Review

Genetic diversity and utilization of ginger (Zingiber officinale) for varietal improvement: A review

  • Received: 17 October 2023 Revised: 09 January 2024 Accepted: 09 January 2024 Published: 29 January 2024
  • Ginger is widely cultivated globally and considered the third most important spice crop due to its medicinal properties. It is cultivated for its therapeutic potential in treating different medical conditions and has been extensively researched for its pharmacological and biochemical properties. Despite its significant value, the potential for genetic improvement and sustainable cultivation has been largely ignored compared to other crop species. Similarly, ginger cultivation is affected by various biotic stresses such as viral, bacterial, and fungal infections, leading to a significant reduction in its potential yields. Several techniques, such as micropropagation, germplasm conservation, mutation breeding, and transgenic have been extensively researched in enhancing sustainable ginger production. These techniques have been utilized to enhance the quality of ginger, primarily due to its vegetative propagation mode. However, the ginger breeding program has encountered challenges due to the limited genetic diversity. In the selection process, it is imperative to have a broad range of genetic variations to allow for an efficient search for the most effective plant types. Despite a decline in the prominence of traditional mutation breeding, induced mutations remain extremely important, aided by a range of biotechnological tools. The utilization of in vitro culture techniques serves as a viable alternative for the propagation of plants and as a mechanism for enhancing varietal improvement. This review synthesizes knowledge on limitations to ginger cultivation, conservation, utilization of cultivated ginger, and the prospects for varietal improvement.

    Citation: Yusuff Oladosu, Mohd Y Rafii, Fatai Arolu, Suganya Murugesu, Samuel Chibuike Chukwu, Monsuru Adekunle Salisu, Ifeoluwa Kayode Fagbohun, Taoheed Kolawole Muftaudeen, Asma Ilyani Kadar. Genetic diversity and utilization of ginger (Zingiber officinale) for varietal improvement: A review[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2024, 9(1): 183-208. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2024011

    Related Papers:

    [1] Erivelton Fernandes França, Michel Monteiro Macedo, Fernando Francisco Pazello Mafra, Gabrielle Mitico Miyake, Romildo Torres da Silva, Tania Regina de França, Thyago Ribeiro dos Santos, João Pedro da Silva Junior, Victor Keihan Rodrigues Matsudo, Nelson Morini Junior, Eduardo Natali Della Valentina, Fábio Dupart Nascimento, Rodrigo Álvaro Brandão Lopes Martins . Back pain in elementary schoolchildren is related to screen habits. AIMS Public Health, 2020, 7(3): 562-573. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2020045
    [2] Mattia Fortina, Aurelio Vittoria, Stefano Giannotti, Pasquale Biandolino, Gabriele Cevenini, Serafino Carta . Short time effects of a low-frequency, high intensity magnetic field in the treatment of chronic neck and low back pain. AIMS Public Health, 2022, 9(2): 307-315. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2022021
    [3] Thuy Thi Thu Tran, Chinh Thi Thuy Phan, Tuan Cong Pham, Quynh Thuy Nguyen . After-shift Musculoskeletal Disorder Symptoms in Female Workers and Work-related Factors: A Cross-sectional Study in a Seafood Processing Factory in Vietnam. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(4): 733-749. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.4.733
    [4] Salimah H. Meghani, Eeeseung Byun, Jesse Chittams . Conducting Research with Vulnerable Populations: Cautions and Considerations in Interpreting Outliers in Disparities Research. AIMS Public Health, 2014, 1(1): 25-32. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2014.1.25
    [5] Jesús Álvarez-Herms, Adriana González, Francisco Corbi, Iñaki Odriozola, Adrian Odriozola . Possible relationship between the gut leaky syndrome and musculoskeletal injuries: the important role of gut microbiota as indirect modulator. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(3): 710-738. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023049
    [6] Kaja Kastelic, Nejc Šarabon, Michael D. Burnard, Dean Lipovac, Željko Pedišić . Association of meeting 24-hour movement guidelines with low back pain among adults. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(4): 964-979. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023062
    [7] Jing Wu, Eleonora Dal Grande, Helen Winefield, Danny Broderick, Rhiannon Pilkington, Tiffany K Gill, Anne W Taylor . Parent-reported Mental Health Problems and Mental Health Services Use in South Australian School-aged Children. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(4): 750-768. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.4.750
    [8] Bronwyn Sudholz, Anna Timperio, Nicola D. Ridgers, David W. Dunstan, Rick Baldock, Bernie Holland, Jo Salmon . The Impact and Feasibility of Introducing Height-Adjustable Desks on Adolescents’ Sitting in a Secondary School Classroom. AIMS Public Health, 2016, 3(2): 274-287. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2016.2.274
    [9] Anastasia Stathopoulou, Georgios F. Fragkiadakis . Assessment of psychological distress and quality of life of family caregivers caring for patients with chronic diseases at home. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(2): 456-468. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023032
    [10] Kanya Godde . The Use of Informative Priors in Bayesian Modeling Age-at-death; a Quick Look at Chronological and Biological Age Changes in the Sacroiliac Joint in American Males. AIMS Public Health, 2017, 4(3): 278-288. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2017.3.278
  • Ginger is widely cultivated globally and considered the third most important spice crop due to its medicinal properties. It is cultivated for its therapeutic potential in treating different medical conditions and has been extensively researched for its pharmacological and biochemical properties. Despite its significant value, the potential for genetic improvement and sustainable cultivation has been largely ignored compared to other crop species. Similarly, ginger cultivation is affected by various biotic stresses such as viral, bacterial, and fungal infections, leading to a significant reduction in its potential yields. Several techniques, such as micropropagation, germplasm conservation, mutation breeding, and transgenic have been extensively researched in enhancing sustainable ginger production. These techniques have been utilized to enhance the quality of ginger, primarily due to its vegetative propagation mode. However, the ginger breeding program has encountered challenges due to the limited genetic diversity. In the selection process, it is imperative to have a broad range of genetic variations to allow for an efficient search for the most effective plant types. Despite a decline in the prominence of traditional mutation breeding, induced mutations remain extremely important, aided by a range of biotechnological tools. The utilization of in vitro culture techniques serves as a viable alternative for the propagation of plants and as a mechanism for enhancing varietal improvement. This review synthesizes knowledge on limitations to ginger cultivation, conservation, utilization of cultivated ginger, and the prospects for varietal improvement.



    Spinal pain has been a global public health problem for decades [1]. Depending on the segment of the spine in which the pain appears, spinal pain is divided into neck pain (NP), thoracic pain (TP) and low back pain (LBP). NP is defined as the pain localized in the anatomic region of the neck (from the superior nuchal line to the spine of the scapula, from the external occipital protuberance to the superior border clavicle and the suprasternal notch), with or without pain radiating to the head, trunk and upper limb (s). TP is defined as spinal pain with localization from the cervical–thoracic hinge (C7–T1) to the thoracic–lumbar junction (T12–L1). LBP is defined as pain, muscle tension and restricted mobility, typically between lower rib margins and inferior gluteal folds, with or without radiating pain to one or both legs [2][4]. LBP and NP are the more common spinal pains and the leading causes of population disability, regardless of sex and age [1],[5]. TP has been less studied, although this type of spinal pain is equally disabling and burdensome for the individual, community and work environment [6],[7]. Regardless of spinal pain type, the symptoms, etiology and consequences are generally the same. Potential risk factors that are associated with spinal pain are demographic, hereditary, lifestyle and occupational factors [8][10].

    Global epidemiological studies have reported that point-prevalence for LBP ranged from 1.0% to 58.1%, for NP ranged from 0 to 41.5% and for TP ranged from 4.0% to 72.0% [6],[11],[12]. In 19 European countries, the estimated one-year prevalence of LBP/NP ranged from 16.08 to 54.05% [13]. However, it was pointed out that the exact prevalence of spinal pain is difficult to determine due to the heterogeneity of the study methods, various definitions of spinal pain and data collection methods used by researchers [11],[12]. Moreover, several studies reported that many countries and regions lack data on population-based prevalence, risk factors and burden estimates for all three types of spinal pain [1],[5],[7]. The lack of prevalence data is particularly pronounced for the countries of the former Balkans, the geographical location of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) [14]. Moreover, BiH was not included in the spinal pain prevalence European study, and we were unable to find such data in the published literature [13].

    Determining the exact prevalence of LBP and other types of spinal pain is important for many reasons for experts in this field. Pain prevalence studies enable the assessment of burden and are important for developing effective public health policies, as well as changing existing public health policies. Prevalence data may foster health experts in this field and research aimed at improving diagnosis and treatments. Additionally, knowledge of the exact disease prevalence can lead to changes in curricula for educating medical experts such as physiotherapists and nurses in terms of providing more study hours for the most prevalent conditions in this profession [15]. This study aimed to determine the prevalence and risk factors for spinal pain in BiH among the general population via an online questionnaire.

    This was a cross-sectional observational web-based survey. The design of the study was based on previous studies [16],[17]. An online survey using Google Forms (https://docs.google.com/forms/u/0/) was created and sent by multiple channels to contacts and groups of various organizations located across BiH (both health and non-health organizations). The invitation to participate in the study was published two weeks before the start of the study via the social networks Facebook, email, WhatsApp and Viber; the same call with a link to the survey questionnaire was repeated at the beginning of the study.

    We used a non-probabilistic sample stratified based on the geopolitical regions of BIH and demographic characteristics. The data were collected in November and December 2018, and the study was completed in January 2019.

    The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Health Studies, University of Mostar, Mostar, BIH (approval number: 01-994/18 from October 19, 2018). In the introductory part of the questionnaire and the cover letter, the participants were informed about the study, their rights and that the completion of the survey will be considered their informed consent.

    Inclusion criteria were as follows: residents of BIH, aged ≥16 years of both sexes, having an email, Facebook, WhatsApp or Viber account for survey receipt.

    Exclusion criteria were as follows: age ≤15 years, persons not residing in BIH (if participants did not provide information about BIH canton of residence, they were excluded), missing data (we excluded participants with more than half missing answers in the questionnaire), discrepant data on the presence of spinal pain (in one part of the questionnaire the participants indicated that they had spinal pain, and in the other part of the questionnaire that they did not have it) and duplicates (multiple submissions with identical time zone data and personal data of participants).

    For the study, we designed a questionnaire based on a literature review [16],[18]. Pilot testing of the questionnaire for understanding, clarity and relevance was conducted before the start of the survey. It consisted of 29 questions about demographic characteristics and spinal pain. A detailed description and the full version of the questionnaire are in Appendix 1. To avoid recall bias, we asked participants about their present pain and its duration. The point prevalence was measured.

    Potential participants received a personal message (cover letter) with a written invitation about the study and a link to the study. Details are described in Appendix 1. Only the principal investigator (AH) had access to the stored data (Appendix 1).

    The sample size was determined by using computer software. According to the latest census data about the population in BIH from 2013, BIH had 2,987,440 inhabitants over 14 years of age in BIH. Based on the 95% confidence level, the population proportion of 50% and absolute precision of 5%, it was determined that 385 participants were needed. Assuming that the difference in the established prevalence between persons with spinal pain and those who do not have spinal pain is 10%, with an alpha value of 0.05%, a beta value of 0.2% and the power of study of 0.8, we calculated that a total of 782 participants were needed. However, to satisfy the study criteria, the representation of participants by geographical and demographic strata, and to improve the quality of the study, we decided to increase the sample size to meet as closely as possible the percentage of the BIH population according to the data of the 2013 Census.

    Sample weighting was performed before the start of data analysis by the variables of region, sex and age group. Study weight was ensured by stratification of participants based on geopolitical regions of BiH and demographic characteristics (sex, age). The required percentages for the specified variables were calculated by data from the 2013 BIH Census. The determined frequencies were converted into percentages; based on them, sample balancing was performed. Analyses of the results were performed through weighted and unweighted estimates, and due to the absence of significant differences, they were presented without weighted variables. The normality of the data distribution was tested by visual inspection of the histogram. Descriptive categorical variables were presented as frequencies and percentages, and quantitative variables were presented as mean and standard deviation. The significance of the difference between the categorical variables was analyzed by the Chi-square test. Quantitative variables' differences between the two groups were tested by the Independent Student t-test, and differences between the three groups were tested by one-way ANOVA. The association of factors with the presence of spinal pain was conducted by logistic regression through bivariate and multivariate analysis. Multivariate analysis was conducted through three models: Model I consisted of demographic and occupation factors; Model II consisted of demographic, occupational and hereditary factors; and Model III consisted of demographic, occupational, hereditary and behavioral factors. The significance of the differences in the regression analyses was tested by Wald's Chi-square test, and the results were presented as the prevalence ratio and 95% confidence interval of the prevalence ratio. The statistical significance was p < 0.05 in all analyses. Statistical software IBM SPSS Statistics 23 (Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.) was used for data analysis.

    The total number of sent invitations was 1682 (email n = 705, text messages n = 774, Facebook n = 203), and the total number of collected responses was 1048. From 1048 study responses, we excluded 3% of surveys (n = 31) due to inadequate age (n = 10), missing data (n = 7), false responses (n = 3), discrepant data (n = 5) and duplicates (n = 6).

    The final analysis included 1017 participants, of both sexes, aged from 16–78 years. The majority of participants were women (57%), aged 30–50 years, with a high-school education. Detailed socio-demographic characteristics of the participants are shown in Table 1.

    Table 1.  Socio-demographic characteristics of the surveyed population of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
    Variables Men
    (N = 434)
    Women
    (N = 583)
    Total
    (N = 1017)
    Age 45.6 (15.0) 38.1 (11.4) 41.3 (13.5)
    Age group
    16–29 years 62 (14.3) 142 (24.4) 204 (20.1)
    30–50 years 196 (45.2) 358 (61.4) 554 (54.5)
    ≥51years 176 (40.6) 83 (14.2) 259 (25.5)
    Height 182.6 (6.1) 170.4 (5.8) 175.6 (8.5)
    Weight 90.1 (12.7) 70.0 (11.2) 78.6 (15.5)
    BMI 27.0 (3.4) 24.1 (3.7) 25.3 (3.9)
    BMI classification
    Underweight - (-) 12 (2.1) 12 (1.2)
    Normal range 134 (30.9) 378 (64.8) 512 (50.3)
    Overweight 216 (49.8) 149 (25.6) 365 (35.9)
    Obese class I 84 (19.3) 44 (7.5) 128 (12.6)
    Obese class II - (-) - (-) - (-)
    Obese class III - (-) - (-) - (-)
    Educational level
    Students 10 (2.3) 29 (5) 39 (3.8)
    Elementary school 1 (0.2) 3 (0.5) 4 (0.4)
    High school 218 (50.2) 310 (53.2) 528 (51.)
    College 205 (47.2) 241 (41.3) 446 (43.9)
    Employment status (N = 978)
    Employed 356 (36.3) 486 (49.6) 842 (85.9)
    Unemployed 19 (2) 54 (5.5) 71 (7.5)
    Retired 51 (5.1) 14 (1.5) 65 (6.6)

    *Note: BMI: Body mass index; †mean (standard deviation); n (%); ‡ Without students.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    A comparison of the sample with the BiH population based on the 2013 BiH Census demonstrated that they were similar (data not shown) for sex and regional residence. Age was also similar, although the 30 to 50 age group was slightly overrepresented, and the ≥51 age group was slightly underrepresented in the sample.

    The presence of global spinal pain was reported by 721 participants (70.9%): 440 (75.5%) women and 281 (64.7%) men (Table 2). Of the total number of reported spinal pain, 484 (67.1%) participants had LBP, 169 (23.4%) participants had NP, and 68 (9.4%) participants had TP. Women reported more NP and TP, and men reported more LBP. The prevalence of spinal pain, depending on the anatomical location, is shown in Figure 1.

    Table 2.  Point prevalence of spinal pain in surveyed population in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
    Variables Total
    N = 1017
    Spinal pain
    N = 721
    N (%)
    PR
    (95% CI of PR)
    Sex Men 434 281 (64.7) 1
    Women 583 440 (75.5) 1.67 (1.27–2.20)*
    Age 16–29 204 123 (60.3) 1
    30–50 554 423 (76.4) 2.13 (1.51–3.0)*
    ≥51 259 175 (67.6) 1.37 (0.94–2.01)
    BMI Underweight 12 4 (33.3) 1
    Normal range 512 355 (69.3) 4.52 (1.34–15.24)***
    Overweight 365 271 (74.2) 5.77 (1.70–19.6)**
    Obese class I 128 91 (71.1) 4.92 (1.40–17.3)***
    Education Student 39 22 (56.4) 1
    Elementary school 4 4 (100) - (-)
    High school 532 396 (74.4) 2.23 (1.15–4.32)***
    College 446 303 (67.9) 1.64 (0.84–3.18)
    Work Student 39 38 (97.4) - (-)
    Unemployed 71 34 (47.9) 1
    Employed 842 605 (71.9) 2.78 (1.70–4.53)*
    Retired 65 44 (67.7) 2.28 (1.14–4.58)***
    Type of work (N=844) Sedentary 553 395 (71.4) 1
    Physical 291 228 (78.4) 1.45 (1.04–2.02)***
    Hereditary (SP in parents) No 444 287 (64.6) 1
    Yes 573 434 (75.7) 1.71 (1.30–2.24)*
    Smoking No 712 491 (69) 1
    Yes 305 230 (75.4) 1.38 (1.02–1.87)***
    Physical activity (PA) No 299 210 (70.2) 1
    Yes 718 511 (71.2) 1.05 (0.78–1.41)
    Frequency of PA (day/week) (N = 718) 1–2 217 146 (67.3) 1
    3–4 191 123 (64.4) 0.88 (0.58–1.51)
    5–6 117 77 (65.8) 0.94 (0.52–1.51)
    Irregular 193 165 (85.5) 2.87 (1.75–4.68)*
    TV (Hours/day) 1–2 632 429 (67.9) 1
    2–3 297 226 (76.1) 1.51 (1.10–2.06)***
    4–5 88 292 (75.8) 1.42 (0.85–2.37)
    Computer/Mobile phone (Hours/day) 1–2 333 252 (75.7) 1
    3–4 273 189 (69.2) 0.72 (0.50–1.03)
    5–6 411 280 (68.1) 0.69 (0.50–0.95)***

    *Note: PR (95% CI): Prevalence ratio (95% confidence interval of prevalence ratio); BMI: Body mass index; *Statistical significance p < 0.001; **Statistical significance p < 0.01; ***Statistical significance p < 0.05; Excluded from analysis.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 1.  Prevalence of spinal pain with regard to anatomic locations by sex and age group in the surveyed population of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    In bivariate regression, significant associations with the presence of spinal pain were found for the following groups: women, aged 30 to 50 years, with high school education, employed and retired persons, physical work, smoking, irregular physical activity, watching TV 2 to 3 hours per day and use of a computer or cell phone 5 to 6 hours on a day. Likewise, the bivariate analysis found a statistically significant difference between normal and elevated body mass index, but due to the excessive range of the confidence interval, this result is questionable. No statistically significant difference was found in the repeated analysis without underweight body mass index (Table 2). Multivariate analysis confirmed statistically significant associations with the presence of spinal pain for the following groups: women, aged 30 to 50 years, employed and retired persons, spinal pain in parents and irregular physical activity (Table 3).

    The average intensity of current spinal pain on a scale from 0 to 10 was 5, without difference by sex, but a significant difference was found in the pain intensity score in different age groups (F (2) = 4.562; p = 0.011). Characteristics of spinal pain by sex are shown in Table 4. The mean pain intensity in the age group from 16 to 29 years was 4.6 (SD 2.0), in the age group from 30 to 50 years was 5.2 (SD 1.8) and in the age group ≥51 years was 5.2 (SD 1.2). More than half of the participants in the age group 30 to 50 years, as well as 51 years, reported moderate pain intensity (53.2% vs. 53.1%), while participants in the age group 16 to 29 years reported a higher percentage of mild pain (47.4%) (Figure 2).

    Table 3.  Multivariate analysis for the independent demographics, occupational, hereditary and behavioral factors associated in bivariate analysis (p < 0.02) with spinal pain in a surveyed population of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
    Variables Model I
    PR (95% CI)
    Model II
    PR (95% CI)
    Model III
    PR (95% CI)
    Sex
    Men 1 1 1
    Women 1.64 (1.21–2.21)** 1.60 (1.18–2.16)** 1.32 (0.89–1.96)
    Age
    16–29 1 1 1
    30–50 2.01 (1.36–2.99)* 2.17 (1.45–3.25)* 2.39 (1.45–3.92)**
    ≥51 1.45 (0.90–2.33) 1.70 (1.04–2.78)c 1.18 (0.98–1.44)
    Education
    Students 1 1 1
    High school 1.54 (0.74–3.20) 1.62 (0.78–3.39) 1.48 (0.62–3.52)
    College 1.08 (0.51–2.83) 1.09 (0.51–2.33) 0.99 (0.41–2.43)
    Employment status
    Unemployed 1 1 1
    Employed 2.85 (1.71–4.75)* 3.15 (1.87–5.31)* 3.53 (1.84–6.76)*
    Retired 2.91 (1.32–6.42)** 2.98 (1.34–6.65)** 1.60 (1.09–2.35)***
    Spinal pain in parents
    No 1 1
    Yes 1.86 (1.39–2.49)* 1.71 (1.19–2.45)**
    Frequency of physical activity
    1–2 days/week 1
    3–4 day/week 1.04 (0.67–1.61)
    5–6 days/week 1.19 (0.70–2.02)
    Irregular 2.88 (1.70–4.87)*
    Time watching TV
    1–2 hours/day 1
    3–4 hours/day 1.48 (0.99–2.23)
    4–5 hours/day 2.01 (0.92–4.38)

    *Note: PR: Prevalence ratio; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval; *Statistical significance p < 0.001; **Statistical significance p < 0.01; ***Statistical significance p < 0.05.

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 2.  Distribution of pain intensity expressed with visual analog scale (VAS) by age group in the surveyed population of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

    The mean pain intensity in participants who reported LBP and NP was 5.1 (SD 1.8 vs. 1.9), and in TP it was 4.8 (SD 1.5). The presence of pain up to 6 weeks was reported by 78 (46.2%) participants with NP, 36 (52.9%) with TP and 194 (40.1%) participants with LBP. Pain present for more than 12 weeks was reported by 74 (43.8%) participants with NP, 30 (44.1%) participants with TP and 257 (53.1%) participants with LBP.

    Diagnosed changes in the spine were confirmed by 40% of the participants; women had such a diagnosis more commonly than men (44% vs. 34%; p < 0.05). About 54% of participants sought the help of health professionals to relieve spinal pain; most commonly, they visited physiotherapists (52%). Medication use for the alleviation of spinal pain was confirmed by 34% of participants (Table 4).

    Knowledge of good posture during various daily activities and its importance in the prevention and treatment of spinal pain was reported by 71% of participants; men's affirmative answers were significantly higher than women's (77% vs. 66%). However, the use of good posture in everyday life was reported by only 25% of the participants (Table 4).

    Men were significantly longer on sick leave because of spinal pain compared to women (p < 0.001); absence from work or school for 3 ≥ days was confirmed by 72% of men, and 54% of women confirmed absence from work or school lasting from 1 to 2 days (Table 4).

    Table 4.  Characteristics and consequences of the presence of spinal pain by sex among a surveyed population of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
    Variables Total
    (N = 721)
    N (%)
    Men
    (N = 281)
    N (%)
    Women
    (N = 440)
    N (%)
    p
    Pain intensity (0–10 cm) 5.1 (1.8) 4.9 (1.7) 5.2 (1.8) 0.066
    Mild (2–4) 272 (38.2) 118 (42.6) 154 (35.4)
    Moderate (5–7) 366 (51.4) 136 (49.1) 230 (52.9) 0.097
    Strong (8–10) 74 (10.4) 23 (8.3) 51 (11.7)
    Duration of pain
    Up to 6 weeks 308 (42.5) 127 (45.2) 181 (41.1)
    6–12 weeks 52 (7.2) 23 (8.2) 29 (6.6) 0.307
    ≥12 weeks 361 (49.8) 131 (46.6) 230 (52.3)
    Localization of pain
    Stays in the region back 521 (72.3) 203(72.2) 318 (72.3) 0.993
    Spreads down the limbs 200 (27.7) 78(27.8) 122 (27.7)
    Frequency of pain
    Daily 268 (37.1) 82 (29.2) 186 (42.3)
    Once a week 104 (14.4) 42 (14.9) 62 (14.1) 0.001
    Once a month 73 (10.1) 27 (9.6) 46 (10.5)
    After severe activity 276 (38.3) 130 (46.3) 146 (33.2)
    Diagnostic (Herniated IVD) 289 (40.1) 96 (34.2) 193 (43.9) 0.010
    Medical help 387 (53.7) 144 (51.2) 243 (55.2) 0.296
    Type of medical help
    Family medicine 47 (12.1) 12 (8.3) 35 (14.3) 0.126
    Neurologist/Neurosurgeon 122 (31.4) 54 (37.5) 68 (27.9)
    Physiotherapy 203 (52.3) 73 (50.7) 130 (53.3)
    Someone else 16 (4.1) 5 (3.5) 11 (4.5)
    Medication use 247 (34.3) 86 (30.6) 161 (36.6) 0.099
    Medication frequency
    Daily 50 (20.2) 13 (15.1) 37 (23)
    Once a week 53 (21.5) 14 (16.3) 39 (24.2) 0.084
    Once a month 40 (16.2) 14 (16.3) 26 (16.1)
    Rarely 104 (42.1) 45 (52.3) 59 (36.6)
    Knowledge of proper posture* (YES) 508 (70.5) 216 (76.9) 292 (66.4) 0.003
    Use of proper posture (YES) 183 (25.4) 97 (34.5) 86 (19.5) <0.001
    Absence from work/school 246 (34.1) 95 (33.5) 151 (34.6) 0.760
    Frequency of absence
    1–2 day 110 (44) 26 (28) 84 (53.5)
    3–4 day 47 (18.8) 18 (19.4) 29 (18.5) <0.001
    5–7 day 26 (10.4) 14 (15.1) 12 (7.6)
    More than a week 67 (26.8) 35 (37.6) 32 (20.4)

    *Note: IVD: Intervertebral disk; Mean (standard deviation); Chi-Square test; Independent student t-test; *Proper posture in daily activities (standing, walking, sitting, lifting and walking).

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The overall prevalence of spinal pain in the surveyed population of Bosnia and Herzegovina at the end of the year 2018, in a sample of the population aged 16–78 years, was 70.9%. LBP was the most common, with a prevalence of 67.2%, followed by NP (23.4%) and TP (9.4%). Women had a larger prevalence of NP and TP compared to men, while men had a larger prevalence of LBP (80.8% versus 58.4%). The largest prevalence of NP was found in participants aged 30 and 50 years, and LBP in those aged ≥51 years, while the prevalence of TP was found to be the same at age 50 and slightly lower at age ≥51 but with no statistical significance.

    A systematic review from 2019 (Fatoye and colleagues; n = 13 studies) reported that real-world prevalence for LBP ranged from 1.4% to 20.0%. However, these data were determined based on studies from different regions/countries, which are geographically sufficiently distant from our region [19]. In our study, the determined point-prevalence for NP and TP is in line with the estimated ranges of global point prevalence, while the determined point-prevalence for LBP is higher than the global point-prevalence range [6],[11],[12]. The high prevalence of LBP and NP among our population is congruent with the results of a study published in 2019, which processed data on pain syndromes from several European countries, geographically closer to our country [13].

    A lower incidence of TP compared to other spinal pain was also found in a study by Fouquet et al., which was published in 2015 and conducted in France between 2002 and 2005 among 3710 workers aged 20 to 59 years, as well as a higher susceptibility of women to TP [3]. In a systematic review by Briggs et al., which was published in 2009 and included 33 studies, the authors reported that the established prevalence point for TP ranges from 4–72% and that the higher prevalence of TP was found in childhood and adolescence, and especially in women [6]. These results are consistent with the findings of our study regarding the established prevalence and higher prevalence in women, except for the difference in prevalence based on age group, because we did not find differences in the prevalence of TP across age groups. However, in our study, we did not include participants younger than 16 years.

    Sex at the risk factor associated with spinal pain in our study is in line with the evidence of previously published studies [8],[10][12]. In our study, women were more susceptible to NP and TP, and men to LBP. A systematic review published in 2012 reported that the average prevalence of LBP in one year was 37%, the highest in middle age and more common in women. The median overall prevalence of LBP was higher among women in all age groups; women had a significantly higher point and a one-month prevalence, while in the one-year and lifetime prevalence, there was no significant difference between the sexes [20]. On the other hand, the systematic review by Fatoye et al., which was published in 2019, reported that the male sex had a significant association with LBP compared with women [19]. The 2010 Global Report also reports greater susceptibility of men to LBP compared to women [21]. Therefore, it appears that the research literature is still ambivalent regarding the susceptibility of LBP between sexes.

    In a cross-sectional study conducted in Spain between June 2006 to June 2007, which included 29,478 individuals aged ≥16, a higher prevalence of NP and LBP was found in women compared to men; the prevalence of NP was higher in individuals aged 51–70 years, and LBP in those aged >70 years [22]. The findings of that Spanish study were partially consistent with those of our study. Our findings on the association of women with the onset of NP, as well as the peak of NP prevalence in middle age, were also reported by other studies [23],[24].

    In addition to sex, significant associations with spinal pain in our study were identified for occupational factors, hereditary factors, irregular physical activity, watching TV ≥3 hours per day and using a computer or mobile phone ≥5 hours per day. The hereditary factor we studied, the presence of spinal pain in participants' parents, was significantly associated with the presence of spinal pain in participants and the anatomic location of the pain. LBP and TP were more prevalent in participants with this hereditary factor present, whereas NP was more prevalent in participants without this specific hereditary factor.

    According to a global study about occupational factors, published in 2005, 37% of LBP in the world is a result of the work environment as a risk factor, with a higher percentage in countries with lower health status [25]. NP was more common in participants with office (sedentary) jobs, and LBP in those with physical jobs [11]. In our study, there was no difference in the occurrences of NP, TP and LBP concerning the type of work, sedentary or physical, but employed persons and retired participants had a statistically significant risk of spinal pain compared to unemployed people. Considering the anatomical location of spinal pain, it is noticeable that employed persons had a higher prevalence of NP, compared to unemployed and retired people, while retired persons had a higher prevalence of LBP compared to employed and unemployed persons. In this study we did not study the type of occupation, so we could not stratify results based on different types of working environment.

    Insufficient or excessive physical activity may be an important factor for functional spinal pain, especially in the growing period [26]. We found that all types of spinal pain together had a significant association with irregular physical activity but not with physical inactivity. Irregular physical activity was not a significant factor for NP, TP and LBP when this association was analyzed for these conditions individually.

    This study had several limitations. We analyzed point prevalence and not lifetime prevalence, which is not necessarily comparable to other studies analyzing prevalence of spinal pain. The difficulty in comparing estimated prevalence due to research heterogeneity is a global problem because there is no uniform research methodology for such studies [11],[12]. We used online data collection as the simplest and most economically acceptable way to collect data. The limitation of this methodology may be reduced representativeness of the sample, as online data collection excludes access to individuals without internet access and potentially older individuals. However, to mitigate these issues as much as possible, we used a design weighted based on the number of inhabitants in the regions of BiH and their demographic characteristics (sex and age group). Moreover, a systematic review from 2016 reported similar representativeness of samples recruited on Facebook and known traditional methods [17].

    Despite limitations, we believe that our study is an important contribution due to reported lack of data on the prevalence of spinal pain syndrome in our geographical region [14]. We were unable to find any spinal pain prevalence data in BiH, so this could be the first study on this topic in BiH and may serve as a comparison for future spinal pain prevalence studies that will be conducted in BiH. Moreover, this study can serve as a “wake-up call” and the beginning of changes in health policy and health approaches in our country, which need to be in line with scientific recommendations for painful conditions [27][30].

    Future research in this area should aim to homogenize ways of determining the prevalence of spinal pain syndrome and associated risk factors, to enable comparison of data between different studies on pain prevalence. The problem of data heterogeneity in epidemiological research has been a problem for decades, which requires a global consensus about methodology recommendations, validated questionnaires and preferred statistical processing and interpretation of data.

    To our knowledge, this is the first study of prevalence of spinal pain in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The prevalence of spinal pain in the surveyed adult BiH population in 2018 was very high. Demographic factors associated with spinal pain were sex and age 30 to 50 years. Behavioral factors associated with spinal pain include work status, irregular physical activity and length of watching TV per day. Some of the factors associated with spinal pain are modifiable, and therefore interventions for their elimination should be considered as a public health measure.



    [1] Kizhakkayil J, Sasikumar B (2011) Diversity, characterization and utilization of ginger: A review. Plant Genet Resour 9: 464–477. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1479262111000670 doi: 10.1017/S1479262111000670
    [2] Ravindran PN, Nirmal Babu K, Shiva KN (2005) Botany and crop improvement of ginger. In: Ravindran PN, Nirmal Babu K (Eds.), Ginger: The Genus Zingiber, CRC Press, New York, 15–85. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420023367
    [3] Kiyama R (2020) Nutritional implications of ginger: Chemistry, biological activities and signaling pathways. J Nutr Biochem 86: 108486. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2020.108486 doi: 10.1016/j.jnutbio.2020.108486
    [4] FAOSTAT Database Collections (2024) Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. Available from: http://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#data/QC.
    [5] Nair KP (2019) Production, marketing, and economics of ginger. In: Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) and Ginger (Rosc.)—World's Invaluable Medicinal Spices: The Agronomy and Economy of Turmeric and Ginger, 493–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-29189-1_24
    [6] Padulosi S, Leaman D, Quek P (2002) Challenges and opportunities in enhancing the conservation and use of medicinal and aromatic plants. J Herbs, Spices Med Plants 9: 243–267. https://doi.org/10.1300/J044v09n04_01 doi: 10.1300/J044v09n04_01
    [7] Shao X, Lishuang L, Tiffany P, et al. (2010) Quantitative analysis of ginger components in commercial products using liquid chromatography with electrochemical array detection. J Agric Food Chem 58: 12608–12614. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf1029256 doi: 10.1021/jf1029256
    [8] Sangwan A, Kawatra A, Sehgal S (2014) Nutritional composition of ginger powder prepared using various drying methods. J Food Sci Technol 51: 2260–2262. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13197–012–0703–2 doi: 10.1007/s13197–012–0703–2
    [9] Bischoff-Kont I, Fürst R (2021) Benefits of ginger and its constituent 6-shogaol in inhibiting inflammatory processes. Pharmaceuticals 14: 571. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph14060571 doi: 10.3390/ph14060571
    [10] Russo R, Costa MA, Lampiasi N, et al. (2023) A new ginger extract characterization: Immunomodulatory, antioxidant effects and differential gene expression. Food Biosci 53: 102746. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fbio.2023.102746 doi: 10.1016/j.fbio.2023.102746
    [11] Eleazu CO, Amadi CO, Iwo G, et al. (2013) Chemical composition and free radical scavenging activities of 10 elite accessions of ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe). J Clinic Toxicol 3: 155. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0495.1000155 doi: 10.4172/2161-0495.1000155
    [12] Wang J, Ke W, Bao R, et al. (2017) Beneficial effects of ginger Zingiber officinale Roscoe on obesity and metabolic syndrome: A review. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1398: 83–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13375 doi: 10.1111/nyas.13375
    [13] Lakshmi BVS, Sudhakar MA (2010) Protective effect of Z. officinale on gentamicin induced nephrotoxicity in rats. Int J Pharmacol 6: 58–62. https://doi.org/10.3923/ijp.2010.58.62 doi: 10.3923/ijp.2010.58.62
    [14] Nammi S, Satyanarayana S, Roufogalis BD (2009) Protective effects of ethanolic extract of Zingiber officinale rhizome on the development of metabolic syndrome in high-fat diet-fed rats. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 104: 366–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2008.00362.x doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2008.00362.x
    [15] Grant KL, Lutz RB (2000) Alternative therapies: Ginger. Am J Health Syst Pharm 57: 945–947. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojmm.2012.23013 doi: 10.4236/ojmm.2012.23013
    [16] Iqbal Z, Lateef M, Akhtar MS, et al. (2006) In vivo anthelmintic activity of ginger against gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep. J Ethnopharmacol 106: 285–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2005.12.031 doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2005.12.031
    [17] El–Baroty GS, Abd El-Baky HH, Farag RS, et al. (2010) Characterization of antioxidant and antimicrobial compounds of cinnamon and ginger essential oils. Afr J Biochem Res 4: 167–174.
    [18] Hsu YL, Chen CY, Hou MF, et al. (2010) 6‐Dehydrogingerdione, an active constituent of dietary ginger, induces cell cycle arrest and apoptosis through reactive oxygen species/c‐Jun N‐terminal kinase pathways in human breast cancer cells. Mol Nutr Food Res 54: 1307–1317. https://doi.org/10.1002/mnfr.200900125 doi: 10.1002/mnfr.200900125
    [19] Koh EM, Kim HJ, Kim S, et al. (2008) Modulation of macrophage functions by compounds isolated from Zingiber officinale. Planta Med 75: 148–151. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0028-1088347 doi: 10.1055/s-0028-1088347
    [20] Imm J, Zhang G, Chan LY, et al. (2010)[6]-Dehydroshogaol, a minor component in ginger rhizome, exhibits quinone reductase inducing and anti–inflammatory activities that rival those of curcumin. Food Res Int 43: 2208–2213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2010.07.028 doi: 10.1016/j.foodres.2010.07.028
    [21] Yang G, Zhong L, Jiang L, et al. (2010) Genotoxic effect of 6–gingerol on human hepatoma G2 cells. Chem Biol Interact 185: 12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2010.02.017 doi: 10.1016/j.cbi.2010.02.017
    [22] Paret ML, Cabos R, Kratky BA, et al. (2010) Effect of plant essential oils on Ralstonia solanacearum race 4 and bacterial wilt of edible ginger. Plant Dis 94: 521–527. https://doi.org/10.1094/PDIS-94-5-0521 doi: 10.1094/PDIS-94-5-0521
    [23] Sharma BR, Dutta S, Roy S, et al. (2010) The effect of soil physicochemical properties on rhizome rot and wilt disease complex incidence of ginger under hill agro climatic region of West Bengal. J Plant Pathol 26: 198–202. https://doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.2010.26.2.198 doi: 10.5423/PPJ.2010.26.2.198
    [24] So IY (1980) Studies on ginger mosaic virus. Korean J Appl Entomol 19: 67–72.
    [25] Hull R (1977) The grouping of small spherical plant viruses with single RNA components. J Gen Virol 36: 289–295. https://doi.org/10.1099/0022-1317-36-2-289 doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-36-2-289
    [26] Janse J (1996) Potato brown rot in Western Europe-History, present occurrence and some remarks on possible origin, epidemiology and control strategies. Bull OEPP/EPPO Bull 26: 679–695. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2338.1996.tb01512.x doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2338.1996.tb01512.x
    [27] Swanson JK, Yao J, Tans–Kersten JK, et al. (2005) Behavior of Ralstonia solanacearum race 3 biovar 2 during latent and active infection of geranium. Phytopathology 95: 136–114. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-95-0136 doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-95-0136
    [28] Meenu G, Jebasingh T (2019) Diseases of ginger. In: Wang H (Ed.), Ginger Cultivation and Its Antimicrobial and Pharmacological Potentials, IntechOpen, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88839
    [29] Dohroo NP (2001) Etiology and management of storage rot of ginger in Himachal Pradesh. Indian Phytopathol 54: 49–54.
    [30] Joshi LK, Sharma ND (1980) Diseases of ginger and turmeric. In: Nair MK, Premkumar T, Ravindran PN, et al. (Eds.), Proceedings of National Seminar on Ginger Turmeric, Calicut: CPCRI, 104–119.
    [31] Dohroo NP (2005) Diseases of ginger. In: Ravindran PN, Babu KN (Eds.), Ginger: The Genus Zingiber, Boca Raton: CRC Press, 305–340.
    [32] ISPS (2005) Experiences in collaboration. Ginger pests and diseases. Indo-Swiss Project Sikkim Series 1, 75.
    [33] Moreira SI, Dutra DC, Rodrigues AC, et al. (2013) Fungi and bacteria associated with post-harvest rot of ginger rhizomes in Espírito Santo, Brazil. Trop Plant Pathol 38: 218–226. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1982-56762013000300006 doi: 10.1590/S1982-56762013000300006
    [34] Dake JN (1995) Diseases of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) and their management. J Spices Aromat Crops 4: 40–48.
    [35] Le DP, Smith M, Hudler GW, et al. (2014) Pythium soft rot of ginger: Detection and identification of the causal pathogens and their control. Crop Prot 65: 153–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.021 doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2014.07.021
    [36] Bhai RS, Sasikumar B, Kumar A (2013) Evaluation of ginger germplasm for resistance to soft rot caused by Pythium myriotylum. Indian Phytopathol 66: 93–95.
    [37] Yang KD, Kim HM, Lee WH, et al. (1988) Studies on rhizome rot of ginger caused by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. zingiberi and Pythium zingiberum. Plant Pathol J 4: 271–277.
    [38] Ram J, Thakore BBL (2009) Management of storage rot of ginger by using plant extracts and biocontrol agents. J Mycol Plant Pathol 39: 475–479.
    [39] Jadhav SN, Aparadh VT, Bhoite AS (2013) Plant extract using for management of storage rot of ginger in Satara Tehsil (M.S.). Int J Pharm Phytopharm Res 4: 1–2.
    [40] Babu N, Suraby EJ, Cissin J, et al. (2013) Status of transgenics in Indian spices. J Trop Agric 51: 1–14.
    [41] Shivakumar N (2019) Biotechnology and crop improvement of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.). In: Wang H (Ed.), Ginger Cultivation and Its Antimicrobial and Pharmacological Potentials, IntechOpen, 2020: 13. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88574
    [42] Deme K, Konate M, Ouedraogo HM, et al. (2021) Importance, genetic diversity and prospects for varietal improvement of ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe) in Burkina Faso. World J Agric Res 9: 92–99. https://doi.org/10.12691/wjar-9-3-3 doi: 10.12691/wjar-9-3-3
    [43] Doveri S, Powell W, Maheswaran M, et al. (2007) Molecular markers—History, features and application. In: Kole C, Abbott AG (Eds.), Molecular Markers-History, Science Publishing Group, New York, 23–67. Available from: www.scipub.net/botany/principlespractices-plant-genomics.html.
    [44] Poczai P, Varga I, Bell NE, et al. (2012) Genomics meets biodiversity: advances in molecular marker development and their applications in plant genetic diversity assessment. Mol Basis Plant Genet Diversity 30: 978–953.
    [45] Nayak S, Naik PK, Acharya L, et al. (2005) Assessment of genetic diversity among 16 promising cultivars of ginger using cytological and molecular markers. Zeitschrift für Naturforschung C 60: 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1515/znc-2005-5-618 doi: 10.1515/znc-2005-5-618
    [46] Huang H, Layne DR, Kulisiak TL (2000) RAPD inheritance and diversity in pawpaw (Asimina triloba). J Am Soc Hortic Sci 125: 454–459. https://doi.org/10.21273/JASHS.125.4.454 doi: 10.21273/JASHS.125.4.454
    [47] Zambrano Blanco E, Baldin Pinheiro J (2017) Agronomie evaluation and clonal selection of ginger genotypes (Zingiber officinale Roseoe) in Brazil. Agron Colomb 35: 275–284. https://doi.org/10.15446/agron.colomb.v35n3.62454. doi: 10.15446/agron.colomb.v35n3.62454
    [48] Das A, Sahoo RK, Barik DP, et al. (2020) Identification of duplicates in ginger germplasm collection from Odisha using morphological and molecular characterization. Proc Natl Acad Sci, India Sect B: Biol Sci 90: 1057–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40011-020-01178-y doi: 10.1007/s40011-020-01178-y
    [49] Wang L, Gao FS, Xu K, et al. (2014) Natural occurrence of mixploid ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc.) in China and its morphological variations. Sci Hortic 172: 54–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2014.03.043 doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2014.03.043
    [50] Ismail NA, Rafii MY, Mahmud TMM, et al. (2016) Molecular markers: A potential resource for ginger genetic diversity studies. Mol Biol Rep 43: 1347–1358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-016-4070-3 doi: 10.1007/s11033-016-4070-3
    [51] Henry RJ (1997) Practical applications of plant molecular biology. Chapman & Hall, London.
    [52] Sarwat M, Nabi G, Das S, et al. (2012) Molecular markers in medicinal plant biotechnology: past and present. Crit Rev Biotechnol 32: 74–92. https://doi.org/10.3109/07388551.2011.551872 doi: 10.3109/07388551.2011.551872
    [53] Powell W, Morgante M, Andre C, et al. (1996) The comparison of RFLP, RAPD, AFLP and SSR (microsatellite) markers for germplasm analysis. Mol Breed 2: 225–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00564200 doi: 10.1007/BF00564200
    [54] Varshney RK, Hoisington DA, Nayak SN, et al. (2009) Molecular plant breeding: Methodology and achievements. Plant Genomics: Methods Protoc 513: 283–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-427-8_15 doi: 10.1007/978-1-59745-427-8_15
    [55] Barcaccia G (2010) Molecular markers for characterizing and conserving crop plant germplasm. In: Jain SM, Brar DS (Eds.), Molecular techniques in crop improvement, Springer, Dordrecht, 231–253. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2967-6_10
    [56] Shivakumar N, Agrawal P (2018) The effect of chemical mutagens upon morphological characters of ginger in M0 generation. Asian J Microbiol Biotechnol Environ Sci 20: 126–135.
    [57] Ravinderan PN, Nirmal BK, Shiva KN (2005) Botany and crop improvement of ginger. In: Ravinderan PN, Nirmal BK (Eds.), Ginger: The Genus Zingiber, New York: CRC Press, 15–85.
    [58] Das A, Kesari V, Satyanarayana VM, et al. (2011) Genetic relationship of Curcuma species from Northeast India using PCR-based markers. Mol Biotechnol 49: 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-011-9379-5 doi: 10.1007/s12033-011-9379-5
    [59] Zou X, Dai Z, Ding C, et al. (2011). Relationships among six medicinal species of Curcuma assessed by RAPD markers. J Med Plant Res 5: 1349–1354.
    [60] Kaewsri W, Paisooksantivatana Y, Veesommai U, et al. (2007) Phylogenetic analysis of Thai Amomum (Alpinioideae: Zingiberaceae) using AFLP markers. Agric Natl Resour 41: 213–226.
    [61] Sigrist MS, Pinheiro JB, Azevedo‐Filho JA, et al. (2010) Development and characterization of microsatellite markers for turmeric (Curcuma longa). Plant Breed 129: 570–573. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0523.2009.01720.x doi: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2009.01720.x
    [62] Pandotra P, Gupta AP, Husain MK, et al. (2013) Evaluation of genetic diversity and chemical profile of ginger cultivars in north–western Himalayas. Biochem Syst Ecol 48: 281–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2013.01.004 doi: 10.1016/j.bse.2013.01.004
    [63] Jatoi SA, Kikuchi A, San SY, et al. (2006) Use of rice SSR markers as RAPD markers for genetic diversity analysis in Zingiberaceae. Breed Sci 56: 107–111. https://doi.org/10.1270/jsbbs.56.107 doi: 10.1270/jsbbs.56.107
    [64] Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, et al. (2016) Principle and application of plant mutagenesis in crop improvement: A review. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 30: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2015.1087333 doi: 10.1080/13102818.2015.1087333
    [65] Aisha AH, Rafii MY, Rahim HA, et al. (2018) Radio-sensitivity test of acute gamma irradiation of two variety of chili pepper chili Bangi 3 and chili Bangi 5. Int J Sci Technol Res 7: 90–95.
    [66] Prasath D, Bhai RS, Nair RR (2015) Induction of variability in ginger through induced mutation for disease resistance. In: Conference: National Symposium on Spices and Aromatic Crops, 16–18.
    [67] Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, et al. (2014) Genetic variability and selection criteria in rice mutant lines as revealed by quantitative traits. The Scientific World Journal. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/190531 doi: 10.1155/2014/190531
    [68] Christensen AH, Quail PH (1996) Ubiquitin promoter-based vectors for high-level expression of selectable and/or screenable marker genes in monocotyledonous plants. Transgenic Res 5: 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01969712 doi: 10.1007/BF01969712
    [69] Suma B, Keshavachandran R, Nybe EV (2008) Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation and regeneration of ginger (Zingiber officinale Rosc). J Trop Agric 46: 38–44.
    [70] Fugisawa M, Harada H, Kenmoku H, et al. (2010) Cloning and characterization of a novel gene that encodes (S)-beta-bisabolene synthase from ginger, Zingiber officinale. Planta 232: 121–130.
    [71] Laurent D, Frederic P, Laurence L, et al. (1998) Genetic characterization of RRS1, a recessive locus in Arabidopsis thaliana that confers resistance to the bacterial soil borne pathogen Ralstonia solanacearum. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 11: 659–667. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI.1998.11.7.659 doi: 10.1094/MPMI.1998.11.7.659
    [72] Aswati Nair R, Kiran AG, Sivakumar KC, et al. (2010) Molecular characterization of an oomycete-responsive PR-5 protein gene from Zingiber zerumbet. Plant Mol Biol Rep 28: 128–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105–009–0132–1 doi: 10.1007/s11105–009–0132–1
    [73] Priya RS, Subramanian RB (2008) Isolation and molecular analysis of R-gene in resistant Zingiber officinale (ginger) varieties against Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. zingiberi. Bioresour Technol 99: 4540–4543. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2007.06.053 doi: 10.1016/j.biortech.2007.06.053
    [74] Kavitha PG, Thomas G (2006) Zingiber zerumbet, A potential Donor for Soft Rot Resistance in Ginger: Genetic Structure and Functional Genomics. Extended Abstract XVⅢ, Kerala Science Congress, 169–171.
    [75] Renner T, Bragg J, Driscoll HE, et al. (2009) Virusinduced gene silencing in the culinary ginger (Zingiber officinale): An effective mechanism for down-regulating gene expression in tropical monocots. Mol Plant 2: 1084–1094. https://doi.org/ 10.1093/mp/ssp033 doi: 10.1093/mp/ssp033
    [76] Chen ZH, Kai GY, Liu XJ, et al. (2005) cDNA cloning and characterization of a mannose-binding lectin from Zingiber officinale Roscoe (ginger) rhizomes. J Biol Sci 30: 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02703701 doi: 10.1007/BF02703701
    [77] Yua F, Haradab H, Yamasakia K, et al. (2008) Isolation and functional characterization of a β-eudesmol synthase, a new sesquiterpene synthase from Zingiber zerumbet Smith. FEBS Letters 582: 565–572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2008.01.020 doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2008.01.020
    [78] Huang JL, Cheng LL, Zhang ZX (2007) Molecular cloning and characterization of violaxanthin depoxidase (VDE) in Zingiber officinale. Plant Sci 172: 228–235. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064383 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064383
    [79] Nirmal Babu K, Samsudeen K, Divakaran M, et al. (2016) Protocols for in vitro propagation, conservation, synthetic seed production, embryo rescue, microrhizome production, molecular profiling, and genetic transformation in ginger (Zingiber officinale Roscoe.). In: Mohan Jain S (Ed.), Protocols for In Vitro Cultures and Secondary Metabolite Analysis of Aromatic and Medicinal Plants, 2nd Edition, 403–426. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-3332-7_28
    [80] Seran TH (2013) In vitro propagation of ginger (Zingiber officinale) through direct organogenesis: A review. Pak J Biol Sci 16: 1826–1835. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2013.1826.1835 doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2013.1826.1835
    [81] El-Nabarawya MA, El-Kafafia SH, Hamzab MA, et al. (2015) The effect of some factors on stimulating the growth and production of active substances in Zingiber officinale callus cultures. Ann Agric Sci 60: 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2014.11.020 doi: 10.1016/j.aoas.2014.11.020
    [82] Shivakumar N, Agrawal P (2014) Callus induction and regeneration from adventitious buds of Zingiber officinale. Asian J Microbiol Biotechnol Environ Sci 16: 881–885.
    [83] Nery FC, Goulart VLA, Paiva PDO, et al. (2015) Micropropagation and chemical composition of Zingiber Spectabile callus. Acta Hortic 1083: 197–204. https://doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1083.23 doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2015.1083.23
    [84] Rostiana O, Syahid SF (2008) Somatic embryogenesis, from meristem explants of ginger. Biotropia 15: 12–16. https://doi.org/10.11598/btb.2008.15.1.2 doi: 10.11598/btb.2008.15.1.2
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Yara Andrade Marques, Luciana Alves Custódio, Gisela Cristiane Miyamoto, Cristina Maria Nunes Cabral, Aline Martins de Toledo, Rodrigo Luiz Carregaro, What are the costs of managing neck and low back pain in Brazil? Investigation of a ten-year period from the perspective of the Brazilian public health system, 2024, 24, 1473-7167, 943, 10.1080/14737167.2024.2364038
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2024 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2090) PDF downloads(249) Cited by(0)

Figures and Tables

Figures(2)  /  Tables(2)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog