Analysis of Genetic Diversity Using Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR) Markers and Growth Regulator Response in Biofield Treated Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.)
American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry
Volume 3, Issue 5, September 2015, Pages: 216-221
Received: Oct. 11, 2015; Accepted: Oct. 20, 2015; Published: Nov. 14, 2015
Views 2466      Downloads 38
Authors
Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, NV, USA
Alice Branton, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, NV, USA
Dahryn Trivedi, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, NV, USA
Gopal Nayak, Trivedi Global Inc., Henderson, NV, USA
Mayank Gangwar, Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
Snehasis Jana, Trivedi Science Research Laboratory Pvt. Ltd., Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
Article Tools
Follow on us
Abstract
Cotton is the most important crop for the production of fiber that plays a key role in economic and social affairs. The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of biofield energy treatment on cotton seeds regarding its growth, germination of seedling, glutathione (GSH) concentration, indole acetic acid (IAA) content and DNA fingerprinting using simple sequence repeat (SSR) markers for polymorphism analysis. The seeds of cotton cv. Stoneville-2 (Gossypium hirsutum L.) was obtained from DNA Land Marks Inc., Canada and divided into two groups. One group was remained as untreated, while the other was subjected to Mr. Trivedi biofield energy and referred as treated sample. The growth-germination of cotton seedling data showed higher germination (82%) in biofield treated seeds as compared to the control (68%). The alterations in length of shoot and root of cotton seedling was reported in the treated sample with respect to untreated seeds. However, the endogenous level of GSH in the leaves of treated cotton was increased by 27.68% as compared to the untreated sample, which may suggest an improved immunity of cotton plant. Further, the plant growth regulatory constituent i.e. IAA concentration was increased by 7.39%, as compared with the control. Besides, the DNA fingerprinting data, showed polymorphism (4%) between treated and untreated samples of cotton. The overall results suggest that the biofield energy treatment on cotton seeds, results in improved overall growth of plant, increase germination rate, GSH and IAA concentration were increased. The study assumed that biofield energy treatment on cotton seeds would be more useful for the production of cotton fiber.
Keywords
Biofield Energy, DNA Fingerprinting, Polymorphism, Cotton cv. Stoneville-2, Glutathione
To cite this article
Mahendra Kumar Trivedi, Alice Branton, Dahryn Trivedi, Gopal Nayak, Mayank Gangwar, Snehasis Jana, Analysis of Genetic Diversity Using Simple Sequence Repeat (SSR) Markers and Growth Regulator Response in Biofield Treated Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), American Journal of Agriculture and Forestry. Vol. 3, No. 5, 2015, pp. 216-221. doi: 10.11648/j.ajaf.20150305.17
Copyright
Copyright © 2015 Authors retain the copyright of this article.
This article is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
References
[1]
Abdellatif KF, Khidr YA, Mansy YM, Lawendey MM, Soliman YA (2012) Molecular diversity of Egyptian cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.) and its relation to varietal development. J Crop Sci Biotechnol 15: 93-99.
[2]
Zhang T, Qian N, Zhu X, Chen H, Wang S, et al. (2013) Variations and transmission of QTL alleles for yield and fiber qualities in upland cotton cultivars developed in China. PLoS One 8: e57220.
[3]
Kim HJ, Triplett BA (2001) Cotton fiber growth in planta and in vitro. Models for plant cell elongation and cell wall biogenesis. Plant Physiol 127: 1361-1366.
[4]
Ruan YL, Llewellyn DJ, Furbank RT (2003) Suppression of sucrose synthase gene expression represses cotton fiber cell initiation, elongation, and seed development. Plant Cell 15: 952-964.
[5]
Nickell LG (1982) Plant growth regulators: Agricultural uses, Springer, New York.
[6]
Wareing PF, PhillipsI DJ (1970) The control of growth and differentiation in plants. Pergamon Press Ltd., New York, USA.
[7]
Lopez-Bucio J, Hernandez-Abreu E, Sanchez-Calderon L, Nieto-Jacobo MF, Simpson J, et al. (2002). Phosphate availability alters architecture and causes changes in hormones sensitivity in the Arabidopsis root system. Plant Physiol 129: 244-256.
[8]
Grill D, Tausz M, De Kok LJ (2001) Significance of glutathione in plant adaptation to the environment. Handbook of plant ecophysiology, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
[9]
http://www.indiantextilemagazine.in/uncategorized/factors-influencing-cotton-production/
[10]
Sances F, Flora E, Patil S, Spence A, Shinde V (2013) Impact of biofield treatment on ginseng and organic blueberry yield. AGRIVITA J Agri Sci 35: 22-29.
[11]
Lenssen AW (2013) Biofield and fungicide seed treatment influences on soybean productivity, seed quality and weed community. Agricultural Journal 8: 138-143.
[12]
Barnes PM, Bloom B, Nahin RL (2008) Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007. Natl Health Stat Report 10: 1-23.
[13]
Shinde V, Sances F, Patil S, Spence A (2012) Impact of biofield treatment on growth and yield of lettuce and tomato. Aust J Basic Appl Sci 6: 100-105.
[14]
Nayak G, Altekar N (2015) Effect of biofield treatment on plant growth and adaptation. J Environ Health Sci 1: 1-9.
[15]
Patil SA, Nayak GB, Barve SS, Tembe RP, Khan RR (2012) Impact of biofield treatment on growth and anatomical characteristics of Pogostemon cablin (Benth.). Biotechnology 11: 154-162.
[16]
Moron MS, Depierre JW, Mannervik B (1979) Levels of glutathione, glutathione reductase and glutathione S-transferase activities in rat lung and liver. Biochim Biophys Acta 582: 67-78.
[17]
Tang YW, Bonner J (1947) The enzymatic inactivation of indoleacetic acid. I. Some charasteristics of the enzyme contained in pea seedlings. Arch Biochem 13: 11-25.
[18]
Zhu LF, Zhang XL, Nie YC (2003) Analysis of genetic diversity in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) cultivars from China and foreign countries by RAPDs and SSRs. J Agric Biotechnol 11: 450-455.
[19]
Xiao J, Wu K, Fang DD, Stelly DM, Yu J, et al. (2009) New SSR Markers for Use in Cotton (Gossypium spp.) Improvement. J Cotton Sci 13: 75-157.
[20]
Rohlf FJ (2000) NTSYSpc: Numerical Taxonomy System, Ver. 2.10q, Exeter, Setauket, NY, USA.
[21]
Brar ZS, Singh N, Deal JS (2002) Influence of plant spacing and growth modification practices on yield and its attributing characters of two cotton cultivars (Gossipium hirsutum L.,). Journal of Research 39: 181-183.
[22]
Graig WC, David B, Steve MB (2000) Analysis of cotton yield stability across population densities. Agron J 92: 128-135.
[23]
Leonard OA, Pinckard JA (1946) Effect of various oxygen and carbon dioxide concentrations on cotton root development. Plant Physiol 21: 18-36.
[24]
Iturbe-Ormaetxe I, Escuredo PR, Arrese-Igor C, Becana M (1998) Oxidative damage in pea plants exposed to water deficit or paraquat. Plant Physiol 116: 173-181.
[25]
Grill D, Esterbauer H, Hellig K (1982) Further studies on the plants by catalase inhibitors. Plant Physiol 79: 1044-1047.
[26]
Loggini B, Scartazza A, Brugnoli E, Navari-Izzo F (1999) Antioxidative defense system, pigment composition, and photosynthetic efficiency in two wheat cultivars subjected to drought. Plant Physiol 119: 1091-1100.
[27]
Tausz M, Sircelj H, Grill D (2004) The glutathione system as a stress marker in plant ecophysiology: Is a stress-response concept valid? J Exp Bot 55: 1955-1962.
[28]
Noctor G, Queval G, Mhamdi A, Chaouch S, Foyer CH (2011) Glutathione. Arabidopsis Book 9: e0142.
[29]
Wagner U, Edwards R, Dixon DP, Mauch F (2002) Probing the diversity of the Arabidopsis glutathione S-transferase family. Plant Mol Biol 49: 515-532.
[30]
Yamada T (1993) The role of auxin in plant-disease development. Annu Rev Phytopathol 31: 253-273.
[31]
Datta C, Basu P (2000) Indole acetic acid production by a Rhizobium species from root nodules of a leguminous shrub Cajanus cojan. Microbiol Res 155: 123-127.
[32]
Gordon SA, Weber P (1951) Colorimetric estimation of indoleacetic acid. Plant Physiol 26: 192-195.
[33]
Salkowski E (1885) Ueber das verhalten der skatolcarbonsa¨ure im organismus. Z. Physiol Chem 9: 23-33.
[34]
Bretting PK, Widrlechner MP (1995) Genetic markers and plant genetic resource management. John Wiley & Son Inc. Canada.
[35]
He GH, Meng RH, Newman M, Gao GQ, Pittman RN, et al. (2003) Microsatellites as DNA markers in cultivated peanut. BMC Plant Biol 3: 3-11.
[36]
Hirota N, Nakagawa J, Koichi K (1999) Effects of a magnetic field on the germination of plants. J Appl Phys 85: 5717-5719.
[37]
Yano A, Hidaka E, Fujiwara K, Iimoto M (2001) Induction of primary root curvature in radish seedlings in a static magnetic field. Bioelectromagnetics 22: 194-199.
[38]
Rakosy-Tican L, Aurori CM, Morariu VV (2005) Influence of near null magnetic field on in vitro growth of potato and wild Solanum species. Bioelectromagnetics 26: 548-557.
[39]
Schwartz GE, Simon WL, Carmona R (2007) The energy healing experiments: Science reveals our natural power to heal. (1stedn), Atria Books.
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
548 FASHION AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10018
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-688-8931