Histological evaluation of pineapple transgenic plants following 8 years of field growth
Pineapple is among the most important fruits worldwide. However, the narrow genetic base of current commercial cultivars renders the industry at risk from environmental and other biological threats. Hence, there is a need to develop improved cultivars with tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Our prior research resulted in the establishment of a method for genetic transformation of pineapple. The genetically modified pineapple plants generated were characterized following acclimatization and during the subsequent 8 years under field conditions. The current work highlights the results obtained for histological characterization of roots and leaves of transgenic pineapple plants. The four treatments investigated were macropropagated control plants (untransformed), micropropagated control plants (untransformed), and micropropagated genetically transformed plants (clones 90 and 98). Twenty indicators were measured in plants: two of them did not show statistically significant differences among the four groups of plants (2/20 = 10.0%); six showed “Low” overall coefficients of variation (OCV) (6/20 = 30.0%); 12 showed “Medium” OCVs (12/20 = 60.0%); and only two indicators showed “High” OCVs (2/20 = 10.0%). Consideration of medium OCVs showed that the biomass of transgenic plants was slightly greater than those of the non-transgenic controls. Statistically significant differences between the lines were recorded except in the central cylinder diameter of roots and the D leaf adaxial cuticle thickness. “High” OCVs were observed for root exo- and endodermis thickness where transgenic clones showed statistically significantly higher values. In terms of the roots, five out of nine histological indicators showed “Medium” OCVs: cortex, rhyzodermis, and parenchyma thicknesses, pith diameter, and thickness of the transversal root ratio. Again, genetically transformed materials showed statistically significantly higher averages. Only three out of seven histological indicators showed “Medium” OCVs in the leaves: D leaf abaxial cuticle thickness, chlorophyll parenchyma thickness, and D leaf aquifer parenchyma thickness. As noted above, statistically significantly higher values were recorded in the transgenic pineapple plants. Since the differences observed did not ultimately affect fruit yield (as shown in our previous work), they do not appear to be consequences of genetic transformation that impact on reproductive yield.
KeywordsAnanas comosus (L.) Merr. Plant transformation Field performance Side effects Anatomical characterization
This research was supported by the Technological Institute of Costa Rica, the Plant Improvement Division of the ARC-Tropical and Subtropical Crops (South Africa), and the Bioplant Centre (University of Ciego de Ávila, Cuba). The authors are grateful to Mr. José Laguna for his skilled technical assistance.
LY, LP, DG, AVO, JRM, JM, DE, GG, EH, and JCL designed the research; LY, LP, DG, AVO, JRM, JM, and DE conducted the experiment; LY, DG, GG, EH, and JCL wrote the paper; and JCL had primary responsibility for the final content. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Human and animal rights
This research did not involve experiments with human or animal participants.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Additional informed consent was obtained from all individual participants for whom identifying information is included in this article.
- Bayer (2005) Technical information Bayer CropScience. Monheim, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Bewley JD, Black M (1995) Seeds: physiology of development and germination. Plenum Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Chen H, Hu B, Zhao L, Shi D, She Z, Huang X, Priyadarshani S, Niu X, Qin Y (2019) Differential expression analysis of reference genes in pineapple (Ananas comosus L.) during reproductive development and response to abiotic stress. Trop Plant Biol 22:1–11Google Scholar
- Codex (2003) Codex Alimentarius Commission Joint FAO/WHO Food Standard Programme Codex ad hoc intergovernmental task force on foods derived from biotechnology. FAO/WHO. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/gmfp/docs/CAC.GL_45_2003.pdf http://www.who.int/fsf/GMfood/codex_index.htm, http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-home/en/. Accessed 15 May 2017
- EFSA (2010) Statistical considerations for the safety evaluation of GMOs. EFSA J 8:59Google Scholar
- EFSA (2011) Guidance on selection of comparators for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA J 9:1–20Google Scholar
- FAOSTAT (2015) http://faostat3.fao.org/browse/Q/*/E
- Firoozabady E, Heckert M, Gutterson N (2006) Transformation and regeneration of pineapple. Plant Cell Rep 84:1–16Google Scholar
- Johansen DA (1940) Plant microtechnique. McGraw-Hill, New York, p 528Google Scholar
- Kamoun S (2001) Non-host resistance to Phytophthora: novel prospects for a classical problem. Plant Biol 4:295–300Google Scholar
- Leal F, d’Eckenbrugge GC (2018) History, distribution and world production. In: Sanewski G, Bartholomew DP, Paull RE (eds) The pineapple: botany production and uses. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 1–10Google Scholar
- Ming R, Van Buren R, Wai CM, Tang H, Schatz MC, Bowers JE, Lyons E, Wang ML, Chen J, Biggers E, Zhang J, Huang L, Zhang L, Miao W, Zhang J, Ye Z, Miao C, Lin Z, Wang H, Zhou H, Yim WC, Priest HD, Zheng C, Woodhous M, Edger P (2015) The pineapple genome and the evolution of CAM photosynthesis. Nat Genet 47:1435–1442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mohammed A, Abalaka ME (2011) Agrobacterium transformation: a boost to agricultural biotechnology. J Med Gen Genom 3:126–130Google Scholar
- Nagendra-Pradra D, Sudhakar N, Murugesan K, Mohan N (2007) Application of ozone on induction of resistance in Vigna unguiculata cv. Co 6, against Fusarium wilt. Arch Phytopathol Plant Prot 3:1–10Google Scholar
- Punja Z (2001) Genetic engineering of plant to enhance resistance to fungal pathogens: a review of progress and future prospects. Chin J Plant Pathol 23:216–235Google Scholar
- Py C, Lacoeuilhe JJ, Teisson C (1987) The pineapple: cultivation and uses. Maisonneuve & Larose, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Taira T, Toma N, Ishihara M (2005) Purification, characterization, and antifungal activity of chitinases from pineapple (Ananas comosus) leaf. Biochemistry 69:189–196Google Scholar
- Yabor L, Valle B, Rodríguez RC, Aragón C, Papenbrock J, Tebbe CC, Lorenzo JC (2016) The third vegetative generation of a field-grown transgenic pineapple clone shows minor side effects of transformation on plant physiological parameters. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-016-0950-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Yanes-Paz E, González J, Sánchez R (2000) A technology of acclimatization of pineapple vitroplants. Pineapple News 7:24Google Scholar