Optimizing cannabis cultivation: an efficient in vitro system for flowering induction

Optimizing cannabis cultivation: an efficient in vitro system for flowering induction | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Optimizing cannabis cultivation: an efficient in vitro system for flowering induction Orly Lavie, Kobi Buxdorf, Leor Eshed Williams This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-4669256/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Plant Methods → Version 1 posted 14 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Background Cannabis sativa is a versatile medicinal plant known for its therapeutic properties, derived from its diverse array of secondary metabolites synthesized primarily in female flower organs. Breeding cannabis is challenging due to its dioecious nature, strict regulatory requirements, and the need for photoperiod control to trigger flowering, coupled with highly dispersible pollen that can easily contaminate nearby female flowers. This study aimed to develop a protocol for in vitro flowering in cannabis, investigate factors affecting in vitro flower production, and generate viable in vitro seeds, potentially offering a method for producing sterile cannabinoids or advancing breeding techniques. Results We show that the life cycle of cannabis can be fully completed in tissue culture; plantlets readily produce inflorescences and viable seeds in vitro. Our findings highlight the superior performance of DKW medium with 2% sucrose in a filtered vessel and emphasize the need for low light intensity during flower induction to optimize production. The improved performance in filtered vessels suggests that plants conduct photosynthesis in vitro, highlighting the need for future investigations into the effects of forced ventilation to refine this system. All tested lines readily developed inflorescences upon induction, with a 100% occurrence rate, including male flowering. We revealed the non-dehiscent trait of in vitro anthers, which is advantageous as it allows for multiple crosses to be conducted in vitro without concerns about cross-contamination. Conclusion The current work developed and optimized an effective protocol for in vitro flowering and seed production in cannabis, potentially providing a platform for sterile cannabinoid production and an efficient tool for breeding programs. This system allows for the full and consistent control of plant growth conditions year-round, potentially offering the reliable production of sterile molecules suitable for pharmacological use. As a breeding strategy, this method overcomes the complex challenges of breeding cannabis, such as the need for large facilities, by enabling the production of hundreds of lines in a small facility. By offering precise control over factors such as plant growth regulators, light intensity, photoperiod, and temperature, this system also serves as a valuable tool for studying flowering aspects in cannabis. in vitro breeding in vitro seed production Cannabis cultivars in vitro photosynthetic capacity in vitro anther development Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Figure 4 Figure 5 Figure 6 Background Cannabis sativa L., a member of the Cannabaceae family, is classified as an annual dioecious plant species in which male and female flowers are borne on separate unisexual individuals. Cannabis produces a wide array of specialized secondary metabolites, including more than 120 cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids [1], which possess therapeutic properties and thus confer recognized medicinal value [2]. The global rise in the cannabis market has significantly boosted the growth of the cannabis industry. This includes intensive breeding efforts aimed at developing elite cannabis cultivars with enhanced cannabinoid profiles tailored to optimize therapeutic efficacy, meet consumer preferences, and improve yield [3]. Cannabinoids and terpenes are synthesized and accumulated in glandular trichomes [4], most densely concentrated on the bracts of female flowers, thus attributing commercial value to the plant. The female cannabis plant exhibits a bushy and robust structure that, upon a short photoperiod, develops complex inflorescences with numerous small flowers closely packed together with high biomass. These inflorescences are primarily located at the tips of the stem and branches, as well as on the leaf axils throughout the plant [5]. Consequently, the cannabinoid profile among inflorescences varies due to differential light exposure and variations in the source-sink relationship. This variability presents a significant challenge, prompting the adoption of various strategies to reduce these inconsistencies. One effective method is regular pruning to enhance light penetration and control plant density [6]. Another approach that has not yet become commercial, is the use of tissue culture systems, like cell suspensions, for the mass production of cannabinoids [7]. The breeding of cannabis is intricate and challenging for several reasons: 1. The induction of flowering requires controlled light regimes, which complicates agricultural practices [8]; 2. In most countries, cannabis is under strict regulation that mandates certain security measures, limits the growing space, and specifies the maximum number of plants; 3. The anemophilous nature of cannabis, relying on wind for pollination, introduces challenges in controlling cross-pollination [9]. A single male plant can produce a vast quantity of pollen grains. This requires strict isolation of male plants to prevent unwanted fertilization of nearby female plants, implementing firm measures that drastically limit the number of crosses feasible in a breeding program [10]. Inducing flowering in tissue culture systems holds promise as a tool to address both issues: reliably producing cannabinoids in a highly controlled environment and enhancing breeding programs by allowing numerous crosses to be conducted in a small facility. In addition, it offers precise control over factors such as plant growth regulators, light intensity, photoperiod, and temperature, making it a valuable tool for studying the elements affecting flower initiation and floral organ development [11]. Plant tissue culture involves cultivating plant cells, tissues, or organs on defined nutrient media under aseptic conditions and controlled environments, occasionally supplemented with growth regulators to induce specific cellular responses [12]. In this study, we developed an effective protocol for inducing flowering in cannabis in vitro. We optimized the media and growing conditions and demonstrated the ability to produce viable seeds. Therefore, this method can serve as a rapid and straightforward approach to breeding programs, a potential method for the production of cannabinoids, and a valuable tool for studying the flowering aspects of cannabis. Results Experimental setup for in vitro flower induction of cannabis In vitro flowering can serve as a valuable tool for studying specific aspects of flowering in cannabis and for producing important flower components, such as the calyx, to harvest cannabinoids under aseptic conditions. To establish our experimental system, we first followed a standard sterilization protocol to introduce explants into tissue culture. We selected single-node explants by cutting the stem of cannabis plants grown in a growth room under an 18/6 h photoperiod (Fig. 1a). Approximately 100 explants were sterilized in a 3L beaker using 2% sodium hypochlorite solution, followed by three rinses with sterile water. Subsequently, we placed these explants in MS or DKW media (see Materials and Methods) ensuring the proper orientation, with five stem sections per vessel. The sterilization processes can impose stress on the explants, requiring a recovery period. At this stage, the stem sections are leafless, and a few days are required before leaves become apparent. To evaluate the requirement of initial vegetative growth for successful flowering, we subjected six vessels to an 18/6 h photoperiod for two weeks before transitioning to a 12/12 h photoperiod to induce flowering. We then compared this regime with direct placement under the flowering induction photoperiod (12/12 h cycle). The cannabis flower usually has two stigmas (Fig. 1f). To track the number of flowers and their rate of development, we followed the stigma development and counted the number of flowers every few days (Fig. 1g-i). Although the number of flowers developed within 38 days was similar between the two regimes, the plants that were first grown under a vegetative photoperiod appeared more developed. Therefore, we established this regime of two weeks under an 18/6 h cycle before transitioning to flower induction as part of our protocol. Media Optimization for Enhanced In Vitro Flower Induction Cannabis is known to exhibit a high rate of hyperhydricity in tissue culture systems, a phenomenon that varies depending on the genotype [13]. Several methods can be employed, to address this issue, including the incorporation of activated charcoal into the growth medium [14]. To determine the best media for inducing flowering in vitro in cannabis and to assess the tissue's response to activated charcoal, we tested two media commonly used for stem explants: MS and DKW-based media (see Materials and Methods), with or without activated charcoal. Adding activated charcoal to the DKW medium significantly reduced the number of flowers compared to the DKW medium alone but had no effect on the MS medium (Fig. 2a). These findings indicate that activated charcoal does not benefit cannabis flowering in tissue culture. Activated charcoal is known to absorb plant growth regulators and other organic supplements [15]. It might be that the presence of activated charcoal reduced the availability of important substances to the plant, thereby reducing flowering. Statistical tests comparing the performance of plants in the two media without activated charcoal showed that plants in the DKW medium exhibited higher flower production than those in the MS medium at multiple time points (Fig. 2a, marked by an asterisk (*)). Next, we tested how different concentrations of sucrose in the media affect flowering by comparing various sucrose concentrations in the MS medium (Fig. 2b) and DKW medium (Fig. 2c). In tissue culture systems, sugar serves two primary roles: as an energy source [16] and as a signal for flower induction [17]. However, there were no significant differences in flowering across the concentrations, except between the 2% and 1% sucrose concentrations in the MS medium at three-time points, where a decrease was observed at 1%. Besides sucrose, hormones can also play a role in increasing the number of flowers. Cytokinins, for instance, can influence meristem size, which in turn may enhance flower production [18]. Additionally, cytokinins have been shown to facilitate the transition from vegetative to floral meristems in tissue culture [19]. The 6-Benzylaminopurine (BA) cytokinin is particularly recognized as a highly effective inducer of floral induction in vitro [20, 21]. To test the effect of BA on the in vitro flowering of cannabis, we added either 2 mg/L of BA solely during the vegetative phase or 1 mg/L and 5 mg/L of BA during the flowering phase. Surprisingly, BA did not enhance flower production; instead, it resulted in a significant decrease (Fig. 2d). This effect might be attributed to our basic DKW medium, which contains adenine hemisulfate (see Materials and Methods), a precursor of cytokinins resulting in excessively high concentrations of cytokinin. Other elements that have the potential to affect flower numbers, such as phosphate in the media or lower temperature during vegetative growth to increase meristem size, didn’t show better performance (Fig. S1 and S2). To summarize, our analysis indicates that DKW media without activated charcoal and BA is most effective. Since there are no significant differences between 2% and 3% sucrose, and 2% is more economical and potentially reduces contamination, we will continue using 2% sucrose. Evaluating photosynthesis and light response in tissue-cultured cannabis Our results, showing no significant difference between 2% and 3% sucrose concentrations, raise the question of whether the plants in the vessel conduct photosynthesis. To address this, we first examined the presence of stomata, which is essential for gas exchange. Scanning electron microscopy analysis of abaxial fan leaves from plants growing in tissue culture and growth room reveals that leaves in tissue culture develop stomata similar to those in growth room plants (Fig. 3a). To compare stomatal density, we employed the nail polish method and found that leaves grown in tissue culture possess significantly fewer stomata (average of 35 per 0.15mm²) compared to those from growth room plants (average of 45 per 0.15mm²) (Fig. 3b). However, the normal appearance of the stomata of the tissue culture leaves suggests that the plants are potentially capable of photosynthesis. Subsequently, we tested the plants' capacity for photosynthesis by cultivating stem nodes in a medium devoid of carbon energy sources. Since photosynthesis requires gas exchange, we used two types of vessels: one hermetically sealed and the other equipped with a gas-permeable filter. Both were placed under 71±14 µmol· m −2 ⋅s −1 light in an 18/6 h photoperiod. Plants cultured in media without sucrose appeared pale and less developed than those grown with 2% sucrose, although the ones in the filtered vessel exhibited better growth (Fig. 3d-e, Fig. S3). To quantify this, we measured the chlorophyll content and found that plants grown with 2% sucrose exhibited higher chlorophyll content in both vessels compared to those grown without a carbon source (Fig. 3f). However, plants cultivated in a filtered vessel, with or without sucrose, exhibited significantly higher chlorophyll content compared to their equivalents in a sealed box, implying that gas exchange allows in vitro plants to carry out photosynthesis. As a result, we have incorporated the use of a filtered box into our protocol. The light intensity in ex-vitro-grown plants directly affects photosynthesis, with increased light levels enhancing photosynthetic activity until reaching a saturation point [22]. Light also impacts morphogenesis and the induction of flowering [23]. To test the effect of increasing light intensity on in vitro cannabis flowering, we cultured plants under an 18/6 h cycle for three weeks at two different light intensities measured at plant height: low (71±14 µmol· m −2 ⋅s −1 ) and high (173±20 µmol· m −2 ⋅s −1 ). We then transferred the plants to a flowering photoperiod (12/12 h) and redistributed them into the two light intensities, resulting in four treatment groups based on changes in light intensity: Low to Low, Low to High, High to Low, and High to High. Plants exposed to low light intensity during the flowering-promoting photoperiod produced significantly more flowers (Fig. 4b-d) with a final average of 9.3 (Low to Low) and 9.9 (High to Low) flowers per plant and appeared to have longer stigmas compared to those exposed to high intensity (Fig. 4e). Plants under high light intensity during the 12/12 h cycle had a final average of 7.3 flowers per plant, regardless of the light intensity during the vegetative phase. It is important to note that the selected light intensity was significantly lower than what is typically used in growth rooms (Fig. 4a), demonstrating that tissue-cultured plants are more susceptible to damage from high-intensity light. Variability and response of cannabis cultivars to in vitro flowering Cannabis cultivars exhibit significant variability in inflorescence traits, including flowering time, architecture, number of flowers, flower size, and compaction [5, 24-26]. To assess the response of different cultivars to in vitro flowering, we selected three cultivars that exhibit distinct inflorescence phenotypes when grown in a growth room (Fig. 5b) and introduced them to tissue culture. Following flower induction, we identified three distinct phenotypic differences: number of flowers, stigma length, and stigma browning (Fig. 5, Fig. S4, and Fig. S5)). In all cultivars, flowers began to appear on day 9. The Sky 1 cultivar produced significantly more flowers than the Magic 9 and TA5 cultivars (Fig. 5a), displaying a notable difference from its growth room equivalent (Fig. 5b). The TA5 stigmas appeared to be shorter than those of Sky 1 and Magic 9 and changed their color to brown before those of the other cultivars (Fig. 5e), suggesting that TA5's receptivity declines more quickly. This is consistent with the TA5 stigma observed in the growth room plants. This experiment demonstrates that different cultivars behave differently in tissue culture, and their inflorescence characteristics do not always match their growth room phenotype, suggesting an interaction between genetic background and in vitro growth conditions. In vitro pollination and seed development in cannabis To assess the potential of in vitro flowering as a method for rapid breeding, we examined the ability of male plants to produce viable pollen and female plants to develop viable seeds. To this end, we cultured male cannabis plants (Bt cultivar) and female plants (cultivar Sky 1) for two weeks under an 18/6 h cycle before transferring them to a 12/12 h flowering photoperiod. After 18 days, all plants produced flowers and were ready for pollination (Fig. 6a-d). Since the anther did not dehisce and release the pollen, we manually pinched the anther with a needle and tapped it over vessels containing female plants. All female inflorescent (25 plants) developed seeds in vitro (Fig. 6e) with an average of 4.41 ± 0.36 seeds per plant. However, only 2.44 ± 0.17 seeds per plant germinated (mean ± SE calculated per vessel, with five plants per vessel) (Table S1). In vitro hybrid plants were grown from seeds to fully developed plants (Fig. 6f-h). Altogether, eight weeks were needed from the introduction of the stem segment to tissue culture to the production of viable seeds, highlighting the in vitro flowering system as an excellent method for fast and practical breeding. Discussion Plants in tissue cultures are grown under controlled conditions that differ significantly from the natural environment. These optimized conditions enhance growth but can also induce stress due to the lack of fluctuations throughout the day and the lack of natural cues, leading to altered physiological responses. However, this platform allows us to fine-tune factors such as nutrient composition, light intensity, and temperature, thereby enhancing growth and development. In this study, we focused on determining the optimal conditions for the in vitro flowering of cannabis. This approach holds immense potential for the sterile production of secondary metabolites free from pathogens like Botrytis cinerea , with high consistency and the likely capability to control the cannabinoid content. Given the complexity of breeding in cannabis, it also provides a valuable strategy for breeding programs, especially when resources are limited. Using our protocol, we cultivated five plants per vessel and arranged the cultures on a shelf measuring 45 cm in width and 1 meter in length, accommodating a total of 32 vessels in a 4 by 8 configuration (Fig. S6). This setup allowed for the growth of 160 plants per shelf. By stacking four shelves vertically in a standard growth room, we demonstrated the capacity to grow a total of 640 plants on a 1-meter length floor area, highlighting the substantial potential of this method. When we introduced the stem segments to tissue culture, the flowering time and the number of flowers produced were comparable, regardless of whether the plants were immediately subjected to a flowering-promoting photoperiod or first experienced a vegetative phase. We propose that since the day length cue is perceived in leaves to initiate the cascade that activates the flowering machinery, a stem node without leaves cannot sense day length and thus cannot induce the transition of the meristem to an inflorescence meristem. Therefore, a few days are needed to produce leaves, even under a short-day photoperiod, before flower meristems can form. This resulted in similar timing and numbers of flowers between the two regimes. In Arabidopsis thaliana , leaf perception of day length induces the expression of the FLOWERING LOCUS T ( FT ) gene, known as florigen, which is transported through the phloem to the shoot apical meristem to promote flowering [27, 28]. In short-day plants, the mechanism of flowering induction is still being elucidated, but the process appears to be conserved [29]. Genes homologous to FT were identified in many short-day plant species [30, 31], including CsFT in cannabis [32]. Our results, showing normal stomata development in tissue culture and high chlorophyll content with improved growth in filtered vessels with and without a carbon source, suggest that cannabis shoots are capable of performing photosynthesis in tissue culture. However, the moderate plant growth in a sugar-free medium indicates that the plant cannot be fully autotrophic under our growth conditions with passive ventilation, likely due to limited CO₂. This is supported by the CO₂ level measured within a filtered vessel containing plants, showing values between 150 and 250 mmol/mol during the photoperiod, depending on the number of filters, while the CO₂ concentration in the room was maintained at 350-400 mmol/mol [33]. It would be interesting to test the cannabis performance under a forced ventilation system in the future. In tissue culture, sucrose in the media is used to provide the necessary carbon for energy and growth, with standard concentrations generally ranging from 2% to 3% (w/v). As we did not observe a significant difference between these concentrations, we selected the 2% for our protocol, which offers several potential advantages. Low levels of sucrose can promote photosynthetic activity, partially by increasing rubisco activity, thereby supporting mixotrophic growth that generally leads to more viable plants [34-36]. Low sucrose level also reduces the risk of microbial contamination [33] and minimizes the phenomenon of hyperhydricity in sensitive cultivars [37]. Excess sucrose can cause metabolic imbalances that affect the synthesis of secondary metabolites [38]. Furthermore, using the lowest effective concentration is cost-effective for large-scale or long-term experiments. Light intensity can promote mixotrophic growth, which relies on sucrose in the media and photosynthesis. Our results, however, show that increasing the light intensity during the flowering-promoting photoperiod led to significantly fewer flowers. The appearance of yellow leaves when high-intensity light is applied (Fig. S7) suggests that the plants might be experiencing light-induced stress. In outdoor plants, prolonged exposure to excessive light can lead to photoinhibition, reducing photosynthetic capacity and subsequently causing chlorophyll degradation. The light intensity applied in tissue culture is considerably lower than that of outdoor environments [39] because most of the energy comes from the sucrose in the media and because high light intensity can induce stress. Plants in tissue culture are placed in a closed box without buffer elements like wind, shading, and light fluctuations throughout the day. This may intensify the effects of high light and might cause increased temperature and humidity. Additionally, tissue cultures often consist of young tissues in early growth stages, making them more susceptible to environmental stresses due to the lack of protective structures like a thick cuticle or well-developed cell walls [40]. It might be that the lack of a phyllosphere microbiome due to sterile conditions in tissue cultures reduces plant fitness and increases susceptibility to light-induced stress. Microorganisms can produce protective compounds, such as pigments and antioxidants [41], that absorb excess light, and they can also form a physical barrier that reduces the amount of light reaching the leaf surface [42], thereby preventing potential damage from excessive light exposure. In our experiment, when low light intensity was applied during the 12/12 h cycle, the plants produced more flowers regardless of the intensity during the vegetative phase. We propose that during the initial period under the flowering induction regime, prior to the transition to inflorescence meristem, the plants have time to recover. During this phase, the newly developing leaves grow under low light and develop into robust leaves that can support future inflorescence meristem and flower development. Microflowering for rapid breeding The individual female and male flowers that developed in vitro exhibited phenotypes similar to those of growth room flowers. However, the anthers did not burst and release pollen. Typically, anthers open under low relative humidity (RH), whereas high RH can delay or prevent this process [43]. This suggests that the high humidity levels within the culture vessel likely kept the cannabis anthers closed. In addition, pollen grains are typically partially desiccated upon dispersal, and before they germinate, they must rehydrate by absorbing water from the stigma on which they land [44]. It might be that the process of losing and gaining back moisture is crucial for pollen grain germination. Therefore, RH in the flower's surrounding environment can decrease the viability of the pollen from these flowers. Nevertheless, in our setting, although the anther did not dehisce naturally, it released pollen with our assistance, which proved to be viable according to our germination test and the successful fertilization. The average number of female flowers produced was six, with an average of 4.4 seeds developing per inflorescence/plant. Low pollen grain viability might have led to incomplete fertilization, preventing some flowers from producing seeds. Another possibility is that the plant's small size could not support extensive seed development. Out of the collected seeds, only an average of 2.4 seeds per plant germinated (Table S1). However, achieving one successful succession per generation is sufficient for a breeding program aimed at hybrid seed production and generating numerous homozygous plants to test various combinations. Conclusions This study has successfully established a method for in vitro flowering induction in cannabis, providing a valuable tool for both research and practical applications. Our findings highlight the superior performance of DKW medium with 2% sucrose in a filtered vessel and emphasize the need for low light intensity during flower induction to optimize production. The improved performance in filtered vessels suggests that plants conduct photosynthesis in vitro, underscoring the need for future investigations into the effects of forced ventilation to refine this system. We show that this method is applicable to several cultivars and for male flowering as well. Additionally, we use this system to produce viable seeds in vitro. Altogether, this method offers a robust framework for cannabis research and cultivation, with potential applications in sterile cannabinoid production and efficient breeding strategies. Methods Plant material Cannabis sativa L. plants from cultivars TA5, Sky 1, Magic 9 (female cultivars), and Bt (male plant) (our private lines) were used in this study. The plants were grown in a growth room in 1-liter pots with 'Bental 11' planting soil (Tuff Substrates), regularly irrigated with tap water, and fertilized with BOUNTY1 (N.P.K. 4:2:6, Zalmanson Dshanim). The plants were grown at 26 °C (measured at plants’ canopy) under Metal halide 600W light bulbs (UPLUX, USA) in a long-day photoperiod of 18/6 h light/dark cycle to sustain vegetative growth. Tissue culture TA5 vegetative plants were initially introduced to tissue culture by cutting them into single-node stem explants. Sterilization was done by submerging and stirring the explants in a 2% sodium hypochlorite solution containing 0.1% (w/w) Triton for eight minutes, followed by three subsequent rinses with sterilized water. Two basal media were used in this study: Murashige and Skoog (MS) [45] consist of 4. 4 g/L MS including Nitsch vitamins (M0256, Duchefa), 3% sucrose (w/v), and 0.5 g/L MES and Driver and Kuniyaki Walnut (DKW) [46] containing 5.6 g/L DKW/JUGLANS basal salt mixture including vitamins (D0247, Duchefa), 3% sucrose (w/v), 80 mg/L adenine hemisulfate (A0908, Duchefa) and 0.5 g/L MES. The pH of the media was adjusted to 5.8 and 0.8% (w/v) plant agar (P1101, Duchefa) was used as the gelling agent. The media were sterilized by autoclaving at 121 °C for 20 minutes and poured into either a ventilated round polypropylene microbox (O118/80+OD118, SacO2) with a volume of 65 ml or into a closed 10x10x10 cm square polycarbonate box (Fig. 5d) with a volume of 84 ml. Five stem explants were cultured in each vessel for two weeks under an 18/6 h light/dark photoperiod to promote vegetative growth. The plants were then transferred to fresh media and placed under a 12/12 h light/dark cycle to induce flowering and re-cultured in fresh media every two weeks. Both growth conditions were set at a temperature of 25 °C. Flowers were counted using a stereomicroscope every several days. Fertilization: To conduct an in vitro pollination procedure, male flowers were carefully removed from the plant and placed on a sterile Petri dish, followed by pinching with a sterile needle. In the laminar flow cabinet, the anthers were then rubbed onto the stigma using forcep Media Optimization For cytokinin effect, plants were cultured on DKW medium for two weeks in vegetative conditions (18/6 h) and then cultured under flowering-promoting photoperiod (12/12 h) in three media: control (DKW medium + 80 mg adenine), 1 mg/L 6-Benzylaminopurine (BA) (B001, Caisson) and 5 mg/L BA. In addition, one group was cultured on DKW with 2 mg/L BA medium during the vegetative phase and re-cultured to control DKW medium when transferred to flowering induction. For the activated charcoal effect, 0.5 g/L activated charcoal (C9157, Sigma) was added to DKW or MS media during both the vegetative phase and flowering-promoting photoperiod. Chlorophyll extraction and measurements Chlorophyll content was assessed on plants cultured as follows: first, all stem explants were cultured on DKW medium with 2% sucrose in a ventilated micro box (four explants per micro box) for three weeks under a long-day photoperiod (18/6 h). Next, they were divided into four treatments: DKW medium with or without 2% sucrose in a ventilated micro box and DKW medium with or without 2% sucrose in a closed 10x10x10 cm square polycarbonate box. Plants were grown for four weeks under the same conditions as before without media renewal. For chlorophyll measurements, two fresh leaves (numbers 3 and 4 from the top) from each plant (a total of eight leaves per vessel) were taken for extraction with 25ml of 80% acetone. Chlorophyll was measured according to Arnon 1949 [47]. The leaves were weighed before extraction to determine their fresh weight, and spectrophotometric measurements at 645 and 663 nm were conducted using the Infinite M Plex (Tecan). The chlorophyll concentration was calculated using the formula: ((20.2 × X A 645 ) + (8.02 × A 663 )) * V /(1000 × W ), where V is the solution volume and W is the weight of the leaves. Light intensity experiments Explants were introduced to culture as described. During the vegetative phase (18/6 h), vessels were divided into two light-intensity treatments: Low (71±14 µmol·m -2 s -1 ) and High (173±20 µmol·m -2 s -1 ), measured at the plant height level. After three weeks, plants from each light treatment were re-cultured in fresh media and placed under a flowering-promoting photoperiod (12/12 h) at the two different light intensities, resulting in a total of four treatments: Low to Low, Low to High, High to Low, and High to High. Light intensity was measured using a LI-180 Spectrometer (LI-COR). Stomata counting analysis A silicone impression material (Elite HD+, Zhermack) was used to create molds of abaxial fan leaves. Next, patterns from those molds were taken using nail polish and checked under a light microscope. From each leaf, stomata were counted in three areas (0.15 mm 2 each) along the main vascular bundles (Fig. S8). Pollen germination Pollen germination was assessed following the protocol of Flajšman et al., 2021 [48]. The germination medium consisted of 170 g/l sucrose, 0.1 g/l H 3 BO 3 , 0.432 g/l Ca(NO 3 ) 2 ∗ 4H 2 O. The pH was adjusted to 7.0, and 0.7% (w/v) plant agar was used as the gelling agent. The medium was sterilized by autoclaving before being poured into Petri dishes. Male flowers were gently tapped to distribute pollen across the plate. Subsequently, the Petri dishes were incubated in the dark at room temperature for 24 hours. Images were taken using a Nikon SMZ-18 stereo zoom microscope (Nikon). Scanning electron microscopy Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was conducted following the method described previously [49]. Briefly, fresh fan leaves from plants grown in tissue culture or growth room were initially fixed in 100% methanol for 10 min. Subsequently, they were rinsed three times for 30 minutes in 100% ethanol, dried using a K850 critical point dryer, and then mounted on stubs. The specimens were further coated with a thin layer (2 nm) of gold-palladium using a Q150T ES (Quorum Technologies Ltd, Lewes, UK) for SEM imaging in a JSM-IT100 SEM (Jeol Ltd, Tokyo, Japan). Experimental design and statistical analysis The experiment utilized a completely randomized design, with a specified number of replicates, each comprising the average of five explants cultured within a single vessel. The data were analyzed using JMP software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Means comparison was conducted using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Tukey–Kramer honest significant difference (HSD) test (for multiple comparisons) or Student’s t-test (for one comparison) at α = 0.05 significance level and the data are represented as mean ± SE. Declarations Competing Interests KB and LEW are listed as inventors on a PCT Patent Application PCT Patent Application No. PCT/IL2022/050007 Author Contribution LEW, OL, and KB: Conceptualization; LEW and OL: design of the work; OL: conducted the experiments; LEW and OL: Writing Original Draft Preparation; LEW and OL: Writing Review and Editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript References Radwan, M.M., et al., Cannabinoids, Phenolics, Terpenes and Alkaloids of Cannabis. Molecules, 2021. 26 (9). Fordjour, E., et al., Cannabis: a multifaceted plant with endless potentials. Front Pharmacol, 2023. 14 : p. 1200269. Grof, C.P.L., Cannabis, from plant to pill. Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2018. 84 (11): p. 2463-2467. Cohen, S., et al., Non-Aqueous Isolation and Enrichment of Glandular Capitate Stalked and Sessile Trichomes from Cannabis sativa. J Vis Exp, 2023(195). Spitzer-Rimon, B., et al., Architecture and Florogenesis in Female Cannabis sativa Plants. Front Plant Sci, 2019. 10 : p. 350. Dilena, E., et al., Investigating how nitrogen nutrition and pruning impacts on CBD and THC concentration and plant biomass of Cannabis sativa. Sci Rep, 2023. 13 (1): p. 19533. Hesami, M., et al., Current status and future prospects in cannabinoid production through in vitro culture and synthetic biology. Biotechnol Adv, 2023. 62 : p. 108074. Eichhorn Bilodeau, S., et al., An Update on Plant Photobiology and Implications for Cannabis Production. Front Plant Sci, 2019. 10 : p. 296. Wizenberg, S.B., A.E. Weis, and L.G. Campbell, Comparing methods for controlled capture and quantification of pollen in Cannabis sativa. Appl Plant Sci, 2020. 8 (9): p. e11389. Small, E., T. Pocock, and P.B. Cavers, The biology of Canadian weeds. 119. Cannabis sativa L. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 2003. 83 (1): p. 217-237. Murthy, K.S.R., et al., In vitro flowering - A review. International Journal of Agricultural Technology, 2012. 8 : p. 1517-1536. Skoog, F. and C.O. Miller, Chemical regulation of growth and organ formation in plant tissues cultured in vitro. Symp Soc Exp Biol, 1957. 11 : p. 118-30. Hesami, M., et al., Effect of Explant Source on Phenotypic Changes of In Vitro Grown Cannabis Plantlets over Multiple Subcultures. Biology (Basel), 2023. 12 (3). Thomas, T.D., The role of activated charcoal in plant tissue culture. Biotechnol Adv, 2008. 26 (6): p. 618-31. Thomas, T.D., The role of activated charcoal in plant tissue culture. Biotechnology Advances, 2008. 26 (6): p. 618-631. Gago, J., et al., Modeling the effects of light and sucrose on in vitro propagated plants: a multiscale system analysis using artificial intelligence technology. PLoS One, 2014. 9 (1): p. e85989. Tapingkae, T., P. Kristiansen, and A. Taji. INFLUENCE OF CARBOHYDRATE SOURCE ON THE IN VITRO FLOWERING OF STURT'S DESERT PEA (SWAINSONA FORMOSA) . 2009. International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), Leuven, Belgium. Han, Y., H. Yang, and Y. Jiao, Regulation of inflorescence architecture by cytokinins. Front Plant Sci, 2014. 5 : p. 669. Taylor, N.J., M.E. Light, and J.V. Staden, In vitro flowering of Kniphofia leucocephala: influence of cytokinins. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 2005. 83 (3): p. 327-333. Sreelekshmi, R. and E.A. Siril, Investigation on in vitro bouquets and flower longevity of micropropagated Dianthus chinensis L. Scientia Horticulturae, 2021. 275 : p. 109708. Tee, C.S., M. Maziah, and C.S. Tan, Induction of in vitro flowering in the orchid Dendrobium Sonia 17. Biologia Plantarum, 2008. 52 (4): p. 723-726. Caracciolo, L., et al., An open-source controller to build a dynamic light intensity setup. Plant Methods, 2024. 20 (1): p. 35. Mitache, M., et al., Exploring the impact of light intensity under speed breeding conditions on the development and growth of lentil and chickpea. Plant Methods, 2024. 20 (1): p. 30. Steel, L., et al., Comparative genomics of flowering behavior in Cannabis sativa. Front Plant Sci, 2023. 14 : p. 1227898. Backer, R., et al., Closing the Yield Gap for Cannabis: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Determining Cannabis Yield. Front Plant Sci, 2019. 10 : p. 495. Naim-Feil, E., et al., Empirical Evaluation of Inflorescences' Morphological Attributes for Yield Optimization of Medicinal Cannabis Cultivars. Front Plant Sci, 2022. 13 : p. 858519. Kardailsky, I., et al., Activation tagging of the floral inducer FT. Science, 1999. 286 (5446): p. 1962-5. Turck, F., F. Fornara, and G. Coupland, Regulation and identity of florigen: FLOWERING LOCUS T moves center stage. Annu Rev Plant Biol, 2008. 59 : p. 573-94. Lin, X., et al., Molecular mechanisms for the photoperiodic regulation of flowering in soybean. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 2021. 63 (6): p. 981-994. Jin, S., et al., Evolution and functional diversification of FLOWERING LOCUS T/TERMINAL FLOWER 1 family genes in plants. Semin Cell Dev Biol, 2021. 109 : p. 20-30. Song, Y.H., et al., Photoperiodic flowering: time measurement mechanisms in leaves. Annu Rev Plant Biol, 2015. 66 : p. 441-64. Chen, X., et al., Whole-genome resequencing of wild and cultivated cannabis reveals the genetic structure and adaptive selection of important traits. BMC Plant Biol, 2022. 22 (1): p. 371. Nguyen, Q.T., Y. Xiao, and T. Kozai, Chapter 20 - Photoautotrophic Micropropagation , in Plant Factory , T. Kozai, G. Niu, and M. Takagaki, Editors. 2016, Academic Press: San Diego. p. 271-283. LANGFORD, P.J. and H. WAINWRIGHT, Effects of Sucrose Concentration on the Photosynthetic Ability of Rose Shoots In Vitro. Annals of Botany, 1987. 60 (6): p. 633-640. Sundyreva, M., A. Rebrov, and A. Mishko, Influence of sucrose concentration in the culture medium on the condition of the photosynthetic apparatus of grapes cultured in vitro. BIO Web Conf., 2020. 25 : p. 04003. Fuentes, G., et al., Exogenous sucrose can decrease in vitro photosynthesis but improve field survival and growth of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) in vitro plantlets. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant, 2005. 41 (1): p. 69-76. Toaima, N., H. Bosila, and A. El-Ateeq, In vitro growth regulators, gelling agents and sucrose levels affect micropropagation of Gypsophila paniculata L. Middle East J. Agric. Res, 2016. 5 : p. 313-323. Dantas, L.A., et al., The impact of carbon source on cell growth and the production of bioactive compounds in cell suspensions of Hancornia speciosa Gomes. Scientific Reports, 2021. 11 (1): p. 24315. Cioć, M., et al., Different LED Light Intensities and 6-Benzyladenine Concentrations in Relation to Shoot Development, Leaf Architecture, and Photosynthetic Pigments of Gerbera jamesonii Bolus In Vitro. Agronomy, 2019. 9 (7): p. 358. Hazarika, B.N., Morpho-physiological disorders in in vitro culture of plants. Scientia Horticulturae, 2006. 108 (2): p. 105-120. Vacher, C., et al., The Phyllosphere: Microbial Jungle at the Plant–Climate Interface. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 2016. 47 (Volume 47, 2016): p. 1-24. Chaudhry, V., et al., Shaping the leaf microbiota: plant–microbe–microbe interactions. Journal of Experimental Botany, 2020. 72 (1): p. 36-56. Yates, I.E. and D.L. Sparks, Environmental Regulation of Anther Dehiscence and Pollen Germination in Pecan. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 1993. 118 : p. 699-706. Heslop-Harrison, J., AN INTERPRETATION OF THE HYDRODYNAMICS OF POLLEN. American Journal of Botany, 1979. 66 (6): p. 737-743. Murashige, T. and F. Skoog, A Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bio Assays with Tobacco Tissue Cultures. Physiologia Plantarum, 1962. 15 (3): p. 473-497. Driver, J.A. and A.H. Kuniyuki, In Vitro Propagation of Paradox Walnut Rootstock. HortScience, 1984. 19 (4): p. 507-509. Arnon, D.I., COPPER ENZYMES IN ISOLATED CHLOROPLASTS. POLYPHENOLOXIDASE IN BETA VULGARIS. Plant Physiol, 1949. 24 (1): p. 1-15. Flajšman, M., M. Slapnik, and J. Murovec, Production of Feminized Seeds of High CBD Cannabis sativa L. by Manipulation of Sex Expression and Its Application to Breeding. Front Plant Sci, 2021. 12 : p. 718092. Talbot, M.J. and R.G. White, Methanol fixation of plant tissue for Scanning Electron Microscopy improves preservation of tissue morphology and dimensions. Plant Methods, 2013. 9 (1): p. 36. Additional Declarations Competing interest reported. KB and LEW are listed as inventors on a PCT Patent Application PCT Patent Application No. PCT/IL2022/050007 Supplementary Files supplementedfigures.pdf Cite Share Download PDF Status: Published Journal Publication published 12 Sep, 2024 Read the published version in Plant Methods → Version 1 posted Editorial decision: Revision requested 31 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 31 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 30 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 28 Jul, 2024 Reviews received at journal 26 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 17 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 15 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 08 Jul, 2024 Reviewers agreed at journal 07 Jul, 2024 Reviewers invited by journal 05 Jul, 2024 Editor assigned by journal 03 Jul, 2024 Submission checks completed at journal 03 Jul, 2024 First submitted to journal 01 Jul, 2024 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-4669256","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":329461686,"identity":"3284e322-eeb0-4a14-bee9-cd96d4888584","order_by":0,"name":"Orly Lavie","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Hebrew University of Jerusalem","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Orly","middleName":"","lastName":"Lavie","suffix":""},{"id":329461687,"identity":"c9ab217a-357a-4704-b467-2de0b5a789c3","order_by":1,"name":"Kobi Buxdorf","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Hebrew University of Jerusalem","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Kobi","middleName":"","lastName":"Buxdorf","suffix":""},{"id":329461689,"identity":"c3f48748-99b1-41ca-b8fe-b82a8e8136ed","order_by":2,"name":"Leor Eshed Williams","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"The Hebrew University of Jerusalem","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Leor","middleName":"Eshed","lastName":"Williams","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2024-07-01 15:56:29","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4669256/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4669256/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[{"content":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-024-01265-5","type":"published","date":"2024-09-12T15:57:22+00:00"}],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":61280203,"identity":"529be839-d2c4-47cb-81d7-74e9b8b674f4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-29 04:51:03","extension":"png","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":14410151,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eTissue culture experimental system for flower induction in cannabis. \u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e. Stem segment explants, each including a single node cut from plants growing in the growth room during their vegetative phase, were introduced into tissue culture (the node segment marked by a white circle). \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e Explants were sterilized in a 2% sodium hypochlorite solution with 0.1% (w/w) Triton X-100 for eight minutes, followed by three subsequent rinses with sterilized water. \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e Five explants were cultured in each vessel. \u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e Developed plants at two weeks under an 18/6 h light/dark photoperiod. \u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e Cannabis flowers developed under a 12/12 h cycle to promote flowering. Images were taken three weeks into the flowering photoperiod. \u003cstrong\u003ef\u003c/strong\u003e A close-up of an in vitro cannabis flower (bar = 100µm). \u003cstrong\u003eg\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong\u003eh\u003c/strong\u003eComparison between plants developing under direct culturing in a flower-inductive photoperiod (12/12 h) (g) and plants grown for an initial two weeks under an 18/6 h cycle before transferring to 12/12 h (h). Images were taken two weeks after tissue culture induction. \u003cstrong\u003ei\u003c/strong\u003e Average flower number per plant over the flowering induction photoperiod for plants cultured directly under a 12/12 h cycle and plants first grown for two weeks under an 18/6 h cycle prior to the flowering induction photoperiod. Flowers were counted at indicated times post-tissue culture introduction. The average flower number was calculated for five plants per vessel, presented as mean ± SE per plant for eight vessels (n = 8); different letters represent a significant difference at a p\u0026lt; 0.05 using the Student's t-test.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figures1.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4669256/v1/791a3f65bcf7013e3d4e6123.png"},{"id":61280200,"identity":"b5d72b39-81b8-4525-83cc-965002b02511","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-29 04:51:03","extension":"png","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":818495,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eFlowering of cannabis under various media treatments. Cannabis explants were cultured under an 18/6 h light/dark cycle for two weeks, followed by a transfer to a 12/12 h flowering photoperiod. \u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003eEvaluation of the effect of activated charcoal in DKW medium compared to MS medium. The addition of activated charcoal significantly decreased flower production in the DKW medium and had no effect in MS. Average flower numbers, presented as mean ± SE per plant, were calculated for five plants per vessel across four vessels (n = 4). Different letters represent significant differences at p\u0026lt; 0.05 using the Tukey HSD test. Asterisks indicate significant differences between DKW and MS at p \u0026lt; 0.05 using the Student's t-test. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e Impact of sucrose concentration in MS medium on flowering. Explants were cultured in MS medium, supplemented with four different concentrations of sucrose, across both vegetative and flowering photoperiods. Average flower numbers, presented as mean ± SE, were calculated for five plants per vessel (n = 5). Different letters represent significant differences at p \u0026lt; 0.05 using the Tukey HSD test. \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e The effect of sucrose concentration in DKW media on flowering. Average flower numbers, presented as mean ± SE, were calculated for five plants per vessel (n = 3); at p-value \u0026lt; 0.05 using Student t-test. \u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e The effect of 6-Benzylaminopurine (BA) on cannabis flowering. BA was added either during the vegetative phase only or during the flowering regime, as indicated in the index. Average flower numbers, presented as mean ± SE, were calculated for five plants per vessel across four vessels (n = 4). Different letters represent significant differences at p\u0026lt; 0.05 using the Tukey HSD test.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figures2.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4669256/v1/d231ba8c15ea785ef112d65c.png"},{"id":61280202,"identity":"1025c005-501b-40c4-8d99-ae21bb82db24","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-29 04:51:03","extension":"png","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":7947575,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eStomatal abundance and chlorophyll content in cannabis leaves in tissue culture.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ea-c\u003c/strong\u003e Comparison of cannabis stomata on the abaxial side of the fan leaves from tissue culture and growth room. \u003cstrong\u003ea \u003c/strong\u003escanning electron microscopy (SEM) image shows a similar stomata structure between the\u003cstrong\u003e \u003c/strong\u003etissue culture and growth room. Bar = 50 µm. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e, \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e. Stomata counting on abaxial fan leaves from tissue culture and growth room, using a light microscope (see Materials and Methods; bar = 20 µm). The number of stomata measured in 0.15 mm² is presented as mean ± SE (n = 10), and different letters indicate significant differences at p \u0026lt; 0.05, using the Student's t-test. \u003cstrong\u003ed-f\u003c/strong\u003e Cannabis growth and chlorophyll content analysis in tissue culture without supplemented sugar. Cannabis plants were cultivated in tissue culture either in a box (\u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e) or a filtered box (\u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e), with or without added sucrose. \u003cstrong\u003ef\u003c/strong\u003e Average chlorophyll content (measured in mg/g fresh weight) was calculated for two fresh leaves (number 3 and 4 from the apex) from each plant (a total of eight leaves per vessel). Leaves were weighed, and chlorophyll was extracted. Chlorophyll content was calculated according to spectrophotometric measurements at 645 and 663 nm (see Materials and Methods). Data are presented as mean ± SE for six vessels (n = 6), and different letters represent a significant difference at p\u0026lt; 0.05 using the Tukey HSD test.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figures3.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4669256/v1/8be5e08ffbf631cdf1f415a9.png"},{"id":61280205,"identity":"5b12e78f-1068-4744-8be0-773683fce748","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-29 04:51:03","extension":"png","order_by":4,"title":"Figure 4","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":19068799,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCannabis flowering under two different light intensities. Cannabis explants were subjected to two light-intensity treatments during three weeks of vegetative growth (18/6 h light/dark): Low (71±14 µmol·m\u003csup\u003e−2\u003c/sup\u003e⋅s\u003csup\u003e−1\u003c/sup\u003e) and High (173±20 µmol· m\u003csup\u003e−2\u003c/sup\u003e⋅s\u003csup\u003e−1\u003c/sup\u003e). Subsequently, they were transferred to a 12/12 h cycle to induce flowering and reassigned to the two light intensities, resulting in a total of four treatments (Low to Low, Low to High, High to Low, and High to High). \u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e. Light intensity at various distances from the light source along the plant height in the growth room.\u003cstrong\u003e b\u003c/strong\u003e Comparison of flowering responses among light-intensity treatments. Average flower numbers, presented as mean ± SE per plant, were calculated for five plants per vessel across six vessels (n = 6); different letters represent significant differences at p\u0026lt; 0.05 using Tukey HSD test. Plants exposed to low light intensity during flowering-promoting photoperiod produced significantly more flowers than those exposed to high light intensity. \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e Cannabis flowering in tissue culture vessel. The light intensities are indicated. Images were taken on day 25 after flower induction. \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e \u0026nbsp;Close-up of cannabis inflorescences for each of the above treatments, and (e) close-up of detached cannabis flowers. Higher light intensity during the flowering period appears to cause shorter stigmas. Images d and e were captured using a stereomicroscope (bar=100µm).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figures4.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4669256/v1/594708d68940348697d48d59.png"},{"id":61280206,"identity":"bc36af33-8de1-4afa-9e84-5fcebcbdedb7","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-29 04:51:03","extension":"png","order_by":5,"title":"Figure 5","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":26618866,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCannabis cultivars grown in vitro exhibit differences in flowering patterns.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCannabis explants from three cultivars (TA5, Magic 9, and Sky 1) were cultured under vegetative conditions (18/6 h light/dark) for 17 days, followed by transferring to a 12/12 h cycle to induce flowering. \u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003eComparison of in vitro flowering responses of different cannabis cultivars. Average flower numbers, presented as mean ± SE per plant, were calculated for five plants per vessel across six vessels (n = 6). Different letters indicate significant differences at p\u0026lt; 0.05, as determined by the Tukey HSD test. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e Four-week-old inflorescences of the cannabis cultivars in the growth room \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e. Cannabis cultivars after four weeks under flowering induction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e Close-up of the in vitro inflorescences. \u003cstrong\u003ee\u003c/strong\u003e Close-up of detached in vitro female flower. TA5 stigmas appeared to be shorter than those of Sky 1 and Magic 9, and they were the first to change color to brown both in the growth room and in tissue cultures; Images d and e were captured using a stereomicroscope (bar=100µm).\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figures5.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4669256/v1/5b723bdcf24543d1798d494e.png"},{"id":61280582,"identity":"e1d30b58-52d0-435a-8760-89ba8039c05f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-29 04:59:03","extension":"png","order_by":6,"title":"Figure 6","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":9625316,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eCannabis fertilization in vitro. \u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e Male cannabis explant (cultivar Bt) flowering in vitro. \u003cstrong\u003eb\u003c/strong\u003e Cannabis male flower developed in vitro. \u003cstrong\u003ec\u003c/strong\u003e Pollen extracted from an in vitro anther. \u003cstrong\u003ed\u003c/strong\u003e In vitro germination of the extracted pollen. \u003cstrong\u003ee \u003c/strong\u003eIn vitro inflorescence with developing seeds. In vitro-produced pollen was used to fertilize in vitro female plants (Sky 1 cultivar). \u003cstrong\u003ef\u003c/strong\u003e In vitro cannabis seed three weeks post-pollination \u003cstrong\u003eg\u003c/strong\u003e Germination of the hybrid seed in vitro. \u003cstrong\u003eh\u003c/strong\u003e The in vitro hybrid cannabis plant. Images b-g were captured using a stereomicroscope. Bar: b=1000µm, c,d=10µm, e,f,g=100µm\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"Figures6.png","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4669256/v1/7d3815d6f419b1c19ea10bd4.png"},{"id":64619121,"identity":"92024baf-21b1-4bd2-b2d9-059e0709cad4","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-09-16 16:11:43","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":117868000,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4669256/v1/082cbcad-bc9d-4761-b6b2-703444dae2a1.pdf"},{"id":61280201,"identity":"d906ac3f-7ff7-4401-a248-25d95d7c4012","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-07-29 04:51:03","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":2742062,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"supplementedfigures.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-4669256/v1/ef7d8b19b5e7c967b54b8e2d.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"Competing interest reported. KB and LEW are listed as inventors on a PCT Patent Application PCT Patent Application No. PCT/IL2022/050007","formattedTitle":"Optimizing cannabis cultivation: an efficient in vitro system for flowering induction","fulltext":[{"header":"Background","content":"\u003cp\u003eCannabis sativa L., a member of the Cannabaceae family, is classified as an annual dioecious plant species in which male and female flowers are borne on separate unisexual individuals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCannabis produces a wide array of specialized secondary metabolites, including more than 120 cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids\u0026nbsp;[1], which possess therapeutic properties and thus confer recognized medicinal value\u0026nbsp;[2]. The global rise in the cannabis market has significantly boosted the growth of the cannabis industry. This includes intensive breeding efforts aimed at developing elite cannabis cultivars with enhanced cannabinoid profiles tailored to optimize therapeutic efficacy, meet consumer preferences, and improve yield\u0026nbsp;[3]. Cannabinoids and terpenes are synthesized and accumulated in glandular trichomes\u0026nbsp;[4], most densely concentrated on the\u0026nbsp;bracts of\u0026nbsp;female flowers, thus attributing commercial value to the plant. The female cannabis plant exhibits a bushy and robust structure that, upon a short photoperiod, develops complex inflorescences with numerous small flowers closely packed together with high biomass. These inflorescences are primarily located at the tips of the stem and branches, as well as on the leaf axils throughout the plant\u0026nbsp;[5]. Consequently, the cannabinoid profile among inflorescences varies due to differential light exposure and variations in the source-sink relationship. This variability presents a significant challenge, prompting the adoption of various strategies to reduce these inconsistencies. One effective method is regular pruning to enhance light penetration and control plant density\u0026nbsp;[6]. Another approach that has not yet become commercial, is the use of tissue culture systems, like cell suspensions, for the mass production of cannabinoids\u0026nbsp;[7].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe breeding of cannabis is intricate and challenging for several reasons: 1. The induction of flowering requires controlled light regimes, which complicates agricultural practices\u0026nbsp;[8]; 2. In most countries, cannabis is under strict regulation that mandates certain security measures, limits the growing space, and specifies the maximum number of plants; 3. The anemophilous nature of cannabis, relying on wind for pollination, introduces challenges in controlling cross-pollination\u0026nbsp;[9]. A single male plant can produce a vast quantity of pollen grains. This requires strict isolation of male plants to prevent unwanted fertilization of nearby female plants, implementing firm measures that drastically limit the number of crosses feasible in a breeding program\u0026nbsp;[10].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInducing flowering in tissue culture systems holds promise as a tool to address both issues: reliably producing cannabinoids in a highly controlled environment and enhancing breeding programs by allowing numerous crosses to be conducted in a small facility. In addition, it offers precise control over factors such as plant growth regulators, light intensity, photoperiod, and temperature, making it a valuable tool for studying the elements affecting flower initiation and floral organ development\u0026nbsp;[11].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePlant tissue culture involves cultivating plant cells, tissues, or organs on defined nutrient media under aseptic conditions and controlled environments, occasionally supplemented with growth\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eregulators to induce specific cellular responses\u0026nbsp;[12].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;In this study, we developed an effective protocol for inducing flowering in cannabis in vitro. We optimized the media and growing conditions and demonstrated the ability to produce viable seeds. Therefore, this method can serve as a rapid and straightforward approach to breeding programs, a potential method for the production of cannabinoids, and a valuable tool for studying the flowering aspects of cannabis.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExperimental setup for in vitro flower induction of cannabis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn vitro flowering can serve as a valuable tool for studying specific aspects of flowering in cannabis and for producing important flower components, such as the calyx, to harvest cannabinoids under aseptic conditions. To establish our experimental system, we first followed a standard sterilization protocol to introduce explants into tissue culture. We selected single-node explants by cutting the stem of cannabis plants grown in a growth room under an 18/6 h photoperiod (Fig. 1a). Approximately 100 explants were sterilized in a 3L beaker using 2% sodium hypochlorite solution, followed by three rinses with sterile water. Subsequently, we placed these explants in MS or DKW media (see Materials and Methods) ensuring the proper orientation, with five stem sections per vessel.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe sterilization processes can impose stress on the explants, requiring a recovery period. At this stage, the stem sections are leafless, and a few days are required before leaves become apparent. To evaluate the requirement of initial vegetative growth for successful flowering, we subjected six vessels to an 18/6 h photoperiod for two weeks before transitioning to a 12/12 h photoperiod to induce flowering. We then compared this regime with direct placement under the flowering induction photoperiod (12/12 h cycle). The cannabis flower usually has two stigmas (Fig. 1f). To track the number of flowers and their rate of development, we followed the stigma development and counted the number of flowers every few days (Fig. 1g-i). Although the number of flowers developed within 38 days was similar between the two regimes, the plants that were first grown under a vegetative photoperiod appeared more developed. Therefore, we established this regime of two weeks under an 18/6 h cycle before transitioning to flower induction as part of our protocol.\u003c/p\u003e\n\n\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedia Optimization for Enhanced In Vitro Flower Induction\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCannabis is known to exhibit a high rate of hyperhydricity in tissue culture systems, a phenomenon that varies depending on the genotype [13]. Several methods can be employed, to address this issue, including the incorporation of activated charcoal into the growth medium [14]. To determine the best media for inducing flowering in vitro in cannabis and to assess the tissue\u0026apos;s response to activated charcoal, we tested two media commonly used for stem explants: MS and DKW-based media (see Materials and Methods), with or without activated charcoal. Adding activated charcoal to the DKW medium significantly reduced the number of flowers compared to the DKW medium alone but had no effect on the MS medium (Fig. 2a). These findings indicate that activated charcoal does not benefit cannabis flowering in tissue culture. Activated charcoal is known to absorb plant growth regulators and other organic supplements [15]. It might be that the presence of activated charcoal reduced the availability of important substances to the plant, thereby reducing flowering.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eStatistical tests comparing the performance of plants in the two media without activated charcoal showed that plants in the DKW medium exhibited higher flower production than those in the MS medium at multiple time points (Fig. 2a, marked by an asterisk (*)). \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNext, we tested how different concentrations of sucrose in the media affect flowering by comparing various sucrose concentrations in the MS medium (Fig. 2b) and DKW medium (Fig. 2c). In tissue culture systems, sugar serves two primary roles: as an energy source [16] and as a signal for flower induction [17]. However, there were no significant differences in flowering across the concentrations, except between the 2% and 1% sucrose concentrations in the MS medium at three-time points, where a decrease was observed at 1%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBesides sucrose, hormones can also play a role in increasing the number of flowers. Cytokinins, for instance, can influence meristem size, which in turn may enhance flower production [18]. Additionally, cytokinins have been shown to facilitate the transition from vegetative to floral meristems in tissue culture [19]. The 6-Benzylaminopurine (BA) cytokinin is particularly recognized as a highly effective inducer of floral induction in vitro [20, 21]. To test the effect of BA on the in vitro flowering of cannabis, we added either 2 mg/L of BA solely during the vegetative phase or 1 mg/L and 5 mg/L of BA during the flowering phase. Surprisingly, BA did not enhance flower production; instead, it resulted in a significant decrease (Fig. 2d). This effect might be attributed to our basic DKW medium, which contains adenine hemisulfate (see Materials and Methods), a precursor of cytokinins resulting in excessively high concentrations of cytokinin. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOther elements that have the potential to affect flower numbers, such as phosphate in the media or lower temperature during vegetative growth to increase meristem size, didn\u0026rsquo;t show better performance (Fig. S1 and S2).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo summarize, our analysis indicates that DKW media without activated charcoal and BA is most effective. Since there are no significant differences between 2% and 3% sucrose, and 2% is more economical and potentially reduces contamination, we will continue using 2% sucrose.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEvaluating photosynthesis and light response in tissue-cultured cannabis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur results, showing no significant difference between 2% and 3% sucrose concentrations, raise the question of whether the plants in the vessel conduct photosynthesis. To address this, we first examined the presence of stomata, which is essential for gas exchange. Scanning electron microscopy analysis of abaxial fan leaves from plants growing in tissue culture and growth room reveals that leaves in tissue culture develop stomata similar to those in growth room plants (Fig. 3a). To compare stomatal density, we employed the nail polish method and found that leaves grown in tissue culture possess significantly fewer stomata (average of 35 per 0.15mm\u0026sup2;) compared to those from growth room plants (average of 45 per 0.15mm\u0026sup2;) (Fig. 3b). However, the normal appearance of the stomata of the tissue culture leaves suggests that the plants are potentially capable of photosynthesis. Subsequently, we tested the plants\u0026apos; capacity for photosynthesis by cultivating stem nodes in a medium devoid of carbon energy sources. Since photosynthesis requires gas exchange, we used two types of vessels: one hermetically sealed and the other equipped with a gas-permeable filter. Both were placed under 71\u0026plusmn;14 \u0026micro;mol\u0026middot; m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026sdot;s\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;1 \u003c/sup\u003elight in an 18/6 h photoperiod. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePlants cultured in media without sucrose appeared pale and less developed than those grown with 2% sucrose, although the ones in the filtered vessel exhibited better growth (Fig. 3d-e, Fig. S3). To quantify this, we measured the chlorophyll content and found that plants grown with 2% sucrose exhibited higher chlorophyll content in both vessels compared to those grown without a carbon source (Fig. 3f). However, plants cultivated in a filtered vessel, with or without sucrose, exhibited significantly higher chlorophyll content compared to their equivalents in a sealed box, implying that gas exchange allows in vitro plants to carry out photosynthesis. As a result, we have incorporated the use of a filtered box into our protocol.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe light intensity in ex-vitro-grown plants directly affects photosynthesis, with increased light levels enhancing photosynthetic activity until reaching a saturation point [22]. Light also impacts morphogenesis and the induction of flowering [23]. To test the effect of increasing light intensity on in vitro cannabis flowering, we cultured plants under an 18/6 h cycle for three weeks at two different light intensities measured at plant height: low (71\u0026plusmn;14 \u0026micro;mol\u0026middot; m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026sdot;s\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;1\u003c/sup\u003e) and high (173\u0026plusmn;20 \u0026micro;mol\u0026middot; m\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026sdot;s\u003csup\u003e\u0026minus;1\u003c/sup\u003e). We then transferred the plants to a flowering photoperiod (12/12 h) and redistributed them into the two light intensities, resulting in four treatment groups based on changes in light intensity: Low to Low, Low to High, High to Low, and High to High. Plants exposed to low light intensity during the flowering-promoting photoperiod produced significantly more flowers (Fig. 4b-d) with a final average of 9.3 (Low to Low) and 9.9 (High to Low) flowers per plant and appeared to have longer stigmas compared to those exposed to high intensity (Fig. 4e). Plants under high light intensity during the 12/12 h cycle had a final average of 7.3 flowers per plant, regardless of the light intensity during the vegetative phase. It is important to note that the selected light intensity was significantly lower than what is typically used in growth rooms (Fig. 4a), demonstrating that tissue-cultured plants are more susceptible to damage from high-intensity light.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eVariability and response of cannabis cultivars to in vitro flowering\u003c/strong\u003e \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCannabis cultivars exhibit significant variability in inflorescence traits, including flowering time, architecture, number of flowers, flower size, and compaction [5, 24-26]. To assess the response of different cultivars to in vitro flowering, we selected three cultivars that exhibit distinct inflorescence phenotypes when grown in a growth room (Fig. 5b) and introduced them to tissue culture. Following flower induction, we identified three distinct phenotypic differences: number of flowers, stigma length, and stigma browning (Fig. 5, Fig. S4, and Fig. S5)). In all cultivars, flowers began to appear on day 9. The Sky 1 cultivar produced significantly more flowers than the Magic 9 and TA5 cultivars (Fig. 5a), displaying a notable difference from its growth room equivalent (Fig. 5b). The TA5 stigmas appeared to be shorter than those of Sky 1 and Magic 9 and changed their color to brown before those of the other cultivars (Fig. 5e), suggesting that TA5\u0026apos;s receptivity declines more quickly. This is consistent with the TA5 stigma observed in the growth room plants.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis experiment demonstrates that different cultivars behave differently in tissue culture, and their inflorescence characteristics do not always match their growth room phenotype, suggesting an interaction between genetic background and in vitro growth conditions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIn vitro pollination and seed development in cannabis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo assess the potential of in vitro flowering as a method for rapid breeding, we examined the ability of male plants to produce viable pollen and female plants to develop viable seeds. To this end, we cultured male cannabis plants (Bt cultivar) and female plants (cultivar Sky 1) for two weeks under an 18/6 h cycle before transferring them to a 12/12 h flowering photoperiod. \u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter 18 days, all plants produced flowers and were ready for pollination (Fig. 6a-d). Since the anther did not dehisce and release the pollen, we manually pinched the anther with a needle and tapped it over vessels containing female plants. All female inflorescent (25 plants) developed seeds in vitro (Fig. 6e) with an average of 4.41 \u0026plusmn; 0.36 seeds per plant. However, only 2.44 \u0026plusmn; 0.17 seeds per plant germinated (mean \u0026plusmn; SE calculated per vessel, with five plants per vessel) (Table S1). In vitro hybrid plants were grown from seeds to fully developed plants (Fig. 6f-h).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAltogether, eight weeks were needed from the introduction of the stem segment to tissue culture to the production of viable seeds, highlighting the in vitro flowering system as an excellent method for fast and practical breeding.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003ePlants in tissue cultures are grown under controlled conditions that differ significantly from the natural environment. These optimized conditions enhance growth but can also induce stress due to the lack of fluctuations throughout the day and the lack of natural cues, leading to altered physiological responses. However, this platform allows us to fine-tune factors such as nutrient composition, light intensity, and temperature, thereby enhancing growth and development.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn this study, we focused on determining the optimal conditions for the in vitro flowering of cannabis. This approach holds immense potential for the sterile production of secondary metabolites free from pathogens like \u003cem\u003eBotrytis cinerea\u003c/em\u003e, with high consistency and the likely capability to control the cannabinoid content. Given the complexity of breeding in cannabis, it also provides a valuable strategy for breeding programs, especially when resources are limited.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing our protocol, we cultivated five plants per vessel and arranged the cultures on a shelf measuring 45 cm in width and 1 meter in length, accommodating a total of 32 vessels in a 4 by 8 configuration (Fig. S6). This setup allowed for the growth of 160 plants per shelf. By stacking four shelves vertically in a standard growth room, we demonstrated the capacity to grow a total of 640 plants on a 1-meter length floor area, highlighting the substantial potential of this method.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhen we introduced the stem segments to tissue culture, the flowering time and the number of flowers produced were comparable, regardless of whether the plants were immediately subjected to a flowering-promoting photoperiod or first experienced a vegetative phase. We propose that since the day length cue is perceived in leaves to initiate the cascade that activates the flowering machinery, a stem node without leaves cannot sense day length and thus cannot induce the transition of the meristem to an inflorescence meristem. Therefore, a few days are needed to produce leaves, even under a short-day photoperiod, before flower meristems can form. This resulted in similar timing and numbers of flowers between the two regimes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;In \u003cem\u003eArabidopsis thaliana\u003c/em\u003e, leaf perception of day length induces the expression of the \u003cem\u003eFLOWERING LOCUS T\u003c/em\u003e (\u003cem\u003eFT\u003c/em\u003e) gene, known as florigen, which is transported through the phloem to the shoot apical meristem to promote flowering\u0026nbsp;[27, 28]. In short-day plants, the mechanism of flowering induction is still being elucidated, but the process appears to be conserved\u0026nbsp;[29]. Genes homologous to \u003cem\u003eFT\u003c/em\u003e were identified in many short-day plant species\u0026nbsp;[30, 31], including \u003cem\u003eCsFT\u003c/em\u003e in cannabis\u0026nbsp;[32].\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOur results, showing normal stomata development in tissue culture and high chlorophyll content with improved growth in filtered vessels with and without a carbon source, suggest that cannabis shoots are capable of performing photosynthesis in tissue culture. However, the moderate plant growth in a sugar-free medium indicates that the plant cannot be fully autotrophic under our growth conditions with passive ventilation, likely due to limited CO₂. This is supported by the CO₂ level measured within a filtered vessel containing plants, showing values between 150 and 250 mmol/mol during the photoperiod, depending on the number of filters, while the CO₂ concentration in the room was maintained at 350-400 mmol/mol\u0026nbsp;[33]. It would be interesting to test the cannabis performance under a forced ventilation system in the future. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn tissue culture, sucrose in the media is used to provide the necessary carbon for energy and growth, with standard concentrations generally ranging from 2% to 3% (w/v). As we did not observe a significant difference between these concentrations, we selected the 2% for our protocol, which offers several potential advantages. Low levels of sucrose can promote photosynthetic activity, partially by increasing rubisco activity, thereby supporting mixotrophic growth that generally leads to more viable plants\u0026nbsp;[34-36]. Low sucrose level also reduces the risk of microbial contamination [33] and minimizes the phenomenon of hyperhydricity in sensitive cultivars\u0026nbsp;[37]. Excess sucrose can cause metabolic imbalances that affect the synthesis of secondary metabolites\u0026nbsp;[38]. Furthermore, using the lowest effective concentration is cost-effective for large-scale or long-term experiments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLight intensity can promote mixotrophic growth, which relies on sucrose in the media and photosynthesis. Our results, however, show that increasing the light intensity during the flowering-promoting photoperiod led to significantly fewer flowers. The appearance of yellow leaves when high-intensity light is applied (Fig. S7) suggests that the plants might be experiencing light-induced stress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn outdoor plants, prolonged exposure to excessive light can lead to photoinhibition, reducing photosynthetic capacity and subsequently causing chlorophyll degradation. The light intensity applied in tissue culture is considerably lower than that of outdoor environments\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e[39]\u003c/span\u003e\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e because most of the energy comes from the sucrose in the media and because high light intensity can induce stress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePlants in tissue culture are placed in a closed box without buffer elements like wind, shading, and light fluctuations throughout the day. This may intensify the effects of high light and might cause increased temperature and humidity. Additionally, tissue cultures often consist of young tissues in early growth stages, making them more susceptible to environmental stresses due to the lack of protective structures like a thick cuticle or well-developed cell walls [40].\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIt might be that the lack of a phyllosphere microbiome due to sterile conditions in tissue cultures reduces plant fitness and increases susceptibility to light-induced stress. Microorganisms can produce protective compounds, such as pigments and antioxidants [41], that absorb excess light, and they can also form a physical barrier that reduces the amount of light reaching the leaf surface [42], thereby preventing potential damage from excessive light exposure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn our experiment, when low light intensity was applied during the 12/12 h cycle, the plants produced more flowers regardless of the intensity during the vegetative phase. We propose that during the initial period under the flowering induction regime, prior to the transition to inflorescence meristem, the plants have time to recover. During this phase, the newly developing leaves grow under low light and develop into robust leaves that can support future inflorescence meristem and flower development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMicroflowering for rapid breeding\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe individual female and male flowers that developed in vitro exhibited phenotypes similar to those of growth room flowers. However, the anthers did not burst and release pollen. Typically, anthers open under low relative humidity (RH), whereas high RH can delay or prevent this process\u0026nbsp;[43]. This suggests that the high humidity levels within the culture vessel likely kept the cannabis anthers closed. \u0026nbsp;In addition, pollen grains are typically partially desiccated upon dispersal, and before they germinate, they must rehydrate by absorbing water from the stigma on which they land\u0026nbsp;[44]. It might be that the process of losing and gaining back moisture is crucial for pollen grain germination. Therefore, RH in the flower\u0026apos;s surrounding environment can decrease the viability of the pollen from these flowers. Nevertheless, in our setting, although the anther did not dehisce naturally, it released pollen with our assistance, which proved to be viable according to our germination test and the successful fertilization.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe average number of female flowers produced was six, with an average of 4.4 seeds developing per inflorescence/plant. Low pollen grain viability might have led to incomplete fertilization, preventing some flowers from producing seeds. Another possibility is that the plant\u0026apos;s small size could not support extensive seed development. Out of the collected seeds, only an average of 2.4 seeds per plant germinated (Table S1). However, achieving one successful succession per generation is sufficient for a breeding program aimed at hybrid seed production and generating numerous homozygous plants to test various combinations.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusions","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has successfully established a method for in vitro flowering induction in cannabis, providing a valuable tool for both research and practical applications. Our findings highlight the superior performance of DKW medium with 2% sucrose in a filtered vessel and emphasize the need for low light intensity during flower induction to optimize production. The improved performance in filtered vessels suggests that plants conduct photosynthesis in vitro, underscoring the need for future investigations into the effects of forced ventilation to refine this system. We show that this method is applicable to several cultivars and for male flowering as well. Additionally, we use this system to produce viable seeds in vitro. Altogether, this method offers a robust framework for cannabis research and cultivation, with potential applications in sterile cannabinoid production and efficient breeding strategies.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePlant material\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCannabis sativa L.\u003c/em\u003e plants from cultivars TA5, Sky 1, Magic 9 (female cultivars), and Bt (male plant) (our private lines) were used in this study.\u0026nbsp;The plants were grown in a growth room in 1-liter pots with \u0026apos;Bental 11\u0026apos; planting soil (Tuff Substrates), regularly irrigated with tap water, and fertilized with BOUNTY1 (N.P.K. 4:2:6, Zalmanson Dshanim).\u0026nbsp;The\u0026nbsp;plants were grown at 26 \u0026deg;C (measured at plants\u0026rsquo; canopy)\u0026nbsp;under Metal halide 600W\u0026nbsp;light bulbs (UPLUX, USA) in a long-day photoperiod of 18/6 h light/dark cycle to sustain vegetative growth.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTissue culture\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTA5 vegetative plants were initially introduced to tissue culture by cutting them into single-node stem explants. Sterilization was done by submerging and stirring the explants in a 2% sodium hypochlorite solution containing 0.1% (w/w) Triton for eight minutes, followed by three subsequent rinses with sterilized water. Two basal media were used in this study: Murashige and Skoog (MS)\u0026nbsp;[45]\u0026nbsp;consist of 4.\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e4\u003c/span\u003e g/L \u0026nbsp;MS including Nitsch vitamins (M0256, Duchefa), 3% sucrose (w/v), and 0.5 g/L MES and \u0026nbsp;Driver and Kuniyaki Walnut (DKW)\u0026nbsp;[46]\u0026nbsp;containing 5.6 g/L DKW/JUGLANS basal salt mixture including vitamins (D0247, Duchefa), 3% sucrose (w/v), 80 mg/L adenine hemisulfate (A0908, Duchefa) and 0.5 g/L MES. The pH of the media was adjusted to 5.8 and 0.8% (w/v) plant agar (P1101, Duchefa) was used as the gelling agent. The media were sterilized by autoclaving at 121 \u0026deg;C for 20 minutes and poured into either a ventilated round polypropylene microbox (O118/80+OD118, SacO2) with a volume of \u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e65\u003c/span\u003e ml or into a closed 10x10x10 cm square polycarbonate box (Fig. 5d) with a volume of 84 ml. Five stem explants were cultured in each vessel for two weeks under an\u003cspan dir=\"RTL\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/span\u003e18/6 h light/dark photoperiod to promote vegetative growth. The plants were then transferred to fresh media and placed under a 12/12 h light/dark cycle to induce flowering and re-cultured in fresh media every two weeks. Both growth conditions were set at a temperature of 25\u0026nbsp;\u0026deg;C. Flowers were counted using a stereomicroscope every several days.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFertilization: To conduct an in vitro pollination procedure, male flowers were carefully removed from the plant and placed on a sterile Petri dish, followed by pinching with a sterile needle. In the laminar flow cabinet, the anthers were then rubbed onto the stigma using forcep\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMedia Optimization\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor cytokinin effect, plants were cultured on DKW medium for two weeks in vegetative conditions (18/6 h) and then cultured under flowering-promoting photoperiod (12/12 h) in three media: control (DKW medium + 80 mg adenine), 1 mg/L 6-Benzylaminopurine (BA) (B001, Caisson) and 5 mg/L BA. In addition, one group was cultured on DKW with 2 mg/L BA medium during the vegetative phase and re-cultured to control DKW medium when transferred to flowering induction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the activated charcoal effect, 0.5 g/L activated charcoal (C9157, Sigma) was added to DKW or MS media during both the vegetative phase and flowering-promoting photoperiod.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eChlorophyll extraction and measurements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChlorophyll content was assessed on plants cultured as follows: first, all stem explants were cultured on DKW medium with 2% sucrose in a ventilated micro box (four explants per micro box) for three weeks under a long-day photoperiod (18/6 h). Next, they were divided into four treatments: DKW medium with or without 2% sucrose in a ventilated micro box and DKW medium with or without 2% sucrose in a closed 10x10x10 cm square polycarbonate box. Plants were grown for four weeks under the same conditions as before without media renewal. For chlorophyll measurements, two fresh leaves (numbers 3 and 4 from the top) from each plant (a total of eight leaves per vessel) were taken for extraction with 25ml of 80% acetone. Chlorophyll was measured according to Arnon 1949\u0026nbsp;[47]. The leaves were weighed before extraction to determine their fresh weight, and spectrophotometric measurements at 645 and 663 nm were conducted using the Infinite M Plex (Tecan). The chlorophyll concentration was calculated using the formula: ((20.2 \u0026times; X \u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e645\u003c/sub\u003e) + (8.02 \u0026times; \u003cem\u003eA\u003c/em\u003e\u003csub\u003e663\u003c/sub\u003e)) * \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e /(1000 \u0026times; \u003cem\u003eW\u003c/em\u003e), where \u003cem\u003eV\u003c/em\u003e is the solution volume and \u003cem\u003eW\u003c/em\u003e is the weight of the leaves.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLight intensity experiments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eExplants were introduced to culture as described. During the vegetative phase (18/6 h), vessels were divided into two light-intensity treatments: Low (71\u0026plusmn;14 \u0026micro;mol\u0026middot;m\u003csup\u003e-2\u003c/sup\u003es\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e) and High (173\u0026plusmn;20 \u0026micro;mol\u0026middot;m\u003csup\u003e-2\u003c/sup\u003es\u003csup\u003e-1\u003c/sup\u003e), measured at the plant height level. After three weeks, plants from each light treatment were re-cultured in fresh media and placed under a flowering-promoting photoperiod (12/12 h) at the two different light intensities, resulting in a total of four treatments: Low to Low, Low to High, High to Low, and High to High. Light intensity was measured using a LI-180 Spectrometer (LI-COR).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStomata counting analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA silicone impression material (Elite HD+, Zhermack) was used to create molds of abaxial fan leaves. Next, patterns from those molds were taken using nail polish and checked under a light microscope. From each leaf, stomata were counted in three areas (0.15 mm\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e each) along the main vascular bundles (Fig. S8).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePollen germination\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePollen germination was assessed following the protocol of Flaj\u0026scaron;man et al., 2021\u0026nbsp;[48]. The germination medium consisted of\u0026nbsp;170 g/l sucrose, 0.1 g/l H\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003eBO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e, 0.432 g/l Ca(NO\u003csub\u003e3\u003c/sub\u003e)\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003e \u0026lowast;\u0026nbsp;4H\u003csub\u003e2\u003c/sub\u003eO. The pH was adjusted to 7.0, and 0.7% (w/v) plant agar was used as the gelling agent. The medium was sterilized by autoclaving before being poured into Petri dishes. Male flowers were gently tapped to distribute pollen across the plate. Subsequently, the Petri dishes were incubated in the dark at room temperature for 24 hours. Images were taken using a\u0026nbsp;Nikon SMZ-18 stereo zoom microscope (Nikon).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eScanning electron microscopy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eScanning electron microscopy (SEM) was conducted following the method described previously\u0026nbsp;[49]. Briefly, fresh fan leaves from plants grown in tissue culture or growth room were initially fixed in 100% methanol for 10 min. Subsequently, they were rinsed three times for 30 minutes in 100% ethanol, dried using a K850 critical point dryer, and then mounted on stubs. The specimens were further coated with a thin layer (2 nm) of gold-palladium using a Q150T ES (Quorum Technologies Ltd, Lewes, UK) for SEM imaging in a JSM-IT100 SEM (Jeol Ltd, Tokyo, Japan).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eExperimental design and statistical analysis\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe experiment utilized a completely randomized design, with a specified number of replicates, each comprising the average of five explants cultured within a single vessel. The data were analyzed using JMP software (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA). Means comparison was conducted using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with post-hoc Tukey\u0026ndash;Kramer honest significant difference (HSD) test (for multiple comparisons) or Student\u0026rsquo;s t-test (for one comparison) at \u0026alpha; = 0.05 significance level and the data are represented as mean \u0026plusmn; SE.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCompeting Interests\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKB and LEW are listed as inventors on a PCT Patent Application PCT Patent Application No. PCT/IL2022/050007\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLEW, OL, and KB: Conceptualization; LEW and OL: design of the work; OL: conducted the experiments; LEW and OL: Writing Original Draft Preparation; LEW and OL: Writing Review and Editing. All authors read and approved the final manuscript\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRadwan, M.M., et al., \u003cem\u003eCannabinoids, Phenolics, Terpenes and Alkaloids of Cannabis.\u003c/em\u003e Molecules, 2021. \u003cstrong\u003e26\u003c/strong\u003e(9).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFordjour, E., et al., \u003cem\u003eCannabis: a multifaceted plant with endless potentials.\u003c/em\u003e Front Pharmacol, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 1200269.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGrof, C.P.L., \u003cem\u003eCannabis, from plant to pill.\u003c/em\u003e Br J Clin Pharmacol, 2018. \u003cstrong\u003e84\u003c/strong\u003e(11): p. 2463-2467.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCohen, S., et al., \u003cem\u003eNon-Aqueous Isolation and Enrichment of Glandular Capitate Stalked and Sessile Trichomes from Cannabis sativa.\u003c/em\u003e J Vis Exp, 2023(195).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSpitzer-Rimon, B., et al., \u003cem\u003eArchitecture and Florogenesis in Female Cannabis sativa Plants.\u003c/em\u003e Front Plant Sci, 2019. \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 350.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDilena, E., et al., \u003cem\u003eInvestigating how nitrogen nutrition and pruning impacts on CBD and THC concentration and plant biomass of Cannabis sativa.\u003c/em\u003e Sci Rep, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 19533.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHesami, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eCurrent status and future prospects in cannabinoid production through in vitro culture and synthetic biology.\u003c/em\u003e Biotechnol Adv, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e62\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 108074.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEichhorn Bilodeau, S., et al., \u003cem\u003eAn Update on Plant Photobiology and Implications for Cannabis Production.\u003c/em\u003e Front Plant Sci, 2019. \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 296.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWizenberg, S.B., A.E. Weis, and L.G. Campbell, \u003cem\u003eComparing methods for controlled capture and quantification of pollen in Cannabis sativa.\u003c/em\u003e Appl Plant Sci, 2020. \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e(9): p. e11389.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSmall, E., T. Pocock, and P.B. Cavers, \u003cem\u003eThe biology of Canadian weeds. 119. Cannabis sativa L.\u003c/em\u003e Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 2003. \u003cstrong\u003e83\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 217-237.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurthy, K.S.R., et al., \u003cem\u003eIn vitro flowering - A review.\u003c/em\u003e International Journal of Agricultural Technology, 2012. \u003cstrong\u003e8\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 1517-1536.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSkoog, F. and C.O. Miller, \u003cem\u003eChemical regulation of growth and organ formation in plant tissues cultured in vitro.\u003c/em\u003e Symp Soc Exp Biol, 1957. \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 118-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHesami, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eEffect of Explant Source on Phenotypic Changes of In Vitro Grown Cannabis Plantlets over Multiple Subcultures.\u003c/em\u003e Biology (Basel), 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e(3).\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomas, T.D., \u003cem\u003eThe role of activated charcoal in plant tissue culture.\u003c/em\u003e Biotechnol Adv, 2008. \u003cstrong\u003e26\u003c/strong\u003e(6): p. 618-31.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eThomas, T.D., \u003cem\u003eThe role of activated charcoal in plant tissue culture.\u003c/em\u003e Biotechnology Advances, 2008. \u003cstrong\u003e26\u003c/strong\u003e(6): p. 618-631.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGago, J., et al., \u003cem\u003eModeling the effects of light and sucrose on in vitro propagated plants: a multiscale system analysis using artificial intelligence technology.\u003c/em\u003e PLoS One, 2014. \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. e85989.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTapingkae, T., P. Kristiansen, and A. Taji. \u003cem\u003eINFLUENCE OF CARBOHYDRATE SOURCE ON THE IN VITRO FLOWERING OF STURT\u0026apos;S DESERT PEA (SWAINSONA FORMOSA)\u003c/em\u003e. 2009. International Society for Horticultural Science (ISHS), Leuven, Belgium.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHan, Y., H. Yang, and Y. Jiao, \u003cem\u003eRegulation of inflorescence architecture by cytokinins.\u003c/em\u003e Front Plant Sci, 2014. \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 669.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTaylor, N.J., M.E. Light, and J.V. Staden, \u003cem\u003eIn vitro flowering of Kniphofia leucocephala: influence of cytokinins.\u003c/em\u003e Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 2005. \u003cstrong\u003e83\u003c/strong\u003e(3): p. 327-333.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSreelekshmi, R. and E.A. Siril, \u003cem\u003eInvestigation on in vitro bouquets and flower longevity of micropropagated Dianthus chinensis L.\u003c/em\u003e Scientia Horticulturae, 2021. \u003cstrong\u003e275\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 109708.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTee, C.S., M. Maziah, and C.S. Tan, \u003cem\u003eInduction of in vitro flowering in the orchid Dendrobium Sonia 17.\u003c/em\u003e Biologia Plantarum, 2008. \u003cstrong\u003e52\u003c/strong\u003e(4): p. 723-726.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCaracciolo, L., et al., \u003cem\u003eAn open-source controller to build a dynamic light intensity setup.\u003c/em\u003e Plant Methods, 2024. \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 35.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMitache, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eExploring the impact of light intensity under speed breeding conditions on the development and growth of lentil and chickpea.\u003c/em\u003e Plant Methods, 2024. \u003cstrong\u003e20\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSteel, L., et al., \u003cem\u003eComparative genomics of flowering behavior in Cannabis sativa.\u003c/em\u003e Front Plant Sci, 2023. \u003cstrong\u003e14\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 1227898.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBacker, R., et al., \u003cem\u003eClosing the Yield Gap for Cannabis: A Meta-Analysis of Factors Determining Cannabis Yield.\u003c/em\u003e Front Plant Sci, 2019. \u003cstrong\u003e10\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 495.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNaim-Feil, E., et al., \u003cem\u003eEmpirical Evaluation of Inflorescences\u0026apos; Morphological Attributes for Yield Optimization of Medicinal Cannabis Cultivars.\u003c/em\u003e Front Plant Sci, 2022. \u003cstrong\u003e13\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 858519.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKardailsky, I., et al., \u003cem\u003eActivation tagging of the floral inducer FT.\u003c/em\u003e Science, 1999. \u003cstrong\u003e286\u003c/strong\u003e(5446): p. 1962-5.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTurck, F., F. Fornara, and G. Coupland, \u003cem\u003eRegulation and identity of florigen: FLOWERING LOCUS T moves center stage.\u003c/em\u003e Annu Rev Plant Biol, 2008. \u003cstrong\u003e59\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 573-94.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLin, X., et al., \u003cem\u003eMolecular mechanisms for the photoperiodic regulation of flowering in soybean.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, 2021. \u003cstrong\u003e63\u003c/strong\u003e(6): p. 981-994.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eJin, S., et al., \u003cem\u003eEvolution and functional diversification of FLOWERING LOCUS T/TERMINAL FLOWER 1 family genes in plants.\u003c/em\u003e Semin Cell Dev Biol, 2021. \u003cstrong\u003e109\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 20-30.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSong, Y.H., et al., \u003cem\u003ePhotoperiodic flowering: time measurement mechanisms in leaves.\u003c/em\u003e Annu Rev Plant Biol, 2015. \u003cstrong\u003e66\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 441-64.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChen, X., et al., \u003cem\u003eWhole-genome resequencing of wild and cultivated cannabis reveals the genetic structure and adaptive selection of important traits.\u003c/em\u003e BMC Plant Biol, 2022. \u003cstrong\u003e22\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 371.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNguyen, Q.T., Y. Xiao, and T. Kozai, \u003cem\u003eChapter 20 - Photoautotrophic Micropropagation\u003c/em\u003e, in \u003cem\u003ePlant Factory\u003c/em\u003e, T. Kozai, G. Niu, and M. Takagaki, Editors. 2016, Academic Press: San Diego. p. 271-283.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLANGFORD, P.J. and H. WAINWRIGHT, \u003cem\u003eEffects of Sucrose Concentration on the Photosynthetic Ability of Rose Shoots In Vitro.\u003c/em\u003e Annals of Botany, 1987. \u003cstrong\u003e60\u003c/strong\u003e(6): p. 633-640.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSundyreva, M., A. Rebrov, and A. Mishko, \u003cem\u003eInfluence of sucrose concentration in the culture medium on the condition of the photosynthetic apparatus of grapes cultured in vitro.\u003c/em\u003e BIO Web Conf., 2020. \u003cstrong\u003e25\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 04003.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFuentes, G., et al., \u003cem\u003eExogenous sucrose can decrease in vitro photosynthesis but improve field survival and growth of coconut (Cocos nucifera L.) in vitro plantlets.\u003c/em\u003e In Vitro Cellular \u0026amp; Developmental Biology - Plant, 2005. \u003cstrong\u003e41\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 69-76.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eToaima, N., H. Bosila, and A. El-Ateeq, \u003cem\u003eIn vitro growth regulators, gelling agents and sucrose levels affect micropropagation of Gypsophila paniculata L.\u003c/em\u003e Middle East J. Agric. Res, 2016. \u003cstrong\u003e5\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 313-323.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDantas, L.A., et al., \u003cem\u003eThe impact of carbon source on cell growth and the production of bioactive compounds in cell suspensions of Hancornia speciosa Gomes.\u003c/em\u003e Scientific Reports, 2021. \u003cstrong\u003e11\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 24315.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCioć, M., et al., \u003cem\u003eDifferent LED Light Intensities and 6-Benzyladenine Concentrations in Relation to Shoot Development, Leaf Architecture, and Photosynthetic Pigments of Gerbera jamesonii Bolus In Vitro.\u003c/em\u003e Agronomy, 2019. \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e(7): p. 358.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHazarika, B.N., \u003cem\u003eMorpho-physiological disorders in in vitro culture of plants.\u003c/em\u003e Scientia Horticulturae, 2006. \u003cstrong\u003e108\u003c/strong\u003e(2): p. 105-120.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eVacher, C., et al., \u003cem\u003eThe Phyllosphere: Microbial Jungle at the Plant\u0026ndash;Climate Interface.\u003c/em\u003e Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 2016. \u003cstrong\u003e47\u003c/strong\u003e(Volume 47, 2016): p. 1-24.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChaudhry, V., et al., \u003cem\u003eShaping the leaf microbiota: plant\u0026ndash;microbe\u0026ndash;microbe interactions.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of Experimental Botany, 2020. \u003cstrong\u003e72\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 36-56.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYates, I.E. and D.L. Sparks, \u003cem\u003eEnvironmental Regulation of Anther Dehiscence and Pollen Germination in Pecan.\u003c/em\u003e Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 1993. \u003cstrong\u003e118\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 699-706.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeslop-Harrison, J., \u003cem\u003eAN INTERPRETATION OF THE HYDRODYNAMICS OF POLLEN.\u003c/em\u003e American Journal of Botany, 1979. \u003cstrong\u003e66\u003c/strong\u003e(6): p. 737-743.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMurashige, T. and F. Skoog, \u003cem\u003eA Revised Medium for Rapid Growth and Bio Assays with Tobacco Tissue Cultures.\u003c/em\u003e Physiologia Plantarum, 1962. \u003cstrong\u003e15\u003c/strong\u003e(3): p. 473-497.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDriver, J.A. and A.H. Kuniyuki, \u003cem\u003eIn Vitro Propagation of Paradox Walnut Rootstock.\u003c/em\u003e HortScience, 1984. \u003cstrong\u003e19\u003c/strong\u003e(4): p. 507-509.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eArnon, D.I., \u003cem\u003eCOPPER ENZYMES IN ISOLATED CHLOROPLASTS. POLYPHENOLOXIDASE IN BETA VULGARIS.\u003c/em\u003e Plant Physiol, 1949. \u003cstrong\u003e24\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 1-15.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFlaj\u0026scaron;man, M., M. Slapnik, and J. Murovec, \u003cem\u003eProduction of Feminized Seeds of High CBD Cannabis sativa L. by Manipulation of Sex Expression and Its Application to Breeding.\u003c/em\u003e Front Plant Sci, 2021. \u003cstrong\u003e12\u003c/strong\u003e: p. 718092.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTalbot, M.J. and R.G. White, \u003cem\u003eMethanol fixation of plant tissue for Scanning Electron Microscopy improves preservation of tissue morphology and dimensions.\u003c/em\u003e Plant Methods, 2013. \u003cstrong\u003e9\u003c/strong\u003e(1): p. 36.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"plant-methods","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"plme","sideBox":"Learn more about [Plant Methods](http://plantmethods.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13007","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13007/3","title":"Plant Methods","twitterHandle":"@PlantMethods","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"in vitro breeding, in vitro seed production, Cannabis cultivars, in vitro photosynthetic capacity, in vitro anther development","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4669256/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-4669256/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003ch2\u003eBackground\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eCannabis sativa is a versatile medicinal plant known for its therapeutic properties, derived from its diverse array of secondary metabolites synthesized primarily in female flower organs. Breeding cannabis is challenging due to its dioecious nature, strict regulatory requirements, and the need for photoperiod control to trigger flowering, coupled with highly dispersible pollen that can easily contaminate nearby female flowers. This study aimed to develop a protocol for in vitro flowering in cannabis, investigate factors affecting in vitro flower production, and generate viable in vitro seeds, potentially offering a method for producing sterile cannabinoids or advancing breeding techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eResults\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eWe show that the life cycle of cannabis can be fully completed in tissue culture; plantlets readily produce inflorescences and viable seeds in vitro. Our findings highlight the superior performance of DKW medium with 2% sucrose in a filtered vessel and emphasize the need for low light intensity during flower induction to optimize production. The improved performance in filtered vessels suggests that plants conduct photosynthesis in vitro, highlighting the need for future investigations into the effects of forced ventilation to refine this system. All tested lines readily developed inflorescences upon induction, with a 100% occurrence rate, including male flowering. We revealed the non-dehiscent trait of in vitro anthers, which is advantageous as it allows for multiple crosses to be conducted in vitro without concerns about cross-contamination.\u003c/p\u003e\u003ch2\u003eConclusion\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe current work developed and optimized an effective protocol for in vitro flowering and seed production in cannabis, potentially providing a platform for sterile cannabinoid production and an efficient tool for breeding programs. This system allows for the full and consistent control of plant growth conditions year-round, potentially offering the reliable production of sterile molecules suitable for pharmacological use. As a breeding strategy, this method overcomes the complex challenges of breeding cannabis, such as the need for large facilities, by enabling the production of hundreds of lines in a small facility. By offering precise control over factors such as plant growth regulators, light intensity, photoperiod, and temperature, this system also serves as a valuable tool for studying flowering aspects in cannabis.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Optimizing cannabis cultivation: an efficient in vitro system for flowering induction","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-07-29 04:50:58","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-4669256/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":1},{"type":"decision","content":"Revision requested","date":"2024-07-31T22:46:08+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-31T07:59:37+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-31T02:49:06+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-28T13:02:02+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorInvitedReview","content":"","date":"2024-07-26T22:00:35+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"278660439157646647520143896064022589987","date":"2024-07-17T14:15:25+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"193720489496149907974340586447560904835","date":"2024-07-16T02:40:12+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"300584607986177189230484897530574014947","date":"2024-07-08T16:29:52+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"14898235889714733966662177911958710819","date":"2024-07-08T14:20:36+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"233769234362212915847142090629428004811","date":"2024-07-08T02:18:29+00:00","index":"hide","fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2024-07-05T23:33:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2024-07-03T14:28:01+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"checksComplete","content":"","date":"2024-07-03T14:26:04+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Plant Methods","date":"2024-07-01T15:55:05+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"plant-methods","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"plme","sideBox":"Learn more about [Plant Methods](http://plantmethods.biomedcentral.com/)","snPcode":"13007","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/13007/3","title":"Plant Methods","twitterHandle":"@PlantMethods","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"BMC/SO AJ","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"330998bb-fb4c-4286-b642-5113d7d1e343","owner":[],"postedDate":"July 29th, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"published-in-journal","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-09-16T16:01:16+00:00","versionOfRecord":{"articleIdentity":"rs-4669256","link":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-024-01265-5","journal":{"identity":"plant-methods","isVorOnly":false,"title":"Plant Methods"},"publishedOn":"2024-09-12 15:57:22","publishedOnDateReadable":"September 12th, 2024"},"versionCreatedAt":"2024-07-29 04:50:58","video":"","vorDoi":"10.1186/s13007-024-01265-5","vorDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-024-01265-5","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-4669256","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-4669256","identity":"rs-4669256","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}