Establishing a Virus-Free Rapid Propagation System for Strawberry ‘Miaoxiang 7’ Through Anther Culture
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Plant Materials
2.2. Selection of Explant
2.3. Pretreatment, Disinfection, and Inoculation of Explant
2.4. Medium Preparation, Culture Conditions, and Formula Screening
2.5. Virus Detection
2.6. Ploidy Identification of Regenerated Plants
2.7. SSR Molecular Marker Technology
2.8. Growth Physiology and Fruit Quality Assessment
2.9. Statistical Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Selection and Pretreatment of Anther Explant
3.2. Optimization of Key Factors for Anther Callus Induction and Plant Regeneration
3.3. Detection of Virus Removal Efficiency in Regenerated Plants
3.4. Evaluation of Genetic Stability in Regenerated Plants Using Ploidy Identification and Molecular Markers
3.5. Evaluation of Major Agronomic Traits and Production Performance of Virus-Free Plantlets
4. Discussion and Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Rojas, P.; Almada, R.D.; Sandoval, C.; Keller, K.E.; Martin, R.R.; Caligari, P.D.S. Occurrence of aphidborne viruses in southernmost South American populations of Fragaria chiloensis ssp. chiloensis. Plant Pathol. 2013, 62, 428–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martin, R.R.; Tzanetakis, I.E. Characterization and Recent Advances in Detection of Strawberry Viruses. Plant Dis. 2006, 90, 384–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Torrico, K.; Salazar, S.; Kirschbaum, D.; Conci, V. Yield losses of asymptomatic strawberry plants infected with Strawberry mild yellow edge virus. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2018, 150, 983–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thompson, J.R.; Wetzel, S.; Klerks, M.M.; Vašková, D.; Schoen, C.D.; Špak, J.; Jelkmann, W. Multiplex RT-PCR detection of four aphid-borne strawberry viruses in Fragaria spp. in combination with a plant mRNA specific internal control. J. Virol. Methods 2003, 111, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bonneau, P.; Hogue, R.; Tellier, S.; Fournier, V. Evaluation of Various Sources of Viral Infection in Strawberry Fields of Quebec, Canada. J. Econ. Entomol. 2019, 112, 2577–2583. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Diaz-Lara, A.; Stevens, K.A.; Klaassen, V.; Hwang, M.S.; Al Rwahnih, M. Sequencing a Strawberry Germplasm Collection Reveals New Viral Genetic Diversity and the Basis for New RT-qPCR Assays. Viruses 2021, 13, 1442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, B.; Lu, M.; Han, J.; Cao, Y.; Yan, F.; Song, X. Molecular insights and diagnostic advances in strawberry-infecting viruses. Front. Microbiol. 2025, 16, 1655696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, P.J.; Hu, C.Y. Regeneration of virus-free plants through in vitro culture. In Advances in Biomedical Engineering; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1980; pp. 61–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thanuja, K.; Arulmozhiyan, R.; Saraswathi, M.S.; Selvarajan, R.; Jegadeeswari, V.; Rajanbabu, V. A comprehensive review on in vitro therapies for virus elimination and novel methods for virus protection in key horticultural crops. Planta 2025, 262, 15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Long, Z.C.; Guo, C.H.; Gao, Q.Y.; An, S.; Sun, X.C. Comparative Study on Several Virus-Free Techniques for Cold-Region Strawberries. For. By-Prod. Spec. China 2014, 4, 61–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, Y.M. Study on Breeding Virus-Free Strawberry Plants Using Anther Culture. J. Northeast Agric. Sci. 1994, 3, 91–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xue, G.R.; Yang, Z.Y.; Zhu, Q.Y.; Wang, G.P. Research on the Technique for Obtaining Virus-Free Plants by Anther Culture in Strawberry. Chin. Bull. Bot. 1990, 1, 22–26. [Google Scholar]
- Ata, A.; Keleş, D.; TAŞKIN, H.; Büyükalaca, S. Effects of season, genotype, and nutrient medium on pepper anther culture andmicrospore development. J. Agric. For. 2019, 43, 123–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phippen, C.; Ockendon, D.J. Genotype, plant, bud size and media factors affecting anther culture of cauliflowers (Brassica oleracea var. botrytis). Theor. Appl. Genet. 1990, 79, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smýkal, P. Pollen Embryogenesis—The Stress Mediated Switch from Gametophytic to Sporophytic Development. Current Status and Future Prospects. Biol. Plant. 2000, 43, 481–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Palei, S.; Das, A.; Rout, G. In vitro Studies of Strawberry—An Important Fruit Crop: A Review. J. Plant Sci. Res. 2015, 31, 115–131. [Google Scholar]
- Haque, M.; Nath, U.; Iqbal, M.; Khatun, R.A.; Jani, A.; Khatun, R. Assessment of field performance and genetic diversity analysis of tissue culture variants of strawberry. Int. J. Agric. Technol. 2015, 11, 193–209. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, H.; Xiao, W.F.; Qian, L.H.; Liu, A.C.; Lai, W.G.; Wang, J.R.; Li, X.Y. Study on the Shoot Tip Tissue Culture System and Its Effect on Elimina tion of Virus for Strawberry Cultivar Fenyu No.1. South China Fruits 2024, 53, 185–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sliwinska, E.; Loureiro, J.; Leitch, I.J.; Šmarda, P.; Bainard, J.; Bureš, P.; Chumova, Z.; Horova, L.; Koutecký, P.; Lučanová, M. Application-based guidelines for best practices in plant flow cytometry. Cytom. Part A 2022, 101, 749–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cai, L.y.; Liu, S.; Nie, X.H.; Yang, H.Q.; Cao, Q.Q.; Li, H.C.; Xiao, T.T.; Li, R.J.; Zhang, Q. The fingerprint of main strawberry varieties in China was constructed based on SSR molecular marker. J. Beijing Univ. Agric. 2024, 39, 7–12. [Google Scholar]
- Huang, Z.C.; Shi, J.W.; Pang, F.H.; Wang, X.S.; Zhao, M.Z.; Chen, H.R. Construction and Application of DNA Fingerprinting of Strawberry (Fragaria ananassa Duch.) Varieties Based on SSR Markers. Mol. Plant Breed. 2017, 15, 3097–3116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, J.; Sohail, H.; Xu, X.; Zhang, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y. Unveiling tolerance mechanisms in pepper to combined low-temperature and low-light stress: A physiological and transcriptomic approach. BMC Plant Biol. 2025, 25, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Damodaran, S.; Strader, L.C. Factors governing cellular reprogramming competence in Arabidopsis adventitious root formation. Dev. Cell 2024, 59, 2745–2758.e3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koike, I.; Shimomura, K.; Umehara, M. Quantification of Endogenous Auxin and Cytokinin During Internode Culture of Ipecac. J. Vis. Exp. JoVE 2018, 133, e56902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Calderón Villalobos, L.I.A.; Lee, S.; De Oliveira, C.; Ivetac, A.; Brandt, W.; Armitage, L.; Sheard, L.B.; Tan, X.; Parry, G.; Mao, H.; et al. A combinatorial TIR1/AFB–Aux/IAA co-receptor system for differential sensing of auxin. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2012, 8, 477–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhojwani, S.S.; Dantu, P.K. Plant Tissue Culture: An Introductory Text; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhat, A.I.; Rao, G.P. Virus Elimination by Meristem-Tip Culture. In Characterization of Plant Viruses: Methods and Protocols; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, M.R.; Cui, Z.H.; Li, J.W.; Hao, X.Y.; Zhao, L.; Wang, Q.C. In vitro thermotherapy-based methods for plant virus eradication. Plant Methods 2018, 14, 87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Germanà, M.A. Anther culture for haploid and doubled haploid production. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. (PCTOC) 2011, 104, 283–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ikeuchi, M.; Sugimoto, K.; Iwase, A. Plant Callus: Mechanisms of Induction and Repression. Plant Cell 2013, 25, 3159–3173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hardigan, M.A.; Feldmann, M.J.; Lorant, A.; Bird, K.A.; Famula, R.; Acharya, C.; Cole, G.; Edger, P.P.; Knapp, S.J. Genome Synteny Has Been Conserved Among the Octoploid Progenitors of Cultivated Strawberry Over Millions of Years of Evolution. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 1789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]









| Culture Medium Type | Culture Medium Designation | 6-BA (mg/L) | NAA (mg/L) | IBA (mg/L) | GA3 (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Induction medium | A1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| A2 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | |
| A3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0 | 0 | |
| A4 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 0 | 0 | |
| A5 | 2.0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | |
| A6 | 1.0 | 0 | 0.5 | 0 | |
| A7 | 1.0 | 0 | 1.0 | 0 | |
| Differentiation medium | B1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| B2 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 0 | 0 | |
| B3 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0 | 0 | |
| B4 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0 | 0 | |
| B5 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 0 | 0 | |
| B6 | 0.5 | 0.05 | 0 | 0 | |
| B7 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.4 | 0 | |
| B8 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.3 | 0 | |
| B9 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | |
| B10 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.1 | 0 | |
| B11 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.05 | 0 | |
| Proliferation medium | C1 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.3 | 0 |
| C2 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.3 | 0.05 | |
| C3 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | |
| C4 | 0.5 | 0 | 0.2 | 0.05 | |
| Rooting medium | D1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| D2 | 0 | 0 | 0.2 | 0 | |
| D3 | 0 | 0 | 0.4 | 0 | |
| D4 | 0 | 0 | 0.6 | 0 | |
| D5 | 0 | 0 | 0.8 | 0 |
| Name of Primer | Primer Sequence (5′-3′) | Fragment Size (bp) |
|---|---|---|
| SCV-F SCV-R | CGGGGATCAGACAGGACTTG CGGCGCTTGTAAAGGTGTTC | 508 |
| SMoV-F SMoV-R | TCAACAGAGCCCGAGAACAC TCAGATACCGCAATCGGTCG | 509 |
| SMYEV-F SMYEV-R | CAACGACACTCCTCTGTGCT TTGCTGGTGTGGGAACAACT | 373 |
| SVBV-F SVBV-R | GAGTTCGACCTACTCGAGCG | 392 |
| GGTGCTACAAGAGCCCAACT | ||
| Actin-F Actin-R | GAGGCTCCATCTTAGCATCC | 87 |
| ACAATTGAAGGGCCTGATTC |
| Name of Primer | Forward Primer Sequences (5′-3′) | Reverse Primer Sequences (3′-5′) |
|---|---|---|
| FA1 | GAGCCTGCTACGCTTTTCTATG | CCTCTGATTCGATGATTTGCT |
| FA2 | GCGAGGCGATCATGGAGAGA | GCGTTTCCTACGTCCCAATAAATC |
| FA3 | GCGGGCTGTCCACACTCCTTTCT | GCGATGCGTAAGTCTCTTCAAATA |
| FA4 | GCGAACCCCATTAACAGCTTCA | GCGATCAAATTCCCCTCTAACAAT |
| FA5 | GAGCTACACAATGCCATCAAAA | GCGCATTCGACTCTGTAACTCT |
| FA6 | AACAACAGCTCTCGCATATT | GAACCATCCAGACTATCTCC |
| FA7 | CATTGCCCACCTCGTAACTT | TGCAATCTTGCATGTAGCATAA |
| FA8 | CAAATCCTGTTCCTGCCAGT | CCGGTCACTAGAACCGAAAG |
| FA9 | ACACTGCGTTTTGTGTGCTC | CAGGCCGTAATCCATTTCTT |
| FA10 | ACTGGTGGAGGAGAGGACTGTA | TGTGGAGCAGAGAGAATTGAAG |
| FA11 | CCGGTCAAAACACCAAAACT | CTGGAAAGGAAACGATTGGA |
| FA12 | TCATCCTCTTTCACCTCCACTT | TCAAAAGACTTGGAAATGTTGC |
| FA13 | GGCACCACGGATTTCAAGTA | TGTTGCGTTTTCAAGCTCAC |
| FA14 | ATCAGATTTGGGGGTTAGGG | CCCAATGGGTCCTGTTGACC |
| FA15 | TTGAAGAACTCAGAGATGTCAAGC | GGATGAACAGAGAGTCCGGTA |
| FA16 | CCACCCTCCAATATAACCC | AGGAGAACCAAGATTAAGCC |
| FA17 | GCATCTCCAAAGCTCTCACG | GCCTAAACCAAACCCAAAATC |
| FA18 | ACGAGGCCTTGTCTTCTTTGTA | GCTCCAGCTTTATTGTCTTGCT |
| FA19 | GGCAAATGAAAGTTCAATCTTTGTA | TGTCGTGTGTTTTAGTTCACAATG |
| FA20 | TTTGTATCGGCCCAAAAGAG | GTCGTTTTCCACTGCTGGAT |
| FA21 | GGAATCCAAGTTACAGGCTTCA | AAGGAGCCTCTCCAATAGCTTC |
| FA22 | CACGAGGCCTTGTCTTCTTTGTA | GCTCCAGCTTTATTGTCTTGCT |
| FA23 | CCCCACCCTAAACTAACCCAA | CGACGAGGATGAAGAAGAGC |
| FA24 | TGACAAACATTCAACCACAC | GTGCCCTCAGAAGACTACC |
| FA25 | AAATCCTGTTCCTGCCAGTG | TGGTGACGTATTGGGTGATG |
| Flower Bud Number | Diameter (mm) | Microspore Developmental Stage |
|---|---|---|
| F1 | 3.00–3.50 | Tetrad stage and early- to mid-mononuclear stage |
| F2 | 3.50–4.00 | Early- to mid-stage and a few cases of late-uninucleate stage |
| F3 | 4.00–4.50 | Late-uninucleate stage |
| F4 | 4.50–5.00 | Late-uninucleate stage |
| F5 | 5.00–6.50 | Minor late-uninucleate stage and binucleate pollen grain stage |
| Medium Number | Number of Inoculated | Number of Induced Callus | Induction Rate of Callus (%) | Callus Morphology |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 300 | 0 | 0 b | No callus formed |
| A2 | 300 | 268 | 89.33 ± 7.09 a | Pale yellow–green, dense structure, granular surface |
| A3 | 300 | 259 | 86.33 ± 5.03 a | Pale yellow–green, dense structure, granular surface |
| A4 | 300 | 255 | 85.00 ± 6.25 a | Pale yellow–green, dense structure, granular surface |
| A5 | 300 | 257 | 85.67 ± 5.77 a | Pale yellow–green, dense structure, slightly granular surface |
| A6 | 300 | 246 | 82.00 ± 8.72 a | Pale yellow–green, dense structure, slightly granular surface |
| A7 | 300 | 242 | 80.67 ± 3.06 a | Pale yellow–green, dense structure, slightly granular surface |
| Medium Number | Number of Inoculated Callus | Number of Shoots | Differentiation Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | 150 | 0 | 0 d |
| B2 | 150 | 0 | 0 d |
| B3 | 150 | 6 | 4.00 ± 4.00 d |
| B4 | 150 | 10 | 6.67 ± 4.16 de |
| B5 | 150 | 8 | 4.67 ± 1.15 de |
| B6 | 150 | 9 | 6.00 ± 3.46 de |
| B7 | 150 | 19 | 12.67 ± 5.03 d |
| B8 | 150 | 88 | 58.67 ± 7.02 a |
| B9 | 150 | 67 | 44.67 ± 7.02 b |
| B10 | 150 | 84 | 56.00 ± 6.00 a |
| B11 | 150 | 45 | 30.00 ± 4.00 c |
| Medium Number | Number of Inoculated | Number of Buds | Reproduction Coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 60 | 164 | 2.73 ± 0.10 ab |
| C2 | 60 | 191 | 3.18 ± 0.32 a |
| C3 | 60 | 157 | 2.62 ± 0.33 ab |
| C4 | 60 | 150 | 2.50 ± 0.38 b |
| Medium Number | Rooting Rate (%) | Average Root Length (cm) | Number of Lateral Roots |
|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | 100% | 12.86 ± 3.11 ab | 16.50 ± 3.11 a |
| D2 | 100% | 18.52 ± 7.71 a | 18.25 ± 2.22 a |
| D3 | 100% | 15.93 ± 4.38 ab | 17.75 ± 3.30 a |
| D4 | 100% | 13.02 ± 2.70 b | 16.75 ± 6.40 a |
| D5 | 100% | 14.42 ± 0.72 ab | 17.50 ± 4.12 a |
| Virus | Quantity | Virus Infection Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|
| SMoV | 0 | 0 |
| SMYEV | 0 | 0 |
| SVBV | 1 | 0.54% |
| SCV | 2 | 1.08% |
| Ploidy | Quantity | Proportion (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Tetraploid | 10 | 9.09% |
| Hexaploid | 18 | 16.36% |
| Octoploid | 81 | 73.64% |
| Chimeric ploidy | 1 | 0.91% |
| Primer | Total Bands | Polymorphic Bands | Rate of Polymorphic Bands (%) | PIC |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FA2 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.0000 |
| FA4 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.0000 |
| FA12 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.0000 |
| FA14 | 2 | 1 | 50.00% | 0.1800 |
| FA16 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.0000 |
| FA18 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.0000 |
| FA22 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.0000 |
| FA23 | 2 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.0000 |
| FA24 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.0000 |
| FA25 | 3 | 0 | 0.00% | 0.0000 |
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. |
© 2026 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.
Share and Cite
Tian, R.; Chen, S.; Guo, J.; Liu, K.; Li, Z.; Meng, L.; Zhang, X.; Gao, S.; Wei, H.; Luo, J.; et al. Establishing a Virus-Free Rapid Propagation System for Strawberry ‘Miaoxiang 7’ Through Anther Culture. Horticulturae 2026, 12, 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12020227
Tian R, Chen S, Guo J, Liu K, Li Z, Meng L, Zhang X, Gao S, Wei H, Luo J, et al. Establishing a Virus-Free Rapid Propagation System for Strawberry ‘Miaoxiang 7’ Through Anther Culture. Horticulturae. 2026; 12(2):227. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12020227
Chicago/Turabian StyleTian, Runyu, Shanxin Chen, Jingru Guo, Ke Liu, Zhaoyang Li, Lixiang Meng, Xiaoyue Zhang, Shanshan Gao, Huitian Wei, Jingjing Luo, and et al. 2026. "Establishing a Virus-Free Rapid Propagation System for Strawberry ‘Miaoxiang 7’ Through Anther Culture" Horticulturae 12, no. 2: 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12020227
APA StyleTian, R., Chen, S., Guo, J., Liu, K., Li, Z., Meng, L., Zhang, X., Gao, S., Wei, H., Luo, J., & Peng, F. (2026). Establishing a Virus-Free Rapid Propagation System for Strawberry ‘Miaoxiang 7’ Through Anther Culture. Horticulturae, 12(2), 227. https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae12020227
