The American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical
Engineering
8
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajabe
TYPE
Original Research
PAGE NO.
8-12
10.37547/tajabe/Volume07Issue06-02
OPEN ACCESS
SUBMITED
14 April 2025
ACCEPTED
10 May 2025
PUBLISHED
12 June 2025
VOLUME
Vol.07 Issue06 2025
CITATION
Barno Kh. Khujaniyazova., Khabibjon Kh. Kushiev., & Khafiza T. Artikova.
(2025). Biotechnological genotypes of potatoes: comparative study of
physiological development under in vitro and in vivo conditions. The
American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical Engineering, 7(06), 8
–
12.
https://doi.org/10.37547/tajabe/Volume07Issue06-02
COPYRIGHT
© 2025 Original content from this work may be used under the terms
of the creative commons attributes 4.0 License.
Biotechnological
genotypes of potatoes:
comparative study of
physiological development
under in vitro and in vivo
conditions
Barno Kh. Khujaniyazova.
PhD of Biological Sciences, Bukhara State University, Uzbekistan
Khabibjon Kh. Kushiev.
Gulistan State University Agrobiotechnology and Biochemistry Scientific
Research Institute, Uzbekistan
Khafiza T. Artikova.
Bukhara State University, Uzbekistan
Abstract:
This article presents a comparative analysis of
the physiological development of biotechnological
potato genotypes (S-46, S-73, S-55, and S-17) in in vitro
and in vivo conditions. The research was conducted in
the saline and dry climatic conditions of the Bukhara
region. The results indicated that the development of
plants, chlorophyll content, biomass, and root system
growth were significantly higher in vivo. Particularly, the
S-17 genotype was identified as being well adapted to
saline and dry conditions. This study provides an
important scientific basis for future research on the
selection of potato varieties that can adapt to drought
and salinity.
Keywords:
Potato genotypes, in vitro, in vivo,
physiological development, saline soil, Bukhara climate,
chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, biomass, transpiration.
Introduction:
Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is a vital
crop for global food security, and improving its yield
through selection and biotechnological methods is
essential. Biotechnological approaches, especially in
vitro and in vivo studies, enhance effective cultivation
The American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical
Engineering
9
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajabe
The American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical Engineering
by enabling controlled growth, genetic diversity
preservation, and new variety development. The
Murashige and Skoog (1962) nutrient medium
supports rapid tissue culture growth, with cytokinins
and auxins playing key roles in root development
(George and Sherrington, 1984).Sterile cultivation
maintains genetic stability and reduces pathogen risks,
aiding disease-resistant variety development (Trejo-
Tapia et al., 2002; Rocha-Sosa et al., 2013). In vivo
growth depends on soil and climate factors like
nitrogen, potassium, temperature, moisture, and
organic matter, which influence yield and root health
(MacKerron
and
Waister,
1985;
Iwama,
2008).Research on drought- and salinity-resistant
potato varieties is crucial, as these stresses affect root
systems and physiology, especially in regions like
Bukhara with dry, saline soils (Levy and Veilleux, 2007;
Lutaladio and Demirel, 2007; Khoja and Ismatullaev,
2011). This study compares the physiological
development of biotechnological potato genotypes S-
46, S-73, S-55, and S-17 under in vitro and in vivo
conditions
in
Bukhara’s
environment.
METHODS
Study Object: The study involved biotechnological
potato genotypes S-46, S-73, S-55, and S-17 tested
under saline and dry climate conditions in the Bukhara
region. Research was conducted in both in vitro and in
vivo
conditions.
In Vitro Conditions
Potato genotypes were grown in
the Murashige and Skoog (MS) nutrient medium [1].
The main composition of the MS nutrient medium
included: Macronutrients: KNO3 (1,9 g/l), NH4NO3
(1,65 g/l), CaCl2x2H2O (0,44 g/l), MgSO4x7H2O (0,37
g/l), KH2PO4 (0,17 g/l), Micronutrients: H3BO3 (6,2
mg/l), MnSO4xH2O (22,3 mg/l), ZnSO4x7H2O (8,6
mg/l), KI (0,83 mg/l), Na2MoO4x2H2O (0,25 mg/l),
CuSO4x5H2O (0,025 mg/l), CoCl2x6H2O (0,025
mg/l).Vitamins: Thiamine-HCl (0.1 mg/l), Pyridoxine-
HCl (0.5 mg/l), Nicotinic acid (0.5 mg/l), Myo-inositol
(100 mg/l).Hormones: Auxin (Indole-3-acetic acid, 1
mg/l) and Cytokinin (6-Benzylaminopurine, 2 mg/l).
Carbon Source: Sucrose (30 g/l).Gelling Agent: Agar-
agar (8 g/l). Sterilization was performed in an autoclave
at +121°C for 15 minutes. Meristematic tissues were
placed in the nutrient medium, and the plants were
grown at +25°C under a 16-hour light and 8-hour dark
cycle [2].
In Vivo Conditions
: In vivo, potato genotypes were
planted in saline soil conditions. The level of salinity in
the soil was determined using the Richards method
[10]. Irrigation was conducted twice a week, providing
10-15 liters of water per plant for each irrigation. The
plants were fertilized with the following nutrients:
Macronutrients: NPK fertilizer (15:15:15), 500 g for
every 10 square meters [7]. Micronutrients:
Magnesium sulfate (25 g/10 m²), Boron fertilizer (20
g/10 m²). Organic fertilizer (poultry manure)
in a 1:5 ratio was applied to the soil. The pH of the soil
was maintained at 8.5, with temperatures around
+35°C. Irrigation and fertilization were carried out
according to the moisture level of the soil.
Comparative Study of the Development of Potato
Samples Under In Vitro and In Vivo Conditions
:
Development indicators in both in vitro and in vivo
conditions were compared. The height, leaf number,
biomass, and root system growth of each plant were
observed. Differences in the growth rate of the plants,
root systems, and leaf development in both conditions
were analyzed [5].
Statistical Analysis
; The obtained results were analyzed
using the ANOVA method with the SPSS software.
Differences in physiological indicators between each
genotype were evaluated at a confidence level of P <
0.05. The correlation between the growth indicators of
the plants was determined using the Pearson
correlation
coefficient
[13].
RESULTS
The yield of crops grown in agriculture and their quality
indicators are related to how efficiently they can absorb
nutrients from the soil. However, in many cases, due to
the impact of salts in the soil, plants are unable to
assimilate the necessary nutrients and elements,
leading to insufficient formation of natural substances
that determine food value. This situation may result in
potatoes lacking the necessary organic substances in
their tissues, contributing to their susceptibility to
various extreme conditions and leading to issues where
the products do not meet ecological requirements.The
primary objective of the research was to conduct a
comparative study of the physiological development of
biotechnological potato genotypes S-46, S-73, S-55, and
S-17 under in vitro and in vivo conditions. Accordingly,
the adaptability of these genotypes to soil and climatic
conditions, including salinity and drought, was analyzed.
Measurements for plant height, chlorophyll a and b
levels, biomass, root system development, and
transpiration
process
results
were
presented.
Comparative Analysis of Potato Seedling Development
in In Vitro and In Vivo Conditions
: According to the
results of measuring plant height, there was a significant
difference between the two conditions. Plants grown in
vitro were relatively shorter, which can be attributed to
limited nutrients in this environment and insufficient
space for root system development. In vivo, however,
under the influence of natural soil and nutrients, the
height of the plants was significantly greater (see Table
1).
The American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical
Engineering
10
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajabe
The American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical Engineering
Table 1
Plant height (cm) in in vitro and in vivo conditions.
Genotype
In vitro
conditions
In vivo conditions
S-46
15,2 ± 1,5
25,3 ± 2,1
S-73
14,5 ± 1,7
23,8 ± 2,3
S-55
13,8 ± 1,3
21,6 ± 1,9
S-17
16,0 ± 1,4
26,7 ± 2,4
It can be seen from Table 1 that the S-17 genotype
developed best under in vivo conditions. This indicates
a high ability of this genotype to adapt to soil and
climatic conditions.
Figure 1. Development of the plant under in vitro and in vivo conditions
In vitro conditions, plant height ranged from 13.8 cm
to 16 cm, while in vivo conditions, this figure reached
21.6 cm to 26.7 cm. This difference is related to the
natural nutrients in the soil, light, and environmental
factors. The limited availability of nutrients and
insufficient space for the root system in in vitro
conditions negatively affected plant growth (Table 1
and Figure 1).Plant height was significantly higher in
vivo conditions, especially the S-17 genotype, which
developed best with a measurement of 26.7 cm. This
indicates that this genotype has a high adaptability to
dry and saline conditions. In contrast, in vitro conditions
limited resources, slowing the growth process (Table 1
and Figure 1).
Comparative analysis of biomass and root system
development under in vitro and in vivo conditions
: The
biomass and root system development of the plants
were much higher in vivo. The natural nutrients in the
soil and the broader opportunities for root system
development in vivo contributed to an increase in the
overall biomass of the plants (Table 2).
Table 2
Dry biomass and root mass (g) under in vitro and in vivo conditions
Genotype
Dry biomass
(in vitro)
Root biomass
(in vitro)
Dry biomass
(in vivo)
Root biomass
(in vivo)
S-46
1,12 ± 0,15
0,54 ± 0,07
2,33 ± 0,21
1,14 ± 0,09
S-73
1,08 ± 0,12
0,51 ± 0,06
2,25 ± 0,19
1,10 ± 0,08
S-55
1,03 ± 0,13
0,49 ± 0,05
2,18 ± 0,18
1,08 ± 0,07
S-17
1,15 ± 0,14
0,56 ± 0,06
2,40 ± 0,22
1,20 ± 0,10
According to Table 2, the S-17 genotype exhibited the
highest levels of both biomass and root mass. This
demonstrates the effective nutrient uptake abilities of
the genotype through its root system and the
availability of natural nutrients in the soil.
The American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical
Engineering
11
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajabe
The American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical Engineering
Figure 2. Development of plant biomass and root system under in vitro and in vivo
conditions
In vivo, the amount of dry biomass in plants increased
from 2.18 g to 2.40 g, while the root mass increased
from 1.08 g to 1.20 g. In vitro conditions showed that
the dry biomass increased from 1.03 g to 1.15 g, and
the root mass rose from 0.49 g to 0.56 g (Table 2 and
Figure 3).The comparative analysis indicates that the
development of biomass and root systems was
significantly higher under in vivo conditions. This is
associated with the natural nutrients present in the soil
and the broader developmental opportunities for the
root system. In vitro conditions, on the other hand,
limited the growth of roots and biomass due to
insufficient space for the root system and restricted
nutrient availability. The S-17 genotype also exhibited
the highest values in this aspect, indicating its good
adaptability to drought and salinity conditions (Table 2
and Figure 2).
DISCUSSION
The results of the study allowed for an in-depth
analysis of the growth characteristics of potato
genotypes under in vitro and in vivo conditions. The
findings were compared with data from the literature,
and the observed differences were analyzed based on
theoretical
grounding.
Plant Growth and Development
: The results regarding
plant development indicate that under in vivo
conditions, the height of the plants was significantly
greater compared to in vitro conditions. This result
aligns with previous studies [1], which noted that
plants in in vitro conditions exhibit slower growth due
to limited resources in the nutrient medium. Our
results also confirmed this theory. According to the
literature, plants tend to absorb more nutrients from
the soil under in vivo conditions, which accelerates the
development process [2]. In our research, the S-17
genotype demonstrated the best growth under in vivo
conditions, indicating its adaptability to soil-climate
conditions. This outcome is consistent with the studies
by Levy and Veilleux (2007), who studied potato
varieties with high genotypic adaptability in dry
conditions [3]. In this study, the plant height in in vitro
conditions was significantly lower than that of plants in
in vivo conditions. This difference can be explained by
the following factors: In in vitro conditions, plants grow
more slowly due to limited nutrients and insufficient
space for root system development. The artificial light
source and controlled conditions hinder the plants'
ability to adequately assimilate factors present in
natural environments. In vivo, plants effectively absorb
nutrients through natural soil, sunlight, and a broader
root system. The soil and climate conditions facilitate
the genotype's tall growth. In particular, the S-17
genotype exhibited the best growth in vivo,
demonstrating its adaptability. The S-17 genotype
showed good growth in vivo (26.7 cm). Compared to
other genotypes, this result indicates its ability to
quickly and effectively adapt to natural conditions
during the growth process. The high assimilation of
nutrients and natural light in the soil contributed to the
rapid growth of the S-17 genotype.The superiority of
this genotype in development suggests that the S-17
genotype has high photosynthetic activity and a well-
developed root system, indicating its potential for good
growth
in
dry
and
saline
conditions.
Increase in Biomass and Root System Development
:
The results regarding the increase in biomass and the
development of the root system were also theoretically
grounded. According to studies by MacKerron and
Waister (1985), plants under in vivo conditions absorb
The American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical
Engineering
12
https://www.theamericanjournals.com/index.php/tajabe
The American Journal of Agriculture and Biomedical Engineering
more nutrients from the soil, leading to the formation
of a robust root system [7]. Our research observed
similar results, showing significantly higher root
system
and
biomass
metrics
in
vivo.
In vitro, the limited development of the root system
has also been noted in studies conducted by Garcia et
al. (2004). They found that root development and
biomass increase in vitro are lower compared to
natural conditions [8]. This situation aligns with our
results. The results regarding biomass and root system
development obtained in vivo were higher than those
in vitro. It was determined that the development of the
root system in vitro was less advanced compared to in
vivo, as the root system does not develop well in sterile
conditions. This leads to a reduction in overall biomass.
In vivo, however, the root system of the plants
developed well, allowing them to absorb more
nutrients from the soil, which increases the overall
biomass of the plants. The S-17 genotype exhibited the
highest biomass and root mass metrics, indicating its
high efficiency in nutrient uptake through its root
system. The S-17 genotype surpassed other genotypes
in biomass (2.40 g) and root system mass (1.20 g). This
indicates that the S-17 genotype has a high nutrient
absorption rate from the soil and a well-developed
root system. The development of the root system
suggests that it effectively connects the plant's
underground parts with the soil and has the capability
to gather nutrients from a wide area. The root system
is considered a crucial factor that aids the plant's
growth in dry and saline soils. Although there may be
occasional shortages of nutrients and water, the S-17
genotype has demonstrated the ability to utilize these
resources effectively.
CONCLUSION
This study was dedicated to the comparative analysis
of the development of biotechnological potato
genotypes (S-46, S-73, S-55, and S-17) under in vitro
and in vivo conditions in the saline and arid climate of
the Bukhara region. The results indicated that, under
in vivo conditions, the height of the plants, chlorophyll
a and b content, biomass, and root system
development were significantly higher. Notably, the S-
17 genotype demonstrated high adaptability and
physiological development in dry and saline
conditions. The research findings showed that plant
development in vitro was relatively slower, and the
limited nutrient absorption in artificial conditions
negatively affected growth and development. These
results provide important insights for selecting highly
adaptable genotypes for potato cultivation in dry and
saline,environments.
REFERENCES
Murashige, T., & Skoog, F. (1962). A revised medium
for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue
cultures. Physiologia Plantarum, 15(3), 473-497.
George, E. F., & Sherrington, P. D. (1984). Plant
Propagation
by
Tissue
Culture.Exegetics,Ltd.
Trejo-Tapia, G., et al. (2002). Effect of phytopathogens
on the growth of potato in vitro. Plant Science, 163(1),
143-150.
Rocha-Sosa, M., et al. (2013). Hormonal regulation of
potato tissue culture. Journal of Plant Growth
Regulation,
32(2),
255-262.
MacKerron, D. K., & Waister, P. D. (1985). The effects of
nitrogen and potassium fertilizers on the growth of
potatoes.
The
Journal
of
Agricultural
Science,105(3),391-398.
Iwama, K. (2008). Physiology of the Potato: New Insights
into Root System and Adaptation. American Journal of
Potato Research, 85(1), 39-50.
Levy, D., & Veilleux, R. E. (2007). Adaptation of potato
to high temperatures and salinity
—
A review. American
Journal of Potato Research, 84(6), 487-506.
Lutaladio, N., & Demirel, Z. (2007). Potato cultivation in
saline soils. Agricultural Water Management, 89(3),
1-9.
Khoja, A., & Ismatullaev, B. (2011). Potato adaptation
under Bukhara's climatic conditions. Central Asian
Journal of Agriculture, 45(1), 12-19.
Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and Improvement of
Saline and Alkaline Soils. USDA Handbook 60.
Lichtenthaler, H. K., & Wellburn, A. R. (1983).
Determinations of total carotenoids and chlorophylls a
and b of leaf extracts in different solvents. Biochemical
Society Transactions, 11(5), 591-592.
Slatyer, R. O., & McIlroy, I. C. (1961). Practical methods
of measuring transpiration and stomatal resistance.
Journal of Experimental Botany, 12(1), 151-167.
Zar, J. H. (2010). Biostatistical Analysis (5th ed.). Prentice
Hall.
