Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T00:38:11.026Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Comparison of Various Growth Parameters of Cell Suspension Cultures to Determine Phytotoxicity of Xenobiotics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

David G. Davis ,
Rosa L. Stolzenberg  and
Joan A. Dusky
David G. Davis
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv. Metabolism and Radiation Res. Lab., Fargo, ND 58105
Rosa L. Stolzenberg
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv. Metabolism and Radiation Res. Lab., Fargo, ND 58105
Joan A. Dusky
Affiliation:
Bot. Dep., North Dakota State Univ., Fargo, ND 58105
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An assessment was made of various parameters to measure growth of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr. ‘Wilkin’] and einkorn (Triticum monococcum L.) cell suspension cultures to establish convenient methods of screening the effects of chemicals. Methods assessed were settled cell volumes, packed cell volumes, absorbance at 525 nm of sonicated aliquots, dry weights (of aliquots or entire flask contents), and electrical conductivity and pH of the culture medium. Settled cell volumes, conductivity, and dry-weight changes were the most useful of the methods tested for determining the phytotoxicity of a nonionic linear alcohol ethylene oxide detergent (an adduct of 1-dodecanol containing eight ethylene oxide units) and the methyl ester of diclofop {2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy] propanoic acid}. Because 3 to 4 weeks were required to assess whether the cultures could grow out of the initial inhibition by the detergent or herbicide, none of the methods was rapid. Advantages and disadvantages of the various methods and their relative values for screening compounds are described.

Keywords

SoybeaneinkornphytotoxicityGlycine maxTriticum monococcumdetergentdiclofop-methyl
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 2 , March 1984 , pp. 235 - 242
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Davis, D. G. and Brezeanu, A. 1979. An ultrastructural study of Triticum monococcum cell suspension cultures during aging and after treatment with the herbicide diclofop-methyl {methyl-2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy]propanoate}. Can. J. Bot. 57:2006–2020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Davis, D. G., Stolzenberg, R. L., and Stolzenberg, G. E. 1982. Phytotoxicity of selected non-ionic surfactants to soybean Glycine max cell suspensions. Environ. Pollut. 27A:197–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Davis, D. G., Wergin, W. P., and Dusbabek, K. E. 1978. Effects of organic solvents on growth and ultrastructure of plant cell suspensions. Pest. Biochem. Physiol. 8:84–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Dusky, J. A., Davis, D. G., and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1980. Metabolism of diclofop-methyl {methyl-2-[4-(2,4-dichlorophenoxy)phenoxy]propanoate} in cell suspensions of diploid wheat (Triticum monococcum). Physiol. Plant. 49:151–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Dusky, J. A., Davis, D. G., and Shimabukuro, R. H. 1982. Metabolism of diclofop-methyl in cell cultures of Avena sativa and Avena fatua . Physiol. Plant. 54:490–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Gamborg, O. L. 1975. Callus and cell cultures. In: Plant Tissue Culture Methods (Gamborg, O. L. and Wetter, L. R., eds.), pp. 1–10, National Research Council of Canada, Publ. No. 14383, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.Google Scholar
7. Gressel, J. 1983. Plant tissue culture systems for screening of plant growth regulators, hormones, herbicides and natural phytotoxins. Pages 1–26 in Advances in Cell Cultures, Vol. III. In press.Google Scholar
8. Gresshoff, P. M. 1979. Growth inhibition by glyphosate and reversal of its action by phenylalanine and tyrosine. Aust. J. Plant Physiol. 6:177–185.Google Scholar
9. Hahlbrock, K. 1975. Further studies on the relationship between the rates of nitrate uptake, growth and conductivity changes in the medium of plant cell suspension cultures. Planta 124:311–318.Google Scholar
10. Hahlbrock, K. and Kuhlen, E. 1972. Relationship between growth of parsley and soybean cells in suspension cultures and changes in the conductivity of the culture medium. Planta 108:271–278.Google Scholar
11. King, P. J. and Street, H. E. 1973. Growth patterns in cell cultures. Botan. Monogr. 11:269–337.Google Scholar
12. Kubek, D. J. and Shuler, M. L. 1978. Electronic measurement of plant cell number and size in suspension culture. J. Exp. Bot. 29:511–523.Google Scholar
13. Kubek, D. J. and Shuler, M. L. 1978. A rapid quantitative method to measure growth of plant cell suspension cultures. Can. J. Bot. 56:2340–2343.Google Scholar
14. Kubek, D. J. and Shuler, M. L. 1978. On the generality of methods to obtain single-cell plant suspension cultures. Can. J. Bot. 56:2521–2527.Google Scholar
15. Meredith, C. P. and Carlson, P. S. 1982. Herbicide resistance in plants (LeBaron, H. M. and Gressel, J., eds.), pp. 275–291, John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
16. Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical methods. Sixth edition. The Iowa State University Press, Ames. IA 593 pp.Google Scholar
17. Zilkah, S. and Gressel, J. 1978. The estimation of cell death in suspension cultures evoked by phytotoxic compounds: differences among techniques. Plant Sci. Lett. 12:305–315.Google Scholar