Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 109, Issue 3, pp 562–570 | Cite as

Field performance of chitinase transgenic silver birches (Betula pendula): resistance to fungal diseases

  • H.-L. Pasonen
  • S. -K. Seppänen
  • Y. Degefu
  • A. Rytkönen
  • K. von Weissenberg
  • A. Pappinen
Original Paper


A field trial of 15 transgenic birch lines expressing a sugar beet chitinase IV gene and the corresponding controls was established in southern Finland to study the effects of the level of sugar beet chitinase IV expression on birch resistance to fungal diseases. The symptoms caused by natural infections of two fungal pathogens, Pyrenopeziza betulicola (leaf spot disease) and Melampsoridium betulinum (birch rust), were analysed in the field during a period of 3 years. The lines that had shown a high level of sugar beet chitinase IV mRNA accumulation in the greenhouse also showed high sugar beet chitinase IV expression after 3 years in the field. The level of sugar beet chitinase IV expression did not significantly improve the resistance of transgenic birches to leaf spot disease. Instead, some transgenic lines were significantly more susceptible to leaf spot than the controls. The level of sugar beet chitinase IV expression did have an improving effect on most parameters of birch rust; the groups of lines showing high or intermediate transgene expression were more resistant to birch rust than those showing low expression. This result indicates that the tested transformation may provide a tool for increasing the resistance of silver birch to birch rust.


Transgenic Line Genetically Modify Chitinase Leaf Spot Fungal Disease 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors wish to thank Dr. J. Mikkelsen (Danisco, Denmark) for providing the plasmid pBKL4 K4 containing the chitinase IV gene from sugar beet, and Javier Brumos, Saara Vauramo, Pamela Rey Raap and Michelle Barrett for assistance in the field. The study was funded by the Academy of Finland.


  1. Asao H, Nishizawa Y, Arai S, Sato T, Hirai M, Yoshida K, Shinmyo A, Hibi T (1997) Enhanced resistance against a fungal pathogen Sphaerotheca humuli in transgenic strawberry expressing a rice chitinase gene. Plant Biotechnol 14:145–149Google Scholar
  2. Bartnicki-Garcia S (1968) Cell wall chemistry, morphogenesis, and taxonomy of fungi. Ann Rev Microbiol 22:87–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckett A, Tatnell JA, Taylor N (1990) Adhesion and pre-invasion behaviour of urediniospores of Uromyces viciae-fabae during germination on host and synthetic surfaces. Mycol Res 94:865–875Google Scholar
  4. Broglie K, Chet I, Holliday M, Cressman R, Biddle P, Knowlton S, Mauvais CJ, Broglie R (1991) Transgenic plants with enhanced resistance to the fungal pathogen Rhizoctonia solani. Science 254:1194–1197Google Scholar
  5. Brunner AM, Rottmann WH, Sheppard LA, Krutovskii K, DiFazio SP, Leonardi S, Strauss SH (2000) Structure and expression of duplicate AGAMOUS orthologs in poplar. Plant Mol Biol 44:619–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cervera M, Pina JA, Juárez J, Navarro L, Peña L (2000) A broad exploration of a transgenic population of citrus: stability of gene expression and phenotype. Theor Appl Genet 100:670–677Google Scholar
  7. Chang S, Puryear J, Cairney J (1993) A simple and efficient method for isolating RNA from pine trees. Plant Mol Biol Rep 11:113–116Google Scholar
  8. Church GM, Gilbert W (1984) Genomic sequencing. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:1991–1995PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Collinge DB, Kragh KM, Mikkelsen JD, Nielsen KK, Rasmussen U, Vad K (1993) Plant chitinases. Plant J 3:31–40PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Delledonne M, Allegro G, Belenghi B, Balestrazzi A, Picco F, Levine A, Zelasco S, Calligari P, Confalonieri M (2001) Transformation of white poplar (Populus alba L.) with a novel Arabidopsis thaliana cysteine proteinase inhibitor and analysis of insect pest resistance. Mol Breed 7:35–42Google Scholar
  11. Fladung M (1999) Gene stability in transgenic aspen (Populus). I. Flanking DNA sequences and T-DNA structure. Mol Gen Genet 260:574–581PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Franke R, McMichael CM, Shirley AM, Meyer K, Cusomano JC, Chapple C (2000) Modified lignin in tobacco and poplar plants overexpressing the arabidopsis gene encoding ferulate 5-hydroxylase. Plant J 22:223–234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Glick BR (1995) Metabolic load and heterologous gene expression. Biotechnol Adv 13:247–261Google Scholar
  14. Grison R, Grezes-Besset B, Schneider M, Lucante N, Olsen L, Leguay J-J, Toppan A (1996) Field tolerance to fungal pathogens of Brassica napus constitutively expressing a chimeric chitinase gene. Nat Biotechnol 14:643–646PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Hamelin RC, Shain L, Ferriss RS, Thielges BA (1993) Quantification of disease progress and defoliation in the poplar leaf rust-eastern cottonwood pathosystem. Phytopathology 83:140–144Google Scholar
  16. Hoekema A, Hirsch PR, Hooykaas PJJ, Schilperoort RA (1983) A binary plant vector strategy based on separation of vir- and T-region of the Agrobacterium tumefaciens Ti-plasmid. Nature 303:179–183Google Scholar
  17. Hu W-J, Harding SA, Lung J, Popko JL, Ralph J, Stokke DD, Tsai C-J, Chiang VL (1999) Repression of lignin biosynthesis promotes cellulose accumulation and growth in transgenic trees. Nat Biotechnol 17:808–812PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Jacobi V, Plourde A, Charest PJ, Hamelin RC (2000) In vitro toxicity of natural and designed peptides to tree pathogens and pollen. Can J Bot 78:455–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Keinonen-Mettälä K, Pappinen A, von Weissenberg K (1998) Comparison of the efficiency of some promoters in silver birch (Betula pendula). Plant Cell Rep 17:356–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Koivisto R, Törmäkangas K, Kauppinen V (2001) Hazard identification and risk assessment procedure for genetically modified plants in the field—GMHAZID. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 8:1–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Kumar S, Fladung M (2000) Transgene repeats in aspen: molecular characterisation suggests simultaneous integration of independent T-DNAs into receptive hotspots in the host genome. Mol Gen Genet 264:20–28CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Kumar S, Fladung M (2001) Gene stability in transgenic aspen (Populus). II. Molecular characterization of variable expression of transgene in wild and hybrid aspen. Planta 213:731–740PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kumar S, Fladung M (2002) Transgene integration in aspen: structures of integration sites and mechanism of T-DNA integration. Plant J 31:543–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kurkela T (1973) Epiphytology of Melampsora rusts of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) and aspen (Populus tremula L.). Commun Inst For Fen 79:1–68Google Scholar
  25. Kurkela T (1994) Metsän taudit. Otatieto Oy, TampereGoogle Scholar
  26. Lapierre C, Pollet B, Petit-Conil M, Toval G, Romero J, Pilate G, Leplé J-C, Boerjan W, Ferret V, De Nadaï V, Jouanin L (1999) Structural alterations of lignins in transgenic poplars with depressed cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase or caffeic acid O-metyltransferase activity have an opposite impact on the efficiency of industrial kraft pulping. Plant Physiol 119:153–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Levée V, Garin E, Klimaszewska K, Séguin A (1999) Stable genetic transformation of white pine (Pinus strobus L.) after cocultivation of embryogenic tissues with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Mol Breed 5:429–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Li L, Zhou Y, Cheng X, Sun J, Marita JM, Ralph J, Chiang VL (2003) Combinatorial modification of multiple lignin traits in trees through multigene cotransformation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:4939–4944CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Liang H, Maynard CA, Allen RD, Powell WA (2001) Increased Septoria musiva resistance in transgenic hybrid poplar leaves expressing a wheat oxalate oxidase gene. Plant Mol Biol 45:619–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lilja S (1973) Koivun ruoste ja sen torjuminen. Metsänviljelyn koelaitoksen tiedonantoja 9:21–26Google Scholar
  31. Lorito M, Woo SL, Fernandez IG, Colucci G, Harman GE, Pintor-Toro JA, Filippone, E, Muccifora S, Lowrence CB, Zoina A, Tuzun S, Scala F (1998) Genes from mycoparasatic fungi as a source for improving plant resistance to fungal pathogens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:7860–7865PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. McCord S, Gartland K (2003) Forest biotechnology in Europe. The challenge, the promise, the future. In: McCord S, Gartland K (eds) Meet Proc For Biotechnol Europe. Institute of Forest Biotechnology, Edinburgh, p 84Google Scholar
  33. Mendgen K (1981) Nutrient uptake in rust fungi. Phytopathology 71:983–989Google Scholar
  34. Nilsson O, Weigel D (1997) Modulating the timing of flowering. Curr Opin Biotechnol 8:195–199Google Scholar
  35. Paavolainen L, Hantula J, Kurkela T (2000) Pyrenopeziza betulicola and an anamorphic fungus occurring in leaf spots of birch. Mycol Res 104:611–617CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Paavolainen L, Kurkela T, Suhonen J, Hantula J (2001) The genetic population structure of Pyrenopeziza betulicola, the causative agent of birch leaf spot disease. Mycologia 93:258–264Google Scholar
  37. Pappinen A, Degefu Y, Syrjälä L, Keinonen K, von Weissenberg K (2002) Transgenic silver birch (Betula pendula) expressing a sugarbeet chitinase 4 gene shows enhanced resistance to Pyrenopeziza betulicola. Plant Cell Rep 20:1046–1051CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Patil VR, Widholm JM (1997) Possible correlation between increased vigour and chitinase activity expression in tobacco. J Exp Bot 48:1943–1950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peña L, Séguin A (2001) Recent advances in the genetic transformation of trees. Trends Biotechnol 19:500–506PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Peña L, Martin-Trillo M, Juarez J, Pina J, Navarro L, Martinez-Zapater JM (2001) Constitutive expression of arabidopsis LEAFY or APETALA1 genes is citrus reduces their generation time. Nat Biotechnol 19:263–267CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Pilate G, Guiney E, Holt K, Petit-Conil M, Lapierre C, Leplé J-C, Pollet B, Mila I, Webster EA, Marstorp HG, Hopkins DW, Jouanin L, Boerjan W, Schuch W, Cornu D, Halpin C (2002) Field and pulping performances of transgenic trees with altered lignification. Nat Biotechnol 20:607–612CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Poteri M (1998) Screening of birch, Betula spp., for rust resistance to Melampsoridium betulinum. Finn For Res Inst Res Paper no. 689Google Scholar
  43. Purrington CB, Bergelson J (1997) Fitness consequences of genetically engineered herbicide and antibiotic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 145:807–814PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rottmann WH, Meilan R, Sheppard LA, Brunner AM, Skinner JS, Ma C, Cheng S, Jouanin L, Pilate G, Strauss SH (2000) Diverse effects of overexpression of LEAFY and PTLF, a poplar (Populus) homolog of LEAFY/FLORICAULA, in transgenic poplar and arabidopsis. Plant J 22:235–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Sahai AS, Manocha MS (1993) Chitinases of fungi and plants: their involvement in morphogenesis and host-parasite interaction. FEMS Microbiol Rev 11:317–338Google Scholar
  46. Schuler TH, Poppy GM, Kerry BR, Denholm I (1998) Insect-resistant transgenic plants. Trends Biotechnol 16:168–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Scorza R, Callahan A, Levy L, Damsteegt V, Webb K, Ravelonandro M (2001) Post-transcriptional gene silencing in plum pox virus resistant transgenic European plum containing the plum pox potyvirus coat protein gene. Transgenic Res 10:201–209PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Smith SE, Read DJ (1997) Mycorrhizal symbiosis, 2nd edn. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  49. Susi A, Mikkelsen JD, von Weissenberg K, Nielsen KK (1995) Sugar-beet chitinase inhibits the growth of a spruce pathogen. Eur J Forest Pathol 25:61–64Google Scholar
  50. Tabei Y, Kitade S, Nishizawa Y, Kikuchi N, Kayano T, Hibi T, Akutsu K (1998) Transgenic cucumber plants harbouring a rice chitinase gene exhibit enhanced resistance to Gray mold (Botrytis cinerea). Plant Cell Rep 17:159–164Google Scholar
  51. Tennant PF, Gonsalves C, Ling K-S, Fitch M, Manshardt R, Slightom JL, Gonsalves D (1994) Differential protection against papaya ringspot virus isolates in coat protein transgenic papaya and classically cross-protected papaya. Phytopathology 84:1359–1366Google Scholar
  52. Toyoda H, Matsuda Y, Yamaga T, Ikeda S, Morita M, Tamai T, Ouchi S (1991) Supression of the powdery mildew pathogen by chitinase microinjected into barley coleoptile epidermal cells. Plant Cell Rep 10:217–220Google Scholar
  53. Vierheilig H, Alt-Hug M, Wiemken A, Boller T (2001) Hyphal in vitro growth of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae is affected by chitinase but not by β-1,3-glucanase. Mycorrhiza 11:279–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Weigel D, Nilsson O (1995) A developmental switch sufficient for flower initiation in diverse plants. Nature 377:495–500PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wetzstein HY (1986) A consideration of factors affecting the development and physiology of tissue cultured plants. USDA For Serv SE For Exp Sta Gen Tech Rep SE-46Google Scholar
  56. Widin KD, Schipper AL Jr (1980) Effect of Melampsora medusae leaf rust infection on yield of poplars in the North-central United States. Eur J Forest Pathol 11:438–448Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • H.-L. Pasonen
    • 1
  • S. -K. Seppänen
    • 1
  • Y. Degefu
    • 1
  • A. Rytkönen
    • 1
  • K. von Weissenberg
    • 1
  • A. Pappinen
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Applied BiologyUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations