Search
2022 Volume 2
Article Contents
REVIEW   Open Access    

Mini review: Application of the somatic embryogenesis technique in conifer species

More Information
  • The somatic embryogenesis (SE) process is better suited to large-scale production and automation than other clonal propagation methods such as the rooting of cuttings. SE is becoming a key technique to promote the asexual industrialization of conifers. Furthermore, somatic embryos are an ideal material to study the molecular mechanism of conifer embryo development, as the processes of somatic and zygotic embryo development are very similar. This brief review introduces the culturing techniques of the SE process in conifers and outlines the progress and deficiencies in conifer SE research. Emphasis is placed on the patterning formation of conifer somatic embryos.
  • 加载中
  • [1]

    Klimaszewska K, Hargreaves C, Lelu-Walter MA, Trontin JF. 2016. Advances in Conifer Somatic Embryogenesis Since Year 2000. In In Vitro Embryogenesis in Higher Plants. Methods in Molecular Biology, eds. Germana M, Lambardi M. vol 1359. New York: Humana Press NY. pp. 131−66. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3061-6_7

    [2]

    Hakman, Fowke L C, Arnold V, Eriksson T. 1985. The development of somatic embryos in tissue cultures initiated from immature embryos of Picea abies (Norway Spruce). Plant Science 38:53−59

    doi: 10.1016/0168-9452(85)90079-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    Varis S, Klimaszewska K, Aronen T. 2018. Somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from primordial shoot explants of Picea abies (L.) H. Karst. Somatic Trees. Frontiers in Plant Science 9:1551

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01551

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4]

    Klimaszewska K, Overton C, Stewart D, Rutledge RG. 2011. Initiation of somatic embryos and regeneration of plants from primordial shoots of 10-year-old somatic white spruce and expression profiles of 11 genes followed during the tissue culture process. Planta 233:635−47

    doi: 10.1007/s00425-010-1325-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    Attree SM, Bekkaoui F, Dunstan DI, Fowke LC. 1987. Regeneration of somatic embryos from protoplasts isolated from an embryogenic suspension culture of white spruce (Picea glauca). Plant Cell Reports 6:480−83

    doi: 10.1007/BF00272788

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6]

    Lelu-Walter MA, Thompson D, Harvengt L, Sanchez L, Toribio M, et al. 2013. Somatic embryogenesis in forestry with a focus on Europe: state-of-the-art, benefits, challenges and future direction. Tree Genetics & Genomes 9:883−99

    doi: 10.1007/s11295-013-0620-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7]

    Denchev P, Grossnickle SC. 2019. Somatic embryogenesis for conifer seedling production: the biology of scaling. Reforesta 7:109−37

    doi: 10.21750/refor.7.08.70

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    Xia Y, Zhang J, Jing D, Kong L, Zhang S, et al. 2016. Plant regeneration of Picea asperata Mast. by somatic embryogenesis. Trees 31:299−312

    doi: 10.1007/s00468-016-1484-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9]

    von Arnold S, Clapham D. 2008. Spruce embryogenesis. In Plant Embryogenesis. Methods In Molecular Biology, ed. Suárez MF, Bozhkov PV. vol 427. New York: Humana Press. pp. 31−47. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-273-1_3

    [10]

    Rupps A, Raschke J, Rümmler M, Linke B, Zoglauer K. 2016. Identification of putative homologs of Larix decidua to BABYBOOM (BBM), LEAFY COTYLEDON1 (LEC1), WUSCHEL-related HOMEOBOX2 (WOX2) and SOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR-like KINASE (SERK) during somatic embryogenesis. Planta 243:473−88

    doi: 10.1007/s00425-015-2409-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11]

    Trontin JF, Klimaszewska K, Morel A, Hargreaves C, Lelu-Walter MA. 2016. Molecular aspects of conifer zygotic and somatic embryo development: A review of genome-wide approaches and recent insights. In In Vitro Embryogenesis in Higher Plants. Methods in Molecular Biology, eds. Germana M, Lambardi M. vol 1359. New York: Humana Press, NY. pp. 167−207. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3061-6_8

    [12]

    Yakovlev IA, Carneros E, Lee Y, Olsen JE, Fossdal CG. 2016. Transcriptional profiling of epigenetic regulators in somatic embryos during temperature induced formation of an epigenetic memory in Norway spruce. Planta 243:1237−49

    doi: 10.1007/s00425-016-2484-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Klimaszewska K, Noceda C, Pelletier G, Label P, Rodriguez R, et al. 2009. Biological characterization of young and aged embryogenic cultures of Pinus pinaster (ait.). In Vitro Cellular and Development Biology - Plant 45:20−33

    doi: 10.1007/s11627-008-9158-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14]

    Uddenberg D, Valladares S, Abrahamsson M, Sundström JF, Sundås-Larsson A, et al. 2011. Embryogenic potential and expression of embryogenesis-related genes in conifers are affected by treatment with a histone deacetylase inhibitor. Planta 234:527−39

    doi: 10.1007/s00425-011-1418-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    He C, Chen X, Huang H, Xu L. 2012. Reprogramming of H3K27me3 is critical for acquisition of pluripotency from cultured Arabidopsis tissues. PLoS Genetics 8:e1002911

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002911

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16]

    Mozgová I, Muñoz-Viana R, Hennig L. 2017. PRC2 represses hormone-induced somatic embryogenesis in vegetative tissue of Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS Genetics 13:e1006562

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1006562

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17]

    Nakamura M, Batista RA, Kohler C, Hennig L. 2020. Polycomb Repressive Complex 2-mediated histone modification H3K27me3 is associated with embryogenic potential in Norway spruce. Journal of Experimental Botany 71:6366−78

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/eraa365

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18]

    Elhiti M, Stasolla C, Wang A. 2013. Molecular regulation of plant somatic embryogenesis. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant 49:631−42

    doi: 10.1007/s11627-013-9547-3

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19]

    Dyachok JV, Wiweger M, Kenne L, von Arnold S. 2002. Endogenous Nod-factor-like signal molecules promote early somatic embryo development in Norway spruce. Plant Physiology 128:523−33

    doi: 10.1104/pp.010547

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20]

    van Hengel AJ, Tadesse Z, Immerzeel P, Schols H, van Kammen A, et al. 2001. N-acetylglucosamine and glucosamine-containing arabinogalactan proteins control somatic embryogenesis. Plant Physiology 125:1880−90

    doi: 10.1104/pp.125.4.1880

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Wiweger M, Farbos I, Ingouff M, Lagercrantz U, Von Arnold S. 2003. Expression of Chia4-Pa chitinase genes during somatic and zygotic embryo development in Norway spruce (Picea abies): similarities and differences between gymnosperm and angiosperm class IV chitinases. Journal of Experimental Botany 54:2691−99

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/erg299

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22]

    Umehara M, Ogita S, Sasamoto H, Koshino H, Asami T, et al. 2005. Identification of a novel factor, vanillyl benzyl ether, which inhibits somatic embryogenesis of Japanese larch (Larix leptolepis Gordon). Plant and Cell Physiology 46:445−53

    doi: 10.1093/pcp/pci041

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    Santos MO, Aragão FJ. 2009. Role of SERK genes in plant environmental response. Plant Signaling & Behavior 4:1111−13

    doi: 10.4161/psb.4.12.9900

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Boutilier K, Offringa R, Sharma VK, Kieft H, Ouellet T, et al. 2002. Ectopic expression of BABY BOOM triggers a conversion from vegetative to embryonic growth. The Plant Cell 14:1737−49

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.001941

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    Nole-Wilson S, Tranby TL, Krizek BA. 2005. AINTEGUMENTA-like (AIL) genes are expressed in young tissues and may specify meristematic or division-competent states. Plant Molecular Biology 57:613−28

    doi: 10.1007/s11103-005-0955-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26]

    Iwase A, Mitsuda N, Koyama T, Hiratsu K, Kojima M, et al. 2011. The AP2/ERF transcription factor WIND1 controls cell dedifferentiation in Arabidopsis. Current Biology 21:508−14

    doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2011.02.020

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27]

    Iwase A, Ohme-Takagi M, Sugimoto K. 2011. WIND1: A key molecular switch for plant cell dedifferentiation. Plant Signaling & Behavior 6:1943−45

    doi: 10.4161/psb.6.12.18266

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28]

    Gaj MD, Zhang S, Harada JJ, Lemaux PG. 2005. Leafy cotyledon genes are essential for induction of somatic embryogenesis of Arabidopsis. Planta 222:977−88

    doi: 10.1007/s00425-005-0041-y

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29]

    Kwong RW, Bui AQ, Lee H, Kwong LW, Fischer RL, et al. 2003. LEAFY COTYLEDON1-LIKE defines a class of regulators essential for embryo development. The Plant Cell 15:5−18

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.006973

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30]

    Verma S, Attuluri VPS, Robert HS. 2022. Transcriptional control of Arabidopsis seed development. Planta 255:90

    doi: 10.1007/s00425-022-03870-x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31]

    Kagaya Y, Toyoshima R, Okuda R, Usui H, Yamamoto A, et al. 2005. LEAFY COTYLEDON1 controls seed storage protein genes through its regulation of FUSCA3 and ABSCISIC ACID INSENSITIVE3. Plant and Cell Physiology 46:399−406

    doi: 10.1093/pcp/pci048

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32]

    Suzuki M, Wang HHY, McCarty DR. 2007. Repression of the LEAFY COTYLEDON 1/B3 regulatory network in plant embryo development by VP1/ABSCISIC ACID INSENSITIVE 3-LIKE B3 genes. Plant Physiology 143:902−11

    doi: 10.1104/pp.106.092320

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Laux T, Mayer KF, Berger J, Jürgens G. 1996. The WUSCHEL gene is required for shoot and floral meristem integrity in Arabidopsis. Development 122:87−96

    doi: 10.1242/dev.122.1.87

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34]

    Breuninger H, Rikirsch E, Hermann M, Ueda M, Laux T. 2008. Differential expression of WOX genes mediates apical-basal axis formation in the Arabidopsis embryo. Developmental Cell 14:867−76

    doi: 10.1016/j.devcel.2008.03.008

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Sarkar AK, Luijten M, Miyashima S, Lenhard M, Hashimoto T, et al. 2007. Conserved factors regulate signalling in Arabidopsis thaliana shoot and root stem cell organizers. Nature 446:811−14

    doi: 10.1038/nature05703

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36]

    Aida M, Ishida T, Fukaki H, Fujisawa H, Tasaka M. 1997. Genes involved in organ separation in Arabidopsis: an analysis of the cup-shaped cotyledon mutant. The Plant Cell 9:841−57

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.9.6.841

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37]

    Aida M, Ishida T, Tasaka M. 1999. Shoot apical meristem and cotyledon formation during Arabidopsis embryogenesis: interaction among the CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON and SHOOT MERISTEMLESS genes. Development 126:1563−70

    doi: 10.1242/dev.126.8.1563

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [38]

    Daimon Y, Takabe K, Tasaka M. 2003. The CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON genes promote adventitious shoot formation on calli. Plant and Cell Physiology 44:113−21

    doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcg038

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39]

    Lu P, Porat R, Nadeau JA, O'Neill SD. 1996. Identification of a meristem L1 layer-specific gene in Arabidopsis that is expressed during embryonic pattern formation and defines a new class of homeobox genes. The Plant Cell 8:2155−68

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.8.12.2155

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40]

    Kubo H, Peeters AJM, Aarts MGM, Pereira A, Koornneef M. 1999. ANTHOCYANINLESS2, a homeobox gene affecting anthocyanin distribution and root development in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 11:1217−26

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.11.7.1217

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41]

    Long JA, Moan EI, Medford JI, Barton MK. 1996. A member of the KNOTTED class of homeodomain proteins encoded by the STM gene of Arabidopsis. Nature 379:66−69

    doi: 10.1038/379066a0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42]

    Dolan L. 2001. Root patterning: SHORT ROOT on the move. Current Biology 11:R983−R985

    doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(01)00580-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [43]

    Wu J, Yang J, Cho WC, Zheng Y. 2020. Argonaute proteins: Structural features, functions and emerging roles. Journal of Advanced Research 24:317−24

    doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2020.04.017

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44]

    Cairney J, Pullman GS. 2007. The cellular and molecular biology of conifer embryogenesis. New Phytologist 176:511−36

    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02239.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45]

    Larsson E, Sitbon F, Ljung K, von Arnold S. 2008. Inhibited polar auxin transport results in aberrant embryo development in Norway spruce. New Phytologist 177:356−66

    doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02289.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46]

    Bozhkov PV, Filonova LH, Suarez MF. 2005. Programmed cell death in plant embryogenesis. Current Topics in Developmental Biology 67:135−79

    doi: 10.1016/s0070-2153(05)67004-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47]

    Filonova LH, Bozhkov PV, Brukhin VB, Daniel G, Zhivotovsky B, et al. 2000. Two waves of programmed cell death occur during formation and development of somatic embryos in the gymnosperm, Norway spruce. Journal of Cell Science 113 Pt 24:4399−411

    doi: 10.1242/jcs.113.24.4399

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [48]

    Minina EA, Filonova LH, Fukada K, Savenkov EI, Gogvadze V, et al. 2013. Autophagy and metacaspase determine the mode of cell death in plants. The Journal of Cell Biology 203:917−27

    doi: 10.1083/jcb.201307082

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49]

    Minina EA, Stael S, Van Breusegem F, Bozhkov PV. 2014. Plant metacaspase activation and activity. In Caspases, Paracaspases, and Metacaspases. Methods in Molecular Biology, eds. Bozhkov PV, Salvesen G. vol 1133. New York: Humana Press, NY. pp. 237−53. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-0357-3_15

    [50]

    Mayer KF, Schoof H, Haecker A, Lenhard M, Jurgens G, Laux T. 1998. Role of WUSCHEL in regulating stem cell fate in the Arabidopsis shoot meristem. Cell 95:805−15

    doi: 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81703-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51]

    Hedman H, Zhu T, von Arnold S, Sohlberg JJ. 2013. Analysis of the WUSCHEL-RELATED HOMEOBOX gene family in the coniferPicea abies reveals extensive conservation as well as dynamic patterns. BMC Plant Biology 13:89

    doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-13-89

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [52]

    Alvarez JM, Bueno N, Canas RA, Avila C, Canovas FM, Ordas RJ. 2018. Analysis of the WUSCHEL-RELATED HOMEOBOX gene family in Pinus pinaster: New insights into the gene family evolution. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 123:304−18

    doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2017.12.031

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53]

    Nardmann J, Reisewitz P, Werr W. 2009. Discrete shoot and root stem cell-promoting WUS/WOX5 functions are an evolutionary innovation of angiosperms. Molecular Biology and Evolution 26:1745−55

    doi: 10.1093/molbev/msp084

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54]

    Zhu T, Moschou PN, Alvarez JM, Sohlberg JJ, von Arnold S. 2016. WUSCHEL-RELATED HOMEOBOX 2 is important for protoderm and suspensor development in the gymnosperm Norway spruce. BMC Plant Biology 16:19

    doi: 10.1186/s12870-016-0706-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55]

    Zhu T, Moschou PN, Alvarez JM, Sohlberg JJ, von Arnold S. 2014. WUSCHEL-RELATED HOMEOBOX 8/9 is important for proper embryo patterning in the gymnosperm Norway spruce. Journal of Experimental Botany 65:6543−52

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/eru371

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [56]

    Weimer AK, Nowack MK, Bouyer D, Zhao X, Harashima H, et al. 2012. Retinoblastoma related1 regulates asymmetric cell divisions in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 24:4083−95

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.112.104620

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [57]

    Yeats TH, Rose JKC. 2013. The formation and function of plant cuticles. Plant Physiology 163:5−20

    doi: 10.1104/pp.113.222737

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [58]

    Sabala I, Elfstrand M, Farbos I, Clapham D, von Arnold S. 2000. Tissue-specific expression of Pa18, a putative lipid transfer protein gene, during embryo development in Norway spruce (Picea abies). Plant Molecular Biology 42:461−78

    doi: 10.1023/A:1006303702086

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [59]

    Ingouff M, Farbos I, Wiweger M, von Arnold S. 2003. The molecular characterization of PaHB2, a homeobox gene of the HD-GL2 family expressed during embryo development in Norway spruce. Journal of Experimental Botany 54:1343−50

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/erg145

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [60]

    Iida H, Yoshida A, Takada S. 2019. ATML1 activity is restricted to the outermost cells of the embryo through post-transcriptional repressions. Development 146:dev169300

    doi: 10.1242/dev.169300

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [61]

    Thoma S, Hecht U, Kippers A, Botella J, De Vries S, et al. 1994. Tissue-specific expression of a gene encoding a cell wall-localized lipid transfer protein from Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 105:35−45

    doi: 10.1104/pp.105.1.35

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [62]

    Guillet-Claude C, Isabel N, Pelgas B, Bousquet J. 2004. The evolutionary implications of knox-I gene duplications in conifers: correlated evidence from phylogeny, gene mapping, and analysis of functional divergence. Molecular Biology and Evolution 21:2232−45

    doi: 10.1093/molbev/msh235

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [63]

    Larsson E, Sitbon F, von Arnold S. 2012. Differential regulation of Knotted1-like genes during establishment of the shoot apical meristem in Norway spruce (Picea abies). Plant Cell Reports 31:1053−60

    doi: 10.1007/s00299-011-1224-6

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [64]

    Belmonte MF, Tahir M, Schroeder D, Stasolla C. 2007. Overexpression of HBK3, a class I KNOX homeobox gene, improves the development of Norway spruce (Picea abies) somatic embryos. Journal of Experimental Botany 58:2851−61

    doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm099

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [65]

    Larsson E, Sundström trom JF, Sitbon F, von Arnold S. 2012. Expression of PaNAC01, a Picea abies CUP-SHAPED COTYLEDON orthologue, is regulated by polar auxin transport and associated with differentiation of the shoot apical meristem and formation of separated cotyledons. Annals of Botany 110:923−34

    doi: 10.1093/aob/mcs151

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [66]

    Tahir M, Law DA, Stasolla C. 2006. Molecular characterization of PgAGO, a novel conifer gene of the Argonaute family expressed in apical cells and required for somatic embryo development in spruce. Tree Physiology 26:1257−70

    doi: 10.1093/treephys/26.10.1257

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [67]

    Zhang J, Zhang S, Han S, Wu T, Li X, et al. 2012. Genome-wide identification of microRNAs in larch and stage-specific modulation of 11 conserved microRNAs and their targets during somatic embryogenesis. Planta 236:647−57

    doi: 10.1007/s00425-012-1643-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [68]

    Abarca D, Pizarro A, Hernández I, Sánchez C, Solana SP, et al. 2014. The GRAS gene family in pine: transcript expression patterns associated with the maturation-related decline of competence to form adventitious roots. BMC Plant Biology 14:354

    doi: 10.1186/s12870-014-0354-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [69]

    Nystedt B, Street NR, Wetterbom A, Zuccolo A, Lin YC, et al. 2013. The Norway spruce genome sequence and conifer genome evolution. Nature 497:579−84

    doi: 10.1038/nature12211

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [70]

    Birol I, Raymond A, Jackman SD, Pleasance S, Coope R, et al. 2013. Assembling the 20 Gb white spruce (Picea glauca) genome from whole-genome shotgun sequencing data. Bioinformatics 29:1492−97

    doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt178

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [71]

    Niu S, Li J, Bo W, Yang W, Zuccolo A, et al. 2022. The Chinese pine genome and methylome unveil key features of conifer evolution. Cell 185:204−217.E14

    doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.12.006

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [72]

    Egertsdotter U, Ahmad I, Clapham D. 2019. Automation and Scale Up of Somatic Embryogenesis for Commercial Plant Production, With Emphasis on Conifers. Frontiers in Plant Science 10:109

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00109

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Zhu T, Wang J, Hu J, Ling J. 2022. Mini review: Application of the somatic embryogenesis technique in conifer species. Forestry Research 2:18 doi: 10.48130/FR-2022-0018
    Zhu T, Wang J, Hu J, Ling J. 2022. Mini review: Application of the somatic embryogenesis technique in conifer species. Forestry Research 2:18 doi: 10.48130/FR-2022-0018

Figures(1)  /  Tables(1)

Article Metrics

Article views(5138) PDF downloads(981)

Other Articles By Authors

REVIEW   Open Access    

Mini review: Application of the somatic embryogenesis technique in conifer species

Forestry Research  2 Article number: 18  (2022)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: The somatic embryogenesis (SE) process is better suited to large-scale production and automation than other clonal propagation methods such as the rooting of cuttings. SE is becoming a key technique to promote the asexual industrialization of conifers. Furthermore, somatic embryos are an ideal material to study the molecular mechanism of conifer embryo development, as the processes of somatic and zygotic embryo development are very similar. This brief review introduces the culturing techniques of the SE process in conifers and outlines the progress and deficiencies in conifer SE research. Emphasis is placed on the patterning formation of conifer somatic embryos.

  • Somatic embryogenesis (SE) is a universal phenomenon unique to the plant kingdom. The SE technique has considerable application significance in valuable varieties for which it is difficult to obtain seeds and for forests with long growth cycles. The SE technique is considered to be one of the most important asexual propagation techniques for conifers[1] and is conducive to the rapid reproduction of new varieties of valuable conifers. In 1985, Hakman et al. were the first to achieve SE in coniferous species[2]. They induced somatic proembryogenic masses (PEMs) using immature Picea abies zygotes as explants and obtained regenerated plants. To date, most conifer species can only use immature/mature embryos as explants for PEM induction, although there are a few exceptional genotypes in which PEM can be induced from primordial shoots[3,4]. The cell morphology and physiological changes associated with somatic embryo induction, maturation and germination of spruce species have been systematically studied in Picea glauca[5]. SE has been achieved in more than 50 tree species and hybrids in six coniferous genera, including Abies, Larix, Picea, Pinus, Pseudotsuga and Sequol[2,58].

    • Conifer SE techniques involve four phases: proliferation of the PEM, induction of SE, formation of the meristematic centers, and development of the somatic embryo[9]. The PEM proliferates on a proliferation medium that contains plant growth factors (PGRs), including auxin and cytokinin. The cultures must be subcultured every 10 to 21 d (depending on the species) onto fresh medium. Long-term subculture leads to a decrease or even complete loss of embryo production capacity in the PEM lines. For long-term storage, the cultures can be cryopreserved. One week of withdrawal of PGRs effectively induces the differentiation of early somatic embryos (EEs). After the SE induction phase, the cultures are transferred to a maturation medium that contains abscisic acid (ABA) and a high sucrose content. The establishment of meristematic centers characterizes the formation of late somatic embryos (LEs). In the last phase, somatic embryos achieve both morphological and physiological maturity. It takes 4 to 6 weeks for development into mature somatic embryos (MEs) on maturation medium (Fig. 1a). The MEs must be desiccated before germination, and they are finally planted in the field.

      Figure 1. 

      Conifer embryo development represented by Picea abies. (a) Schematic representation of the developmental stages of somatic embryo development. (b)−(f) Somatic embryo development process: (b) proembryogenic mass (PEM); (c) cultures after one week on maturation medium, insert presents an early somatic embryo (EE); (d) culture contains late embryos (LEs); (e) culture contains maturing and (f) matured somatic embryo (ME). (g), (h) Dissected seeds to show (g) the early zygotic embryo, indicated by the black arrow, and (h) the maturing zygotic embryo. Bar = 500 μm.

    • The induction and differentiation rates of the PEMs are related to genotype. Currently, some desirable varieties are difficult to propagate with the SE technique. Somatic dedifferentiation and redifferentiation require the regulation of a multitude of genes and chromosome reprogramming, which are controlled by DNA methylation and histone modification. Related research has been widely conducted in angiosperms. However, this knowledge is very limited in gymnosperms. Some genes have been verified as major regulators of SE or plant embryo patterning in a variety of plant species. Table 1 lists some of these genes that have been reported in conifers. Homologs of BBM, LEC1, WOX2 and SERK1 have been identified in Larix decidua[10]. LEC1, WOX2 and SERK1 are presumed to conserve their function in the induction of SE based on their expression pattern[11].

      Table 1.  List of some of the major regulatory genes in somatic embryogenesis.

      Gene familyGeneDescriptionReferences
      LRR-RLKsSOMATIC EMBRYOGENESIS RECEPTOR-
      LIKE KINASE 1-5 (SERKs)
      Transmembrane proteins; involved in signal transduction and have been strongly associated with somatic embryogenesis and apomixis in a number of plant species.[23]
      AP2/ERFBABYBOOM (BBM)Tanscription factor; activates LEC1-ABI3-FUS3-LEC2 network to induce somatic embryogenesis.[24]
      EMBRYOMAKER (EMK/AIL5 )Tanscription factors; promote the formation of somatic embryo on cotyledons.[25]
      WOUND INDUCED DEDIFFERENTIATION1 (WIND1)Tanscription factor; controls cell dedifferentiation in Arabidopsis and functions as a key molecular switch for plant cell dedifferentiation.[26,27]
      B3-AFLLEAFY COTYLEDON 1 (LEC1)Tanscription factor; promote somatic embryo development in vegetative organs.[28]
      LEC1-LIKE (L1L)Tanscription factor; promote somatic embryo development in vegetative organs.[29]
      LEAFY COTYLEDON 2 (LEC2)Tanscription factor; activates the expression of embryonic traits in vegetative tissues.[28]
      ABSCISIC ACID INSENSITIVE 3 (ABI3)/VIVI PAROUS (VP1)Transcript factor; regulates embryo-specific ABA-induced genes.[30]
      FUSCA3 (FUS3)Transcription factor; promotes embryogenesis by regulating synthesis of storage proteins and lipids.[31]
      VP1/ABI3-LIKE (VAL)Transcription factor; repress plant embryo development.[32]
      WOXWUSCHEL (WUS)Transcription factor; a central player in stem cell maintenance in the SAM.[33]
      WUSCHEL-related homeobox (WOX) 2Transcription factor; promotes apical embryonic cell division.[34]
      WOX 5Transcription factor; a central player in stem cell maintenance in the SAM.[35]
      WOX 8 and WOX9WOX8 and WOX9 functionally overlap in promoting basal embryonic cell division.[34]
      NACCUP SHAPED COTYLEDONS 1-3 (CUCs)CUP SHAPED COTYLEDONS 1-3 act redundantly to specify the cotyledon boundary.[3638]
      HD-GL2Arabidopsis thaliana meristem L1 layer (ATML1)An early molecular marker for the establishment of both apical-basal and radial patterns during plant embryogenesis.[39]
      ANTHOCYANINLESS2 (ANL2)anl2 mutant shows aberrant cellular organization.[40]
      Class I KNOX geneSHOOTMERISTEMLESS (STM)Tanscription factors regulate the architecture of the SAM by maintaining a balance between cell division and differentiation.[41]
      GRASSCARECROW (SCR)Regulates the radial organization of the root.[42]
      AGO proteinsARGONAUTE (AGO)Participate in post-transcriptional gene silencing and influence stem cell fate specification in both plants and animals.[43]
      PcG proteinsPOLYCOMB REPRESSIVE COMPLEX
      subunit genes
      Epigenetic effector proteins; stem cell self-renewal, pluripotency, gene silencing; repressive effect on dedifferentiation ability of cells.[15,16]

      Low levels of global DNA methylation have been found in the embryogenic cultures of several plants. It was found that de novo DNA methylation and its maintenance are required for the regulation of SE in Picea abies[12]. Klimaszewska et al. detected no significant differences in DNA methylation between embryogenic and nonembryogenic Pinus pinaster cultures[13]. Histone posttranslational modifications such as histone deacetylation and methylation have been implicated in the formation of somatic embryos. Trichostatin A (TSA) treatment, which inhibits histone deacetylases, interferes with somatic embryogenesis induction in conifers[14]. H3K27me3, which is written and read by polycomb repressive complex 2 (PRC2), controls cell differentiation by directing widespread transcriptional repression[15,16]. Nakamura et al.[17] reported that the H3K27me3 level was low in the productive PEM but markedly increased upon embryo induction in P. abies.

      Zygotic embryos are nourished via the phloem tissue, whereas somatic embryos use an exogenous supply of carbohydrates. It is assumed that the existence of ‘nurse cells’, which can provide an endosperm-like environment to facilitate the initial development of somatic embryos, is critical for the proliferation of PEMs. Conditioned medium (spent medium harvested from cultured cells) from embryogenic cultures can promote embryogenesis. Elhiti et al. reported 51 proteins that function in early somatic embryogenesis[18]. A glycosylated acidic endochitinase, which is involved in the cleavage of compounds such as lipo-chitooligosaccharides (LCOs)[19] and arabinogalactan proteins (AGPs)[20], can stimulate embryo development and growth. In P. abies, the chitinase 4-encoding gene Chia4-Pa is expressed in the single cell-layered zone surrounding the corrosion cavity of the megagametophyte and surrounding the early somatic embryo[21]. Furthermore, LCOs and AGPs have been isolated from P. abies conditioned medium and have been demonstrated to be effective stimulators of somatic embryogenesis[19]. Vanillyl benzyl ether has been confirmed to be an inhibitory compound that leads to the development of new somatic embryos[22]. This compound could inhibit the differentiation of suspensors.

    • In angiosperms, asymmetric cell division of the zygote produces one cell that gives rise to the suspensor and another that give rise to the embryo proper. This phenomenon is not observed in SE. In conifers, zygotes undergo several rounds of nuclear duplication without cytokinesis to enter a free nuclear phase after fertilization, which is followed by cellularization to form an eight-celled proembryo. The cells of the apical portion multiply to form the embryo proper, whereas cells of the basal part elongate and undergo limited cell division to form the embryonic suspensor[44]. The free nuclear phase is absent in SE. The development of somatic embryos (Fig. 1bf) is morphologically similar to that of zygotic embryos (Fig. 1g, h) in the later phases. After the induction of SE in the somatic embryo, the embryonal mass and the suspensor are separated by a layer of conifer-specific cells called embryonal tube cells. These cells produce apical meristem cells and basal suspensor cells through asymmetric anticlinal division. The primary body plan is established during embryogenesis. Somatic embryos are not hidden behind ovules and can be obtained throughout the year. These characteristics make somatic embryos an ideal material to study the physiological characteristics and molecular mechanism of conifer embryo development. Combining the relevant knowledge of angiosperms and reverse genetics, a general understanding of the molecular regulatory mechanism of conifer embryo development has been acquired.

    • Apical-basal differentiation is the foundation of plant embryonic development. Polar auxin transport is essential for the correct patterning of both the apical and basal parts of conifer embryos throughout the entire developmental process. Auxin transport inhibitor 1-N-naphthylphthalamic acid (NPA) treatment of early embryos leads to Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) accumulation in the suspensor, which inhibits programmed cell death (PCD) of the suspensor, thereby resulting in aberrant suspensor development. NPA treatment of late embryos leads to fused cotyledons, the absence of shoot apical meristem (SAM) and aberrant root apical meristem (RAM)[45]. The aberrant morphologies of NPA-treated spruce embryos are comparable to several auxin response and transport mutants in Arabidopsis.

      PCD eliminates unwanted cells during embryogenesis, which is necessary for correct embryonic pattern formation[46]. Two successive waves of PCD were observed during SE of P. abies[47]: the first wave was responsible for the degradation of ECs when they develop into somatic embryos; the second wave eliminated terminally differentiated embryo-suspensor cells during early embryogenesis. A reverse genetics study demonstrated that autophagic PCD is regulated by the type II metacaspase mcII-Pa. RNAi inhibition of mcII-Pa both inhibits autophagy in the suspensor cells and induces necrosis of the differentiated cells caused by autophagy disorder[48,49].

      WUSCHEL-related homeobox (WOXs) are a family of plant-specific transcription factors that play important roles in cell fate determination during plant development. There are 15 WOX genes in Arabidopsis. AtWUS, AtWOX2, AtWOX5, AtWOX8 and AtWOX9 are most relevant to embryo patterning. AtWUS and AtWOX5 are crucial regulators of SAM and RAM, respectively[35,50]; they are necessary for meristem maintenance but are not required for their initiation. AtWOX2 is specifically expressed in apical embryonic cells, whereas AtWOX8 and AtWOX9 are specifically expressed in suspensor cells after the first zygotic cell division[34]. Eleven and 14 WOX genes have been identified in P. abies and P. pinaster, respectively[51,52]. Notably, only one homolog of WUS/WOX5 has been be detected in gymnosperms[51,52]. P. pinaster WOX5 shows maximum expression at the mature embryo stage with transcripts preferentially located at the root tip of seedlings[52]. The WUS and WOX5 genes are the result of angiosperm-specific gene duplication[53]. PaWOX2 mRNA has been detected in the embryonal mass and upper suspensor during early embryogenesis. Functional studies show that PaWOX2 conserves a function in protoderm formation during early embryo development and may exert a unique function in suspensor expansion in gymnosperms[54]. PaWOX8/9, a P. abies homolog of AtWOX8 and AtWOX9, is highly expressed in PEMs and EEs. With the degradation of the suspensor, the expression level of PaWOX8/9 decreases gradually. Knockdown of PaWOX8/9 by RNAi leads to aberrant cell division orientation in tube cells[55]. In addition, the transcript levels of some cell cycle-regulating genes such as PaE2Fs and PaCYCBLs are directly or indirectly regulated by PaWOX8/9. Cell cycle-regulating genes have a significant role in the regulation of asymmetric cell division[56].

      The outermost protoderm differentiates into the epidermis during embryogenesis[57]. Unlike angiosperms, conifer protoderm cells not only divide periclinally but also anticlinally. This makes it difficult to identify the epidermal layer of conifers. Several genes related to epidermal development in P. abies have been identified, including PaWOX2, P. abies Homeobox1 (PaHB1), PaHB2 and Pa18, a lipid transport protein (LTP) coding gene[58]. The expression patterns of PaHB1 and PaHB2 are similar to their Arabidopsis homologs, AtML1 and AtANL2[59]. AtML1 is a master regulator of epidermal cell fate. The expression of AtML1 becomes restricted to the protoderm at the dermatogen stage[39,60]. Ectopic expression of PaHB1 leads to early developmental arrest caused by a lack of protoderm[59]. AtANL2 is involved in maintaining the subepidermal-layer identity[40]. PaHB2 is uniformly expressed in PEMs and EEs. In MEs, PaHB2 expression was mainly detected in the outermost layer of the cortex and the root cap[59]. However, it is still unclear if PaHB2 is involved in the development of the cortex. LTPs are crucial for the formation of the cuticle layer[61]. Pa18 is expressed in all cells in PEMs and its expression is restricted to the protoderm in developing embryos[58].

      The establishment of meristem centers are major patterning events during embryogenesis. STM, one of the four KNOX1 family genes in Arabidopsis, is crucial for the establishment of the embryonal SAM[41]. Four KNOX1 genes, HBK1, HBK2, HBK3 and HBK4, have been identified in P. abies[62]. HBK2 and HBK4 are expressed specifically in the SAM and are regulated by polar auxin transport[63]. HBK1 and HBK3 show more general expression patterns within the embryos[64]. Ectopic expression of the four HBK genes in transgenic Arabidopsis plants supports functions similar to those of HBK2 and HBK4 in SAM development[63]. Overexpression of HBK3 in Arabidopsis leads to enlarged meristems and an expanded expression pattern of STM[64]. In addition, HBK1 and HBK3 are expressed in all tested PEM lines, whereas HBK2 and HBK4 are only expressed in cell lines that are competent to form mature embryos[63]. The CUC genes function in the formation of cotyledon boundaries and the establishment of the embryonal SAM[3638]. PaNAC01 and PaNAC02 belong to the NAC gene family. Based on phylogenetic analysis, PaNAC01 is more similar to CUC1 and CUC2 and can substitute for CUC2 in the Arabidopsis cuc1cuc2 mutant[65].

      Several genes that are important regulators of root meristem in angiosperms have been shown to be expressed during somatic embryogenesis in conifers. P. glauca AGO (PgAGO) is expressed at the future site of RAM[66]. The highest expression level of conifer AGO homologs is detected at the late/mature transition stage of embryogenesis[67]. Furthermore, knockdown of PgAGO leads to abnormal root meristems. The expression patterns of SCR, SHORT-ROOT (SHR) and several SCR-likes (SCLs) show expression patterns similar to their Arabidopsis homologs in several conifer species. SCR from the GRAS transcription factor family is important for the early delineation of radial patterning in the embryonic root[68].

      A genomics study based on conifer expressed sequence tag (EST) collections shows that the conifer embryo differs markedly from other gymnosperm tissues studied in terms of the range of genes transcribed. Approximately 72% of conifer embryo-expressed genes are found in Arabidopsis and have sequences similar to key genes that regulate seed development in Arabidopsis. However, approximately 11% of Pinus taeda embryo ESTs are novel[44]. The first conifer genome, the P. abies genome, was published in 2013[69]. The genomes of other conifers such as P. glauca[70] and Pinus tabuliformis[71] have been subsequently published. The sizes of the conifer genomes range from approximately 6,500 to 37,000 Mb and are highly repetitive. These factors make the genomes difficult to fully assemble. With the improvement of the genome and other biological information, a better understanding of the molecular mechanism of embryogenesis in conifers will definitely benefit the development of SE techniques.

    • The SE technique could intervene at two stages of the forest breeding strategy. First, the SE technique could be used to achieve faster offspring determination by providing an accurate assessment of genotype stability. Second, after the candidate genotype is identified, the SE technique could be used to mass produce valuable genotype copies and eventually achieve large-scale production. Forestry breeding via SE has several advantages compared with traditional forest breeding: 1) SE is not affected by the flowering and seed production cycle of forest trees, which provides greater flexibility for the deployment of forest renewable resources; 2) the intensity of genetic selection is greatly improved by SE breeding, as it is possible to achieve rapid reproduction of a small number of genotypes, which have a larger selection differential; 3) the SE technique combined with early selection on molecular labels could be used in the early development stage to better evaluate phenotypic type and plasticity and eventually shorten the breeding cycle; and 4) evaluating the traits of SE seedlings provides stronger evidence for genetic assays than traditional progeny tests. Using SE seedling evaluation, the environmental interactions with genotypes can be estimated more accurately, which improves the efficiency of clone determinations[6].

      Information on the application of the SE technique in industrial production is still limited at present. Tree species such as Abies nordmanniana, P. abies, P. glauca, P. sitchensis, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Pinus radiata and P. taeda are being researched. P. abies, P. sitchensis, P. menziesii, P. radiata and P. taeda are of interest for the commercial production of coniferous SE plants by transnational corporations. According to reports, the Arborgen (USA) and Weyerhaeuser (USA) companies, which are among the world's largest wood producers, have the largest application capacity for the SE technique. Arborgen could produce one million P. taeda SE seedlings annually. Weyerhaeuser plans to produce ten million synthetic seeds per year via the SE technique.

      It is still a long process to achieve industrialization of conifer somatic embryo production. Establishing a cryopreserved PEM library would be conducive to applying the SE technique to industrial production. In addition, plant biologists strive to expand the explant types that can be used for PEM induction. Finally, determining how to reduce costs in the SE process without affecting the quality of embryos is a problem that concerns many companies and institutions. In addition to improving the methods of PEM induction, somatic embryo differentiation, germination and planting, it is also important to connect each step effectively to maximize the production efficiency while minimizing the economic cost. Several strategies have been investigated including strict control of liquid proliferative media conditions and embryonic tissue density for different genotypes to maintain consistency in callus growth and proliferation cycle duration and manual control of the environmental conditions of germination to reduce the germination time in vitro without affecting the germination percentage. Egertsdotter et al. have summarized these studies and the progress of the SE technique in the field of conifer breeding[72]. Establishing a database and developing an automated system to monitor the status of cryopreservation and production materials, mechanizing the production process of SE, applying bioreactors and automation systems in the production of somatic embryos and studying the impact of light on the development of somatic seedlings would also be essential tasks to achieve the breeding goal of using the SE technique to achieve efficient, high-quality and economical production of tens of millions of seedlings.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • Copyright: © 2022 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (1)  Table (1) References (72)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Zhu T, Wang J, Hu J, Ling J. 2022. Mini review: Application of the somatic embryogenesis technique in conifer species. Forestry Research 2:18 doi: 10.48130/FR-2022-0018
    Zhu T, Wang J, Hu J, Ling J. 2022. Mini review: Application of the somatic embryogenesis technique in conifer species. Forestry Research 2:18 doi: 10.48130/FR-2022-0018

Catalog

    /

    DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
    Return
    Return