Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Observations on Somatic Embryogenesis in Coffea arabica L.

Written By

Julieta Andrea Silva de Almeida

Submitted: November 28th, 2019 Reviewed: December 13th, 2019 Published: March 17th, 2020

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.90853

Chapter metrics overview

1,165 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


Somatic embryogenesis contributes to coffee breeding programs. This is a process of asexual reproduction which is based on the concept of cellular totipotency. Each haploid or somatic cell of the plant tissue has the genetic information necessary to generate a complete and functional plant. The somatic embryogenesis can occur either indirectly or directly. Coffea arabica genotypes may respond to direct, indirect, or both. In this species, the indirect somatic embryogenesis is composed of two phases, the callogenesis and the embryogenesis, while the direct pathway occurs in a single phase, without the callogenesis. In Coffea, in general, the indirect pathway is induced by the auxin and cytokinin, and the direct pathway with cytokinin only. C. arabica genotypes usually respond easily to the indirect route with high production of somatic embryos. But these are inefficient by the direct route because they present low production of embryos and the process occurs for a long time. In this review, emphasis will be given to different events that are part of the somatic embryogenesis of C. arabica occurring indirectly and in the direct pathway as well as factors that may affect its control.


  • Callus
  • leaf explant
  • plant hormone
  • embryogenic structures
  • somatic embryos

1. Introduction

The genus Coffea belongs to the Rubiaceae family and has over 100 species [1]. However, only Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora species are commercial, the former accounting for almost 75% of world coffee production and the latter for the remaining 25%. Brazil is the world’s largest producer and exporter of coffee accounting for about 70% of world exports [2]. C. arabica has this hegemony for producing pleasant and stimulating drink that is consumed worldwide while C. canephora coffee is less palatable and is intended primarily for the instant coffee industry.

Coffea breeding aims to combine genotypes of C. arabica and C. canephora species to release genetically stable varieties with strong traits of both species [3, 4]. In conventional Coffea breeding it takes six to eight selection cycles to generate a new cultivar, which is about 40 years. Each cycle corresponds to five years. But it takes four to five harvests to consistently evaluate a generation [5]. In addition, it is important that evaluations are performed on plants over five years of age to obtain reliable yield data [6]. In the breeding program, during the selection phase intermediate populations of progenies are generated and each one of them has different genetic pattern. Thus each progeny corresponds to a single plant.

In the selection phase, the progenies have the characteristic of heterosis that favors the occurrence of differentiated plants. Some of these plants may have special characteristics such as tolerance to biotic and abiotic factors or high productivity or excellent drink quality or all of these. To confirm if a progeny is special it must be multiplied and evaluated in relation to its agronomic performance in the field. Following this phase, the progeny may be released as a clonal cultivar. Cloning selected materials allows to capture all selection and improvement gains without involving genetic segregation [7].

The multiplication of intermediate genotypes to breeding program is not indicated by seeds because plants resulting from the germination may have genetic segregation that leads to loss of the special features [8]. Thus, it is recommended that these genotypes be vegetatively multiplied to maintain their genetic pattern. The vegetative multiplication of coffee plants has been obtained by cutting, and the species C. canephora responds very well to this process [9] while arabica plants are less efficient by this way, having low multiplication rate [10].

Usually C. arabica genotypes are vegetatively multiplied by in vitro cultivation. In vitro culture or plant tissue culture belongs to Plant Biotechnology which comprises culturing cells, tissues or organs under aseptic conditions and using artificial culture media containing different components such as water, minerals, vitamins, carbon source and plant growth regulators [11]. Plant tissue culture involves micropropagation processes such as somatic embryogenesis.


2. Somatic embryogenesis

Somatic embryogenesis is defined as a process in which a zygotic embryo-like bipolar structure develops from a nonzygotic cell with no vascular connection to the original tissue [8, 11, 12, 13, 14]. This process is based on the concept of cellular totipotency, where all the somatic cells of plant tissue contain the genetic information necessary to produce a complete and functional plant (Haberlandt 1902 apud [15, 16, 17]). In somatic embryogenesis there is no gamete fusion, only somatic cells of explant tissue that will be responsible for the formation of somatic embryos. These embryos undergo the same developmental stages as the zygotic embryo (Figure 1) that will develop into a plant with a genetic pattern identical to the explant donor plant [18].

Figure 1.

Schematic representation of the comparison of somatic and zygotic embryogenesis from Ref. [18].

The occurrence of somatic embryogenesis is associated with the induction of differentiated explant tissue cells that acquire the embryogenic characteristic, followed by the expression of the somatic embryo [19, 20, 21, 22]. Thus, this process consists in the termination of the gene expression model present in the explant differentiated tissue cells that will be replaced by the expression of embryogenic genes [23, 24]. But embryogenic program does not occur in all cells at the same time, only in some of them [14, 17, 25, 26]. Several changes may occur to reprogram a somatic cell to the competent embryogenic stage.

Embryogenic cells have different characteristics, they are unique, small, superficially they are similar to meristematic cells, with isodiametric forms, small vacuoles, stained nuclei, with abundance of organelles, thick cell wall and starch accumulation [22, 26, 27, 28]. The formation of somatic embryos is strongly associated with the embryogenic competence of the explant cells. Possibly, the acquisition of embryogenic competence is related to the endogenous level of plant hormones, which favor tissue sensitivity to plant growth regulators present in the culture medium, which modulates events leading to the formation of the somatic embryo [21, 28, 29].

Somatic embryogenesis can be applied to most plant species [30], but adequate conditions must be available for this, such as explant type, culture medium and growing environment condition [28].


3. Somatic embryogenesis in Coffea

Somatic embryogenesis is applied to C. arabica and C. canephora species for the purpose of vegetative multiplication of elite cultivars, large-scale clonal cultivar, Arabica F1 hybrid [4], to obtain transgenic plants and also as plant differentiation study model [31]. In addition, cloning allows the in vitro stock of germplasm cultivars for exchange between research institutions and the preservation of materials since seeds of this species have some degree of recalcitrance [32, 33].

In C. arabica the formation of somatic embryos can be obtained either by indirect [34], direct [35] or both somatic embryogenesis (Figure 2). Indirect somatic embryogenesis occurs in two phases, callogenesis followed by embryogenesis. On the other hand, direct somatic embryogenesis occurs in one phase without callogenesis. Comparison between these two forms of embryogenesis shows that the direct pathway is more advantageous than the indirect pathway. The direct pathway that occurs in a single phase ends up reducing inputs, labor and cultivation time while the indirect pathway occurs in two phases with higher costs of producing somatic embryos [6, 36, 37]. But although the direct pathway is more advantageous, most studies show that vegetative multiplication of C. arabica genotypes is mainly achieved by indirect somatic embryogenesis [6]. In the indirect pathway, explants of this species produce embryos more easily and in high quantity while in the direct pathway the number of formed embryos is smaller and this process occurs in a long time. Studies have indicated that the difficulty of direct pathway occurrence in C. arabica genotypes seems to be related to the presence of substances produced by the explant tissue itself [38]. This was demonstrated in explants of C. canephora and Daucos carota that showed inhibition of direct route when they were cultivated in culture medium with addition of substances secreted by explants of C. arabica. This result is possibly related to the difficulty of direct pathway occurrence in C. arabica genotypes.

Figure 2.

Details of the occurrence of indirect and direct somatic embryogenesis in Coffea.

Coffee regeneration via somatic embryogenesis can be obtained from different types of explants (Figure 3), such as anthers [39, 40], leaves [34, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46] and roots [47, 48]. However, leaf explant is the most used type for the application of direct or indirect somatic embryogenesis in C. arabica genotypes, this has been occurring since the pioneering work of Sondhal and Sharp [34]. Normally, these explants are used in rectangular shape with dimensions close to 1.5 × 2 cm2.

Figure 3.

Types of explants used for the application of indirect and direct somatic embryogenesis in Coffea genotypes.

There are indications that Coffea somatic embryogenesis is more efficient if applied to leaf explants from in vitro seedlings than from leaves collected from plants in the natural environment [49, 50, 51], and this response must be related to vegetable hormones endogenous. This aspect may also be related to morphology since in vitro seedling leaves have a thicker cuticular layer than those from environmental plants. This characteristic tends to favor greater absorption of culture media components leading to the efficiency of somatic embryogenesis response [51, 52]. In addition, Coffea leaf explants from environmental plants can become curled which impairs nutrient absorption from the culture medium.

C. arabica explants remain green until about 60 days after inoculation in the culture medium and after this period they oxidize. This response is verified in explants submitted to direct or indirect route [45, 46]. In general, oxidized explants also have the ability to form calluses or embryos although they appear to be senescent.

In the indirect pathway, somatic embryos of C. arabica are formed after about 210 days of explant inoculation in the culture medium [45] while in the direct pathway they can be observed after about 90 days, but in small numbers [46]. On the other hand, there are also genotypes that do not form somatic embryos when submitted to these two embryogenesis pathways and are called recalcitrant [53]. Leaf explants of C. arabica cultivar Mundo Novo form somatic embryos in both pathways [45, 46]. But the same genotype may have different capacity for somatic embryogenesis in each of these pathways. Explants of cultivar Mundo Novo and decaffeinated genotypes AC1, AC2 and AC3 formed a greater number of somatic embryos via the indirect route than by the direct one [54].

3.1 Indirect somatic embryogenesis in Coffea

In Coffea, indirect somatic embryogenesis occurs in two phases, the first is callogenesis followed by embryogenesis that corresponds to the formation of somatic embryos [34, 45, 55, 56, 57] (Figure 4). Another characteristic of the indirect somatic embryogenesis in this species is the occurrence of somaclonal variation in cloned plants, due to the long time that callus remains in vitro [58]. Somaclonal variation is undesirable because it leads to the formation of mutants, which can compromise plant growth and development. On the other hand, its occurrence is desirable to obtain genotypes with genetic variability that can be incorporated into the coffee breeding program [59, 60]. For the induction of explant mutations are cultivated at high concentrations of 2,4 D.

Figure 4.

Indirect somatic embryogenesis in the cultivar Mundo Novo of Coffea Arabica. (A) Leaf explant with callus presence 15 days after the beginning of cultivation. (B) Calogenesis at 40 days of cultivation. (C) Calogenesis at 90 days of cultivation. (D) Callus with somatic embryos. (E) Embryonic axis. (F) Seedlings. (G) Plant transferred to ex vitro environment.

Most studies use the Sondhal and Sharp protocol [34] for the application of indirect somatic embryogenesis in C. arabica genotypes and these usually respond with some somatic embryo production even when they have low regenerative capacity.

3.1.1 Callogenesis

For the induction of callogenesis in Coffea genotypes in general it is used the protocol with MS medium [61] and the addition of phytoregulators 2,4 D and kinetin and 30 g/L sucrose [34]. At this stage, auxin 2,4 D is used at high concentration [26, 62, 63, 64, 65] which causes disturbance of endogenous auxin metabolism of explant tissue leading to cell division [8]. Auxin stress is required to obtain calogenesis in most species [12, 66]. Thus, in the induction of callogenesis, differentiated somatic cells of the explant tissue undergo re-determination, with the occurrence of cell division and proliferation events that form a non-functional cell mass, the callus. But it is also found that the induction of calogenesis in Coffea can be obtained in response to the use of other auxin types such as NAA [67, 68] and Picloram [69, 70].

Sucrose is used in high concentration to provide energy for the induction of calogenesis [34]. Biochemical analyzes in C. arabica explants indicated the occurrence of high concentration of soluble sugars in the calogenesis phase while it was lower in the formation and maturation of somatic embryos [71].

In the indirect pathway, C. arabica leaf explants initiate callus formation from procambium cells around the seventh day after the beginning of cultivation [72]. In general, from the 14th day of cultivation, it is possible to see the occurrence of small callus on the edges of explants that reach up to 3 mm in size [45]. These calluses are usually formed on only one or two sides of the explant and later reach sizes that can occupy the four edges of the explant. In early development, calluses are hyaline, but gradually they tend to oxidize. In a set of explants of the same origin subjected to indirect pathways, it is possible to find calluses that do not develop. They remain small, up to 5 mm in size. However, some of these calluses have the capacity to form somatic embryos, which indicates that they appear to have been “latent” during this time. Furthermore, it is further noted that not all C. arabica explants form calli indicating that the somatic embryogenic capacity may vary between explants from the same plant or from the same leaf.

Callus of C. arabica can reach sizes up to 30 mm around 90–120 days from the beginning of cultivation. During this period, these calluses may also become oxidized. Oxidation of explants and callus is associated with the high content of phenols present in tissues of this species. It is also observed that normally oxidized calli have the capacity to form somatic embryos although they have an appearance of senescence.

3.1.2 Embryogenesis, embryo induction

For the second phase of the indirect route, MS/2 medium is used, with NAA and kinetin added and 20 g/L sucrose, according to the protocol of Sondhal and Sharp [34]. For this purpose, calli are transferred from the calogenesis induction medium to the embryogenesis medium. In this phase, there is the initiation and development of somatic embryos from certain cells, located in some sectors of the callus, which correspond to embryogenic centers [45, 55, 57]. Somatic embryos are usually formed on the bottom of the callus, which is in contact with the culture medium and also on the top surface of the callus. On the other hand, not all callus form somatic embryos.

The induction of embryogenic cells occurs during a precise moment of callus life [19]. This induction window may vary for identical explants of the same genotype depending on the cultivation conditions used and particularly the hormonal balance [20, 73]. In the same explant, it is possible to find competent or non-competent callus sections, which indicates that genetically identical cells may respond differently to and from a particular stimulus. Embryogenic cells rapidly lose their ability to divide due to the occurrence of the differentiation event, so the moment of callus transfer to embryogenesis is crucial. As the callus gets older, embryogenic cells lose their specificity in forming embryos. Somatic embryo formation is a continuous process and several embryonic stages can occur at the same time, in the same explant, in the same culture [74].

3.2 Direct somatic embryogenesis in Coffea

The process of direct somatic embryogenesis in C. arabica occurs in a single phase, which is the main feature of this pathway [75] (Figure 5). In this case, explant tissue cells are already determined and competent [76] for embryogenic development, before being extracted from the explant donor leaf [77] and may differentiate into somatic embryos soon after the start of cultivation. In this pathway, embryo formation occurs from leaf explant mesophyll cells [27]. The phenomenon of direct formation of embryogenic tissue in the explant is described as cloning of certain cells [78]. This cloning is a kind of large-scale reproduction of pro-embryos. Thus, pre-embryogenic cells present in explant tissues are cloned and require less epigenetic reprogramming compared to determined embryogenic cells in the indirect process. In the direct route, the need for cellular reprogramming is different from the indirect route.

Figure 5.

Direct somatic embryogenesis on explants of C. arabica Catuaí cultivar maintained in the dark, at 30°C, for 320 days from the beginning of the experiment. (A) Embryogenic structure (arrow), up to 15 days; (B) oxidized embryogenic structure (arrow), up to 70 days; (C) embryos (lower arrow) formed from the embryogenic structure (top arrow), up to 100 days; (D) embryos formed from the border of the explant (arrow), up to 100 days; (E) Plantlets at 320 days; (F) adult plants [75].

To respond to the direct pathway, Coffea explant cells only need contact with the cytokine-like plant growth regulator and the auxin normally inhibits its occurrence [79]. Explant edge cells differentiate into somatic embryos in response to cytokine in the culture medium [62, 80, 81, 82, 83]. The efficiency of the direct pathway also seems to be related to explants from young leaves. On the other hand, in direct somatic embryogenesis, the occurrence of somaclonal variation tends to be minor or absent, since somatic embryos are formed in a single phase.

In the direct pathway, after inoculation of the explants in the culture medium, the formation of embryogenic structures occurs, which can be visualized around the 15th day of culture [75] (Figure 5A). Embryogenic structures are formed, on average, on one or two sides of the rectangular leaf explant. Normally, these structures range in size from 2 to 4 mm (Figure 5B) and remain this way until the end of cultivation. About 50 days after the start of cultivation the structures start to oxidize (Figure 5C) and by 150 they are completely oxidized [75]. The formation of somatic embryos usually starts from 90 days of cultivation but in low quantity and around 120 days this number tends to increase. Somatic embryos in addition to being formed at the edges of explants (Figure 5D) also develop over the surface of embryogenic structures (Figure 5C).

3.3 Somatic embryo of Coffea

The main product of somatic embryogenesis is the somatic embryo. Somatic embryos are structures that go through different stages of development until they reach that of a plant [18, 28]. These stages of development are perfectly organized, with all the morphological characteristics corresponding to the same stages of development of zygotic embryos [18, 84, 85] being globular, heart, and seedling. Somatic embryos are bipolar morphological structures, presenting radicle, hypocotyl and cotyledons. The somatic embryo does not exhibit endosperm differentiation and is independent of explant tissue after initiation and development. Somatic embryos do not go through the maturation or desiccation phase as in zygotic embryos. This system is not connected to the vascular tissue of the mother or explant during its initiation and development [86]. Moreover, in the direct pathway, it is possible to find somatic embryos at different developmental stages in the same explant [16]. This response pattern can also be found in the indirect callus.

Somatic embryos formed by the direct and indirect pathways are transferred to the germination stage and generally use MS/2 culture medium added 20 g/L sucrose and without plant growth regulators. This same medium can also be used for embryo growth and development to the seedling stage. These observations suggest that Coffea somatic embryos may have a hormonal balance that favors differentiation of developmental stages, requiring only nutrients from the culture medium without phytoregulators for germination and growth and development.


4. Factors that influence the occurrence of somatic embryogenesis

The control of the occurrence of somatic embryogenesis in Coffea is not yet completely identified. Some authors relate the genetic pattern of the species with the absence or low responsiveness [87]. Knowing the factors that control the occurrence of somatic embryogenesis in C. arabica will allow to optimize its application and especially the direct pathway. The high or low capacity of somatic embryogenesis of a species is related to the presence of competent cells or not in the explant, inherent to their totipotency [88]. The maintenance of somatic embryogenesis capacity requires the use of conditions that maintain the proliferation of determined and competent cells [86].

Somatic embryogenesis regeneration capacity is also associated with other factors such as explant donor plant developmental stage, explant donor plant physiological conditions, explant position relative to the plant [89], in vitro culture conditions and mainly of plant growth regulators. The seasons influenced the indirect somatic embryogenesis response of plant explants to eight C. arabica genotypes in the field [56]. Explants formed more somatic embryos in the fall-winter season than in the spring-summer season.

4.1 In vitro culture condition factors

4.1.1 Lighting

In indirect somatic embryogenesis of C. arabica, calli are induced and initiated in the absence or presence of light, but they reach a larger size only if maintained in the absence of light [45, 86]. The size of these callus increases gradually each month, and can reach sizes up to 30 mm.

On the direct pathway, C. arabica explants also have difficulty responding in the presence of light. In this way, at the edge of the explants, small structures are formed, which are called embryogenic structures, which remain without change in size and shape in the presence or absence of light.

4.1.2 Cultivation temperature

Cultivation temperature is another factor that may influence the somatic embryogenesis response. Leaf explants of cultivar Catuaí and two hybrids showed higher formation of somatic embryos at 30°C compared to 25°C [90].

4.2 Plant growth regulation

Several studies indicate that phytoregulators play a decisive role in controlling the formation of somatic embryos in Coffea leaf explants, which is the most explored aspect on this subject. For the induction of the indirect pathway in C. arabica, the auxin/cytokine combination, which is already well established for this species, is generally used. In this pathway, auxin 2,4 D has been the most used to induce callogenesis in C. arabica leaf explants. This auxin is considered strong and is also used for the induction of anthers [39, 40] and roots [47, 48].

For induction of the direct pathway, most studies use cytokine without auxin because it tends to inhibit its occurrence. However, the efficiency of the direct pathway response may vary depending on the type and concentration of cytokine employed. A pioneer study showed that 6-BA at 5 μM dose matched direct pathway induction in C. arabica explants [91].

The formation of somatic embryos was also obtained from C. canephora explants inoculated in MS medium only with addition of different cytokines being 2-iP, ZE, Ki and 6-BA, all at a concentration of 5 μM [92]. Explants formed somatic embryos in the presence of all cytokines, but responses varied according to cytokine type. The 2-iP was more efficient than the ZE, Kin and 6-BA. In this study, it was also found that auxins used at different concentrations inhibited the direct somatic embryogenesis of these genotypes. In another study, Zeatin caused the direct pathway response in C. canephora explants [87]. Cytokine 2-iP also caused direct pathway induction in Coffea [93, 94]. In another study, it was found that 2-iP concentrations of 7.5 and 10 μM favored a greater number of somatic embryos than the 2.5 and 5 μM doses [95].

Synthetic cytokine 6-benzylaminopurine also has the ability to induce the direct pathway in C. arabica explants [69, 91, 96, 97, 98]. The 6-BA used at 30 μM concentration caused higher production of somatic embryos than the 10 and 20 μM doses in leaf explants of the cultivar Mundo Novo de C. arabica [46]. But although the 6-BA concentration was high, embryo production was reduced and the process also took place over a long time. However, this result is interesting because it favors the cost reduction of clonal seedling formation since 6-BA is a cheaper and available synthetic cytokine than zeatin and 2-iP. Cytokine TDZ has also been used to induce regeneration of C. arabica somatic embryos via the direct pathway [47, 48]. Leaf explants of cultivar IAPAR 59 and C. arabica hybrid Sachimor showed direct somatic embryogenesis response in the presence of TDZ at concentrations of 2.27; 4.54; 6.81; 9.08; 13.62 μM, but with low embryo production [96].

The literature shows that it is well established that the Coffea direct pathway only occurs in the presence of cytokine, but it is also possible to find studies in which explants of this species formed somatic embryos in the presence of auxin. Explants of cultivar Acaia Cerrado formed somatic embryos when grown in a single culture medium with addition of kinetin, GA3 and NAA [67]. In another study, it was found that leaf explants of cultivar Mundo Novo submitted to direct pathway showed high production of somatic embryos in response to 2-iP treatment associated with brassinosteroid compared to 2-iP alone control [99]. On the other hand, explants treated with brassinosteroid alone without cytokine formed only embryogenic structures without any occurrence of somatic embryos (Figure 6).

Figure 6.

Direct somatic embryogenesis from leaf explants of C. arabica. (A) Macroscopic view of coffee leaf explants after 60, 90 and 130 days of culture on induction medium supplemented with 10 μM 2-iP + 1.0 μM 24-epiBR. (B) Number and (C) size of somatic embryos obtained by treatment during the somatic embryogenesis process. (D) Somatic embryo germination. (E) Elongating regenerated plantlets after 90 days on ½MS medium. Bars = 0.5 and 2 cm [99].

4.3 Stress factor

The stress factors have been related to promoting the acquisition of embryogenic competence in different species [20, 66]. Stressful conditions can also influence the acquisition of embryogenic competence in different species [19, 20, 30, 66, 100, 101]. Studies indicate that the occurrence of somatic embryogenesis is strongly related to the exposure of explants to some high intensity stress factor and or the high concentration of plant growth regulator [22].

Osmotic stress treatments alter the explant's environment. This change in tissue/organ growth conditions may represent the estrum that enables cells to undergo changes in developmental processes and make them competent for inductive signals for somatic embryogenesis. Thus, the stress-induction system is composed of two phases: the acquisition of embryogenic competence and the formation of the somatic embryo [102].

Of the responses found in different species, it was shown that the stress-induction system could cause a greater formation of somatic embryos [101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107] although its forms of control and action are unknown and this aspect has been little studied in the culture of coffee plants. It was verified that C. canephora explants submitted to direct somatic embryogenesis formed a greater number of embryos in a medium to which 3 g of agar had been added, than in one containing 6 g [106] (Figure 7). This result was indirect evidence that altering the osmotic potential of the culture tends to favor the ability of somatic embryogenesis. In another study, it was found that the alteration of the osmotic concentration of the culture medium influenced the embryogenesis response [108]. The use of 7% PEG 6000 caused a greater formation of somatic embryos in foliar explants of the C. arabica genotypes AC1 and cultivar Mundo Novo than the use of 5% PEG 6000. This reagent has a high molecular weight and is inert, non-ionic, non-toxic, water soluble [109], not absorbed by vegetable cells and alters the osmotic potential when added to a culture medium.

Figure 7.

Effect of 3 and 6 g/L agar on the direct somatic embryogenesis in explants of C. canephora cultivar “Robusta 2264 Mar” maintained at 25°C in the dark [106]. (A) 6 g/L of agar: explants with curvature without contact with the medium. (B) Explant with few somatic embryos in the presence of 6 g/L agar. (C) 3 g/L of agar: the medium is in contact with the border of the explant. (D) Explant with many somatic embryos in the presence of 3 g/L agar.


5. Conclusions

Somatic embryogenesis contributes to coffee crop both in relation to breeding programs and its production chain. Little is known about the factors controlling somatic embryogenesis in Coffea genotypes. But it is known that plant hormones act in controlling the occurrence of this process. In addition, studies have shown that environmental and mainly stress factors applied during the cultivation condition are involved in the control of somatic embryogenesis in Coffea.




Murashige and Skoog

2,4 D

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid




naphthylacetic acid









PEG 6000

polyethyleneglycol 6000


  1. 1. Davis AP, Govaerts R, Bridson DM, Stoffelen P. An annoted taxonomic conspectus of the genus Coffea (Rubiaceae). Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society. 2006;152:465-512. DOI: 10.1111/j.1095-8339.2006.00584.x
  2. 2. Barbosa IP, Costa WG, Nascimento M, Cruz CD, Oliveira ACB. Recommendation of Coffea arabica genotypes by factor analysis. Euphytica. 2007;215:178. DOI: 10.1007/s10681-019-2499-x
  3. 3. Carvalho A. Cruzamento entre C. arabica e C. canephora. In: Proceedings of the 10th Colloquium of International Coffee Science Association, ASIC, 11-14 October. Brasil: Salvador; 1982. pp. 363-368
  4. 4. Etienne H, Breton D, Breitler J-C, Bertrand B, Déchamp E, Awada R, et al. Coffee somatic embryogenesis: how did research, experience gained and innovations promote the commercial propagation of elite clones from the two cultivated species? Frontiers in Plant Science. 2018;9:1-21. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01630
  5. 5. Medina-Filho HP, Bordignon R, Carvalho CHS. Desenvolvimento de novas cultivares de café arábica. In: Carvalho CHS, editor. Cultivares de Café: Origem, Características e Recomendações. 1st ed. Embrapa Café: Brasília; 2008. pp. 79-101. ISBN: 978-85-61519-00-1
  6. 6. Vieira LGE, Kobayashi AK. Micropropagação do cafeeiro. In: Anais do I Simpósio de Pesquisas dos Cafés do Brasil, 10-14 September. Minas Gerais: Poços de Caldas; 2000. pp. 147-167
  7. 7. Corredoira E, Merkle SA, Martínez MT, Toribio MJM, Canhoto MJM, Correia SI, et al. Non-zygotic embryogenesis in hardwood species. Critical Reviews In Plant Sciences. 2019;38:29-97. DOI: 10.1080/07352689.2018.1551122
  8. 8. Mendez-Hernandez HA, Ledezma-Rodriguez M, Avilez-Montalvo RN, Juarez-Gomez YL, Skeete A, Avilez-Montalvo J, et al. Signaling overview of plant somatic embryogenesis. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10:1-15. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2019.00077
  9. 9. Covre AM, Partelli FL, Mauri AL, Dias MA. Crescimento e desenvolvimento inicial de genótipos de café conilon. Revista Agro@mbiente Online. 2013;7:193-202. DOI: 10.18227/1982-8470ragro.v7i2.944
  10. 10. Bergo CL, Mendes ANG. Propagação vegetativa do cafeeiro (Coffea arabica L.) por meio de enraizamento de estacas. Ciência & Agrotecnologia. 2000;24:392-398. Available from:
  11. 11. Osuji C, Abubakar S, Mowobi G. The place of somatic embryogenesis in crop improvement through genetic transformation. Journal of Environment and Life Sciences. 2016;1:1-7. Available from:
  12. 12. Carman JG. Embryogenic cells in plant tissue cultures: Occurrence and behavior. In Vitro Cell Development Biology. 1990;26:746-753. DOI: 10.1007/BF02623615
  13. 13. Dodemam VL, Kreis DG. Zigotic embryogenesis versus somatic embryogenesis. Journal Experimental Botany. 1997;48:1493-1509. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/48.8.1493
  14. 14. Quiroz-Figueroa FR, Rojas-Herrera R, Galaz-Avalos RM, Loyola-Vargas VM. Embryo production through somatic embryogenesis can be used to study cell differentiation in plants. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2006;86:285-301. DOI: 10.1007/s11240-006-9139-6
  15. 15. Krikorian AD, Berquam DL. Plant cell and tissue culture: The role of Haberlandt. Botanical Review. 1969;35:59-67. DOI: 10.1007/BF02859888
  16. 16. Williams EG, Maheswaran G. Somatic embryogenesis: Factors influencing coordinated behaviour of cells as an embryogenic group. Annals of Botany. 1986;57:443-462. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.aob.a087127
  17. 17. Merkle SA, Parrott WA, Flinn BS. Morphogenic aspects of somatic embryogenesis. In: Thorpe TA, editor. In Vitro Embryogenesis in Plants. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995. pp. 155-203
  18. 18. Zimmerman JL. Somatic embryogenesis: A model for early development in higher plants. The Plant Cell. 2010;5:1411-1423. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.5.10.1411
  19. 19. Michaux-Ferrière N, Schwendiman J. Modalités d'initiation des cellules à l'origine des embryons somatiques. Acta Botanica Gallica. 1993;140:603-613. DOI: 10.1080/12538078.1993.10515641
  20. 20. Fehér A, Pasternak TP, Dudits D. Transition of somatic plant cells to an embryogenic state. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2003;74:201-228. DOI: 10.1023/A:1024033216561
  21. 21. Jiménez VM. Involvement of plant hormones and plant growth regulators on in vitro somatic embryogenesis. Plant Growth Regulation. 2005;47:91-110. DOI: 10.1007/s10725-005-3478-x
  22. 22. Fehér A. Somatic embryogenesis—Stress-induced remodeling of plant cell fate. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)—Gene Regulator Mechanism. 2015;1849:385-405. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2014.07.005
  23. 23. Werner ET, Lima ABP, Amaral JAT. Expressão gênica na embriogênese somática vegetal. Enciclopédia Biosfera, Centro Científico Conhecer—Goiânia. 2012;8(14):552-580
  24. 24. Siddiqui ZH, Abbas ZK, Ansari MW, Khan MN. The role of miRNA in somatic embryogenesis. Genomic. 2019;111:1026-1033. DOI: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2018.11.022
  25. 25. Williams RR. The chemical mirroenviroment. In: Jenny-Aitken C, Kozai T, Smith L, editors. Automation and Environmental Control in Plant Tissue Culture. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publisher; 1995. pp. 405-439
  26. 26. Isah T. Induction of somatic embryogenesis in woody plants. Acta Physiology Plantarum. 2016;38:118. DOI: 10.1007/s11738-016-2134-6
  27. 27. Conger BV, Hanning GE, Gray DJ, Mcdaniel JK. Direct embryogenesis from mesophyll cells of orchardgrass. Science. 1983;221:850-851. DOI: 10.1126/science.221.4613.850
  28. 28. von Arnold S, Sabala I, Bozhkov P, Dyachok J, Filonova L. Developmental pathways of somatic embryogenesis. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 2002;69:233-249. DOI: 10.1023/A:1015673200621
  29. 29. Haccius B. Question of unicellular origin of non-zygotic embryos in callus cultures. Phytomorphology. 1978;28:74-81. Available from:
  30. 30. Gaj MD. Factors influencing somatic embryogenesis induction and plant regeneration with particular reference to Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. Plant Growth Regulation. 2004;43:27-47. DOI: 10.1023/B:GROW.0000038275.29262.fb
  31. 31. Jiménez VM, Bangerth F. Endogenous hormone levels in explants and in embryogenic and non-embryogenic cultures of carrot. Physiologia Plantarum. 2001;111:389-395. DOI: 10.1034/j.1399-3054.2001.1110317.x
  32. 32. Eira MTS, Silva EAA, Castro RD, Dussert S, Walters C, Derek BJ, et al. Coffee seed physiology. Brazilian Journal Plant Physiology. 2006;18:149-163. Available from: Http://www.Scielo.Br/Pdf/Bjpp/V18n1/A11v18n1.Pdf
  33. 33. Souza NA, Rosa SDVF, Vilela AL, Figueiredo MA, Vilela ALO, Stphano-Filho R, et al. Big coffee Vl: Seed desiccation tolerance, sieve classification. Coffee Science. 2018;13:510-518. DOI: 10.25186/cs.v13i4.1492
  34. 34. Söndahl MR, Sharp WR. High frequency induction of somatic embryos in cultured leaf explants of Coffea arabica L. Zeitschrift für Pflanzenphysiologie. 1977;81:395-408. DOI: 10.1016/S0044-328X(77)80175-X
  35. 35. Staritsky G. Embryoid formation in callus cultures of coffee. Acta Botanica Neerlandica. 1970;19:509-514. DOI: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.1970.tb00677.x
  36. 36. Altman A, Loberant B. Micropropagation: Clonal plant propagation in vitro. In: Altman A, editor. Agricultural Biotechnology. New York: Marker Dekker; 1998. pp. 19-42
  37. 37. Kumar V, Naidu MM, Ravishankar GA. Developments in coffee biotechnology in vitro plant propagation and crop improvement. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture. 2006;87:49-65. DOI: 10.1007/s11240-006-9134-y
  38. 38. Nic-Can GI, Galaz-Ávalos RM, De-la-Peña C, Alcazar-Magaña A, Wrobel K, Loyola-Vargas VM. Somatic embryogenesis: Identified factors that lead to embryogenic repression. A case of species of the same genus. PLOS One. 2015;10:1-21.e01264. DOI: 10.1371/jornal:pone.0126414
  39. 39. Figueira ER, Londe LN, Marques RV, Marques SV, Silva AS, Luz JMQ. 2,4-D, silver nitrate, and acetylsalicylic acid influence on the in vitro culture of coffee (Coffea arabica L.) anthers. Científica. 2008;36(1):27-33. DOI: 10.15361/1984-5529.2008v36n1p27+-+33
  40. 40. Silva AS, Luz JMQ , Rodrigues TM, Bittar CA, Lino LO. Callus induction and embryo regeneration in Coffea arabica L. anther by silver nitrate and ethylene. Revista de Ciência Agronômica. 2011;42:921-929. Available from:
  41. 41. Sharp WR, Caldas LS, Crocomo OJ, Monaco LC, Carvalho A. Production of Coffea arabica callus of three ploidy levels and subsequent morphogenesis. Phyton. 1973;31:67-74. Available from:
  42. 42. Dublin P. Techniques de reproduction végétative in vitro et amélioration génétique chez les cafeiers cultivés. Café Cacao Thé. 1984;28:231-244. Available from:
  43. 43. Baumann TW, Neuenschwander B. Tissue culture in coffee biotechnology. Café Cacao Thé. 1990;34:159-164. Available from:
  44. 44. Fernández-Da Silva R, Gallardo LH, Yuffá AM. Primary and secondary somatic embryogenesis in leaf sections and cell suspensions of Coffea arabicacv. ‘Catimor’. Interciencia. 2000;30:694-698. Available from:
  45. 45. Almeida JAS, Silvarolla MB, Fazuoli LC, Stancato GC. Embriogênese Somática em genótipos de Coffea arabica L. Coffee Science. 2008;3:143-151. DOI: 10.25186/cs.v3i2.85
  46. 46. Almeida JAS, Silvarolla MB. Induction of somatic embryos of Coffea arabica genotypes by 6-benzyladenine. International Journal of Plant Developmental Biology. 2009;53:5-8. Available from:
  47. 47. Kahia J, Kirika M, Lubabali H, Mantel S. High-frequency direct somatic embryogenesis and plantlet regeneration from leaves derived from in vitro-germinated seedlings of a Coffea arabica hybrid cultivar. Hortscience. 2016;51:1148-1152. DOI: 10.21273/Hortsci10771-16
  48. 48. Yi-Chieh W, Meng-Ze L, Bin H, Hsiao-Hang C, Jen-Tsung C. Thidiazuron enhanced somatic embryogenesis from callus lines of arabica coffee and subsequent plant regeneration. Acta Biologica Cracoviensia Series Botanica. 2018;60:35-44. DOI: 10.24425/118053
  49. 49. Bieysse D, Gofflot A, Michaux-Ferrière N. Effect of experimental conditions and genotypic variability on somatic embryogenesis in Coffea arabica. Canadian Journal Botany. 1993;71:1496-1502. DOI: 10.1139/b93-173
  50. 50. Ribas AF, Pereira LFP, Vieira LGE. Genetic transformation of coffee. Brazilian Journal Plant Physiology. 2006;18:83-94. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-04202006000100007
  51. 51. Gatica-Arias AM, Arrieta G, Espinoza AMV. Comparison of three in vitro protocols for direct somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration of Coffea arabica L. cvs. caturra and catuaí. Agronomia Costarricense. 2007;31:85-94. DOI: 10.2225/vol11-issue1-fulltext-9
  52. 52. Barry-Etienne D, Bertrand B, Schlönvoigt A, Etienne H. The morphological variability within a population of coffee somatic embryos produced in a bioreactor affects the regeneration and the development of plants in the nursery. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture. 2002;68:153-162. DOI: 10.1023/A:1013874221569
  53. 53. Bonga JM, Klimaszewska KK, von Aderkas P. Recalcitrance in clonal propagation, in particular of conifers. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture. 2010;100:241. DOI: 10.1007/s11240-009-9647-2
  54. 54. Almeida JAS, Silvarolla MB, Braghini MT, Fazuoli LC. Somatic embryogenesis in genotypes of Coffea arabica with reduced caffeine content. In: Proceedings of the 21th Colloquium of International Coffee Science Association, ASIC, 10-15 September. France: Montpellier; 2006. pp. 885-889
  55. 55. Berthouly M, Michaux-Ferriére NM. High frequency somatic embryogenesis I Coffea canephora. Induction conditions and histological evolution. Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture. 1996;44:169-176. DOI: 10.1007/BF00048196
  56. 56. Almeida JAS, Fazuoli LC, Ramos LCS. Efeito das estações do ano na calogênese e embriogênese somática em oito genótipos de Coffea arabica. In: Anais do IV Simpósio de Pesquisas dos Cafés do Brasil, Consórcio Brasileiro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento do Café, 2-5 May. Paraná: Londrina; 2005. pp. 1-5
  57. 57. Santana-Buzzy N, Herrera RR, Ávalos RMG, Ku-Cauich JR, Mijangos-Cortés J, Gutiérrez-Pacheco LC, et al. Advances in coffee tissue culture and its pratical applications. In Vitro Cell Development Biology-Plant. 2007;3:507-520. DOI: 10.1007/s11627-007-9074-1
  58. 58. Larkin PJ, Scoweroft WR. Somaclonal variation—A novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theorical Applied Genetic. 1981;60:197-214. DOI: 10.1007/BF02342540
  59. 59. Krishna H, Alizadeh M, Singh D, Singh U, Chauhan N, Eftekhari M, et al. Somaclonal variations and their applications in horticultural crops improvement. Biotech. 2016;6:54. DOI: 10.1007/s13205-016-0389-7
  60. 60. Bolivar-Gonzalez A, Valdez-Melara M, Gatica-Arias A. Responses of Arabica coffee (Coffea arabica L. var. Catuai) cell suspensions to chemically induced mutagenesis and salinity stress under in vitro culture conditions. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant. 2018;54:576-589. DOI: 10.1007/s11627-018-9918-x 2018
  61. 61. Murashige T, Skoog F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiologia Plantarum. 1962;15:473-497. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1962.tb08052.x
  62. 62. Dublin P. Embryogenèse somatique directe sur fragments de feuilles de caféier arabusta. Café Cacao Thé. 1981;25:237-241. Available from:
  63. 63. Lanaud C. Production de plantules de C. canephora par embryogenèse somatique réalisée à partir de culture in vitro d´ovules. Café Cacao Thé. 1981;25:231-236. Available from:
  64. 64. Pierson ES, Van Lammeren AAM, Schel JHN, Staritsky G. In vitro development of embryoids from punched leaf discs of Coffea canephora. Protoplasma. 1983;115:208-216. DOI: 10.1007/BF01279811
  65. 65. Sanglard NA, Silva PAM, Sattler MC, Oliveira SC, Cesário LM, Ferreira A, et al. Indirect somatic embryogenesis in Coffea with different ploidy levels: A revisiting and updating study. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Culture. 2019;136:255-267. DOI: 10.1007/s11240-018-1511-9
  66. 66. Zavattiere MA, Frederico AM, Lima M, Sabino R, Arnholdt-Shmitt B. Induction of somatic embryogenesis as example of stress-relatec plant actions. Electronic Journal of Biotechnology. 2010;13:1-9. DOI: 10.2225/vol13-issue1-fulltext-4
  67. 67. Pereira AR, Carvalho SP, Pasqual M, Santos FC. Embriogênese somática direta em explantes foliares de Coffea arabica L. cv. Acaiá cerrado: Efeito de cinetina e ácido giberélico. Ciência e Agrotecnologia. 2007;31:332-336. Available from:
  68. 68. Silva AS, Luz JMQ , Rodrigues TM, Marques SV, Marques RV, Pasqual M. Coffea arabica L. anther callus and pro-embryoid induction by different growth regulators. Bioscience Journal. 2009;25:19-27. Available from:
  69. 69. Cid LPB, Cruz ARR. Somatic embryogenesis from three coffee cultivars: ‘Rubi’, Catuaí Vermelho 81 and IAPAR 59. HortScience. 2004;39:130-131. DOI: 10.21273/HORTSCI.39.1.130
  70. 70. Santana N, Gonzalez ME, Valcarcel M, Canto-Flick A, Hernandez M, Fuentes-Cerda CFJ, et al. Somatic embryogenesis: A valuable alternative for propagating selected robusta coffee (Coffea canephora) clones. In vitro Cellular and Developmental Biology—Plant. 2004;40:95-101. DOI: 10.1079/IVP2003486
  71. 71. Bartos PMC, Gomes HT, Amaral LIV, Teixeira JB, Scherwinski-Pereira JE. Biochemical events during somatic embryogenesis in Coffea arabica L. Biotech. 2018;8:209a. DOI: 10.1007/s13205-018-1238-7
  72. 72. Bartos PMC, Gomes HT, Gomes SM, Vasconcelos Filho SC, Teixeira JB, Scherwinski-Pereira JE. Histology of somatic embryogenesis in Coffea arabica L. Biologia. 2018;1255b:73. DOI: 10.2478/s11756-018-0131-5
  73. 73. Yeung EC. Structural and developmental patterns in somatic action. In: Thorpe TA, editor. In Vitro Embryogenesis in Plants. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1995. p. 205-248. ISBN: 978-94-011-0485-2
  74. 74. Bandel G, Carvalho FJPC, Crocomo OJ, Sharp WR, Gutierrez LE, Carvalho PCT. Aspectos citológicos da diferenciação de tecidos de cafeeiro cultivados in vitro. In: Anais da Escola Superior de Agronomia “Luiz de Queiroz”. Vol. 32. 1975. pp. 717-723. DOI: 10.1590 / S0071-12761975000100064
  75. 75. Almeida JAS, Leal RR, Carmazini VCB, Salomon MV, Guerreiro-Filho O. Characterization of the morphological events in the somatic embryogenesis in the direct somatic of Coffea arabica L. genotypes. Plant Cell Biotechnology and Molecular Biology. 2016;17:393-403. Available from:
  76. 76. McDaniel CN. Competence, determination and induction in plant development. In: Malacinski GM, Bryant SV, editors. Pattern Formation a Primer in Developmental Biology. New York: Macmillan Publishing; 1984. pp. 393-412
  77. 77. Sharp WR, Sodhal MR, Evans AE, Caldas LA, Maraffa SB. The physiology of in vitro asexual embryogenesis. Horticultural Reviews. 1980;2:268-310
  78. 78. Wann SR. Somatic embryogenesis in woody species. Horticultural Reviews. 1988;10:153-181. DOI: 10.1002/9781118060834.ch5
  79. 79. Maciel ALR, Pasqual M, Pereira AB, Silva AB, Dutra LF. Embriogênese somática indireta em explantes foliares de Coffea arabica cv. Obatã. Ciência e Agrotecnologia. 2003;27:107-116. DOI: 10.1590/S1413-70542003000100013
  80. 80. Chée RP, Cantliffe DJ. Selective enhancement of Ipomea batatas Poir. Embryogenic and non-embryogenic callus growth and production of embryos in liquid culture. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture. 1988;15:149-159. DOI: 10.1007/BF00035756
  81. 81. Raghavan V. Molecular Embryology of Flowering Plants. 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1997. 690 p
  82. 82. Emons AMC. Somatic embryogenesis: cell biological aspects. Acta Botanica Neerlandica. 1994;43:1-14. DOI: 10.1111/j.1438-8677.1994.tb00729.x
  83. 83. Motoike SY, Saraiva ES, Ventrella MC, Silva CV, Salomão LCC. Somatic embryogenesis of Myrciaria aureana (Brazilian grape tree). Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture. 2007;89:75-81. DOI: 10.1007/s11240-007-9210-y
  84. 84. Michaux-Ferriére N, Bieysse D, Alvard D, Dublin P. Étude histologique de l`embryogenêse somatique chez Coffea arabica, induite par culture sur milieux uniques de fragments foliaires de génotypes différents. Café Cacao Thé. 1989;33:207-217. DOI: 10.1007/BF00048196
  85. 85. West MAL, Harada JJ.Embryogenesis in higher plants: an overview. Plant Cell. 1993;5:1361-1369. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.5.10.1361
  86. 86. Street HE. Embryogenesis and chemically induced organogenesis. In: Sharp WP, Larsen PO, Paddock EF, Raghavan V, editors. Plant Cell and Tissue Culture Principles and Applications. 4th ed. Columbus: Ohio State University Press; 1977. pp. 123-153. ISBN: 081420287X/9780814202876
  87. 87. Ramos LCS, Yokoo EY, Gonçalves W. Direct somatic embryogenesis is genotype specific in coffee. In: Proceedings of the 15th Colloquium of International Coffee Science Association, ASIC, 24-30 July. France: Montpellier; 1993. pp. 763-766
  88. 88. Halpering W. Population density effects on embryogenesis in carrot cell cultures. Exp Cell Research. 1967;48:170-173. DOI: 10.1016/0014-4827(67)90292-3
  89. 89. Boutchouang RP, Akitio OFZ, Tchouatcheu AGN, Niemenak N. Influence of the position of flowers buds on the tree on somatic embryogenesis of cocoa (Theobroma cacao L.). International Journal of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 2016;8:7-16. DOI: 10.5897/IJPPB2016.0247
  90. 90. Almeida JAS, Leal RR, Carmazini VCB, Salomon MV, Guerreiro-Filho O. Effect of temperature and cytokinin on the capacaity of somatic embryogenesis in Coffea arabica L. genotypes. Coffee Science. 2014;9:394-399. DOI: 10.25186/cs.v9i3.668
  91. 91. Yasuda T, Fujii Y, Yamaguchi T. Embryogenic callus induction from Coffea arabica leaf explants by benzyladenine. Plant Cell Physiology. 1985;26:595-597. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a076946
  92. 92. Hatanaka T, Azuma T, Uchida N, Yasuda T. Effect of plant hormones on somatic embryogenesis of Coffea canephora. In: Proceedings of the 16th Colloquium of International Coffee Science Association, ASIC, 9-14 April. Japan: Kyoto; 1995. pp. 790-797
  93. 93. Acuña MEA. Somatic embryogenesis induced by culture on single media in coffee plants from crosses of Coffea arabica by Timor hybrid. In: Proceedings of the 15th Colloquium of International Coffee Science Association, ASIC, 24-30 July; Montpellier. 1993. pp. 790-889
  94. 94. Vasconcellos RCC, Almeida JAS, Silvarolla MB. Indução de embriões somáticos em explantes foliares de genótipos de Coffea arabica em presença da citocinina 2-iP. In: Anais do VI Simpósio de Pesquisas dos Cafés do Brasil, Consórcio Brasileiro de Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento do Café, 2-5 June. Vitória: Espírito Santo; 2009. ISSN: 1984-9245. pp. 1-5
  95. 95. Alves IS, Carmazini VCB, Santos CD, Almeida JAS. 2-Isopentenyladenine in the induction of direct somatic embryogenesis capacity of Coffea arabica L. Ciência Rural. 2018;48:1-5. DOI: 10.1590/0103-8478cr20180001
  96. 96. Ayub RA, Gebieluca AN.Embriogênese somática em genótipos de café (Coffea arabica) é citocinina dependente. Publicação Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa Ciências Exatas, da Terra, Ciêcias Agronômica, Engenharia. 2003;9:25-30. DOI: 10.5212/publicatio.v9i02.806
  97. 97. Rojas-Lorz L, Arrieta-Espinoza G, Valdez-Melara M, Pereira LFP, Gatica-Arias A. Influence of silver nitrate on somatic embryogenesis induction in Arabica Coffee (Coffea arabica L.). Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology. 2019;62:e19180228. DOI: 10.1590/1678-4324-2019180228
  98. 98. Almeida JAS. Cultura de tecido em Coffea. In: Thomaziello RA, Fazuoli LC, editors. IX Curso de Atualização em Café, Documento IAC 91. 1st ed. Instituto Agronômico: Campinas; 2009. pp. 63-67
  99. 99. Chone RMS, Rocha DIR, Monte-Bello CC, Pinheiro HP, Dornelas MC, Haddad CRB, et al. Brassinosteroid increases the cytokinin efficiency to induce direct somatic embryogenesis in leaf explants of Coffea arabica L. (Rubiaceae). Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture. 2018;35:63-71. DOI: 10.1007/s11240-018-1443-4
  100. 100. Bressan RA, Hasegawa PM, Handa AK. Resistance of cultured higher plant cells to polyethylene glycol-induced water stress. Plant Science Letters. 1981;21:23-30. DOI: 10.1016/0304-4211(81)90065-1
  101. 101. Bressan RA, Handa AK, Handa S, Hasegawa PM. Growth and water relations of cultured tomato cells after adjustment to low external water potentials. Plant Physiology. 1982;70:1303-1309. DOI: 10.1104/pp.70.5.1303
  102. 102. Kikuchi A, Sanuki N, Higashi K, Koshiba T, Kamada H. Abscisic acid and stress treatment are essential for the acquisition of embryogenic competence by carrot somatic cells. Planta. 2006;223:637-645. DOI: 10.1007/s00425-005-0114-y
  103. 103. Mohamed FM, Tawfik AA. Dehydration-induced alterations in growth and osmotic potential of callus from six terapy bean lines varying in drought resistance. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture. 2006;87:255-262. DOI: 10.1007/s11240-006-9159-2
  104. 104. Ferrie AMR, Keller WA. Optimization of methods for using polyethylene glycol as a non-permeating osmoticum for the induction of microspore embryogenesis in the Brassicacea. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant. 2007;43:348-355. DOI: 10.1007/s11627-007-9053-6
  105. 105. Desjardins Y, Dubuc JF, Badr A. In Vitro Culture of Plants: a stressful activity. Acta Horticulturae (Ishs). 2009;812:29-50. Available from: www.Actahort.Org/Books/812/812
  106. 106. Almeida JAS, Carmazini VCB, Ramos LCS. Indirect effect of agar concentration on the embryogenesis responses of Coffea canephora. Fruit, Vegetable and Cereal Science and Biotecnology. 2007;1:121-125. Available from:
  107. 107. Morini S, D’Onofrio C, Fisichella M, Loreti F. Effect of high and low temperature on the leaf regenerating capacity of Quince BA29 rootstock. Acta Horticulturae. 2004;658:591-597. DOI: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.658.89
  108. 108. Almeida JAS, Machado DFSP, Silvarolla MB, Machado EC. Effect of PEG on the somatic embryogenesis of Coffea arabica genotypes. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Colloquium of International Coffee Science Association, ASIC, 14-19 September. Brazil: Campinas; 2008. pp. 1020-1023
  109. 109. Ahmad MAS, Javed F, Ashraf M. Iso-osmotic effect of NaCl and PEG on growth, cations and free proline accumulation in callus tissue of two indica rice (Oryza sativa L.) genotypes. Plant Growth Regulation. 2007;53:53-63. DOI: 10.1007/s10725-007-9204-0

Written By

Julieta Andrea Silva de Almeida

Submitted: November 28th, 2019 Reviewed: December 13th, 2019 Published: March 17th, 2020