elicitor compounds and strategies to improve specific physiological and morphological traits [13]. However, the physical structure of agave presents challenges for its manipulation under controlled conditions. Its large size, spiny leaves, and robust foliar architecture complicate handling [54].
In addition, its extended life cycle, which may exceed eight to twelve years before flowering, slows down breeding programs and genetic studies [13]. As a monocarpic species, agave flowers only once before entering senescence and dying [10].
These limitations underscore the need to develop innovative strategies to manipulate growth and development and facilitate plant material production. In this regard, in vitro culture emerges as a potential approach to overcome such constraints [55,56,57].

3. Plant Tissue Culture in Agave Species

Plant tissue culture is a tool in plant biotechnology. Its applications range from basic research to commercial production [12]. Experimentally, in vitro culture has enabled detailed investigations into physiological and molecular processes, such as embryogenesis, organogenesis, and the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites [11,58,59]. It also supports the functional validation of genes through overexpression and gene silencing strategies [12]. In Agave species, the most relevant techniques are those that enable large-scale propagation, genetic conservation, and physiological studies [60].
From an applied perspective, micropropagation is an efficient method for vegetative multiplication of Agave species, which exhibit limited sexual reproduction [61]. In Agave marmorata Roezl has reported a sexual germination rate as low as 0.42% [62]. This low efficiency, combined with the overexploitation of wild populations, has severely reduced the availability of these species in their natural habitats. These factors highlight the urgent need for conservation strategies [32].
Micropropagation enables the rapid, controlled production of genetically uniform, pathogen-free plants using small portions of plant tissue, known as explants [60]. This process takes place under sterile laboratory conditions and involves several stages, including explant disinfection, induction of adventitious shoots, rooting of the regenerated shoots, and acclimatization of the plants to either a greenhouse or a natural environment, complete plants can be obtained [61]. In addition to organogenesis, somatic embryogenesis provides a complementary pathway for regeneration [59]. Here, somatic embryos are induced from individual cells or callus tissue. These embryos develop structures similar to seedlings and can mature into complete plants under suitable conditions [63].
These approaches have facilitated the development of micropropagation protocols that serve as efficient means for producing healthy plants in limited space with high multiplication rates [60].
Micropropagation protocols enable accelerated propagation and germplasm conservation, thereby facilitating the availability of high-quality plant material for integration into agricultural systems, reforestation strategies, and sustainable production [13].
Figure 1 represents the stages that comprise a typical micropropagation protocol for Agave species. It highlights the importance of proper selection of explant sources, formulation of culture medium, and precise choice of PGRs elements that collectively determine the efficiency of the in vitro process.

3.1. Applications of PGRs in the In Vitro Culture of Agave Species

Specifically, within the Agave genus, PGRs have gained strategic relevance in the design of clonal propagation protocols for developing efficient micropropagation systems that produce healthy plants in limited space with high multiplication rates [15,60].
Among the various categories of PGRs applied in agave tissue culture, cytokinins have received particular attention due to their pivotal role in shoot proliferation [22,64]. Notably, within the Agave genus, cytokinins consistently play a crucial role in micropropagation protocols [13]. For agroindustrially relevant species such as A. marmorata Roezls and A. potatorum Zucc., temporary immersion systems enriched with cytokinins have promoted shoot proliferation, increased chlorophyll content, and reduced hyperhydricity, enhancing plantlet quality and propagation efficiency [65,66,67].
In A. guiengola Gentry, BA stimulated both shoot induction and nodular callus formation, with immersion culture systems further amplifying morphogenic responses [55]. Furthermore, in A. tequilana Weber, the combined application of BA and kinetin significantly improved shoot multiplication, particularly when integrated with complementary techniques such as stem sagittal sectioning or the addition of auxins [57]. However, in A. angustifolia Haw., elevated concentrations of BA have been associated with somaclonal variation, potentially mediated by epigenetic modifications. This suggests a dual role of cytokinins: promoting organogenesis while simultaneously triggering phenotypic variability under stress conditions [68].
More than half of the Agave species are endemic to Mexico, many of which are listed under risk categories [32]. A. peacockii Croucher, classified as a threatened species requiring special protection, exemplifies this dual application of cytokinins in both propagation and conservation. A study demonstrated that BA combined with kinetin enhances in vitro shoot multiplication while complementing cryopreservation strategies [69]. These results emphasize the fundamental importance of cytokinins as the primary regulators in the in vitro culture of Agave species.
The exogenous application of auxins in Agave species has been extensively studied in the framework of plant tissue culture. Auxin perception occurs in the cytosol, where it triggers a signaling cascade that culminates in the activation of Auxin Response Factors (ARFs) in the nucleus, thereby promoting the transcription of early regulatory genes [70]. In species such as A. tequilana Weber var. azul, A. angustifolia Haw., and A. fourcroydes Lem., differential morphogenic responses to exogenous auxins have been reported, particularly in response to IAA and 2,4-D. In A. tequilana Weber, genomic studies identified 32 ARF genes, with several of them showing differential expression under treatments with specific PGRs, revealing complex regulatory patterns that vary according to both the species and the type of auxin applied [70]. In Agave species, root induction has been extensively studied using various auxinic compounds. Among these, indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), a naturally occurring auxin, have also been employed, although their rapid metabolism in plant tissues often limits their effectiveness [71,72].
Among others, PGRs used in Agave species are reported, such as acid abscisic (ABA), which have been shown to modulate somatic embryogenesis and osmotic stress responses in agave tissue culture [73]. In A. amica L., 3.78 µM of ABA in combination with maltosa can simulate water stress conditions, promoting the differentiation and maturation of somatic embryos [74]. In various Agave species, ABA has been shown to enhance somatic embryo formation, particularly when combined with osmotic agents such as sucrose and polyethylene glycol (PEG), resulting in asynchronous yet successful embryogenesis. Treatments with specific ABA concentrations have been associated with high conversion rates of somatic embryogenesis tissues, achieving up to 100% survival under ex vitro conditions [73].
PGRs, inhibitors, or growth retardants are applied exogenously in vitro culture, especially in strategies aimed at conserving germplasm and maintaining vegetative structures for prolonged periods [75]. Paclobutrazol (PBZ) is a known inhibitor of gibberellin biosynthesis, resulting in significant modifications to plant structural growth [23]. In A. potatorum Zucc., the application of PBZ has been shown to preserve shoot viability for up to 180 days under in vitro conditions, without compromising morphogenic integrity [76].
The recognition of nitric oxide (NO) as an endogenous regulator in various physiological processes has led to its increasing application in plant tissue culture over the past decade [22,23]. This application has primarily involved the exogenous addition of sodium nitroprusside (SNP), a widely used NO donor and the most extensively studied member of the iron nitrosyl family [77]. In species of the Agave genus, experimental evidence has confirmed its potential as a growth modulator. In A. angustifolia Haw., the incorporation of SNP at moderate concentrations (20–40 µM) significantly enhanced shoot proliferation and elongation, whereas higher doses induced phytotoxic effects associated with oxidative stress [78].
In Agave species, specific PGRs and osmotic treatments significantly enhanced fructooligosaccharides (FOS) accumulation, linked to the activation of key biosynthetic genes. In A. tequilana Weber, salicylic acid (1 mM), abscisic acid (50 mM), sucrose (8%), and kinetin (4.64 µM) promoted up to 36-fold increases in FOS, while in A. inaequidens Koch, methyl jasmonate (200 μM) induced the highest response (85-fold). These effects correlated with increased expression of 1-FFT and 1-SST, achieving maximum fresh weight in both species [79].
The exogenous application of putrescine has proven to be a promotive agent in the maturation and germination of somatic embryos in Agave species. Its incorporation into culture media represents an alternative for optimizing in vitro regeneration protocols, with direct implications for the commercial production of economically important Agave species [80].
Numerous investigations have demonstrated that growth regulators such as brassinosteroids, strigolactones, and jasmonates can trigger distinct physiological and morphogenic responses in the in vitro culture of various plant species [81,82,83,84,85,86,87]. Nevertheless, despite extensive research in other plant models, there is a conspicuous absence of studies exploring the application of these growth regulators in the in vitro culture of Agave species. This gap presents an opportunity to investigate their potential in this economically and biotechnologically significant genus.

3.2. Comparative Overview of Agave In Vitro Protocols

Several previous studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of in vitro methodologies for propagating Agave species, positioning this approach as a highly efficient and versatile biotechnological strategy, particularly in the conservation of threatened wild species and the intensive production of economically valuable cultivars [13,17,18].
The implementation of culture systems based on shoot induction from basal meristems has proven successful across a wide range of species, including A. cupreata Trel. & A. Berger, A. karwinskii Zucc., A. palmeri Engelm, A. potatorum Zucc., A. salmiana Otto ex Salm-Dyck, as well as ornamental species such as A. victoria-reginae T. Moore and A. titanota Gentry [17]. The morphogenic response of explants is strongly influenced by the type and concentration of cytokinins incorporated into the culture medium, with benzyladenine (BA), 6-γ, γ-dimethylallylaminopurine (2iP), kinetin (Kin), thidiazuron (TDZ), and metatopolin (MT) being among the most commonly employed [17,18]. However, the wide variability observed in shoot proliferation rates ranging from 2.2 to 30 shoots per explant, depending on the species, underscores the need for species-specific protocol optimization [17].
The physiological and morphogenetic diversity among Agave species has led to the development of a wide range of in vitro culture protocols. To synthesize and contrast this information, Table 1 provides a comparative overview of recent studies (2019–2025) conducted on different Agave species, highlighting the experimental conditions used, the types and concentrations of PGRs applied, and the observed effects in terms of shoot proliferation, organogenesis, somatic embryogenesis, or conservation.
This review highlights the diversity in the use of PGRs across tissue culture protocols applied to more than 15 species of the Agave genus. These methodologies have been predominantly implemented in semisolid Murashige and Skoog (MS) medium, although some studies have incorporated temporary immersion systems (RITA®, SETIS™) to enhance multiplication efficiency [54,55]. The application of temporary immersion systems has significantly improved multiplication rates and reduced hyperhydricity, as observed in species such as A. marmorata Roezl and A. potatorum Zucc. [62,67]. Recent studies have revealed that A. tequilana Weber, A. angustifolia Haw., A. potatorum Zucc., and A. marmorata Roezl are the most thoroughly investigated species, reflecting their economic and ecological significance. However, lesser studied species such as A. wocomahi Gentry and A. maximiliana Baker also exhibited improved responses, suggesting potential for conservation and propagation initiatives [96,104].
The integration of novel factors, such as nanoparticles or temporal immersion systems, introduces modifications to the use of different concentrations of PGRs in relation to their effects or responses on various Agave species, opening opportunities for continued exploration of the protocols modified by specific parameters for each species [101].
Somatic embryogenesis has been successfully induced in several Agave species, including A. tequilana Weber, A. americana L., A. cupreata Trel. & A. Berger, A. salmiana ex Salm-Dyck, A. rzedowskiana Gentry, A. wocomahi Gentry, and A. amica L. The most commonly used PGRs in these protocols are 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and benzyladenine (BA), applied at varying concentrations depending on the explant type and culture medium. These compounds promote the induction of embryogenic calli with distinctive morphological traits, such as friable texture and nodular coloration, which are indicative of embryogenic potential. Somatic embryo formation rates range from 4 to 42 embryos per explant, demonstrating high efficiency under specific conditions. Additionally, the application of abscisic acid (ABA) and putrescine (Put) is particularly effective in promoting embryo maturation [73,80]. In A. tequilana Weber, the use of picloram (PIC) and BA enabled the production of over 50 somatic embryos per explant, demonstrating the effectiveness of specific combinations in embryogenic induction [99].
Organogenesis, both direct and indirect, has also been extensively documented in species such as A. angustifolia Haw., A. marmorata Roezl, A. potatorum Zucc., A. peacockii Croucher, A. salmiana ex Salm-Dyck, and A. tequilana Weber. The most frequently used PGRs include BA, indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), and 2,4-D. Under optimal conditions—particularly in temporary immersion systems like RITA® up to 81 shoots per explant have been obtained, reflecting a high regenerative capacity. The efficiency of organogenesis is influenced by several factors, including the type of explant, the nutritional status of the mother plant, and the synergistic interaction between growth regulators. These findings emphasize the importance of optimizing physiological and environmental conditions to maximize morphogenic responses in Agave species.
Among the most frequently employed PGRs are BA, 2,4-D, IAA, and IBA, used in various combinations and concentrations. BA emerges as the most versatile regulator, utilized alone or in combination. In A. peacockii Croucher, the combination of BA and KIN resulted in up to 87 shoots per explant [69], whereas in A. americana L., protocols involving BA and 2,4-D were ineffective for shoot multiplication [88].
Quantitative variability across studies is considerable. On A. marmorata Roezl, up to 23 shoots per explant were obtained using semisolid MS medium (25%), while A. duranguensis Gentry yields only 1.4 shoots in semisolid medium MS, with a similar concentration of BA, suggesting significant genotypic and methodological influence between species [56,76].
A critical aspect that remains underexplored in most studies is the genetic stability of shoots. Some reports, such as those involving A. angustifolia Haw., document somaclonal variation and DNA methylation changes associated with high BA concentrations, highlighting the need to incorporate molecular analyses into large-scale propagation protocols [68].

4. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

The in vitro culture of Agave species represents an effective strategy to overcome the biological and agronomic limitations associated with conventional propagation methods, while also addressing the growing demand for plants intended for productive use, germplasm conservation, and the reinforcement of reforestation programs. In this context, PGRs have been essential for the development of efficient micropropagation protocols, enabling the induction of specific morphogenic responses such as organogenesis, somatic embryogenesis, and rooting. Cytokinins (BA, BAP) and auxins (2,4-D, IAA, IBA) have been the most commonly used and extensively optimized compounds, demonstrating their effectiveness in regenerating complete plants from various explant types.
The reviewed studies highlight that the strategic application of these PGRs has significantly contributed to the research and production of high-quality plant material. However, considerable variability in morphogenic responses among Agave species has been observed, indicating that protocols must be specifically tailored according to genotype, explant type, and physiological conditions. This diversity opens new perspectives for exploring alternative PGRs and novel combinations of classical and emerging compounds to improve protocol efficiency and expand the biotechnological potential of the Agave genus within a framework of sustainability and integrated utilization.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.G.N.-P. and E.A.S.-M.; methodology, A.M.G.-M.; software, G.R.-A.; validation, E.P.-M.-B., H.G.N.-P. and R.G.-M.; formal analysis, G.R.-A.; investigation, E.A.S.-M.; resources, R.G.-M.; data curation, E.A.S.-M.; writing—original draft preparation H.G.N.-P.; writing—review and editing, E.A.S.-M.; visualization, E.P.-M.-B.; supervision, R.C.-S.; project administration, A.M.G.-M.; funding acquisition, R.C.-S., A.M.G.-M., G.R.-A. and R.G.-M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
PGRsPlant growth regulators
IAAIndole acid acetic
IBAIndole-3-Butyric acid
NAANaphthaleneacetic acid
2,4-D2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid
BABenzyladenine
BAP6-Benzylaminopurine
KINKinetin
TDZThidiazuron
GAGibberellins
GA3Gibberellic acid
ABAAbscisic acid
PBZPaclobutrazol
SASalicylic acid
JAJasmonic acid
MeJAMethyl jasmonate
BRsBrassinosteroids
NONitric Oxide
SNPSodium nitroprusside
SLsStrigolactones
SESomatic embryogenesis
MSMurashige and Skoog medium
PEGPolyethylene glycol
FOSFructooligosaccharides
ARRArabidopsis Response Factors
ARFAuxin Response Factors
TISTemporary Immersion System
RITA®Automated Temporary Immersion Bioreactor
SETIS®Static Temporary Immersion Bioreactor

References

  1. García-Mendoza, A.J. Los agaves de México. Ciencias 2007, 87, 14–23. [Google Scholar]
  2. Eguiarte, L.E.; Jiménez-Barrón, O.A.; Aguirre-Planter, E.; Scheinvar, E.; Gámez, N.; Gasca-Pineda, J.; Castellanos-Morales, G.; Moreno-Letelier, A.; Souza, V. Evolutionary ecology of Agave: Distribution patterns, phylogeny, and coevolution (an homage to Howard S. Gentry). Am. J. Bot. 2021, 108, 216–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Reyes-Samilpa, A.; Reyes-Agüero, J.A.; van‘t Hooft, A.; Álvarez-Fuentes, G.; Rössel Kipping, E.D. Fibers of Agave salmiana cultivar Xamni: Physical characterization and comparison between leaf maturity and growth environment. Emergent Mater. 2023, 6, 543–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Bautista-Justo, M.; García-Oropeza, L.; Barboza-Corona, J.E.; Parra-Negrete, L.A. El Agave tequilana Weber y la producción de tequila. Acta Univ. 2001, 11, 26–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Zizumbo-Villarreal, D.; Flores-Silva, A.; Colunga-García Marín, P. The archaic diet in Mesoamerica: Incentive for milpa development and species domestication. Econ. Bot. 2012, 66, 328–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Mancilla-Margalli, N.A.; López, M.G. Water-soluble carbohydrates and fructan structure patterns from Agave and Dasylirion species. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 7832–7839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Mellado-Mojica, E.; López, M.G. Identification, classification, and discrimination of agave syrups from natural sweeteners by infrared spectroscopy and HPAEC-PAD. Food Chem. 2015, 167, 349–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Santiago-Martínez, A.; Pérez-Herrera, A.; Martínez-Gutiérrez, G.A.; Meneses, M.E. Contributions of agaves to human health and nutrition. Food Biosci. 2023, 53, 102753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Raya, F.T.; de Carvalho, L.M.; José, J.; da Cruz, L.P.; Almeida, R.L.; Delevatti, H.A.A.; Silveira, N.M.; da Silva, S.F.; Pissolato, M.D.; de Oliveira, A.B.; et al. Artisanal refermentation of Agave cupreata bagasse with Saccharomyces cerevisiae MG5 as a valorization alternative. Agro Product. 2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Pérez-Zavala, M.L.; Hernández-Arzaba, J.C.; Bideshi, D.K.; Barboza-Corona, J.E. Agave: A natural renewable resource with multiple applications. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2020, 100, 5324–5333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Thorpe, T.A. History of plant tissue culture. Mol. Biotechnol. 2007, 37, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Pasternak, T.P.; Steinmacher, D. Plant growth regulation in cell and tissue culture in vitro. Plants 2024, 13, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Bautista-Montes, E.; Hernández-Soriano, L.; Simpson, J. Advances in the micropropagation and genetic transformation of Agave species. Plants 2022, 11, 1757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abdalla, N.; El-Ramady, H.; Seliem, M.K.; El-Mahrouk, M.E.; Taha, N.; Bayoumi, Y.; Shalaby, T.A.; Dobránszki, J. An academic and technical overview on plant micropropagation challenges. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Hasnain, A.; Naqvi, S.; Ayesha, S.I.; Khalid, F.; Ellahi, M.; Iqbal, S.; Hassan, M.Z.; Abbas, A.; Adamski, R.; Markowska, D.; et al. Plants in vitro propagation with its applications in food, pharmaceuticals and cosmetic industries; current scenario and future approaches. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1009395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wawrosch, C.; Zotchev, S.B. Production of bioactive plant secondary metabolites through in vitro technologies-status and outlook. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechno. 2021, 105, 6649–6668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Domínguez Rosales, M.; González Jiménez, M.D.L.L.; Rosales Gómez, C.; Quiñones Valles, C.; Delgadillo Díaz de León, S.; Mireles Ordaz, S.J.; Pérez Molphe Balch, E. El cultivo in vitro como herramienta para el aprovechamiento, mejoramiento y conservación de especies del género agave. Investigación y Ciencia 2008, 16, 53–62. [Google Scholar]
  18. Monja-Mio, K.M.; Herrera-Alamillo, M.A.; Sánchez-Teyer, L.F.; Robert, M.L. Breeding strategies to improve production of agave (Agave spp.). In Advances in Plant Breeding Strategies: Industrial and Food Crops; Al-Khayri, J., Mohan Jain, S., Johnson, D., Eds.; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 319–362. [Google Scholar]
  19. Lechuga-Campuzano, J.L.; Arzate-Fernández, A.M.; García-Núñez, H.G.; Mariezcurrena-Berasaín, M.D.; Reyes-Díaz, J.I. Viability and morphometry in agave seeds as an initial study for sustainable management and genetic preservation. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosystems 2025, 28, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lopes, A.N.L.; dos Santos, E.A. Life cycle assessment in agave cultivation and processing: A review. J. Bioeng. Technol. Health 2025, 8, 229–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ortiz-Hernández, Y.D.; Gutiérrez-Hernández, G.F.; Corzo-Ríos, L.J.; García-Ramírez, E.; Martínez-Tomás, S.H. Varietal and germinative characterization of Agave potatorum (Asparagaceae) seeds with different origins. Bot. Sci. 2018, 96, 628–639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sehgal, H.; Joshi, M. The journey and new breakthroughs of plant growth regulators in tissue culture. In Advances in Plant Tissue Culture; Rai, A.C., Kumar, A., Modi, A., Singh, M., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA; Elsevier: San Diego, CA, USA, 2022; pp. 85–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ochatt, S.J. Less frequently used growth regulators in plant tissue culture. In Plant Cell Culture Protocols, Methods in Molecular Biology; Loyola-Vargas, V., Ochoa-Alejo, N., Eds.; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2024; Volume 2827, pp. 109–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Cooke, A.; Smith, D.; Booth, A. Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual. Health Res. 2012, 22, 1435–1443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Pardal-Refoyo, J.L.; Pardal-Peláez, B. Anotaciones para estructurar una revisión sistemática. Rev. ORL 2020, 11, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. APG IV. An update of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group classification for the orders and families of flowering plants: APG IV. Bot. J. Linn. Soc. 2016, 181, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. García-Mendoza, A.J.; Franco-Martínez, I.S. Los agaves, recursos fitogenéticos de los agroecosistemas tradicionales mexicanos de importancia para la agrobiodiversidad mundial. In Informe Final Proyecto CONABIO No. RG019/Proyecto Agrobiodiversidad Mexicana; Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Biología: Ciudad de México, México, 2022. Available online: http://www.conabio.gob.mx/institucion/proyectos/resultados/InfRG019.pdf (accessed on 16 April 2025).
  28. Kablan, R.J.-F.; Sylvestre, M.; Onesippe-Potiron, C.; Bilba, K.; Kablan, A.L.C.; Arsène, M.-A.; Rousteau, A.; Cebrian-Torrejon, G. Agave species: A comprehensive review of taxonomy, chemistry, ethnobotany, and ethnopharmacology. In Studies in Natural Products Chemistry; Rahman, A.-U., Ed.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2024; pp. 187–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Davis, S.C.; Ortiz-Cano, H.G. Lessons from the history of Agave: Ecological and cultural context for valuation of CAM. Ann. Bot. 2023, 132, 819–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lappe-Oliveras, P.; Arredondo-Fernández, R.; Valadez-Blanco, R.; Martínez-Monterrosa, Á.; Ojeda-Linares, C.I.; Moreno-Terrazas-Casildo, R.; Huerta-Beristain, G.; Astudillo-Melgar, F.; Flores-Montesinos, M.S.; Giles-Gómez, M.; et al. Mexican traditional alcoholic beverages: Production process, history, economy, social, and scientific importance. In Microbiology and Health Benefits of Traditional Alcoholic Beverages; Prakash, T.J., Ed.; Sikkim University: Gangtok, India, 2025; pp. 187–225. [Google Scholar]
  31. Pérez-Zavala, M.L.; Barboza-Pérez, U.E.; Barboza-Corona, J.E. Colecta y ensilaje de hojas de agave en dos comunidades de Guanajuato, México, como una alternativa de negocio. Cienc. Ergo-Sum 2024, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Alducin-Martínez, C.; Ruiz-Mondragón, K.Y.; Jiménez-Barrón, O.; Aguirre-Planter, E.; Gasca-Pineda, J.; Eguiarte, L.E.; Medellín, R.A. Uses, knowledge and extinction risk faced by Agave species in Mexico. Plants 2022, 12, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Álvarez-Ríos, G.D.; Figueredo-Urbina, C.J.; Casas, A. Management systems of agave for pulque production in Mexico. Etnobiología 2020, 18, 3–23. [Google Scholar]
  34. Trejo, L.; Soriano, D.; Romano-Grande, E.; Sánchez-Carmona, B.; Dávila-Navarro, D.E. Diversity of reproductive characters, seed set, and viability of Agave seeds used for pulque production and their wild relatives in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 2024, 71, 2877–2903. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. McAlvay, A.C. Agave spirits: The past, present, and future of mezcals. By Gary Paul Nabhan and David Suro Piñera. 2023. W.W. Norton and Company: New York, USA, 320 pp. Book Review. Ethnobiol. Lett. 2025, 16, 10–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Servicio de Información Agroalimentaria y Pesquera (SIAP). Cierre de la Producción Agrícola Por Estado, México; SIAP: Ciudad de México, México, 2022.
  37. Lozano-Arias, C.J. El tequila como fuente económica en México. Rev. Investig. Acad. Sin Front. 2024, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Álvarez-Chávez, J.; Villamiel, M.; Santos-Zea, L.; Ramírez-Jiménez, A.K. Agave by-products: An overview of their nutraceutical value, current applications, and processing methods. Polysaccharides 2021, 2, 720–743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Martínez-Herrera, R.E.; Rutiaga-Quiñones, O.M.; Alemán-Huerta, M.E. Integration of Agave plants into the polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB) production: A gift of the ancient Aztecs to the current bioworld. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 174, 114188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Sarwar, M.B.; Ahmad, Z.; Rashid, B.; Hassan, S.; Gregersen, P.L.; Leyva, M.D.; Nagy, I.; Asp, T.; Husnain, T. De novo assembly of Agave sisalana transcriptome in response to drought stress provides insight into the tolerance mechanisms. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Vázquez-Vuelvas, O.F.; Chávez-Camacho, F.A.; Meza-Velázquez, J.A.; Mendez-Merino, E.; Ríos-Licea, M.M.; Contreras-Esquivel, J.C. A comparative FTIR study for supplemented agavin as functional food. Food Hydrocoll. 2020, 103, 105642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Mellado-Mojica, E.; López, M.G. Fructan metabolism in Agave tequilana Weber Blue variety along its developmental cycle in the field. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2012, 60, 11704–11713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Fernández-Lainez, C.; López-Velázquez, G.; de Vos, P. Health benefits of inulin and agavin-type fructans in food: Impact on microbiota, immune and gut barrier function. In The Book of Fructans; Van den Ende, W., Toksoy, O.E., Eds.; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2023; pp. 211–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hernández-Vázquez, A.; Hernández, S.; Ortíz, I. Hydrothermal pretreatment of agave bagasse for biomethane production: Operating conditions and energy balance. Biomass Bioenergy 2020, 142, 105753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Flores-Ríos, P.A.; Robles-Celerino, E.; Castañeda-Hidalgo, E. Generación y caracterización básica de bagazos de la agroindustria del mezcal en Oaxaca. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc. 2020, 11, 1437–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Avendaño-Rito, M.C.; Aquino-González, L.V.; Ríos, P.A.F.; Martínez-Vargas, A.; Sarubbi-Baltazar, F.A. Use of Agave angustifolia Haw. bagasse pulp as an additive powder for baking flour. Rev. Gestão Soc. Ambient. 2024, 18, e07057. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Phillips, A.; Schultz, C.J.; Burton, R.A. New crops on the block: Effective strategies to broaden our food, fibre, and fuel repertoire in the face of increasingly volatile agricultural systems. J. Exp. Bot. 2025, 76, 2043–2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yan, X.; Corbin, K.R.; Burton, R.A.; Tan, D.K.Y. Agave: A promising feedstock for biofuels in the water-energy-food-environment (WEFE) nexus. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 261, 121283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. de Paula, M.S.; Adarme, O.F.H.; Volpi, M.P.C.; Flores-Rodriguez, C.I.; Carazzolle, M.F.; Mockaitis, G.; Pereira, G.A.G. Unveiling the biogas potential of raw Agave leaf juice: Exploring a novel biomass source. Biomass Bioenergy 2025, 193, 107522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Toqueiro, J.C.A.; Oliveira, O.B.; Adarme, O.F.H.; Mokaitis, G. Anaerobic digestion of Agave sisalana: Existing data, trends, and potential applications. J. Bioeng. Technol. Appl. Health 2025, 7, 380–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Coriolis. New Opportunities 2020: The Next Wave in New & Emerging Agricultural Industries in AUSTRALIA (Stage II); AgriFutures Australia: Wagga Wagga, NSW, Australia, 2020; Available online: https://www.agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/21-052b.pdf (accessed on 18 June 2025).
  52. Top Shelf International. The New Australian Spirit: TSI’s Australian Agave Project. 2021. Available online: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xbAXRQx6f7smgOzL4ltKSjri_NHJ9Oqh/view (accessed on 19 April 2025).
  53. Hoban, S. Agave: A Compact Business Case; GHD Pty Ltd., AgriFutures® Emerging Industries: Wagga Wagga, Australia, 2022; pp. 1–12. ISBN 978-1-76053-329-8. Available online: https://agrifutures.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/22-134.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  54. Abraham-Juárez, M.J.; Ramírez-Malagón, R.; Gil-Vega, K.C.; Simpson, J. AFLP analysis of genetic variability in three reproductive forms of Agave tequilana. Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 2009, 32, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Chávez-Ortiz, L.; Morales-Domínguez, J.; Rodríguez-Sahagún, A.; Pérez-Molphe-Balch, E. In vitro propagation of Agave guiengola Gentry using semisolid medium and temporary immersion bioreactors. Phyton 2021, 90, 1003–1013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Dévora-Rodríguez, D.G.; Pulido-Díaz, C.; Chávez-Simental, J.A.; Ortiz-Sánchez, I.A.; Loera-Gallegos, H.M.; Prieto-Ruiz, J.Á. Reguladores de crecimiento en el desarrollo vegetativo de vitroplantas de Agave durangensis Gentry. Ecosistemas 2021, 8, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Vázquez-Martínez, O.; Gordon Núñez-Palenius, H.; Pérez-Molphe Balch, E.M.; Valencia-Posadas, M.; Pérez-Moreno, L.; Ruiz-Aguilar, G.M.L.; Gómez-Lim, M. In vitro-propagation of Agave tequilana Weber cv. azul in a temporary immersion system. Phyton 2022, 91, 83–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Twaij, B.M.; Jazar, Z.; Hasan, M.N. Trends in the use of tissue culture, applications and future aspects. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2020, 11, 8385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Loyola-Vargas, V.M.; Ochoa-Alejo, N. An introduction to plant cell, tissue, and organ culture: Current status and perspectives. In Plant Cell Culture Protocols; Loyola-Vargas, V., Ochoa-Alejo, N., Eds.; Methods in Molecular Biology; Humana: New York, NY, USA, 2024; Volume 2827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Rodríguez-Garay, B.; Rodríguez-Domínguez, J.M. Micropropagation of Agave species. In Plant Cell Culture Protocols; Loyola-Vargas, V., Ochoa-Alejo, N., Eds.; Methods in Molecular Biology; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Cardoso, J.C.; Sheng, L.T.G.; Teixeira da Silva, J.A. Micropropagation in the Twenty-First Century. In Plant Cell Culture Protocols; Loyola-Vargas, V., Ochoa-Alejo, N., Eds.; Methods in Molecular Biology; Humana Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; Volume 1815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Moreno-Hernández, M.R.; Mancilla-Álvarez, E.; Aguilar-Jiménez, D.; Bello-Bello, J.J. In Vitro Multiplication of Agave (A. marmorata and A. potatorum) by Temporary Immersion in SETIS™ Bioreactor. Methods Mol. Biol. 2024, 2759, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Elhiti, M.; Stasolla, C. Transduction of signals during somatic embryogenesis. Plants 2022, 11, 178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Bhatla, S.C.; Lal, M.A. Plant Growth Regulators: An Overview. In Plant Physiology, Development and Metabolism; Springer: Singapore, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Téllez Torres, A.G.; Jiménez Rodríguez, J.Á.; González Caballero, O.; Juárez Pérez, W.R.; Martínez Martínez, S.; Chávez Avila, V.M. Cultivo in vitro de Agave potatorum, especie amenazada endémica de México. Bot. Sci. 2023, 101, 883–894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mancilla-Álvarez, E.; Spinoso-Castillo, J.L.; Muñoz-Márquez Trujillo, R.A.; Palacios-Pardo, K.F.; Bello-Bello, J.J. Temporary immersion bioreactor as an efficient method for in vitro propagation of Agave marmorata. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2024, 169, 6–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Castillo-Martínez, C.R.; Velasco-Bautista, E.; Betazos-Jiménez, R.P.; Aragón-Cuevas, F. Mass propagation of tobala mezcal maguey (Agave potatorum Zucc.) in a temporary immersion system compared with a solid medium. Agro Product. 2023, 16, 2694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Duarte-Aké, F.; De-la-Peña, C. High cytokinin concentration and nutrient starvation trigger DNA methylation changes in somaclonal variants of Agave angustifolia Haw. Ind. Crops Prod. 2021, 172, 114046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Delgado-Aceves, L.; Portillo, L.; Folgado, R.; de Jesús Romo-Paz, F.; González-Arnao, M.T. New approaches for micropropagation and cryopreservation of Agave peacockii, an endangered species. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2022, 150, 85–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Cancino-García, V.J.; Ramírez-Prado, J.H.; De-la-Peña, C. Auxin perception in Agave is dependent on the species’ Auxin Response Factors. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 3860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Campos-Angeles, G.-V.; Alcara Vazques, S.; Enriquez del Valle, J.R.; Rodríguez-Ortiz, G.; Velasco Velasco, V.A. Acclimation of Agave potatorum Zucc. micropropagated plants. Agro Product. 2024, 17, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Enríquez-Valle, J.R.; Chávez-Cruz, I.L.; Rodríguez-Ortiz, G.; Campos-Ángeles, G.V. Brotes enraizados de Agave nussaviorum García-Mend. variando sales inorgánicas, AIB e incubación. Rev. Mex. Cienc. Agríc. 2025, 15, e3205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hernández-Solis, M.; Arzate-Fernández, A.M.; Martínez-Martínez, S.Y.; Acosta-Villagrán, L. Effect of promoting compounds of indirect somatic embryogenesis in three Agave species. Agrociencia 2023, 56, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Pourkhaloee, A.; Khosh-Khui, M.; Barba-Gonzalez, R. Somatic embryogenesis of tuberose (Agave amica L.) was improved by milk as a potential biostimulant in plant tissue culture. Int. J. Hortic. Sci. Technol. 2023, 10, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Spinoso-Castillo, J.L.; Pérez-Sato, J.A.; Schettino-Salomón, S.S.; Bello-Bello, J.J. An alternative method for medium-term in vitro conservation of different plant species through gibberellin inhibitors. Vitr. Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 2022, 58, 606–614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Arzate-Fernández, A.; Martínez Velasco, I.; Alvareza Aragón, C.; Martinez-Martinez, S.; Norman-Mondragon, T. Morphogenetic response of two Agave species regenerated in vitro. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2020, 23, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Pradhan, N.; Singh, P.; Dwivedi, P.; Pandey, D.K. Evaluation of sodium nitroprusside and putrescine on polyethylene glycol induced drought stress in Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni under in vitro condition. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 154, 112754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Romo-Paz, F.J.; Rodríguez-Garay, B. Effects of sodium nitroprusside (SNP) on in vitro shoot multiplication of Agave angustifolia Haw. In Proceedings of the Poster Presented at 3rd International Symposium on Agave, CIATEJ, Guadalajara, Mexico, 3–5 November 2016; Available online: https://ciatej.repositorioinstitucional.mx/jspui/bitstream/1023/357/1/Benjamin%208%20Poster.pdf (accessed on 20 May 2025).
  79. Suárez-González, E.M.; López, M.G.; Délano-Frier, J.P.; Gómez-Leyva, J.F. Expression of the 1-SST and 1-FFT genes and consequent fructan accumulation in Agave tequilana and A. inaequidens is differentially induced by diverse (a)biotic-stress related elicitors. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 171, 359–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Martínez-Martínez, S.; Arzate-Fernández, A.; Hernández-Solis, M.; Acosta-Villagrán, L. Evaluation of the effect of exogenous putrescine during the maturation and germination in vitro of somatic embryos in two Agave genotypes. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2023, 26, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kıymaz, G.; Acemi, A. Effects of polyamines and optimized culture medium on in vitro organ development and accumulation of root phenolics in endangered Verbascum bugulifolium. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2025, 162, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Alam, N.; Ahmad, A.; Ahmad, N.; Anis, M. Polyamines mediated in vitro morphogenesis in cotyledonary node explants of Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC.: A natural source of L-dopa. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2023, 42, 5203–5215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Ben Ali, N.; Benkaddour, R.; Rahmouni, S.; Hamdoun, O.; Boussaoudi, I.; Hassoun, M.; Azaroual, L.; Badoc, A.; Martin, P.; Lamarti, A. Influence of exogenous polyamines on the secondary somatic embryogenesis of cork oak (Quercus suber L.). Bioengineered 2023, 14, 2288354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Azpeitia, A.; Chan, J.L.; Sáenz, L.; Oropeza, C. Effect of 22(S),23(S)-homobrassinolide on somatic embryogenesis in plumule explants of Cocos nucifera (L.) cultured in vitro. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2003, 78, 591–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Taha, H.S.; Nafie, E.M.; El-Bahr, M.K.; Mansur, R.M. Influence of 24-epibrassinolide on in vitro shootlet regeneration via direct organogenesis of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2014, 13, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Elhiti, M.; Mira, M.M.; So, K.K.Y.; Stasolla, C.; Hebelstrup, K.H. Synthetic strigolactone GR24 improves Arabidopsis somatic embryogenesis through changes in auxin responses. Plants 2021, 10, 2720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Singh, B. A review on the effects of jasmonates on plants grown under in vitro conditions. Afr. J. Biomed. Res. 2024, 27, 1723–1731. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Naziri, M.; Sadat, S.; Howyzeh, M.S. The effect of different hormone combinations on direct and indirect somatic embryogenesis in Agave americana. Iran. J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 9, 2. Available online: https://sanad.iau.ir/Journal/ijpp/Article/1025519 (accessed on 19 February 2025 ).
  89. Ríos-Ramírez, S.C.; Enríquez-del Valle, J.R.; Rodríguez-Ortiz, G.; Ruiz-Luna, J. Benzylaminopurine and indol-3-acetic acid concentrations in in vitro proliferation of Agave angustifolia adventitious shoots. Cien. Inv. Agr. 2017, 44, 285–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. López Acevedo, L.; Merino Pérez, Y.E.; Enríquez del Valle, J.R.; Rodríguez Ortiz, G.; Lagunas Sánchez, Z.C. Organogénesis in vitro en tejidos de tallo de Agave marmorata y Agave angustifolia. Rev. Mex. Agroecosist. 2023, 5, 98–105. Available online: https://revistaremaeitvo.mx/index.php/remae/article/view/165 (accessed on 17 February 2025).
  91. Monja-Mio, K.M.; Olvera-Casanova, D.; Herrera-Alamillo, M.Á.; Sánchez-Teyer, F.L.; Robert, M.L. Comparison of conventional and temporary immersion systems on micropropagation (multiplication phase) of Agave angustifolia Haw. “Bacanora”. 3 Biotech 2021, 11, 77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Acosta Villagran, L.; Arzate Fernandez, A.M.; García Núñez, H.G.; Martínez Martínez, S.Y.; Hernández Solís, M.; Reyes Díaz, J.I. Expresión embriogénica directa en Agave cupreata. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2024, 27, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Moreno-Hernández, M.R.; López-Buenfil, J.A.; Serrano-Fuentes, M.K.; Contreras-Oliva, A.; Bello-Bello, J.J. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi improve the growth, nutrient uptake and survival of micropropagated agave (Agave marmorata Roezl) plantlets during acclimatization. J. Arid Environ. 2025, 228, 105330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Aguilar Jiménez, D.; Rodríguez De la O, J.L. Micropropagación y aclimatación de Maguey Pitzometl (Agave marmorata Roezl) en la Mixteca Poblana. Rev. Colomb. Biotecnol. 2018, 20, 124–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Álvarez-Aragón, C.; Arzate-Fernández, A.M.; Martínez-Martínez, S.Y.; Martínez-Velasco, I. Regeneración de plantas de Agave marmorata Roezl vía embriogénesis somática. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst. 2020, 23, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Santacruz-Ruvalcaba, F.; Castañeda-Nava, J.J.; Villanueva-Gónzalez, J.P.; García-Sahagún, M.L.; Portillo, L.; Contreras-Pacheco, M.L. Micropropagación de Agave maximiliana Baker por proliferación de yemas axilares. Polibotánica 2022, 54, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ramírez-Mosqueda, M.A.; Cárcamo-Corona, R.G.; Aguilar-Jiménez, D.; Bello-Bello, J.J. Micropropagation of Agave (Agave potatorum Zucc.) through direct organogenesis. Agrociencia 2022, 56, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Bautista-Castellanos, A.I.; Enríquez-del Valle, J.R.; Velasco-Velasco, V.A.; Rodríguez-Ortiz, G. Enraizado de brotes in vitro y aclimatación de plantas de Agave potatorum Zucc. Ecosist. Recur. Agropec. 2020, 7, e2618. [Google Scholar]
  99. Miranda, E.; Portillo, L. Regeneración de Agave spp. con harina de Opuntia como elicitor. Bol. Nakari 2019, 30, 23–32. [Google Scholar]
  100. Angeles-Vázquez, B.V.; Alvarez-Cervantes, J.; Tovar-Jiménez, X.; Rodríguez-Garay, B. Plant regeneration from indirect somatic embryogenesis of Agave salmiana Otto ex Salm-Dyck subsp. salmiana using zygotic embryo obtained by in-casa pollination as explants. Polibotánica 2023, 56, 171–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Canales-Mendoza, A.I.; Villanueva-Ibáñez, M.; Tovar-Jiménez, X.; Álvarez-Cervantes, J. Effect of the addition of fungal extracellular biogenic zinc oxide nanoparticles on the in vitro multiplication of Agave salmiana shoots. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 2023, 155, 479–491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Seliem, M.K.; Abdalla, N.; El-Mahrouk, M.E. Cytokinin potentials on in vitro shoot proliferation and subsequent rooting of Agave sisalana Perr. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Delgado-Aceves, L.; González-Arnao, M.T.; Santacruz-Ruvalcaba, F.; Folgado, R.; Portillo, L. Indirect somatic embryogenesis and cryopreservation of Agave tequilana Weber cultivar ‘Chato’. Plants 2021, 10, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Reyes-Silva, A.I.; Nuñez-Palenius, H.G.; Ocampo, G.; Pérez-Molphe-Balch, E. Regeneración in vitro de Agave wocomahi Gentry (Asparagaceae). Rev. Fitotec. Mex. 2022, 45, 493–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Micropropagation Strategies in Agave Species. This figure illustrates the sequential stages involved in the micropropagation of Agave species, beginning with explant selection and progressing through culture media formulation with specific PGRs, use of semisolid or liquid systems, morphogenic induction, and final acclimatization to ex vitro [13,14,59].
Figure 1. Micropropagation Strategies in Agave Species. This figure illustrates the sequential stages involved in the micropropagation of Agave species, beginning with explant selection and progressing through culture media formulation with specific PGRs, use of semisolid or liquid systems, morphogenic induction, and final acclimatization to ex vitro [13,14,59].
Plants 14 03402 g001
Table 1. Comparative overview of Agave in vitro protocols and PGRs applications (2019–2025).
Table 1. Comparative overview of Agave in vitro protocols and PGRs applications (2019–2025).
SpeciesPlant Tissue CulturePGRsConcentration
(µM)
Culture ConditionsEffectReference
A. americana L.Shoot induction2,4-D
BA
0.09
44.0
Semisolid MS medium reduced in KNO3 and NH4NO3Although shoot formation occurred on the explant surface, the protocol appeared inadequate for supporting further growth and multiplication.[88]
MultiplicationBA
NAA
13.2
0.54
Semisolid MS medium with vitamins L2A significantly higher multiplication rate was achieved from a single explant.
Direct somatic embryogenesisPIC10.25Semisolid MS medium with vitamins L2Somatic embryo formation was induced in 66.7% of the explants.
Indirect somatic embryogenesisDicamba6.75Semisolid MS medium with vitamins L2The observed embryogenic callus was friable, consisting of small, creamy, globular, and elongated cells that subsequently developed into somatic embryos.
A. amica L.Callus
induction
2,4-D NAA2.25
2.7
Semisolid MS mediumThe treatment led to a 100% callus-induction rate, the highest observed.[74]
Callus
multiplication
BAP
2,4-D
4.4
4.5
Semisolid MS mediumThe callus diameter doubled after two subcultures and increased fivefold by approximately 120 days.
Initiation of embryogenic callus2,4-D4.5Semisolid MS mediumThe treatment resulted in the formation of nodular, friable, and semi-compact embryogenic callus after 90 days.
Development of somatic embryosABA3.8Semisolid MS medium
45 g L−1 maltose
Globular embryoids with proper formation initiated greening and root–shoot axis differentiation.
Rooting and bulb formationIBA3.67Semisolid MS mediumBulb formation occurred at the shoot base, culminating in the development of roots.
A. angustifolia Haw.Organogenesis and assessment of somaclonal variationBA88.8High BA concentration in culture media (5 months)Enhanced organogenic capability, increased phenotypic variation, and changes in DNA methylation levels.[68]
Indirect organogenesis and evaluation of explant origin (mother plant)BAP
IAA
17.7
5.7
Semisolid MS medium supplemented with coconut water
Explants derived from mother plants subjected to fertigation treatments
The combination of growth regulators correlated with the nutritional status of the mother plant under 100% fertigation, resulting in up to 32.7 shoots per explant in vitro culture.[89]
Callus induction from embryonic axes2,4-D
BAP
23.0
13.0
Semisolid MS medium with vitamins L2Callus with an average weight of 0.2 g, suitable for somatic embryo maturation.[80]
Somatic embryo maturationPut1700Semisolid MS medium (60 days of incubation)Exogenous putrescine increased the number of somatic embryos to 21.2 per explant.
Somatic embryo maturationABA34.2Semisolid MS medium (50%)ABA-induced stress promoted the maturation of somatic embryos, enabling them to regenerate plantlets.[73]
Callus induction from embryonic axes2,4-D
BA
22.6
13.3
Semisolid MS medium with L2 vitaminsDedifferentiation into callus with embryogenic features, friable and beige.
Organogenesis stem tissueBA
IAA
4.44
1.71
Semisolid MS mediumIn 4 explants, organogenesis response: adventitious buds formed.[90]
A. angustifolia Haw. “Bacanora”Inoculum evaluation and multiplicationBA
2,4-D
44.4
0.10
Modified MS medium,
Temporary Immersion System
Frequency: 1 min/6 h
Growth regulators and inoculum density of 20 explants promoted the highest shoot formation (3.05 vigorous shoots) in TIS.[91]
A. cupreata Trel. & A. BergerInduction of embryogenic callus2,4-D
BA
23.0
13.0
Semisolid MS medium with vitamins L2The percentage of embryogenic calluses was 66.67 ± 0.48%.[80]
Maturation of somatic embryosPut1700Semisolid MS mediumThe mean number of somatic embryos per explant was 38.80 ± 9.88.
Induction of embryogenic callus2,4-D
BA
22.5
13.2
Semisolid MS medium (75%)Both non-embryogenic calluses (compact, whitish, and smooth) and embryogenic calluses (friable, beige) were produced, with embryogenic callus accounting for 33.30 ± 14.64%.[73]
Maturation of somatic embryosABA34.2Semisolid MS medium (50%)Somatic embryo formation was observed at 90 days, with an average of 4.80 ± 3.62.
Induction of pro-embryogenic calluses2,4-D4.05Semisolid MS medium (25%) with vitamins L2Efficient formation of proembryogenic masses by 90%.[92]
Expression of direct somatic embryosIAA2.9Semisolid MS medium (50%)The concentration promoted the efficient formation of 7 direct somatic embryos per explant.
A. duranguensis GentryMultiplicationBA17.4Semisolid MS mediumA higher average number of shoots, 1.40 per explant, and a higher number of leaves per shoot, 2.70, were obtained.[56]
A. guenguiola GentryMultiplicationBA8.8Semisolid MS mediumAn average of 3.70 shoots per explant was obtained and shoot clusters were successfully generated.[55]
MultiplicationBA4.4MS medium, Temporary immersion systemA propagation rate of 43 shoots per shoot cluster was achieved.
A. marmorata RoelzIn vitro establishmentBAP13.2Semisolid MS medium with ascorbic acid and cysteineAfter 30 days of cultivation, the tips were transferred to the multiplication phase.[66]
Shoot MultiplicationBAP
IAA
13.2
17.2
Temporary immersion system (2 min / 8 h)For the variable number of shoots per explant, the highest multiplication rate was observed in temporary immersion, with 19.60 shoots and an average size of 1.74 cm, and the lowest percentage of hyperhydricity (3.33%).
MultiplicationBAP
IAA
13.2
11.4
Semisolid and liquid MS medium in the SETIS™
Frequency of 2 min/8 h for 45 to 60 days
Efficient multiplication of shoot clusters was obtained.[62]
AcclimatationBAP
IAA
13.2
5.7
Semisolid
MS medium
Efficient shoot multiplication was obtained. Plants were obtained for mycorrhizal fungi treatments.[93]
Direct organogenesisBAP
IAA
44.4
57.0
Semisolid
MS medium
IAA increased shoot and root length; BA + IAA promoted shoot proliferation, yielding up to 41 shoots per explant and 100% survival rate during acclimatization.[94]
Induction of callusBA
2,4-D
13.3
22.6
Semisolid MS medium (25%) with vitamins L2Formation of callus masses that had a diameter of 10 and 20 mm with a weight of 0.5 g.[95]
Maturation of somatic embryos2,4-D
BA (Pretreatment)
0.45
44.4
Semisolid MS medium (50%)19.4 somatic embryos were obtained per explant.
Maturation of somatic embryosGA3
BA
8.6
44.4
Semisolid MS medium (50%)Pretreatment with 44.40µM of BA formed 15.2 somatic embryos.
Callus inductionBA
2,4-D
0.44
0.45
Semisolid MS medium (25%) with vitamins L2 and MSObtaining compact and yellowish calluses, it was observed that the higher the concentration of auxin, the greater the weight of the callus.[76]
Shoot induction via indirect organogenesis.BA22.2Semisolid
MS medium (25%)
with activated carbon
The highest number of shoots regenerated was 24.7 per explant.
Shoot induction via direct organogénesisBA22.2Semisolid
MS medium (25%)
with activated carbon
22.3 shoots were obtained per explant from the meristematic zone explant.
Organogenesis stem tissueBA
IAA
4.4
1.7
Semisolid
MS medium
Organogenesis response, in 8 explants, the formation of adventitious buds occurred.
A. maximiliana BakerAxillary
multiplication
BA
2,4-D
8.8
0.09
Semisolid MS
medium
A total of 26.93 new shoots were produced, exhibiting typical morphological quality.[96]
A. nussaviorum García-MendozaRootingIBA2.5Semisolid
MS medium (60%)
The highest percentage of shoots with roots was 83%.[72]
A. peacockii CroucherMultiplicationBA
KIN
26.6
27.8
Semisolid MS mediumThe combination significantly favored the morphogenetic response and produced the highest shoot generation with 87 shoots on average.[62]
A. potatorum Zucc.RootingIBA29.2Semisolid MS medium reduced in NH4NO3A significantly higher number (8.60 ± 1.01) of formed roots was observed compared with the control treatments.[75]
MultiplicationBA8.8Semisolid
MS medium
The significant treatment produced 6.60 shoots on average, with an average length of 4.53 cm.[67]
MultiplicationBA8.8Medium MS in
System temporary immersion RITA®
An average of 14.4 shoots was obtained with an average of 2.3 cm.
Direct organogenesisBAP
IAA
13.3
17.2
Semisolid
MS medium
Regeneration of adventitious shoots 9.73 shoots per explant.[97]
RootingIAA17.1Semisolid
MS medium
Improved shoot development was achieved, with an average length of 5.77 cm.
RootingIBA2.85Semisolid
MS medium (75%)
96% of shoots developed roots and stems (6.4 mm diameter).[98]
Rooting
Acclimatization
IBA2.85 or 5.70Semisolid
MS medium
The addition of IBA to the culture medium enhanced plant growth, resulting in wider leaves, greater stem diameter, higher dry biomass, and overall larger plant size compared with shoots cultured without IBA.[71]
A. potatorum var. “Tóbala”Direct
Organogenesis
BAP
2,4-D
6.6
2.2
Semisolid MS medium (75%)
Citric/ascorbic acid
12.5 shoots/stem and leaf explant. More than 70% of the plants survived in the greenhouse after two months of cultivation.[65]
Indirect
Organogenesis
BAP
2,4-D
8.8
2.2
Semisolid MS medium (50%)
Citric/ascorbic acid
Stem explants yielded up to 81 shoots, demonstrating high propagation efficiency.
A. rzedowskiana GentryRegeneration by somatic embryogenesis2,4-D
BA
9.0
2.6
Reduced semisolid MS medium in NH4NO3
Nopal flour 2 g/L−1
Direct formation of embryogenic structures at the early scutellar, initial multicellular, and coleoptilar stages.[99]
A. salmiana ex Salm-DyckExpression and maturation of somatic embryosABA34.2Semisolid MS medium (50%)Mean embryos per explant: 15.4 ± 3.62.[73]
Induction of embryogenic callus2,4-D
BA
0.45
0.44
Semisolid MS medium (25%)It promoted callus formation, resulting in mucilaginous callus.[75]
Shoot induction via indirect organogenesisBA44.0Semisolid MS medium (25%) with activated carbonThe highest number of shoots obtained was 23.80 per explant.
A. salmiana Otto ex Salm-Dyck subsp. salmianaInduction of
embryogenic callus
2,4-D
BAP
9.0
1.3
Semisolid MS medium with vitamins L2Statistically significant treatment in quantifying the number of calluses expressing somatic embryogenesis.[100]
Expression of
somatic embryos
BAP
2,4-D
0.40
4.50
Semisolid MS mediumA maximum of 42.41 ± 5.85 somatic embryos were generated.
A. salmiana Otto ex Salm-Dyck var. “ayoteco”Axillary
multiplication
2,4-D
BAP
0.078
57.46
Semisolid MS medium
2250 mg/L zinc nanoparticles
Differentiated shoot development, including leaf formation, was observed at 60 days.[101]
A. sisalana Perr.Axillary shoot proliferationTDZ4.5Semisolid MS mediumThe optimum significant shoot proliferation (14.67 shoots/explant).[102]
A. tequilana WeberRegeneration by somatic embryogenesisPIC2.1Reduced semisolid MS medium in NH4NO3
Nopal flour 2 g/L
The treatment was effective in generating good-quality calluses and proembryogenic structures at all stages in leaf explants.[99]
A. tequilana Weber cv. “chato”Indirect somatic embryogenesisPIC
BAP
49.6
3.32
Semisolid MS mediumThe highest average number of somatic embryos was produced (52.43 ± 5.74)[103]
A. tequila Weber var. “azul”Axillary multiplication Segmented stem explantsBA
KIN
13.2
18.8
Semisolid MS mediumBA and KIN increased shoot number per explant, up to 18 (BA) and 26 (KIN); sagittal segmentation also increased axillary budding.[57]
Axillary multiplication Segmented stem explantsBA
IAA
13.2
5.7
MS liquid medium System temporary immersion RITA®
Frequency of 5 min/4 h
The highest IAA concentration resulted in 20 shoots per explant.
A. wocomahi GentryMultiplicationBA4.4Semisolid MS mediumResulted in the generation of 11.70 ± 4.8 shoots per explant.[104]
Callus tissue inductionPIC
BA
6.1
17.6
Semisolid MS mediumA greater callus induction rate (99.16%) was achieved in stem explants, with nodular callus tissue prevailing.
Somatic embryo inductionBA13.2Semisolid MS mediumA greater number of somatic embryolike structures were obtained.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sánchez-Mendoza, E.A.; Pérez-Molphe-Balch, E.; Guzmán-Mendoza, R.; Ruiz-Aguilar, G.; García-Munguía, A.M.; Costilla-Salazar, R.; Núñez-Palenius, H.G. Plant Growth Regulators Use in the In Vitro Culture of Agave Species. Plants 2025, 14, 3402. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14213402

AMA Style

Sánchez-Mendoza EA, Pérez-Molphe-Balch E, Guzmán-Mendoza R, Ruiz-Aguilar G, García-Munguía AM, Costilla-Salazar R, Núñez-Palenius HG. Plant Growth Regulators Use in the In Vitro Culture of Agave Species. Plants. 2025; 14(21):3402. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14213402

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sánchez-Mendoza, Estefany Alejandra, Eugenio Pérez-Molphe-Balch, Rafael Guzmán-Mendoza, Graciela Ruiz-Aguilar, Alberto M. García-Munguía, Rogelio Costilla-Salazar, and Héctor Gordon Núñez-Palenius. 2025. "Plant Growth Regulators Use in the In Vitro Culture of Agave Species" Plants 14, no. 21: 3402. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14213402

APA Style

Sánchez-Mendoza, E. A., Pérez-Molphe-Balch, E., Guzmán-Mendoza, R., Ruiz-Aguilar, G., García-Munguía, A. M., Costilla-Salazar, R., & Núñez-Palenius, H. G. (2025). Plant Growth Regulators Use in the In Vitro Culture of Agave Species. Plants, 14(21), 3402. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants14213402

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop