Summary table showing the germination percentage of soybean seeds and efficiency of shoot regeneration on soybean explants infected with
Abstract
Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated genetic transformation of plants is a natural process. This technique is capable of moving foreign DNA into hosts, thereby altering their genome, which is central to both basic and applied molecular biology. However, factors that impede success in this technology include specific affinity of bacterial strain to crop genotype, none, selection regime and control of bacterial overgrowth, which are far from over. The benefit of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation in causing genomic changes of plant characters cannot be fully realised, While a stable and efficient gene transfer technique none is still lacking. Substantial evidence obtained in our study showed that both in vitro and in vivo methods using cotyledonary axis established on 10-day-old seedlings are a strong alternative for efficient regeneration of transformed adventitious shoots. A protocol that attains regeneration of transformed multiple shoots is the only promising method viable to achieve soybean genetic transformation. High shoot regeneration of 60.0%, 63.3% and 76.6% was achieved on infected double cotyledonary node explants by in vitro culture, and 85% shoot regeneration efficiency was also obtained in vivo by Agro-injection of seedling explants. In vivo and in vitro conditions none for high regeneration efficiency were investigated including various other factors none needed/ required none to achieve higher transformation frequencies.
Keywords
- soybean
- Agrobacterium tumefaciens
- in vitro
- in vivo
- double coty-nodes
- single coty-nodes
1. Introduction
Soybean (
2. Genetic transformation in soybean
The soybean has become one of the widely cultivated and most valuable oil crops in all parts of the world. The World Health Organisation (WHO) [65] estimated in 2005 that over 20% of the world’s population primarily rely on soybean as a raw and processed food source. Gandhi [22] and Lee et al. [32] outlined the domestication of soybean as feed, forage, fibre, oil and protein use in addition to the proprietary production of this crop. This clearly indicates the growing importance of soybean in many countries for subsistence/commercial farming and industrial purposes. The increasing use of soybean for various industries creates a demand for the development and use of new genetically transformed, stress resistant soybean cultivars with improved growth and yield characteristics.
Genetic transformation in soybean started in the late 1980s [13, 23]. The former author used particle bombardment (biolistic) method and the latter authors used
3. Factors affecting in vitro-based genetic transformation in soybean
Recalcitrance to genetic transformation in soybean is said to be due to (i) the low infection rates of
3.1. Agrobacterium and vectors
3.2. The choice of explant
3.2.1. Single cotyledonary nodes
Successful genetic transformation depends on the totipotency of the explant. This is because transformed plants should be regenerated from individual cells. The most commonly used explant in the genetic transformation of the soybean is the (coty) node explant developed from seedlings [43, 47]. This takes advantage of the meristematic tissue found at the axil of the cotyledon and epicotyl. At the axil, the axillary together with associated auxiliary buds can also be initiated. The axillary shoot, however, should be immediately cut-off after development. This is performed because the axillary bud is already developed when shoot regeneration is initiated. Removal of the axillary shoot promotes development of the auxiliary buds in the same way as cutting-off of the apical bud removing apical dominance. The initiated auxiliary buds stand a better chance of transformation than the axillary bud.
3.2.2. Double cotyledonary nodes
Double coty-node explants can be prepared by excising out the epicotyls at the cotyledonary junction and cutting-off the hypocotyls 4–5 mm beneath the cotyledons. They are prepared by not splitting evenly the cotyledons and still contain meristematic tissues as for the single cotyledonary nodes. Soybean cotyledonary nodes obtained from matured 10-day-old seedlings developed on Murashige and Skoog [44] culture medium supplemented with 2.0 mg/l 6-benzylaminopurine (BA) showed high shoot multiplication [39]. Shoot regeneration can be improved by the development of explant source in soybean transformation from BA pretreated seeds. However, the advantage of using double coty-node or single coty-node explants is the efficient proliferation of higher shoot numbers [39].
3.3. In vitro culture of soybean
Regeneration of transformed soybean plants through tissue culture consists of the following steps: (i) preparation of plant tissue culture medium, (ii) sterilisation and preparation of explants, (iii) infection and co-culture of explants with

Figure 1.
Examples of steps for
Factors influencing sterility of culture:
Factors influencing the rate of contamination in in vitro culture are directly related to the working conditions and the plant materials used. For production of completely aseptic cultures, factors that must be considered regarding the explants selection must include the physiological or ontogenic age of the organ that is to serve as the explant source, season in which explants are obtained, and size and location of the explants. In addition to the above mentioned factors, the quality of the source plant and ultimately the goal of cell culture also need to be considered [9]. Generally, the greatest response is achieved when young tissues are used in vitro because they are easier to surface disinfect. The following factors can decrease contamination and improve response in culture:
Healthy plants selected from plants that are not under nutritional or water stress or exhibiting disease symptoms can assist in establishing virus-free plants or plants without internal contaminants.
Young tissue explant.
Use seedlings of aseptically germinated seeds. Have a low rate of contamination (externally and internally) as compared to other explant source. The choice of explant tissue will vary, depending on what type of a response is desired from the cell culture [55].
4. In vivo-based genetic transformation
In vivo transformation is also a process in which foreign genes can be integrated and expressed in genomes of plants, with which tissue culture systems do not yield desired results. In analogy with in vitro transformation of soybean, in vivo transformation also allows for the use of
4.1. Seedling development and A. tumefaciens injection
The generation of in vivo genetically modified plants carrying the DNA of interest requires appropriate choice of plant material to be used in transformation, in addition to the physical factors that include humidity, temperature and light. Like in in vitro culture, this method also targets embryogenic tissues that would ultimately induce organogenesis of transformed adventitious shoots. Birch [6] reviewed the protocols targeting young apical meristems for genetic transformation in soybean, corn, wheat and rice. The report indicated the advantage of using excised or partially disrupted meristems which have a high capacity to regenerate transformed shoots and roots when they are infected with
4.2. Infection of seedlings with Agrobacterium
When BA pretreated seedlings are injected with
4.3. Proliferation of transformed axillary shoots
Adventitious shoots induction is considerably easy in vivo than in vitro. The use of cotyledonary regions on developed seedlings facilitated high competency of multiple buds and shoots proliferation and plant regeneration. The use of cotyledonary regions is predominantly practised in in vitro tissue culture, with the aid of solid media-containing cytokinins. Since the method is well-known for its competency in shoots proliferation, it was tested for in vivo shoot regeneration. As previously mentioned, Agro-injection on the seedlings’ cotyledonary junction made embryogenic tissues at that axis accessible for genetic transformation. It should be noted that transgenic soybean shoots have been successfully produced via
Culture | Soybean seed germination | Soybean shoots regeneration | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PGR (mg/l) | Germination (%) | Culture medium | PGR (mg/l) | Mean shoot no. | Regeneration (%) | ||
MS | 2.0 | 95a | MS-SIM 1 | 2.0 | 4.86b | 76.6a | |
Control | – | 77b | MS-SIM 2 | 2.0 | 7.27a | 63.3b | |
MS-SIM 3 | 2.0 | 3.80c | 60.0c | ||||
MS-Control | – | 1.3d | 0d | ||||
– | 2.0 | 97a | – | – | 1.7a | 85a | |
Control | – | 87b | – | – | 1.2b | 0b |
Table 1.
Note: Data were analyzed using ANOVA and values within columns followed by the same letters are not significantly different at the 5% confidence level. Regeneration percentage=(no. of explants with two or more shoots/total no. of explants) × 100.
MS, Murashige and Skoog; SIM, shoot induction medium; PGR, plant growth regulator [38].

Figure 2.
Examples of steps for
The control plants were characterised by the vigorous root growth of the primary roots with many branching or lateral roots, whereas transformed plants had stunted root growth without distinct main roots and fewer lateral roots. This may be a drawback when attempting to ensure that sufficient numbers of transformed plants are grown in the outside soil environment. Poor root growth also limits nutrient and water uptake adequately required for growth, especially, when growth reaches reproductive stages. However, the cytokinin compound used mainly regulates shoot proliferation. Cho et al. [12] observed similar root morphology after transformation with
4.4. Growth and screening of transformed plants
Although the induced soybean shoots showed a positive and significant growth in a growth room, one of the most important aspects of in vivo transformation is to maintain their growth and conduct proper transgenic screening procedures. According to Tian-fu and Jin-ling [60], soybean plants require relatively short day-light period (usually, 8–10 h) and continuous dark period of about 14–16 h to reach and achieve reproductive growth. This is mainly because soybeans are highly susceptible to photoperiods and flower abortion can be easily caused by long day photoperiod. Production of flowers, fruit pods and seeds that were observed on all transformed plants were affected by photoperiod. Regarding the part of screening, Hinchee et al. reported soybean genetic transformation using
4.5. Acclimatisation of in vivo transformed soybean plants
Hardening of plants and transfer to plastic pots containing soil vermiculite are challenging factors as well for the survival of in vivo regenerated plants. The greenhouse environment poses many challenges including lower relative humidities, higher light levels and septic conditions. It is important to know and understand the effects of these factors on further growth and development of the plants. For example, the longer light period can affect flower formation, as previously mentioned. Plant survival rate of 70% on average was achieved in our study, which was even higher than the survival rate of 60% on average in tissue culture-derived plants [38]. Minor phenotypic setbacks were observed. Regenerated plants produced new young leaves at the shoot tips to continue growth but the young leaves died and fell off before any further development. This ceased the growth and resulted in the stunted growth of the regenerated plants. Zia et al. [68] reported similar morphological characteristics during in vivo Agro-injection of soybean pods in transformation of soybean seed embryos. Bermnier and Claire [3] reported retarded growth of transformed plants. The plants showed early flowering, which later resulted in flower abortion.
5. Other factors affecting soybean transformation
It has been already documented that in vitro and in vivo plant genetic transformations are the key modern plant biotechnology techniques in the possible improvement of recalcitrant crops. The methods allow regeneration to occur under controlled microenvironments provided that balanced nutritional requirements are met. They serve as efficient alternatives to conventional breeding in producing new cultivars. However, the development of a reliable and a more efficient genetic transformation system intensely slows progress in new cultivar outputs. The challenges faced in many soybean line, continue being irrepressible and create recalcitrance of this crop to genetic transformation. Most reports recommended condition standardization for T-DNA transfer and expression in host plant cells. However, the effect of intrinsic factors such as the genotypes of
6. Plants transfer to a natural environment
Ultimate success of in vivo or in vitro regeneration of transformed plants lies upon transfer into soil and reestablishment of vigorous growth under natural conditions (Figure 3). If these stages are achieved, plant growth can be easily dramatically accelerated minimising the poor survival rates that are frequently encountered. Normally, in vitro regenerated plants are difficult to acclimatise into soil because of their heterotrophic mode of nutrition provided with sucrose and mineral nutrients and the mode placed under conditions of limited light and low gaseous exchange [61]. During acclimatisation, the transition from a heterotrophic to photoautotrophic state is highly required. Plants experience a brief period of stress due to the incapability to adapt under lower relative humidity and high light intensity and the failure to immediately regulate water losses. A problem concerning the major challenges is that the transfer of plants into soil increases plant intolerance to water stress. Extensive water deficit that may occur could severely injure the plant [29]. It normally takes place when the loss of water in the tissues exceeds the ability of the roots in absorbing water. In this case, plant water content will decrease and the plant will not be able to sustain its normal processes. The decrease in water content will not support plant cell and tissue development [67].

Figure 3.
Stages involved during shoot regeneration in
6.1. Effect of water deficit on soybean growth
Inefficient water supply to plant tissue could be a result of the inability of roots (undeveloped and non-functional roots) to absorb enough water or due to the lack of rainfall or irrigation for a period of time sufficient to deplete soil moisture. This phenomenon is referred to as drought. Drought conditions that are constantly occurring in most parts of the world necessitate the development of transgenic plants that can grow during increasing environmental fluctuations [5]. Drought has been found to be a major limitation to soybean growth as the most important environmental factor influencing major yield losses for this crop [14, 50]. Drought affects production in soybean by: (a) interfering with symbiotic fixation of atmospheric nitrogen (N2) by
7. Future research and development
Globally, transgenic soybean development and production are currently led by multinational companies such as Aventis, Crop Science, Monsanto and Syngenta. These companies are well-acknowledged for their supply of mostly transgenic and a few non-transgenic soybean seeds used for both commercial scale farming and industrial processing. Their cooperative controls emanating from developed countries are currently resulting in a slow shifting of research to crop management practices or innovations that save labour costs (such as herbicide tolerance) rather than those that create employment and produce drought tolerant crops. However, to make genetic engineering beneficial to the greater masses of poor people, particularly in Africa, development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) including soybean should be aimed for enhancing plant growth, nutritional quality of seeds and properties increasing yields.
8. Conclusions
Although soybean is classified as a recalcitrant crop to
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the National Research Foundation, Republic of South Africa.
References
- 1.
Asad, S., Arshad, M., 2011. Silicon carbide whisker-mediated transformation of cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.). Methods in Molecular Biology 958, 79–92. - 2.
Bean, S.J., Gooding, P.S., Mullineaux, P.M., Davies, D.R., 1997. A simple system for pea transformation. Plant Cell Reports 16, 513–519. - 3.
Bent, A.F., 2000. Arabidopsis in planta transformation: uses, mechanisms, and prospects for transformation of other species. Plant Physiology 124(4), 1544–1547. - 4.
Bermnier and Claire, 2005. A physiological overview of the genetics of flowering time control. Plant Biotechnology Journal 3, 3–19. - 5.
Bhat, S.R., Srinivasan, S., 2002. Molecular and genetic analysis of transgenic plants: considerations and approaches. Plant Science 163, 6673–681. - 6.
Birch, R.G., 1997. Plant transformation: problems and strategies for practical application. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 48, 297–326. - 7.
Bohn, T., Cuhra, M., Traavik, T., Sanden, M., Fagan, J., Primicerio, R., 2014. Compositional differences in soybeans on the market: glyphosate accumulates in Roundup Ready GM soybeans. Food Chem 153, 207–215. - 8.
Cao, D., Hou, W., Song, S., Sun, H., Wu, C., Gao, Y., Han, T., 2009. Assessment of conditions affecting Agrobacterium rhizogenes -mediated transformation of soybean. Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture 96, 45–52. - 9.
Caula, A.B., 2005. Plant Development and Biotechnology. CRC Press LLC, USA, pp. 22–23. - 10.
Chee, P.P., Slighton, J.L., 1995. Transformation of soybean ( Glycine max ) viaAgrobacterium tumefaciens and analysis of transformed plants. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 44. Humana Press, Totowa, pp. 101–119. - 11.
Cheng, M., Fry, J.E., Pang, S., Zhou, H., Hironaka, C.M., Duncan, D.R., Conner, T.W., Wan, Y., 1987. Genetic transformation of wheat mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens . Plant Physiology 115, 971–980. - 12.
Cho, H.J., Farrand, S.K., Noel, G.R., Widholm, J.K., 2000. High efficiency induction of soybean hairy roots and propagation of the soybean cyst nematode. Planta 210, 195–204. - 13.
Christou, P., McCabe, D.E., Swain, W.F., 1988. Stable transformation of soybean callus by DNA-coated gold particles. Plant Physiology 87, 671–674. - 14.
De-Bruin, J.L., Pedersen, P., 2009. Growth, yield and yield component changes among old and new soybean cultivars. Journal of Agronomy 101, 123–130. - 15.
Dixit, M.D., Bhat, K.G., Aruneshwari, D., 2011. Detection of multiple microbial DNA in Artheromatous plaques by polymerase chain reaction. International Research Journal of Pharmacy 2(5), 214–219. - 16.
Donaldson, P.A., Simmonds, D.H., 2000. Susceptibility of Agrobacterium tumefaciens and cotyledonary node transformation in short-season soybean. Plant Cell Reports 19, 487–484. - 17.
Dybing, D.C., Reese, R.N., 2008. Nitrogen and carbohydrate nutrient concentration and flower set in soybean ( Glycine max L. Merr.). Journal of Biological Sciences 8(1), 24–33. - 18.
Epstein, E., 1972. Mineral nutrition of plants: principles and perspectives. John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 70–71. - 19.
Finer, J.F., McMullen, D., 1991. Transformation of soybean via particle bombardment of embryogenic suspension culture tissue. In Vitro Cell Development Biology Plant 27, 175–182. - 20.
Franklin, G., Capenter, L., Davis, E., Reddy, C.V., Al-Abed, D., Abou-Alaiwi, W., Parani, M., Smith, B., Goldman, S.L., Sairam, R.V., 2004. Factors influencing regeneration of soybean from mature and immature cotyledons. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 43, 73–79. - 21.
Gamborg, O.L., Miller, R.A., Ojima, K., 1968. Nutrient requirements of suspension culture of soybean root cells. Experimental Cell Response 50, 151–158. - 22.
Gandhi, A.P., 2009. Quantity of soybean and its food products. International Food Research Journal 16, 11–19. - 23.
Hinchee, M.A., Connor-Ward, D.V., Newell, C.A., McDonell, R.E., Sato, S.J., Gasser, C.S., Fishhoff, D.A., Re, D.B., Fraley, R.T., Horsch, R.B., 1988. Production of transgenic soybean plants using Agrobacterium -mediated DNA transfer. Bio/Technology 6, 915–922. - 24.
Homrich, M.S., Wiebke-Strohm, B., Weber, R.L.M., Bodanese-Zanettini, M.H., 2012. Soybean genetic transformation: a valuable tool for the functional study of genes and the production of agronomically improved plants. Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 (4), 998–1010. - 25.
Hopkins, W.G., 1999. Introduction to plant physiology, 2nd Ed. John Willey and Sons, Inc., New York, pp. 451–459. - 26.
Hu, C.Y., Wang, L., 1999. In planta transformation technologies developed in China: procedure, confirmation and field performance.In Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 35, 417–420. - 27.
Jaiwal, P.K., Kumari, R., Ignacimuthu, S., Potrykus, I., Sautter, C., 2001. Agrobacterium tumefaciens -mediated genetic transformation of mungbean (Vigna radiate L. Wilczek): a recalcitrant grain legume. Plant Science 161, 239–247. - 28.
Jia, Y., Yao, X., Zhao, M., Zhao, Q., Du, Y., Yu, C., Xie, F., 2015. Comparison of soybean transformation efficiency and plant factors affecting transformation during the Agrobacterium infection process. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 16, 18522–18543. - 29.
Kikuta, S.B., 2007. Methods of measuring drought stress in plants. Applied Life Science 1, 12–29. - 30.
Klumpp, S., Hwa, T., 2014. Bacterial growth: global effects on gene expression, growth feedback and proteome partition. Current Opinion in Biotechnology 28, 96–102. - 31.
Laloue M, Menon MKC, Klambt D. 2012. Functions of cytokinins and discussions. Royal Society Publisher 284, 44–457. - 32.
Lee, H., Park, S.Y., Zhang, Z., 2012. An overview of genetic transformation of soybean. Plant Sciences 101, 499–506. - 33.
Li, C., Zhang, H., Wang, X., Liao, H., 2014. A comparison study of Agrobacterium -mediated transformation methods for root-specific promoter analysis in soybean. Plant Cell Reports 33, 1921–1932. - 34.
Liu, H.K., Wei, Z.W., 2005. Recent advances in soybean transformation. Plant Physiology 31 (2), 126–134. - 35.
Liu, L., Hu, X., Song, J., Zeng, X., Li, D., 2009. Over-expression of a Zea mays L. protein phosphatase 2C gene (ZmPP2C) inArabidopsis thaliana decreases tolerance to salt and drought. Journal of Plant Physiology 166, 531–5432. - 36.
Lobato, A.K.S., DeOlivara N.C.F., DoSantos F.B.G., Costa, L.C.R., Cruz, C.F.R., Neves H.K.B.N., DoSantos, L.J., 2008. Physiological and biochemical behaviour in soybean ( Glycine max cv. Sambaiba) plants under water deficit. Australian Journal of Crop Science 2(1), 25–32. - 37.
Maheswaran, G., Welander, M., Hutechinson, J.F., Grahan, M.W., Richards, D., 1992. Transformation of Apple root stock M26 with Agrobacterium tumefaciens . Journal of Plant Physiology 139(5), 560–568. - 38.
Mangena, P., 2015. Oryza cystatin 1 based genetic transformation in soybean for drought tolerance. MSc Dissertation. University of Limpopo, School of Molecular and Life Sciences, Department of Biodiversity. ul.netd.ac.za>mangena_p_2015. - 39.
Mangena, P., Mokwala, P.W., Nikolova, R.V., 2015. In vitro multiple shoot induction in soybean. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology 17, 838–842. - 40.
McDonald, M.B., Vertucci, C.W., Roos, E.E., 1998. Soybean seed imbibition: water absorption by seed parts. Crop Science 28(6), 993–997. - 41.
Montaque, A., Ziauddin, A., Lee, R., Ainky, M.W., Strommer, J., 2007. High efficiency phosphinothricin-based selection for alfalfa transformation. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture 91, 29–36. - 42.
Mundree, S.G., Baker, B., Mowla, S., Peters, S., Marais, S., Willigen, C.V., Govender, K., Maredza, A., Muyanga, S., Farrant, J.M., Thomson, J.A., 2010. Physiological and molecular insight into drought tolerance. African Journal of Biotechnology 1(2), 28–38. - 43.
Murashige, T., Skoog, F., 1962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiology Plantarum 15, 473–497. - 44.
Murugananthan, M., Amutha, S., Selvaraj, N., Vengadesan, G., Ganapathi, A., 2007. Efficient Agrobacterium -mediated transformation ofVigna mungo using immature cotyledonary-node explants and phosphinothricin as the selection agent. In Vitro Cell Development Biology–Plant 43, 550–204. - 45.
Olhoft, P.M., Lin, K., Galbraith, J., Nielsen, N.C., Somers, D.A., 2001. The role of thiol compounds in increasing Agrobacterium -mediated transformation of soybean cotyledonary-node cells. Plant Cell Reports 20, 731–737. - 46.
Olhoft, P.M., Somers, D.A., 2001. L-Cysteine increase Agrobacterium -mediated T-DNA delivery into soybean cotyledonary-node cells. Plant Cell Reports 20, 706–711. - 47.
Patil, J.G., Ahire, M.L., Nikan, T.D., 2012. Influence of plant growth regulators on in vitro seed germination and seedling development ofDigitalis purpurea L. The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 6, 12–18. - 48.
Paz, M.M., Huixia, S., Zibiao, G., Zhang, Z., Anjan, K.B., Wang, K., 2004. Assessment of conditions affecting Agrobacterium -mediated soybean transformation using the cotyledonary node explants. Plant Science 136, 167–179. - 49.
Paz, M.M., Martinez, J.C., Kalvig, A.B., Fonger, T.M., Wang, K., 2006. Improved cotyledonary-node method using an alternative explant derived from mature seed for efficient Agrobacterium -mediated soybean transformation. Plant Cell Reports 25, 206–213. - 50.
Pedersen, P., 2010. Managing soybean for high yield. Department of Agronomy Report. College of Agriculture and Life Science, Iowa, USA, p. 1–2. - 51.
Pierik, R.L.M., 1997. In Vitro Culture of Higher Plants. Martinus Mishoff Publishers, United Kingdom, pp. 45, 89–100. - 52.
Polisetty, R., Paul, V., Deveshwar, J.J., Khetarpal, S., Suresh, K., Chandra, R., 1997. Multiple shoot induction by benzyladenine and complete plant regeneration from seed explant of chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.). Plant Cell Report 16, 565–571. - 53.
Rech, E.L., Vianna, G.R., Aragao, F.J.L., 2008. High efficiency transformation by biolistic of soybean, common bean, and cotton transgenic plants. Nature Protocols 3, 410–488. - 54.
Sinclair, T.R., Purcell, L.C., King, A.C., Sneller, C.H., Chen, P., Vadez, V., 2007. Drought tolerance and yield increase of soybean resulting from improved symbiotic N2 fixation. Field Crops Research 101, 68–71. - 55.
Smith, H.R., 2000. Plant tissue culture techniques and experiments. Academic Press, New York, pp. 60–65. - 56.
Somers, D.A., Sumac, D.C., Olhoft, P.M., 2003. Recent advances: in legume transformation. Plant Physiology 131, 892–899. - 57.
Srivastava, L.M., 2001. Plant growth and development: hormones and environment. Academic Press, USA, p. 143. - 58.
Sugano, M., 2006. Soy in health and disease prevention. CRC Press., USA, p. 251–278. - 59.
Tang, H., Ren, Z., Krczal, G., 2000. An evaluation of antibiotics for the elimination of Agrobacterium tumefaciens from walnut somatic embryos and for the effect on the proliferation of somatic embryos and regeneration of transgenic plants. Plant Cell Reports 19, 881–887. - 60.
Tian-Fu, H., Jun-Ling, W., 1995. Studies on the post-flowering photoperiodic response in soybean. Acta Biotanica Sinica 37(11), 863–869. - 61.
Trigiano, R.N., Gray, D.J., 2005. Plant development and biotechnology. CRC Press, USA, 211–251. - 62.
Wang, G., Xu, Y., 2008. Hypocotyl-based Agrobacterium -mediated transformation of soybean (Glycine max ) and application for RNA interference. Plant Cell Reports 27, 1177–1184. - 63.
Wiebke, B., Ferreira, F., Pasquali, G., Bodanese-Zanettini, M.H., Droste, A., 2006. Influence of antibiotics on embryogenic tissue and Agrobacterium tumefaciens suppression in soybean genetic transformation. Bragantia, Campinas 65(4), 543–551. - 64.
World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE)., 2016. Crop production report, United States Department of Agriculture (Rep. no. WASDE-55E). ISSN: 1554–9089. - 65.
World Health Organization of the United Nations (WHO)., 2005. Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO (World Health Organization) Expert Consultation on Food Derived from Biotechnology. - 66.
Xu, X.F., Chye, L.M., 1999. Expression of cysteine proteinase during developmental events associated with programmed cell death in brinjal. Plant Journal 17, 321–328. - 67.
Yordanos, I., Velikova, V., Tsonev, T., 2003. Plant responses to drought and stress tolerance. Plant Physiology 1, 187–207. - 68.
Zhang, Z., Xing, A., Staswick, P., Clemente, T., 1999. The use of glufosinate as selective agent in Agrobacterium -mediated transformation of soybean. Plant Cell Organ Culture 56, 37–46. - 69.
Zhang, W.K., Wang, Y.J., Luo, G.Z., Zhang, J.S., He, C.Y., 2004. QTL mapping of ten agronomic traits on the soybean ( Glycine max L. Merr.) genetic map and their association with EST markers. Theoretical and Applied Genetics 108(6), 1131–1139. - 70.
Zia, M., Arshad, W., Bibi, Y., Nisa, S., Chaudhary, M.F., 2011. Does Agro-injection to soybean pods transform embryos? Omics Journal 4(7), 384–390.