Skip to main content

A Case Study for Assessment of Microbial Community Dynamics in Genetically Modified Bt Cotton Crop Fields

Current Microbiology volume 61, pages 118–124 (2010)Cite this article

Abstract

Bt cotton was the first genetically modified crop approved for use in India. However, only a few studies have been conducted to assess the feasibility of its commercial application. Bt cotton is genetically modified to express a proteinaceous endotoxin (Cry) encoded by cry gene of Bacillus thuringiensis that has specific insecticidal activity against bollworms. Therefore, the amount of pesticides used for growing Bt cotton is postulated to be considerably low as compared to their non-Bt counterparts. Alternatively, it is also speculated that application of a genetically modified crop may alter the bio-geochemical balance of the agriculture field(s). Microbial community composition and dynamics is an important descriptor for assessment of such alterations. In the present study, we have assessed the culturable and non-culturable microbial diversities in Bt cotton and non-Bt cotton soils to determine the ecological consequences of application of Bt cotton. The analyses of microbial community structures indicated that cropping of Bt cotton did not adversely affect the diversity of the microbial communities.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Abdo Z, Schüette UM, Bent SJ et al (2006) Statistical methods for characterizing diversity of microbial communities by analysis of terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms of 16S rRNA genes. Environ Microbiol 8:929–938

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Bambawale OM, Singh A, Sharma OP et al (2004) Performance of Bt cotton (MECH-162) under Integrated Pest Management in farmers’ participatory field trial in Nanded district, Central India. Curr Sci 86:1628–1633

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dahllof I (2002) Molecular community analysis of the microbial diversity. Curr Opin Biotechnol 140:82–87

    Google Scholar 

  4. DeLong EF, Pace NR (2001) Environmental diversity of bacteria and archaea. Syst Biol 50:470–478

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Dunbar J, Ticknor LO, Kuske CR (2000) Assessment of microbial diversity in four southwestern United States soils by 16S rRNA gene terminal restriction fragment length analysis. Appl Environ Microbiol 66:2943–2950

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dunfield KE, Germida JJ (2003) Seasonal changes in the rhizosphere microbial communities associated with field-grown genetically modified canola (Brassica napus). Appl Environ Microbiol 69:7310–7318

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunfield KE, Germida JJ (2004) Impact of genetically modified crops on soil- and plant-associated microbial communities. J Environ Qual 33:806–815

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Engebretson JJ, Moyer CL (2003) Fidelity of select restriction endonucleases in determining microbial diversity by terminal-restriction fragment length polymorphism. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:4823–4829

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Estruch JJ, Carozzi NB, Desai N et al (1997) Transgenic plants: an emerging approach to pest control. Nat Biotechnol 15:137–141

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Franklin RB, Mills AL (2003) Multi-scale variation in spatial heterogeneity for microbial community structure in an eastern Virginia agricultural field. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 44:335–346

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Giovannetti M (2003) The ecological risks of transgenic plants. Biol Forum 96:207–224

    Google Scholar 

  12. Hofte H, Whiteley HR (1989) Insecticidal crystal protein of Bacillus thuringiensis. Microbiol Rev 53:242–255

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. LeBlanc PM, Hamelin RC, Filion M (2007) Alteration of soil rhizosphere communities following genetic transformation of white spruce. Appl Environ Microbiol 73:4128–4134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. McGaughey WH, Gould F, Gelernter W (1998) Bt resistance management. Nat Biotechnol 16:144–146

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. O’Callaghan M, Glare TR, Burgess EP, Malone LA (2005) Effects of plants genetically modified for insect resistance on non-target organisms. Annu Rev Entomol 50:271–292

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Paul D, Pandey G, Meier C et al (2006) Bacterial community structure of a pesticide-contaminated site and assessment of changes induced in community structure during bioremediation. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 57:116–127

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Ranjard L, Poly F, Nazaret S (2000) Monitoring complex bacterial communities using culture-independent molecular techniques: application to soil environment. Res Microbiol 151:167–177

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Romeis J, Meissle M, Bigler F (2006) Transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis toxins and biological control. Nat Biotechnol 24:63–71

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sakamoto T, Matsuoka M (2004) Generating high-yielding varieties by genetic manipulation of plant architecture. Curr Opin Biotechnol 15:144–147

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Tyson GW, Banfield JF (2005) Cultivating the uncultivated: a community genomics perspective. Trends Microbiol 13:411–415

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Uzogara SG (2000) The impact of genetic modification of human food in the 21st century: a review. Biotechnol Adv 18:179–206

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Wallimann T (2000) Bt toxin: assessing GM strategies. Science 287:41

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR (2000) The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science 290:2088–2093

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Monsanto India Ltd. for funding the present study and to Mr. R. D. Kapoor for his suggestions during the preparation of the manuscript. We are also thankful to Dr. O. M. Bambawale, NCIPM, for providing the soil samples from the trial fields. Thanks is also extended to Mr. Dhan Prakash and Ms. Archana Chauhan for their help and assistance. This is an IMTECH communication number 038/2009.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Microbial Technology (CSIR), Sector 39A, Chandigarh, India

    Manisha Kapur, Ranjana Bhatia, Gunjan Pandey, Janmejay Pandey, Debarati Paul & Rakesh K. Jain

Authors
  1. Manisha Kapur
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ranjana Bhatia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gunjan Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Janmejay Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Debarati Paul
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Rakesh K. Jain
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rakesh K. Jain.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kapur, M., Bhatia, R., Pandey, G. et al. A Case Study for Assessment of Microbial Community Dynamics in Genetically Modified Bt Cotton Crop Fields. Curr Microbiol 61, 118–124 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-010-9585-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-010-9585-6

Keywords

  • Microbial Community Structure
  • Cotton Field
  • Tryptone Soya Agar
  • Dibasic Potassium Phosphate
  • Soyabean Meal