Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Roller Drums for tissue culture; a question of rotation speed
Sans spam, "Al" spaketh thusly:
My goal is to expand my experience with stem propagation of Phals by actually excising the node and attempting to multiply the meristematic tissue in a liquid media but I probably won't stop there. I was thinking of a roller drum because it looks neat. :-) A shaker table is probably more within my budget. Probably. The do-it-yourself ones aren't too expensive. I have a book called Micropropagation of Orchids by Arditti and Ernst published in 1993. A very valuable tome; I think they sell for $250-300 right now, if you can find one. Arditti is currently working on a follow-up. However, the 1993 text is ancient history, and there are other problems with it as well. It outlines research on propagation techniques for many orchids by genera and provides a kind of history of propagation for most but I have been told several times that it is dated and newer info is available to augment what was compiled in this book. I don't have this newer info at my fingertips or really know where to get it. :-( The briefest of "Agricola" searches turned up the following references that may be of value- provided, of course, you can get them. AU: Park,-S.Y.; Murthy,-H.N.; Paek,-K.Y. TI: Protocorm-like body induction and subsequent plant regeneration from root tip cultures of Doritaenopsis. SO: Plant-sci. Oxford, UK : Elsevier Science Ltd. June 2003. v. 164 (6) p. 919-923. AU: Chen,-Y.C.; Chang,-C.; Chang,-W.C. TI: A reliable protocol for plant regeneration from callus culture of Phalaenopsis. SO: In-vitro-cell-dev-biol,-Plant. Largo, MD : Society for In Vitro Biology. Sept/Oct 2000. v. 36 (5) p. 420-423. AU: Park,-S.Y.; Murthy,-H.N.; Paek,-K.Y. TI: Rapid propagation of Phalaenopsis from floral stalk-derived leaves. SO: In-vitro-cell-dev-biol,-Plant. Largo, MD : Society for In Vitro Biology. Mar/Apr 2002. v. 38 (2) p. 168-172. AU: Tokuhara,-K.; Mii,-M. TI: Induction of embryogenic callus and cell suspension culture from shoot tips excised from flower stalk buds of Phalaenopsis (Orchidaceae). SO: In-vitro-cell-dev-biol,-Plant. Largo, MD : Society for In Vitro Biology. July/Aug 2001. v. 37 (4) p. 457-461. AU: Young,-P.S.; Murthy,-H.N.; Yoeup,-P.K. TI: Mass multiplication of protocorm-like bodies using bioreactor system and subsequent plant regeneration in Phalaenopsis. SO: Plant-cell,-tissue-organ-cult. Dordrecht, The Netherlands : Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2000. v. 63 (1) p. 67-72. AU: Ishii,-Y.; Takamura,-T.; Goi,-M.; Tanaka,-M. TI: Callus induction and somatic embryogenesis of Phalaenopsis. SO: Plant-cell-rep. Berlin, W. Ger. : Springer International. Apr 1998. v. 17 (6/7) p. 446-450. AU: Duan,-J.X.; Chen,-H.; Yazawa,-S. TI: In vitro propagation of Phalaenopsis via culture of cytokinin-induced nodes. SO: J-plant-growth-reg. New York : Springer-Verlag New York, c1982-. Summer 1996. v. 15 (3) p. 133-137. Any decent library (by "decent" I mean "slightly larger than the Library of Congress") should carry some of these journals. A few caveats should be disclosed. 1) Many of these papers are written by people that have absolutely no clue what they're doing. One of the seminal papers on protocorm multiplication of paphiopedilums spells the clonal names of one of the parents two different ways, and neither of them is apparently correct. For a paper published by Kluwer (who presumably reads the stuff they print before they do so), it's inexcusable. Things get worse from there, as cursory review of the literature shows that the researchers often use formulae so crude or antiquated that they may as well have been banging rocks together trying to get results. Anyone regularly performing orchid work would certainly have used media that were better suited to the work at hand. 2) Researchers don't always tip their hand. Rule 2a is that nobody who actually *does* the work would publish how they do it, including commercial propagators who have no interest in publishing. Spending hundreds or thousands of hours to develop the next quantum leap in technology is going to publish it for all to see. Even if they did, publication can take a year or more, by which time their work should have been leapfrogged- unless, of course, it was just someone doing a quickie master's or doctoral thesis that managed to get their work published. In this case, the work is probably abandoned with great relief. Rule 2b is that the people who publish it usually haven't done the work, so they rely on the technicians who do the work. So, before it gets sent to the publisher, the research is ALREADY second-hand! 3) There is no rule 3. 4) It's ALWAYS cheaper to outsource the work to someone else. Of course, cheaper doesn't equal better; nobody takes better care of your plants than you do. Anyway- have fun. If there are any references you absolutely, positively can't get, drop me a line and I'll see what I can do. Do not reply to the e-mail address in the header. It's a spam trap, sent straight to the FTC. Have a day. Cheers, -AJHicks Chandler, AZ |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Self-Propelled mowers -- Single speed vs. Variable speed? | Lawns | |||
Roller Drums for tissue culture; a question of rotation speed | Orchids | |||
Flask for orchid tissue culture | Orchids | |||
tissue culture | Plant Science | |||
tissue culture | Plant Science |