Field performance of derived generations of transgenic tobacco
- 44 Downloads
- 13 Citations
Abstract
Two inbred cultivars of Nicotiana tabacum (tobacco), ‘Samsun’ and ‘Xanthi’, were transformed with the plasmid pBI 121 using Bin 19 in Agrobacterium tumefaciens. The plasmid carries the nptII gene conferring kanamycin resistance and the uidA gene encoding β-glucuronidase (GUS). Progeny carrying the genes in the homozygous condition were identified and selfed over several generations. One line homozygous for the introduced genes and one untransformed control from each cultivar were then selected and crossed reciprocally to give four families per cultivar. Seeds from each family were grown in a replicated field trial and all plants scored for a range of morphological and agronomic characters. In addition, leaf samples were taken and GUS activity measured. In the ‘Samsun’ material, which contained one copy of the introduced gene at a single locus and showed high levels of GUS expression, the transformed homozygote showed twice the level of GUS activity as the hemizygotes, wheareas in the ‘Xanthi’ line, which had a lower level of GUS, the hemizygotes showed the same level of GUS activity as the transformed homozygote. The agronomic data showed differences between the families, but the source of such differences could not be ascribed unambiguously. The results are discussed in the light of related information on gene expression and field performance from other transgenic material.
Key words
Transgenic plants Nicotiana tabacum Field performancePreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
- Arnoldi M, Baszcynski CL, Bellemare G, Brown G, Carlson J, Gillespie B, Huang B, MacLean N, MacRae WD, Rayner G, Rozakis S, Wescott M, Kemble RJ (1992) Evaluation of transgenic canola under field conditions. Genome 35:58–63Google Scholar
- Bellini C, Guerche P, Spielman A, Goujaud J, Lesaint C, Caboche M (1989) Genetic analysis of transgenic tobacco plants obtained by liposome-mediated transformation: absence of evidence for the mutagenic effect of inserted sequences in sixty characterised transformants. J Hered 80:361–367Google Scholar
- Budar F, Thai-Toong L, Van Montagu M, Hernalsteens JP (1986) Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer results mainly in transgenic plants transmitting T-DNA as a single Mendelian factor. Genetics 114:303–313Google Scholar
- Czernilofsky AP, Hain R, Baker B, Wirtz V (1986) Studies of the structure and functional organisation of foreign DNA integrated into the genome of Nicotiana tabacum. DNA 5:473–482Google Scholar
- Dean C, Jones J, Favreau M, Dunsmuir P, Bedbrook J (1988) Influence of flanking sequences on variability in expression levels of an introduced gene in transgenic tobacco plants. Nucleic Acids Res 16:9267–9283Google Scholar
- Dunwell JM, Paul EM (1990) Impact of genetically modified crops in agriculture. Outlook Agric 19:103–109Google Scholar
- Heberle-Bors E, Charvat B, Thompson D, Schernthaner JP, Barta A, Matzke AJM, Matzke MA (1988) Genetic analysis of T-DNA insertions into the tobacco genome. Plant Cell Rep 7:571–574Google Scholar
- Hobbs SLA, Kpodar P, DeLong CMO (1990) The effect of T-DNA copy member, position and methylation on reporter gene expression in tobacco transformants. Plant Mol Biol 15:851–864Google Scholar
- Jefferson RA (1987) Assaying chimeric genes in plants: the GUS gene fusion system. Plant Mol Biol Rep 5:387–405Google Scholar
- Jefferson RA (1990) New approaches for agricultural molecular biology: from single cells to field analysis. In: Gustafson JP (ed) Gene manipulation in plant improvement II. Plenum Press, New York, pp 365–400Google Scholar
- Knauf VC (1991) Agricultural progress: engineered crop species, field trial results and commercialisation issues. Curr Opp Biotechnol 2:199–202Google Scholar
- Lam E (1990) From footprint to function: an approach to study gene expression and regulatory factors in transgenic plants. In: Setlow JK (ed) Genetic engineering: Principles and methods 12. Plenum Press, New York, pp 73–86Google Scholar
- Lycett GW, Grierson D (1990) Genetic engineering of crop plants. Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Matzke MA, Matzke AJM (1990) Gene interactions and epigenetic variation in transgenic plants. Dev Genet 11:214–223Google Scholar
- Matzke MA, Matzke AJM (1991) Differential inactivation and methylation of a transgene in plants by two suppressor loci containing homologous sequences. Plant Mol Biol 16:821–830Google Scholar
- McHughen A, Holm F (1991) Herbicide resistant transgenic flax field test: agronomic performance in normal and sulfonylureacontaining soils. Euphytica 55:49–56Google Scholar
- McHughen A, Rowland GG (1991) The effect of T-DNA on the agronomic performance of transgenic flax plants. Euphytica 55:269–275Google Scholar
- Otten L, De Greve H, Hernalsteens JP, Van Montagu M, Schieder O, Straub J, Schell J (1981) Mendelian transmission of genes introduced into plants by the Ti plasmids of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Mol Gen Genet 183:209–213Google Scholar
- Potrykus I, Paszkowski J, Saul MW, Petrusku J, Shillito RD (1985) Molecular and general genetics of a hybrid foreign gene introduced into tobacco by direct gene transfer. Mol Gen Genet 199:169–177Google Scholar
- Tomas DT, Weissinger AK, Ross M, Higgins R, Drummond BJ, Schaaf S, Malone-Schoneberg J, Staebell M, Flynn P, Anderson J, Howard J (1990) Transgenic tobacco plants and their progeny derived by microprojectile bombardment of tobacco leaves. Plant Mol Biol 14:261–268Google Scholar
- Vyskot B, Brzobohaty B, Karlovsa L, Bezdek M (1989) Structural and functional stability of foreign genes in transgenic tobacco plants. Fol Biol 35:360–372Google Scholar