Potato Research

, Volume 59, Issue 2, pp 129–147 | Cite as

Detailed Molecular Characterisation of the Transgenic Potato Line, AppA6, Modified with the Apple (Malus domestica) Polygalacturonase Inhibiting Protein 1 (pgip1) Gene

  • Lerato B. T. Matsaunyane
  • Dean Oelofse
  • Ian A. DuberyEmail author


Current safety assessment of genetically modified crops requires detailed information about the insertion of the transgene and the effect of its expression on the biochemistry and physiology of the host plant. Whilst the intended effect of the transformation can be verified through phenotypic screening, molecular approaches are required to observe unintended effects. We investigated the molecular details of the integration of a polygalacturonase inhibiting protein 1 gene from Malus domestica (Mdpgip1), overexpressed in Solanum tuberosum (cv BP1) for enhanced resistance against Verticillium wilt. Genome walking studies of the selected AppA6 transformant revealed that the T-DNA containing the Mdpgip1 transgene under control of the CaMV 35S promoter was inserted into the genome without any non-T-DNA sequences from the pCAMBIA2300 vector. Sequence data indicate that the insertion of the Mdpgip1 transgene was in a gene-rich region of chromosome 1, adjacent to the photosystem Q B gene but without disruption of structural genes. Transcriptome-based cDNA-representational difference analysis revealed the distinctive expression of Mdpgip1 in the transgenic AppA6 line, verifying the intended effect. Protein extracts from the transgenic plants inhibited the activities of Verticillium dahliae polygalacturonases in in vitro studies, showing that the transgene is expressed to produce an active PGIP defense protein. cDNA-AFLP fingerprinting revealed genes that were differentially expressed, including genes encoding tryptophan/tyrosine permease, Ef-Tu domain and SKP1-like 1A proteins. qRT-PCR indicated that the Mdpgip1 transgene insertion resulted in increased expression in the AppA6 transgenic of the xyloglucan endotransglycosylase (xth) gene and an endogenous Stpgip1 gene. These unintended changes were either caused by the constitutive expression of the Mdpgip1 transgene or transformation-related somaclonal variation. The results indicate that the stable, single copy integration of the Mdpgip1 gene in the AppA6 transgenic line did not disrupt any structural genes but caused unintended effects that affected gene expression compared to the parental counterpart under the non-stressed experimental conditions investigated.


Agrobacterium-mediated transformation Differential gene expression Genetically modified Genome walking PGIP Transgene insertion Unintended effects 



The South African Agricultural Research Council (ARC), Department of Science and Technology (DST), AgriSETA, National Research Foundation (NRF) and Potato South Africa (PSA) are thanked for financial support. Drs. Inge Gazendam, Adri Veale and Prof. Dave Berger are thanked for their roles in generating the potato transformants. Dr. Christian Bachem (Potato Genome Sequencing Consortium) is thanked for assistance with the potato sequence information and Dr. Arnaud Thierry Djami-Tchatchou (University of Johannesburg) for guidance with the qRT-PCR work.

Authors’ Contributions

All authors conceptualised the research. LBTM performed the analyses. DO and IAD supervised the research and contributed to writing of the manuscript. All authors read and critically revised the manuscript.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

LBTM and DO are staff members of the South African ARC. The authors declare that they have no competing interest regarding the publication of this article.

Supplementary material

11540_2016_9316_MOESM1_ESM.docx (39 kb)
Fig. S1 A diagrammatic representation of the plasmid map of the pCAMBIA2300-appgip1A recombinant used to design the required gene-specific oligonucleotides (GSOs) for genome walking (GW). Oligonucleotides designed from the Malus domestica polygalacturonase inhibiting protein 1 (Mdpgip1) gene were designated Mdpgip1 GSOs, oligonucleotides designed from the CaMV 35S promoter were designated CaMV GSOs and oligonucleotides designed from the neomycin transferase II (nptII) gene were designated Border GSOs (Tables S1-S3). (DOCX 39 kb)
11540_2016_9316_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (159 kb)
Fig. S2 a cDNA-RDA: PCR amplification of the tester and driver hybridisation to produce the Second Difference Product (DP2) using N Dpn24 oligonucleotide. b cDNA-RDA: PCR amplification of the tester and driver hybridisation to produce the Third Difference Product (DP3) using J Dpn24 oligonucleotide. (PDF 159 kb)
11540_2016_9316_MOESM3_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Fig. S3 Inhibition of Verticillium dahliae polygalacturonases (PGs) by MdPgip1 expressed in the AppA6 transgenic potato. The linear range activity of PG dilution series determined using the reducing sugar assay. (DOCX 31 kb)
11540_2016_9316_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (1.1 mb)
Fig. S4 AFLPs: An autoradiography visualisation of genes differentially expressed between the untransformed BP1 and Mdpgip1 transgenic AppA6 potato transcriptomes obtained using cDNA-AFLP fingerprinting. (PDF 1.11 mb)
11540_2016_9316_MOESM5_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Table S1 Characteristics of oligonucleotides used during genome walking (GW 1) using a method adapted from Siebert et al. (1995). These oligonucleotides include the protocol specific AP1 and AP2, DNA Walking SpeedUp™ kit GSO1 previously designed, and oligonucleotides used during isolation and screening of the Mdpgip1 gene. (DOCX 15 kb)
11540_2016_9316_MOESM6_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Table S2 Characteristics of oligonucleotides used during genome walking (GW 2) using the DNA Walking SpeedUp™ kit. These oligonucleotides include the designed gene-specific oligonucleotides (GSOs) and the kit supplied DNA Walking-Annealing Control Primers (DW-ACPs). (DOCX 15 kb)
11540_2016_9316_MOESM7_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Table S3 Characteristics of oligonucleotides used during genome walking (GW 3) using the APAgene™ GOLD Genome Walking kit. These oligonucleotides include the kit-based specific DRT A, DRT B, DRT C, DRT D, UAP-N1 and UAP-N2. The Mdpgip1 GSOs were designed from the Mdpgip1 gene, the nptII GSOs were designed from the nptII gene and the CaMV GSOs were designed using the pCAMBIA2300-based CaMV 35S promoter. (DOCX 15 kb)
11540_2016_9316_MOESM8_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Table S4 Characteristics of oligonucleotides and probes used during real time quantitative reverse transcriptase PCR (qRT-PCR) to determine differentially expressed genes between the Mdpgip1 transgenic AppA6 and untransformed BP1 potato transcriptomes. (DOCX 15 kb)


  1. AgBios (2008) GMO database.
  2. Alexandersson E, Becker JVW, Jacobson D, Nguema-Ona E, Steyn C, Denby KJ, Vivier MA (2011) Constitutive expression of a grapevine polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein affects gene expression and cell wall properties in uninfected tobacco. BioMed Cent Res Notes 4:493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arendse MS, Dubery IA, Berger DK (1999) A polymerase chain reaction method for cloning gene homologues: isolation of a plant anti-fungal polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein gene. Electron J Biotechnol 2:152–159Google Scholar
  4. Bachem CWB, van der Hoeven RS, de Bruijn SM, Vreugdenhil D, Zabeau M, Visser RGF (1996) Visualization of differential gene expression using a novel method of RNA fingerprinting based on AFLP: analysis of gene expression during potato tuber development. Plant J 9:745–753CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bachem CWB, Oomen RJFJ, Visser RGF (1998) Transcript imaging with cDNA-AFLP: a step-by-step protocol. Plant Mol Biol Report 16:157–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barakat A, Gallois P, Raynal M, Mestre-Ortega D, Sallaud C, Guiderdoni E, Delseny M, Bernardi G (2000) The distribution of T-DNA in the genomes of transgenic Arabidopsis and rice. FEBS Lett 471:161–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Barrell PJ, Meiyalaghan S, Jacobs JME, Conner AJ (2013) Applications of biotechnology and genomics in potato improvement. Plant Biotechnol J 11:907–920CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Batista R, Oliveira MM (2009) Facts and fiction of genetically engineered food. Trends Biotechnol 27:277–286CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Bustin SA (2000) Absolute quantification of mRNA using real-time reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction assays. J Mol Endocrinol 25:169–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I, Constable A, Davies HV, Engel KH, Gatehouse AMR, Kӓrenlampi S, Kok EJ, Leguay J-J, Lehesranta S, Noteborn HPJM, Pedersen J, Smith M (2004) Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1089–1125CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Colquhoun IJ, Le Gall G, Elliott KA, Mellon FA, Michael AJ (2006) Shall I compare thee to a GM potato. Trends Genet 22:525–528CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Cullis CA, Vorster BJ, Van Der Vyver C, Kunert KJ (2009) Transfer of genetic material between the chloroplast and nucleus: how is it related to stress in plants? Ann Bot 103:625–633CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. De Lorenzo G, D’Ovidio R, Cervone F (2001) The role of polygalacturonase-inhibiting proteins (PGIPs) in defense against pathogenic fungi. Annu Rev Phytopathol 39:313–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (DAFF) (2013) Economic review of the South African Agriculture 2012/2013.
  16. Domingo JL, Bordonaba JG (2011) A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environ Int 37:734–742CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Federici L, Di Matteo A, Fernandez-Recio J, Tsernoglou D, Cervone F (2006) Polygalacturonase inhibiting proteins: players in plant innate immunity? Trends Plant Sci 11:65–70CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Gazendam I, Oelofse D, Berger DK (2004) High-level expression of apple PGIP1 is not sufficient to protect transgenic potato against Verticillium dahliae. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 65:145–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Herman RA (2013) Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of research. J Agric Food Chem 61:11695–11701CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Hubank M, Schatz DG (1994) Identifying differences in mRNA expression by representational difference analysis of cDNA. Nucleic Acids Res 22:5640–5648CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. James C (2010) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA) Brief 42., Ithaca
  22. Janni M, Sella L, Favaron F, Blechl AE, De Lorenzo G, D’Ovidio R (2008) The expression of a bean PGIP in transgenic wheat confers increased resistance to the fungal pathogen Bipolaris sorokiniana. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 21:171–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Joubert DA, Slaughter AR, Kemp G, Becker JVW, Krooshof GH, Bergmann C, Benen J, Pretorius IS, Vivier MA (2006) The grapevine polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein (VvPGIP1) reduces Botrytis cinerea susceptibility in transgenic tobacco and differentially inhibits fungal polygalacturonases. Transgenic Res 15:687–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim S-R, Lee J, Jun S-H, Park S, Kang H-G, Kwon S, An G (2003) Transgene structures in T-DNA-inserted rice plants. Plant Mol Biol 52:761–773CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kok EJ, Franssen-van Hal NL, Winnubst LN, Kramer EH, Dijksma WT, Kuiper HA, Keijer J (2007) Assessment of representational difference analysis (RDA) to construct informative cDNA microarrays for gene expression analysis of species with limited transcriptome information, using red and green tomatoes as a model. J Plant Physiol 164:337–349CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Koncz C, Martini N, Mayerhofer R, Koncz-Kalman Z, Korber H, Redei GP, Schell J (1989) High-frequency T-DNA mediated gene tagging in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 86:8467–8471CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Koncz C, Nemeth K, Redei GP, Schell J (1992) T-DNA insertional mutagenesis in Arabidopsis. Plant Mol Biol 20:963–976CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. König A, Cockburn A, Crecel RWR, Debruyne E, Grafstroem R, Hammerling U, Kimber I, Knudsen I, Kuiper HA, Peijnenburg AACM, Penninkis AH, Poulsen M, Schauzu M, Wal JM (2004) Assessment of the safety of food derived from genetically modified (GM) crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1047–1088CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Krinitsina AA, Speransky AS, Poltronieri P, Santino A, Bogacheva AM, Buza NL, Protsenko MA, Shevelev AB (2006) Cloning of polygalacturonase inhibitor protein genes from Solanum brevidens Fill. Russ J Genet 42:376–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Ladics GS, Bartholomaeus A, Bregitzer P, Doerrer NG, Gray A et al (2015) Genetic basis and detection of unintended effects in genetically modified crop plants. Transgenic Res. doi: 10.1007/s11248-015-9867-7 PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Laufs P, Autran D, Traas J (1999) A chromosomal paracentric inversion associated with T-DNA integration in Arabidopsis. Plant J 18:131–139CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Liang Z, Breman AM, Grimes BR, Rosen ED (2008) Identifying and genotyping transgene integration loci. Transgenic Res 17:979–983CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Maritz I (2002) Evaluation of polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein (PGIP)-mediated resistance against Verticillium dahliae, a fungal pathogen of potato. MSc Dissertation, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  35. Matsaunyane LBT, Oelofse D, Dubery IA (2015) In silico analysis of the polygalacturonase inhibiting protein 1 from apple, Malus domestica. BMC Res Notes 8:76CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Miki B, Abdeen A, Manabe Y, MacDonald P (2009) Selectable marker genes and unintended changes to the plant transcriptome. Plant Biotechnol J 7:211–218CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Mohan Jain S (2001) Tissue culture-derived variation in crop improvement. Euphytica 118:153–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Motulsky H (1999) Analyzing data with GraphPad Prism: a companion to GraphPad Prism version 3. GraphPad Software, IncGoogle Scholar
  39. OECD (1993) Safety evaluation of foods derived by modern biotechnology: concepts and principles. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris
  40. Oelofse D, Dubery IA, Meyer R, Arendse MS, Gazendam I, Berger DK (2006) Apple polygalacturonase inhibiting protein 1 expressed in transgenic tobacco inhibits polygalacturonases from fungal pathogens of apple and the anthracnose pathogen of lupins. Phytochemistry 67:255–263CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Petti C, Wendt T, Meade C, Mullins E (2009) Evidence of genotype dependency within Agrobacterium tumefaciens in relation to the integration of vector backbone sequence in transgenic Phytophthora infestans-tolerant potato. J Biosci Bioeng 107:301–306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfaffl MW, Hageleit M (2001) Validities of mRNA quantification using recombinant RNA and recombinant DNA external calibration curves in real-time RT-PCR. Biotechnol Lett 23:275–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reijans M, Lascaris R, Groeneger AO, Wittenberg A, Wesselink E, Oeveren J, Wit E, Boorsma A, Voetdijk B, Spek H, Grivell LA, Simons G (2003) Quantitative comparison of cDNA-AFLP, microarrays, and genechip expression data in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genomics 82:606–618CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Rischer H, Oksman-Caldentey KM (2006) Unintended effects in genetically modified crops: revealed by metabolomics? Trends Biotechnol 24:102–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Ruebelt MC, LIPP M, Reynolds TL, Schmuke JJ, Astwood JD, Dellapenna D, Engel K-H, Jany KD (2006) Application of two-dimensional gel electrophoresis to interrogate alterations in the proteome of genetically modified crops. 3. Assessing unintended effects. J Agric Food Chem 54:2169–2177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Salvi G, Giarrizzo F, De Lorenzo G, Cervone F (1990) A polygalacturonase-inhibiting protein in the flowers of Phaseolus vulgaris L. Plant Physiol 136:513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Schmittgen TD, Zakrajsek BA, Mills AG, Gorn V, Singer MJ, Reed MW (2000) Quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction to study mRNA decay: comparison of endpoint and real-time methods. Anal Biochem 285:194–204CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Schnell J, Steele M, Bean J, Neuspiel M, Girard C, Dormann N, Pearson C, Savoie A, Bourbonniere L, Macdonald P (2015) A comparative analysis of insertional effects in genetically engineered plants: considerations for pre-market assessments. Transgenic Res 24:1–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Sharma V, Sekhwal MK, Swami AK, Sarin R (2012) Identification of drought responsive proteins using gene ontology hierarchy. Bioinformation 8:595–599CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Shepherd LVT, 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
  51. Siebert PD, Chenchik A, Kellogg DE, Lukyanov KA, Lukyanov SA (1995) An improved PCR method for walking in uncloned genomic DNA. Nucleic Acids Res 23:10870–11088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sorochinskii BV, Burlaka OM, Naumenko VD, Sekan AS (2011) Unintended effects of genetic modifications and methods of their analysis in plants. Cytol Genet 45:324–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. SOT (Society of Toxicology) (2003) The safety of genetically modified foods produced through biotechnology. Toxicol Sci 71:2–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Volpi C, Raiola A, Janni M, Gordon A, O’Sullivan DM, Favaron F, D’Ovidio R (2013) Claviceps purpurea expressing polygalacturonases escaping PGIP inhibition fully infects PvPGIP2 wheat transgenic plants but its infection is delayed in wheat transgenic plants with increased level of pectin methyl esterification. Plant Physiol Biochem 73:294–301CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Wallrapp C, Gress TM (2001) Isolation of differentially expressed genes by representational difference analysis. Methods Mol Biol 175:279–294PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Wilson AK, Latham JR, Steinbrecher RA (2006) Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 23:206–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Zhang F, Wang Z, Huang Q-S, Huang L-P, Yang Q (2010) Cloning and characterization of a PGIP-encoding gene from Solanum torvum. Agric Sci China 9:921–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Association for Potato Research 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lerato B. T. Matsaunyane
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dean Oelofse
    • 1
  • Ian A. Dubery
    • 2
    Email author
  1. 1.Agricultural Research CouncilVegetable and Ornamental Plant Institute (ARC-VOPI)PretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Department of BiochemistryUniversity of JohannesburgAuckland Park, JohannesburgSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations