Gene expression profiles of MON810 and comparable non-GM maize varieties cultured in the field are more similar than are those of conventional lines
Maize is a major food crop and genetically modified (GM) varieties represented 24% of the global production in 2007. Authorized GM organisms have been tested for human and environmental safety. We previously used microarrays to compare the transcriptome profiles of widely used commercial MON810 versus near-isogenic varieties and reported differential expression of a small set of sequences in leaves of in vitro cultured plants of AristisBt/Aristis and PR33P67/PR33P66 (Coll et al. 2008). Here we further assessed the significance of these differential expression patterns in plants grown in a real context, i.e. in the field. Most sequences that were differentially expressed in plants cultured in vitro had the same expression values in MON810 and comparable varieties when grown in the field; and no sequence was found to be differentially regulated in the two variety pairs grown in the field. The differential expression patterns observed between in vitro and field culture were similar between MON810 and comparable varieties, with higher divergence between the two conventional varieties. This further indicates that MON810 and comparable non-GM varieties are equivalent except for the introduced character.
KeywordsGMO (Genetically Modified Organism) MON810 Maize Field Unintended effects Expression profile
Certified reference material.
European Food Safety Authority.
Genetically modified organism.
Institute for Reference Materials and Measurements.
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications.
- Real-time RT-PCR
Reverse transcription coupled to real-time polymerase chain reaction.
Vegetative two-leaf stage.
- Afreen F, Zobayed SMA, Kubota C, Kozai T (2000) Physiology of in vitro plantlets grown photoautotrophically. In: Kubota C, Chun C (eds) Transplant production in the 21st century. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, pp 238–246Google Scholar
- Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc B 57:289–300Google Scholar
- Catchpole GS, Beckmann M, Enot DP, Mondhe M, Zywicki B, Taylor J, Hardy N, Smith A, King RD, Kell DB, Fiehn O, Draper J (2005) Hierarchical metabolomics demonstrates substantial compositional similarity between genetically modified and conventional potato crops. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:14458–14462. doi:10.1073/pnas.0503955102 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I, Constable A, Davies HV, Engel KH, Gatehouse AM, Karenlampi S, Kok EJ, Leguay JJ, Lehesranta S, Noteborn HP, Pedersen J, Smith M (2004) Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food Chem Toxicol 42:1089–1125. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2004.02.003 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Dhanaraj AL, Alkharouf NW, Beard HS, Chouikha IB, Matthews BF, Wei H, Arora R, Rowland LJ (2007) Major differences observed in transcript profiles of blueberry during cold acclimation under field and cold room conditions. Planta 225:735–751. doi:10.1007/s00425-006-0382-1 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- EFSA GMO Panel (2008) Safety and nutritional assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed: the role of animal feeding trials. Food Chem Toxicol 46(Supplement 1):S2–S70Google Scholar
- Griffiths BS, Heckmann LH, Caul S, Thompson J, Scrimgeour C, Krogh PH (2007) Varietal effects of eight paired lines of transgenic Bt maize and near-isogenic non-Bt maize on soil microbial and nematode community structure. Plant Biotechnol J 5:60–68. doi:10.1111/j.1467-7652.2006.00215.x PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- James C (2008) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2008. ISAAA Briefs 39. ISAAA, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
- Kristensen C, Morant M, Olsen CE, Ekstrom CT, Galbraith DW, Moller BL, Bak S (2005) Metabolic engineering of dhurrin in transgenic Arabidopsis plants with marginal inadvertent effects on the metabolome and transcriptome. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102:1779–1784. doi:10.1073/pnas.0409233102 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lehesranta SJ, Davies HV, Shepherd LV, Nunan N, McNicol JW, Auriola S, Koistinen KM, Suomalainen S, Kokko HI, Karenlampi SO (2005) Comparison of tuber proteomes of potato varieties, landraces, and genetically modified lines. Plant Physiol 138:1690–1699. doi:10.1104/pp.105.060152 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Parrott W (2005) The nature of change: towards sensible regulation of transgenic crops based on lessons from plant breeding, biotecnology and genomics. In: Proceedings of the 17th North American Biothecnology Council, Nahville, Tenn., June 27–29 2005. Available from: http://nabc.cals.cornell.edu/pubs/nabc_17/parts/NABC17_Banquet_1.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2008
- Ruebelt MC, Lipp M, Reynolds TL, Schmuke JJ, Astwood JD, DellaPenna D, Engel KH, Jany KD (2006) Application of two-dimensional gel electrophoresis to interrogate alterations in the proteome of gentically modified crops, 3-Assessing unintended effects. J Agric Food Chem 54:2169–2177. doi:10.1021/jf052358q PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Salvia J, López A, Capellades G, Betbesé JA, Serra J (2008) Varietats de blat de moro per a la campanya 2008. Dossier Tècnic 27:3–14Google Scholar
- Shepherd LV, 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 15:409–425. doi:10.1007/s11248-006-0012-5 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar