TABLE 1.
Comparison of past protoplast isolation protocols.
| Species | Source material(s) | Enzyme combinations# | Maximum yield (/g FW) and viability (%) | References |
| Cymbidium | Leaf (in vitro) | 1.2/3.0%C + 0.3/1.2%M + 0.5%P | 5.2 × 104, – | Pindel, 2007 |
| Flower pedicel (in vitro) | 2.7 × 106, – | Pindel, 2007 | ||
| Column (in vitro) | 1.1 × 107, – | Pindel, 2007 | ||
| Leaf | 0.8/3.2%Cly + 0.3/1.2%M + 0.5%P | 4.4 × 104, – | Pindel, 2007 | |
| Root | 0.6 × 104, – | Pindel, 2007 | ||
| Flower petal | 1.20%C + 0.60%M | 3.6 × 107, 94.2 | Ren et al., 2020 | |
| Flower pedicel | 5.3 × 106, 90.3 | This study | ||
| Young leaf | 3.3 × 106, 91.3 | This study | ||
| Leaf base | 2.5 × 107, 92.1 | This study | ||
| Root | 7.8 × 105, 89.3 | This study | ||
| Phalaenopsis | Flower petals | 1.00%C + 0.25%M | 1.9 × 105, 90.9 | Lin et al., 2018b |
| Leaf (in vitro) | 1.00%C + 0.70%M | 5.9 × 106, 57.9 | Li et al., 2018 | |
| Leaf (in vitro) | 2.00%C + 1.00%M | 1.1 × 106, 83.8 | Machmudi et al., 2019 | |
| Leaf base | 1.20%C + 0.60%M | 1.8 × 107, 92.8 | This study | |
| Dendrobium | Leaf (in vitro) | 1.00%C + 0.20%M | 4.0 × 105, 95.6 | Khentry et al., 2006 |
| Leaf (in vitro) | 1.00%C + 0.50%M + 0.10%P | 1.6 × 104, – | Aqeel et al., 2016 | |
| Leaf | 1.20%C + 0.60%M | 8.2 × 106, 91.1 | This study | |
| Maize | Leaf | 0.10%C + 0.01%M | 1.0–5.0 × 106, 95.0 | Cao et al., 2014 |
| Leaf | 1.20%C + 0.60%M | 0.7 × 107, 89.2 | This study | |
| Leaf base | 1.20%C + 0.60%M | 3.2 × 107, 94.3 | This study | |
| Rice | Leaf | 1.50%C + 0.75%M | 1.0 × 107, – | Zhang et al., 2011 |
| Leaf base | 1.20%C + 0.60%M | 4.3 × 107, – | This study | |
| Leaf | No viable protoplast | This study | ||
| Cassava | Leaf (in vitro) | 1.60%C + 0.80%M | 4.4 × 107, 92.6 | Wu et al., 2017 |
| Pineapple | Leaf (in vitro) | 1.50%C + 0.50%M | 6.5 × 105, 51.0 | Priyadarshan et al., 2018 |
| Arabidopsis | Leaf | 1.00%C + 0.25%M | 3.0 × 107, – | Wu et al., 2009 |
| Wheat | Leaf | 1.00%C + 0.25%M | 7.3 × 106, 95.0 | Jia et al., 2016 |
| Populus | Leaf (in vitro) | 2.00%C + 0.50%P | 1.0 × 108, >82.0 | Tan et al., 2013 |
| Leaf | 3.00%C + 0.80%P | 1.0 × 107, >90.0 | Guo et al., 2012 | |
| Grapevine | Leaf (in vitro) | 1.50%C + 0.40%M | 3.3 × 106, 96.0 | Zhao et al., 2016 |
| Cell suspension | 2.00%C + 1.00%M | 3.0-4.0 × 107, >95.0 | Wang et al., 2015 | |
| Chinese kale | Leaf | 2.00%C+0.10%P | 6.0 × 107, 95.0 | Sun et al., 2018 |
| Cucumber | Leaf (in vitro) | 1.50%C + 0.40%M | 6.0-7.0 × 106, 90.0 | Huang et al., 2013 |
| Liriodendron | Leaf (in vitro) | 1.50%C + 0.50%M + 0.10%P | 1.2 × 107, 97.0 | Huo et al., 2017 |
| Sweet cherry | Cell suspension | 1.00%C + 0.50%P | 4.3 × 106, 84.1 | Yao et al., 2016 |
| Medicago | Legumes root | 1.50%C + 2.00%M | 1.0 × 106, >90.0 | Jia et al., 2018 |
| Phaseolus vulgaris | Leaf | 1.50%C + 0.37%M | 3.0 × 105, – | Nanjareddy et al., 2016 |
| Flower petals | 1.50%C + 0.37%M + 30UP | 2.0 × 105, – | ||
| Hypocotyl and root | 2.00%C + 0.30%M + 4.00%H | 2.0 × 105, – | ||
| Nodule | 1.00%C + 0.30%M + 4.00%H | 1.0 × 105, – | ||
| Rubber tree | Leaf | 1.50%C + 0.30%M | 18.6 × 107, 97% | Zhang et al., 2016b |
| Switchgrass | Cell suspension | 6.00%C + 1.00%M + 1.00%D + 0.50%P | 8.4 × 105, – | Mazarei et al., 2008 |
| Pepper | Leaf (in vitro) | 1.20%C + 0.30%M | 1.5 × 106 – 2.5 × 108,− | Jeon et al., 2007 |
#C, cellulase R-10; M, macerozyme R-10; P, pectinase; Cly, cellulysin; D, driselase; H, hemicellulose.