Advertisement

Transgenic Research

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 131–138 | Cite as

A model to predict the frequency of integration of fitness-related QTLs from cultivated to wild soybean

  • N. Kitamoto
  • A. Kaga
  • Y. Kuroda
  • R. OhsawaEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

With the proliferation of genetically modified (GM) products and the almost exponential growth of land use for GM crops, there is a growing need to develop quantitative approaches to estimating the risk of escape of transgenes into wild populations of crop relatives by natural hybridization. We assessed the risk of transgene escape by constructing a population genetic model based on information on fitness-related QTLs obtained from an F 2 population of wild soybean G. soja × cultivated soybean Glycine max. Simulation started with ten F 1 and 990 wild soybeans reproducing by selfing or outcrossing. Seed production was determined from the genetic effects of two QTLs for number of seeds (SN). Each seed survived winter according to the maternal genotype at three QTLs for winter survival (WS). We assumed that one neutral transgene was inserted at various sites and calculated its extinction rate. The presence of G. max alleles at SN and WS QTLs significantly decreased the probability of introgression of the neutral transgene at all insertion sites equally. The presence of G. max alleles at WS QTLs lowered the risk more than their presence at SN QTLs. Although most model studies have concentrated only on genotypic effects of transgenes, we show that the presence of fitness-related domestication genes has a large effect on the risk of transgene escape. Our model offers the advantage of considering the effects of both domestication genes and a transgene, and they can be widely applied to other wild × crop relative complexes.

Keywords

Glycine max Hybridization Linkage Quantitative trait loci Simulation model Transgene 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to give special thanks to Dr. H. Yano and Mr. N. Matsuoka of the Agricultural Research Center for the Western Region for their support in the field. This study was supported by the Research Fund for “Assurance of Safe Use of Genetically Modified Organisms” from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan and the Global Environment Research Fund of the Ministry of the Environment of Japan (FY2003–2005).

References

  1. Abe J, Hasegawa A, Fukushi H (1999) Introgression between wild and cultivated soybeans of Japan revealed by RFLP analysis for chloroplast DNAs. Econ Bot 53:285–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Broich SL, Palmer RG (1980) A cluster analysis of wild and domesticated soybean phenotypes. Euphytica 29:23–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ellstrand NC (2003) Dangerous Liaisons? When cultivated plants mate with their wild relatives. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MarylandGoogle Scholar
  4. Fujita R, Ohara M, Okazaki K, Shimamoto Y (1997) The extent of natural cross-pollination in wild soybean (Glycine soja). J Hered 88:124–128Google Scholar
  5. Hails RS, Morley K (2005) Genes invading new populations: a risk assessment perspective. Trends Ecol Evol 20:245–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Han OK, Kaga A, Isemura T, Wang XW, Tomooka N, Vaughan DA (2005) A genetic linkage map for azuki bean. [Vigna angularis (Willd.) Ohwi & Ohashi]. Theor Appl Genet 111:1278–1287PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haygood R, Ives AR, Andow DA (2003) Consequences of recurrent gene flow from crops to wild relatives. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 270:1879–1886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hymowitz T, Singh RJ (1987) Taxonomy and speciation. In: Hymowitz T, Singh RJ (eds) Soybeans improvement, production, and uses. American Society of Agronomy and Crop Science Society of America, Madison, Wisconsin, pp 23–48Google Scholar
  9. Jenczewski E, Ronfort J, Chevre AM (2003) Crop-to-wild gene flow, introgression and possible fitness effects of transgenes. Environ Biosafety Res 2:9–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kaga A et al (2005) Exploration and collection for hybrid derivatives between wild and cultivated soybean: preliminary survey in Akita and Hiroshima Prefectures, Japan. Ann Rep Exploit Intro Plant Genet Res 21:59–71Google Scholar
  11. Keim P, Diers BW, Shoemaker RC (1990) Genetic analysis of soybean hard seededness with molecular markers. Theor Appl Genet 79:465–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kelly CK, Bowler MG, Breden F, Fenner M, Poppy GM (2005) An analytical model assessing the potential threat to natural habitats from insect resistance transgenes. Proc Soc Lond B Biol Sci 272:1759–1767CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kollipara KP, Singh RJ, Hymowitz T (1997) Phylogenetic and genomic relationships in the genus Glycine Willd. based on sequences from the ITS region of nuclear rDNA. Genome 40:57–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kosambi DD (1944) The estimation of map distance from recombination values. Ann Eugen 12:172–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuroda Y, Kaga A, Apa A, Duncan AV, Tomooka N, Yano H, Matsuoka N (2005) Exploration, collection and monitoring of wild soybean and hybrid derivatives between wild soybean and cultivated soybean: based on field surveys at Akita, Ibaraki, Aichi, Hiroshima and Saga Prefectures. Ann Rep Exploit Intro Plant Genet Res 21:73–95Google Scholar
  16. Kuroda Y, Kaga A, Tomooka N, Vaughan DA (2006) Population genetic structure of Japanese wild soybean (Glycine soja) based on microsatellite variation. Mol Ecol 15:959–974PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Liu B, Fujita T, Yan ZH, Sakamoto S, Xu D, Abe J (2007) QTL mapping of domestication-related traits in soybean (Glycine max). Ann Bot 100:1027–1038PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lu CM, Kato M, Kakihara F (2002) Destiny of a transgene escape from Brassica napus into Brassica rapa. Theor Appl Genet 105:78–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mather K, Jinks JL (1971) Biometrical Genetics. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  20. OECD (2000) Series on Harmonisation of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology, No. 15: Consensus Document on the Biology of Glycine max (L.) Merr. (Soybean). http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2000doc.nsf/LinkTo/env-jm-mono(2000)9. Accessed 18 August 2010
  21. Peng J, Ronin Y, Fahima T, Roder M, Li Y, Nevo E, Korol A (2003) Domestication quantitative trait loci in Triticum dicoccoides, the progenitor of wheat. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:2489–2494PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Song QJ, Marek LF, Shoemaker RC, Lark KG, Concibido VC, Delannay X, Specht JE, Cregan PB (2004) A new integrated genetic linkage map of the soybean. Theor Appl Genet 109:122–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Stewart CN, Halfhill MD, Warwick SI (2003) Transgene introgression from genetically modified crops to their wild relatives. Nat Genet 4:806–817CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Van Ooijen JW, Voorrips RE (2001) JoinMap 3.0 software for the calculation of genetic linkage maps. Plant Research International, Wageningen, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  25. Watanabe S, Tajuddin T, Yamanaka N, Hayashi M, Harada K (2004) Analysis of QTLs for reproductive development and seed quality traits in soybean using recombinant inbred lines. Breed Sci 54:399–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Weis AE, Hochberg ME (2000) The diverse effects of intraspecific competition on the selective advantage to resistance: a model and its predictions. Am Nat 156:276–292CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Plant Breeding, Graduate School of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of TsukubaIbarakiJapan
  2. 2.GenebankNational Institute of Agrobiological SciencesIbarakiJapan

Personalised recommendations