Skip to main content
Log in

Field performance of transgenic potato plants compared with controls regenerated from tuber discs and shoot cuttings

  • Published:
Theoretical and Applied Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The objective of this study was to separate and determine effects on the field performance of transgenic potatoes that originate from the tissue culture process of transformation and from the genes inserted. The constructs introduced contained the reporter gene for betaglucuronidase (GUS) under the control of the patatin promoter (four different constructs) and the neomycin phosphotransferase gene under the control of the nopaline synthase promoter. Both genes might be expected to have a neutral effect on plant phenotype. The field performance of transgenic plants (70 independent transformants) was compared with non-transgenic plants regenerated from tuber discs by adventitious shoot formation and from shoot cultures established from tuber nodal cuttings. Plants from all three treatments were grown in a field trial from previously field-grown tubers, and plant performance was measured in terms of plant height at flowering, weight of tubers, number of tubers, weight of large tubers and number of large tubers. There was evidence of somaclonal variation among the transgenic plants; mean values for all characters were significantly lower and variances generally higher than from plants derived from nodal shoot cultures. A similar change in means and variances was observed for the non-transgenic tuber-disc regenerants when compared with shoot culture plants. Plant height, tuber weight and tuber number were, however, significantly lower in transgenic plants than in tuber-disc regenerants, suggesting an effect on plant performance either of the tissue culture process used for transformation or of the genes inserted. There were significant differences between constructs for all five plant characters. The construct with the smallest segment of patatin promoter and the lowest level of tuber specificity for GUS expression had the lowest values for all five characters. It is proposed that the nature of GUS expression is influencing plant performance. There was no indication that the NPTII gene, used widely in plant transformation, has any substantial effect on plant performance in the field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allard RW (1960) Principles of plant breeding. John Wiley and Sons, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bevan M (1984) Binary Agrobacterium vectors for plant transformation. Nucleic Acids Res 12:8711–8721.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blundy KS, Blundy MAC, Carter D, Wilson F, Park WD, Burrell MM (1991) The expression of class I patatin gene fusions in transgenic potato varies with both gene and cultivar. Plant Mol Biol 16:153–160.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark MF, Adams AN (1977) Characteristics of the microplate method of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the detection of plant viruses J Gen Virol 34:475–483.

    Google Scholar 

  • D'Halluin K, Botterman J, De Greef W (1990) Engineering of herbicide resistant alfalfa and evaluation under field conditions. Crop Sci 30:866–871.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale PJ, McQueen AP, Sweatman SM, Wray RW (1986) Annual Report. Plant Breeding Institute, Cambridge, UK, pp 51–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Greef W, Delon R, De Block M, Leemans J, Botterman J (1989) Evaluation of herbicide resistance in transgenic crops under field conditions. Biotechnology 7:61–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delannay X, LaVallee BJ, Proksch RK, Fuchs RL, Sims SR, Greenplate JT, Marrone PG, Dodson RB, Augustine JJ, Layton JG, Fischhof DA (1989) Field performance of transgenic tomato plants expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki insect control protein. Biotechnology 7:1265–1269.

    Google Scholar 

  • Errampalli D, Patton D, Castle L, Mickelson L, Hansen K, Schnall J, Feldman K, Meinke D (1991) Embryonic lethals and T-DNA insertional mutagenesis in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 3:149–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldmann KA, Marks MD (1987) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of germinating seeds of Arabidopsis thaliana: a non-tissue culture approach. Mol Gen Genet 208:1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feldmann KA, Marks MD, Christianson ML, Quatrano RS (1989) A dwarf mutant of Arabidopsis generated by T-DNA insertion mutagenesis. Science 243:1351–1354.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fincham JRS (1983) Genetics. John Wiley and Sons, Bristol.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs SLA, Kpodar P, DeLong CMO (1990) The effect of T-DNA copy number, position and methylation on reporter gene expression in tobacco transformants. Plant Mol Biol 15:851–864.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson RA (1989) The GUS reporter gene system. Nature 342:837–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson RA (1990) New approaches for agricultural molecular biology: from single cells to field analysis. In: Gustafson JP (ed) Gene manipulation in plant improvement II. Plenum Press, New York, pp 365–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson R, Goldsbrough A, Bevan M (1990) Transcriptional regulation of a patatin-1 gene in potato. Plant Mol Biol 14:995–1006.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karp A (1991) On the current understanding of somaclonal variation. Oxford Surveys Plant Mol Cell Biol 7:1–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karp A, Bright SWJ (1985) On the causes and origins of somaclonal variation. Oxford Surveys Plant Mol Cell Biol 2:199–234.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR (1981) Somaclonal variation — a novel source of variation from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theor Appl Genet 60:197–214.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lycett GW, Grierson D (1990) (eds) Genetic engineering of crop plants. Butterworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • McHughen A, Holm F (1991) Herbicide resistant transgenic flax field test: agronomic performance in normal and sulfonyl-urea-containing soils. Euphytica 55:49–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant 15:473–497.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson RS, McCormick SM, Delannay X, Dube P, Layton A, Anderson EJ, Kaniewska M, Proksch RK, Horsch R, Rogers SG, Fraley RT, Beachy RN (1988) Virus tolerance, plant growth, and field performance of transgenic tomato plants expressing coat protein from tobacco mosaic virus. Biotechnology 6:403–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rietveld RC, Hasegawa PK, Bressan RA (1991) Somaclonal variation in tuber disc-derived populations of potato I. Evidence of genetic stability across tuber generations and diverse locations. Theor Appl Genet 82:430–440.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheerman S, Bevan MW (1988) A rapid transformation method for Solanum tuberosum using binary Agrobacterium tumefaciens vectors. Plant Cell Rep 7:13–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1990) Statistical methods. Iowa State University Press, Iowa, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westcott RJ, Henshaw GG, Grout BWW (1977) Tissue culture methods and germplasm storage in potato. ACTA Horticul 78:45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wheeler VA, Evans NE, Foulger D, Webb KJ, Karp A, Franklin J, Bright SWJ (1985) Shoot formation from explant cultures of fourteen potato cultivars and studies of the cytology and morphology of regenerated plants. Ann Bot 55:309–320.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Communicated by J. W. Snape

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Dale, P.J., McPartlan, H.C. Field performance of transgenic potato plants compared with controls regenerated from tuber discs and shoot cuttings. Theoret. Appl. Genetics 84, 585–591 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00224156

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00224156

Key words

Navigation