Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 429–437 | Cite as

Metabolic changes in transgenic maize mature seeds over-expressing the Aspergillus niger phyA2

  • Jun Rao
  • Litao Yang
  • Jinchao Guo
  • Sheng Quan
  • Guihua Chen
  • Xiangxiang Zhao
  • Dabing Zhang
  • Jianxin Shi
Original Article

Abstract

Key message

Non-targeted metabolomics analysis revealed only intended metabolic changes in transgenic maize over-expressing theAspergillus niger phyA2.

Abstract

Genetically modified (GM) crops account for a large proportion of modern agriculture worldwide, raising increasingly the public concerns of safety. Generally, according to substantial equivalence principle, if a GM crop is demonstrated to be equivalently safe to its conventional species, it is supposed to be safe. In this study, taking the advantage of an established non-target metabolomic profiling platform based on the combination of UPLC-MS/MS with GC–MS, we compared the mature seed metabolic changes in transgenic maize over-expressing the Aspergillus niger phyA2 with its non-transgenic counterpart and other 14 conventional maize lines. In total, levels of nine out of identified 210 metabolites were significantly changed in transgenic maize as compared with its non-transgenic counterpart, and the number of significantly altered metabolites was reduced to only four when the natural variations were taken into consideration. Notably, those four metabolites were all associated with targeted engineering pathway. Our results indicated that although both intended and non-intended metabolic changes occurred in the mature seeds of this GM maize event, only intended metabolic pathway was found to be out of the range of the natural metabolic variation in the metabolome of the transgenic maize. Therefore, only when natural metabolic variation was taken into account, could non-targeted metabolomics provide reliable objective compositional substantial equivalence analysis on GM crops.

Keywords

GC–MS Phytase Safety assessment Transgenic Substantial equivalence UPLC-MS/MS 

Supplementary material

299_2015_1894_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (76 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 75 kb)

References

  1. Alimentarius C (2003) Guideline for the conduct of food safety assessment of foods derived from recombinant-DNA plants. CAC/GL 45:1–18Google Scholar
  2. Baker JM, Hawkins ND, Ward JL, Lovegrove A, Napier JA, Shewry PR, Beale MH (2006) A metabolomic study of substantial equivalence of field-grown genetically modified wheat. Plant Biotechnol J 4:381–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Barros E, Lezar S, Anttonen MJ, van Dijk JP, Röhlig RM, Kok EJ, Engel KH (2010) Comparison of two GM maize varieties with a near-isogenic non-GM variety using transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics. Plant Biotechnol J 8:436–451CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Berger DC, Hilton MA, Hilton FK, Duncan SD, Radmacher PG, Greene SM (1996) Intravenous gamma-glutamyl-tyrosine elevates brain tyrosine but not catecholamine concentrations in normal rats. Metabolism 45:126–132CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bovy AG, Gómez-Roldán V, Hall RD (2010) Strategies to optimize the flavonoid content of tomato fruit. In: Santos-Buelga C, Escribano-Bailon M, Lattanzio V (eds) Recent Advances in Polyphenols Research, Wiley-Blackwell, Ames, USA, pp 138–162Google Scholar
  6. Chen R, Xue G, Chen P, Yao B, Yang W, Ma Q, Fan Y, Zhao Z, Tarczynski MC, Shi J (2008) Transgenic maize plants expressing a fungal phytase gene. Transgenic Res 17:633–643CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Clarke JD, Alexander DC, Ward DP, Ryals JA, Mitchell MW, Wulff JE, Guo L (2013) Assessment of genetically modified soybean in relation to natural variation in the soybean seed metabolome. Sci Rep 3:3082PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Coll A, Nadal A, Collado R, Capellades G, Kubista M, Messeguer J, Pla M (2010) Natural variation explains most transcriptomic changes among maize plants of MON810 and comparable non-GM varieties subjected to two N-fertilization farming practices. Plant Mol Biol 73:349–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Dlugosch KM, Whitton J (2008) Can we stop transgenes from taking a walk on the wild side? Mol Ecol 17:1167–1169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Evans AM, DeHaven CD, Barrett T, Mitchell M, Milgram E (2009) Integrated, nontargeted ultrahigh performance liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization tandem mass spectrometry platform for the identification and relative quantification of the small-molecule complement of biological systems. Anal Chem 81:6656–6667CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. FAO/WHO (2000) Safety aspects of genetically modified foods of plant origin. Report of a Joint FAO/WHO Expert Consultation on Foods Derived from Biotechnology, World Health Organization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  12. Frank T, Röhlig RM, Davies HV, Barros E, Engel KH (2012) Metabolite profiling of maize kernels–genetic modification versus environmental influence. J Agric Food Chem 60:3005–3012CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia FAA (2012) Tests to identify outliers in data series. http://cn.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/28501-tests-to-identify-outliers-in-data-series. Pontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, Industrial Engineering Department, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
  14. García-Cañas V, Simó C, León C, Ibáñez E, Cifuentes A (2011) MS-based analytical methodologies to characterize genetically modified crops. Mass Spectrom Rev 30:396–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Gayen D, Sarkar SN, Datta SK, Datta K (2013) Comparative analysis of nutritional compositions of transgenic high iron rice with its non-transgenic counterpart. Food Chem 138:835–840CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Gechev TS, Hille J (2012) Molecular basis of plant stress. Cell Mol Life Sci 69:33161–33163Google Scholar
  17. Gupta KK, Bhattacharjee S, Kar S, Chakrabarty S, Thakur P, Bhattacharyya G, Srivastava SC (2003) Mineral compositions of eight common spices. Commu Soil Sci Plant 34:681–693CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrigan GG, Chassy B (2012) Challenges for metabolomics as a tool in safety assessments. In: Roessner U (ed) Metabolomics Regulatory Product Characterization and Safety Center, Monsanto Co., St. Louis, MOGoogle Scholar
  19. Harrigan GG, Stork LG, Riordan SG, Reynolds TL, Ridley WP, Masucci JD, Macisaac S, Halls SC, Orth R, Smith RG, Wen L, Brown WE, Welsch M, Riley R, McFarland D, Pandravada A, Glenn KC (2007) Impact of genetics and environment on nutritional and metabolite components of maize grain. J Agric Food Chem 55:6177–6185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Harrigan GG, Lundry D, Drury S, Berman K, Riordan SG, Nemeth MA, Ridley WP, Glenn KC (2010) Natural variation in crop composition and the impact of transgenesis. Nat Biotechnol 28:402–404CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Herman RA, Storer NP, Phillips AM, Prochaska LM, Windels P (2007) Compositional assessment of event DAS-59122-7 maize using substantial equivalence. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 47:37–47CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Hitz WD, Carlson TJ, Kerr PS, Sebastian SA (2002) Biochemical and molecular characterization of a mutation that confers a decreased raffinosaccharide and phytic acid phenotype on soybean seeds. Plant Physiol 128:650–660PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Iwaki T, Guo L, Ryals JA, Yasuda S, Shimazaki T, Kikuchi A, Watanabe KN, Kasuga M, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Ogawa T, Ohta D (2013) Metabolic profiling of transgenic potato tubers expressing Arabidopsis Dehydration Response Element-Binding Protein 1A (DREB1A). J Agric Food Chem 61:893–900CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. James C (2014) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM Crops: 2014 Executive summary. ISAAA Brief No. 49. ISAAA: Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  25. Kameyama K, Kishi Y, Yoshimura M, Kanzawa N, Sameshima M, Tsuchiya T (2000) Tyrosine phosphorylation in plant bending. Nature 407:37CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Karner U, Peterbauer T, Raboy V, Jones DA, Hedley CL, Richter A (2004) myo-Inositol and sucrose concentrations affect the accumulation of raffinose family oligosaccharides in seeds. J Exp Bot 55:1981–1987CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HP, Kok EJ (2001) Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. Plant J 27:503–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Kusano M, Redestig H, Hirai T, Oikawa A, Matsuda F, Fukushima A, Arita M, Watanabe S, Yano M, Hiwasa-Tanase K, Ezura H, Saito K (2011) Covering chemical diversity of genetically-modified tomatoes using metabolomics for objective substantial equivalence assessment. PLoS One 6(2):e16989PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ladics GS, Budziszewski GJ, Herman RA, Herouet-Guicheney C, Joshi S, Lipscomb EA, McClain S, Ward JM (2014) Measurement of endogenous allergens in genetically modified soybeans—short communication. Regul Toxicol Pharm 70:75–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McClain S, Jones W, He X, Ladics G, Bartholomaeus A, Raybould A, Lutter P, Xu H, Wang X (2015) Agricultural biotechnology safety assessment. Chinese J Prev Med 49:78–87Google Scholar
  31. Montero M, Coll A, Nadal A, Messeguer J, Pla M (2011) Only half the transcriptomic differences between resistant genetically modified and conventional rice are associated with the transgene. Plant Biotechnol J 9:693–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. OECD (2002) Consensus document on compositional considerations for new varieties of Maize (Zea mays): key food and feed nutrients, anti-nutrients and secondary plant metabolites. Environmental Directorate: Joint meeting of Chemical Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and Biotechnology: Series on the Safety of Novel Foods and Feeds No. 6. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  33. Ohta T, Masutomi N, Tsutsui N, Sakairi T, Mitchell M, Milburn MV, Ryals JA, Beebe KD, Guo L (2009) Untargeted metabolomic profiling as an evaluative tool of fenofibrate-induced toxicology in Fischer 344 male rats. Toxicol Pathol 37:521–535CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Rahman K (2007) Studies on free radicals, antioxidants, and co-factors. Clin Interv Aging 2:219PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Rao J, Yang L, Wang C, Zhang D, Shi J (2013) Digital gene expression analysis of mature seeds of transgenic maize overexpressing Aspergillus niger phyA2 and its non-transgenic counterpart. GM Crops Food 4:98–108CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Rao J, Cheng F, Hu C, Quan S, Lin H, Wang J, Chen GH, Zhao XX, Alexander D, Guo LN, Wang GY, Lai JS, Zhang DB, Shi JX (2014) Metabolic map of mature maize kernels. Metabolomics 10:775–787CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ricroch AE, Bergé JB, Kuntz M (2011) Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic profiling techniques. Plant Physiol 155:1752–1761PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Rocco M, Corrado G, Arena S, D’Ambrosio C, Tortiglione C, Sellaroli S, Marra M, Rao R, Scaloni A (2008) The expression of tomato prosystemin gene in tobacco plants highly affects host proteomic repertoire. J Proteomics 71:176–185CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Schauzu M (2000) The concept of substantial equivalence in safety assessment of foods derived from genetically modified organisms. AgBiotechNet 2Google Scholar
  40. Shepherd LV, McNicol JW, Razzo R, Taylor MA, Davies HV (2006) Assessing the potential for unintended effects in genetically modified potatoes perturbed in metabolic and developmental processes. Targeted analysis of key nutrients and anti-nutrients. Transgenic Res 15:409–425CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sitbon F, Ostin A, Sundberg B, Olsson O, Sandberg G (1993) Conjugation of indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) in wild-type and IAA-overprodcing transgenic tobacco plants, and identification of the main conjugates by Frit-Fast atom bombardment liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Plant Physiol 101:313–320PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Skogerson K, Harrigan GG, Reynolds TL, Halls SC, Ruebelt M, Iandolino A, Pandravada A, Glenn KC, Fiehn O (2010) Impact of genetics and environment on the metabolite composition of maize grain. J Agric Food Chem 58:3600–3610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Stark DM, Timmerman KP, Barry GF, Preiss J, Kishore GM (1992) Regulation of the amount of starch in plant tissues by ADP glucose pyrophosphorylase. Science 258:287–292CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Ueda M, Bandurski RS (1969) A quantitative estimation of alkali-labile indole-3-acetic acid compounds in dormant and germinating maize kernels. Plant Physiol 44:1175–1181PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Wang L, Wang X, Jin X, Jia R, Huang Q, Tan Y, Guo A (2015) Comparative proteomics of Bt-transgenic and non-transgenic cotton leaves. Proteome Sci 13:15PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Yang X, Staub J, Pandravada A, Riordan S, Yan Y, Bannon G, Martino-Catt S (2013) Omics technologies reveal abundant natural variation in metabolites and transcripts among conventional maize hybrids. Food Nutr Sci 4:335–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang D, Guo J (2011) The development and standardization of testing methods for genetically modified organisms and their derived products. J Integr Plant Biol 53:539–551CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jun Rao
    • 1
    • 2
  • Litao Yang
    • 1
  • Jinchao Guo
    • 1
  • Sheng Quan
    • 1
    • 3
  • Guihua Chen
    • 1
  • Xiangxiang Zhao
    • 4
  • Dabing Zhang
    • 1
    • 5
  • Jianxin Shi
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Joint International Research Laboratory of Metabolic and Developmental SciencesSJTU-University of Adelaide Joint Centre for Agriculture and Health, School of Life Sciences and Biotechnology, Shanghai Jiao Tong UniversityShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Jiangxi Provincial Cancer HospitalNanchangChina
  3. 3.Shanghai Ruifeng Agro-biotechnology Co. LtdShanghaiChina
  4. 4.Departmen of Life ScienceHuaiyin Normal CollegeHuaianChina
  5. 5.School of Agriculture, Food and WineUniversity of AdelaideAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations