Ethyl Methane Sulphonate (EMS) Induced Mutagenesis in Malaysian Rice (cv. MR219) for Lethal Dose Determination

Ali Benjavad Talebi, Amin Benjavad Talebi, Behzad Shahrokhifar

2De- partment of Computer Sciences, Faculty of Science and Information Technology, National University of Malaysia (UKM), Bangi, Malaysia.
Department of Plant Biotechnology, National Institute of Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (NIGEB), Tehran, Iran.
Department of Weed Science, Shoushtar Branch, Islamic Azad University, Shoushtar , Iran.

DOI: 10.4236/ajps.2012.312202                

Abstract

Chemical and physical mutagenesis has been used to increase genetic variability in crop plants. More than 430 new varieties have been derived as mutants of rice (Oryza sativa L.) via the application of different mutagenic agents. Chemical mutagens such as ethyl methane sulphonate (EMS), diepoxybutane-derived (DEB), sodium azide and irradiation (Gamma rays, X-rays and fast neutrons) have been widely used to induce a large number of functional variations in rice and others crops. Among chemical mutagens, the alkylating agent, ethyl methane sulfonate (EMS) is the most commonly used in plants as it causes a high frequency of nucleotide substitutions, as detected in different genomes. In this study, seeds of potential genotype of the popular variety, (Oryza sativa L. spp. Indica cv. MR219) were treated with EMS at concentrations of 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5% and 2%. Sensitivity to EMS was determined by various measurements on the M1 generation. As concentration of applied EMS increased, will decrease in germination, seedling height, root length and emergence under field conditions was observed in M1 generation as compared to the non-treatment control. Plant height and root length also decreased with increases in EMS mutagenesis in an approximately linear fashion. The LD25 and LD50 values were observed based on growth reduction of seedlings after EMS treatment with 0.25% and 0.50% on the rice variety (Oryza sativa L. spp. Indica cv. MR219).

Keywords

EMS; Lethal Dose; Chemical Mutagenesis; Ethyl-Methane Sulfonate; Oryza Sativa Indica cv. MR219

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	R. Bhat, N. Upadhyaya, A. Chaudhury, C. Raghavan, F. Qiu, H. Wang, J. Wu, K. McNally, H. Leung and B. Till, “Chemical-and Irradiation-Induced Mutants and Tilling,” In: N. M. Upadhyaya, Ed., Rice Functional Genomics: Challenges, Progress and Prospects, Springer, New York, 2007, pp. 148-180. doi:10.1007/0-387-48914-2_8
[2]	C. Auerbach and J. M. Robson, “Chemical Production of Mutations,” Nature, Vol. 157. No. 3984, 1946, p. 302. doi:10.1038/157302a0
[3]	L. Comai and S. Henikoff, “Tilling: Practical Single Nucleotide Mutation Discovery,” The Plant Journal, Vol. 45, No. 4, 2006, pp. 684-694. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02670.x
[4]	S. Henikoff and L. Comai, “Single-Nucleotide Mutations for Plant Functional Genomics,” Annual Review of Plant Biology, Vol. 54, No. 1, 2003, pp. 375-401. doi:10.1146/annurev.arplant.54.031902.135009
[5]	B. J. Till, S. H. Reynolds, E. A. Greene, C. A. Codomo, L. C. Enns, J. E. Johnson, C. Burtner, A. R. Odden, K. Young and N. E. Taylor, “Large-Scale Discovery of Induced Point Mutations with High-Throughput Tilling,” Genome Research, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2003, pp. 524-530. doi:10.1101/gr.977903
[6]	C. M. McCallum, L. Comai, E. A. Greene and S. Henikoff, “Targeted Screening for Induced Mutations,” Nature Biotechnology, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2000, pp. 455-457. doi:10.1038/74542
[7]	C. M. McCallum, L. Comai, E. A. Greene and S. Henikoff, “Targeting Induced Locallesions in Genomes (Tilling) for Plant Functional Genomics,” Plant Physiology, Vol. 123, No. 2, 2000, pp. 439-442. doi:10.1104/pp.123.2.439
[8]	A. Bentley, B. MacLennan, J. Calvo and C. R. Dearolf, “Targeted Recovery of Mutations in Drosophila,” Genetics, Vol. 156, No. 3, 2000, pp. 1169-1173.
[9]	E. Wienholds, S. Schulte-Merker, B. Walderich and R. H. A. Plasterk, “Target-Selected Inactivation of the Zebrafish Rag1 Gene,” Science, Vol. 297, No. 5578, 2002, pp. 99-102. doi:10.1126/science.1071762
[10]	M. G. Goll and T. H. Bestor, “Histone Modification and Replacement in Chromatin Activation,” Genes & Development, Vol. 16, No. 14, 2002, pp. 1739-1742. doi:10.1101/gad.1013902
[11]	S. M. Jain, “Mutagenesis in Crop Improvement under the Climate Change,” Romanian Bio-technological Letters, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2010, p. 89.
[12]	Y. S. Luan, J. Zhang, X. R. Gao and L. J. An, “Mutation Induced by Ethylmethanesulphonate (Ems), in Vitro Screening for Salt Tolerance and Plant Regeneration of Sweet Potato (Ipomoea Batatas L.),” Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, Vol. 88, No. 1, 2007, pp. 77-81. doi:10.1007/s11240-006-9183-2
[13]	V. L. Chopra, “Mutagenesis: Investigating the Process and Processing the Outcome for Crop Improvement,” Current Science, Vol. 89, No. 2, 2005, pp. 353-359.
[14]	G. Acquaah, “Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding,” Blackwell Publishing Ltd., Oxford, 2007.
[15]	A. L. P. Kiong, A. G. Lai, S. Hussein and A. R. Harun, “Physiological Responses of Orthosiphon Stamineus Plantles to Gamma Irradiation,” American-Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2008, pp. 135-149.
[16]	M. S. Ab-del-Hady, E. M. Okasha, S. S. A. Soliman and M. Talaat, “Effect of Gamma Radiation and Gibberellic Acid on Germination and Alkaloid Production in Atropa Belladonna L,” Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences. Vol. 2, No. 3, 2008, pp. 401-405.
[17]	S. G. Wi, B. Y. Chung, J. S. Kim, J. H. Kim, M. H. Baek, J. W. Lee and Y. S. Kim, “Effects of Gamma Irradiation on Morphological Changes and Biological Responses in Plants,” Micron, Vol. 38, No. 6, 2007, pp. 553-564. doi:10.1016/j.micron.2006.11.002
[18]	A. Borzouei, M. Kafi, H. Khazaei, B. Naseriyan and A. Majdabadi, “Effects of Gamma Radiation on Germination and Physiological Aspects of Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) Seedlings,” Pakistan Journal of Botany, Vol. 42. No. 4, 2010, pp. 2281-2290.
[19]	S. K. Chaudhuri, “A Simple and Reliable Method to Detect Gamma Irradiated Lentil (Lens Culinaris Medik.) Seeds by Germination Efficiency and Seedling Growth Test,” Radiation Physics and Chemistry, Vol. 64, No. 2, 2002, pp. 131-136. doi:10.1016/S0969-806X(01)00467-4