Science Bulletin

, Volume 61, Issue 20, pp 1555–1557 | Cite as

Bt protein expression in the transgenic insect-resistant cotton in China

  • Guoqing Sun
  • Dongling Zhang
  • Rui Zhang
  • Yuan Wang
  • Zhigang Meng
  • Tao Zhou
  • Chenzhen Liang
  • Tao Zhu
  • Sandui Guo
News & Views
  • 741 Downloads

According to statistics of International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), 18 million farmers in 28 countries planted more than 181 million hectares of genetically modified (GM) crops in 2014, at an annual growth rate of between 3 %–4 %, with 6.3 million ha more than 2013 [1]. Among these counties, China ranks the sixth with 3.9 million ha. Globally, 27 kinds of transgenic crops have been approved. The four main food groups for which GM varieties are cultivated and the proportion of each worldwide that consists of genetically modified strains are soybean, cotton, maize and rapeseed [2]. Among these crops, transgenic cotton has been one of the most rapidly adopted GM crops in the world, which expressed insecticidal proteins from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Especially, more than 90 % of cotton were transgenic, containing Cry gene(s) such as Cry1Ac, Cry1Ac + Cry2Ab or Cry1Ac + Cry1AF. Extensive planting of Bt cotton efficiently controlled target pests either in the USA or in China and is highly beneficial to the environment by reducing chemical insecticide sprays and preserving population of beneficial arthropods. In recent years, Cry genes were transformed into maize [3], rice [4], and other species.

It is very important that the Bt toxin protein be sustainably expressed in adequate quantities in plant parts at the requisite time of the whole season to afford protection against target insect pests. We screened Bt protein expression in different tissues at whole growth stage of 32 transgenic pest-resistant varieties using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (Fig. S1). Results showed that Cry1Ac protein underwent rapid degradation in the early stage, followed by a slow decline in the later stage. Among the four tissues, the contents of Cry1Ac protein in leaves were the highest, followed by the buds, and the bolls were the lowest. The expression of Cry1Ac in leaves and buds gradually declined with cotton growth, while those in flowers and bolls were relatively constant. It indicated that the levels of Bt protein in cotton tissues fluctuate during the whole growing season [5, 6] Some studies concluded that the overexpression of bt gene at earlier stages led to gene regulation at the post-transcription level and contributed to the consequent gene silencing [7, 8]. Moreover, Xia et al. reported lower expression level of bt gene at late stage correlated with changes in the methylation state of the 35S promoter region. Although the amount of the insecticidal protein in Bt-cotton tissues was considerable reduced at later stage, the toxin level did not fall below the critical level, and still maintains relative high efficacy against insect pest [9]. In this study, the efficacy against insect pest of these varieties also maintained high level, indicated by less Helicoverpa armigera survived after fed by leaves, buds, flowers and young bolls of experimental varieties (unpublished data).

What factors resulted in the difference? Variations in the efficacy of Bt cotton and the involved mechanisms need to be understood fully. Untill 2007, there were 162 transgenic varieties approved. Among these varieties, 18 varieties were bred by transformed bt gene into plant recipient, accounting for only 11 %; while 133 varieties were bred by crossing between authorized transgenic varieties and conventional varieties, in which one half were bred from GK12 and sGK321. According to the origin of 32 varieties, we divided all varieties into different groups. The results indicated that Nankang3 had the highest expression level in all tissues in whole growing season, followed by sGK321. No significant differences on Bt expression levels were observed among the four residual varieties (Fig. 1, Table S1). Except for the above six varieties, some varieties were divided into same group because they were bred from one same parent (male parent or female parent). There were three varieties bred from sGK321. Compared with sGK321, these three varieties had lower Bt levels in leaves, buds, flowers and bolls in whole growing season (Fig. S2, Table S2). Similarly, there were eight varieties derived from GK12. Unlike the lines derived from sGK321, there were not significant differences between GK12 and its derived varieties (Fig. S3). By comparing the expression levels of Bt, we believe that genetic background is one important factor, along with the inserted point, causes the difference of BT level among varieties. GK12 contains seven copies of bt gene, while sGK321 contained only two copies. However, the level of Bt protein in GK12 was significantly lower than that in sGK321. Further studies on the inserted point of bt gene may also provide valuable information.
Fig. 1

Bt levels in six varieties transformed with bt gene. x axis shows the time of examination as day/month

Most of varieties had similar Bt protein levels, with only a few showed higher expression. In recent years, some farmers found that the cotton transferred bt could not well resisted the cotton bollworm, Heliothis armigera. In some districts of Shandong, insects overflow was found even in the fields of transgenic cotton. As the Bt levels did not decline rapidly with time (Fig. S4), the possible reasons that account for the above phenomenon may include the increasing resistance of target pests [10, 11], purity of seed [12], and environmental factors [13].

In China, nearly 90 % of the transgenic pest-resistant cotton were bred by crossing between conventional varieties, which caused relatively low genetic diversity, narrow hereditary basis and high similarities in genetic background. To breed new pest-resistant cotton, a more promising method is to transfer bt gene into non-transgenic variety using genetic engineering technique, rather than crossing conventional varieties and authorized bt-transgenic varieties. Meanwhile, understanding the underlying mechanisms that regulate the bt gene expression may also contribute to the successful breeding of pest-resistant cotton in China.

Notes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11434_2016_1158_MOESM1_ESM.docx (743 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 743 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    ISAAA Brief 49-2014: Executive Summary. http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/49/executivesummary/default.asp. Accessed 23 September 2016
  2. 2.
    The Organization Committee of the International Workshop on the Global Status of Transgenic Crops (2015) Communication of the international GMO workshop. Sci Bull 60:283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Székács A, Lauber É, Takács E et al (2010) Detection of Cry1Ab toxin in the leaves of MON 810 transgenic maize. Anal Bioanal Chem 396:2203–2211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wu G, Cui H, Ye G et al (2002) Inheritance and expression of the cry1Ab gene in Bt (Bacillus thuriingiensis) transgenic rice. Theor Appl Genet 104:727–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chen D, Ye G, Yang C et al (2005) The effect of high temperature on the insecticidal properties of Bt cotton. Environ Exp Bot 53:333–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mahon R, Finnergan J, Olsen K et al (2002) Environmental stress and the efficacy of Bt cotton. Aust Cotton Grower 22:18–21Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Olsen KM, Daly JC, Holt HE et al (2005) Season-long variation in expression of Cry1Ac gene and efficacy of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin in transgenic cotton against Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J Econ Entomol 98:1007–1017CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Adamczyk JJ Jr, Perera O, Meredith WR (2009) Production of mRNA from the cry1Ac transgene differs among Bollgard lines which correlates to the level of subsequent protein. Transgenic Res 18:143–149CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenplate JT, Head GP, Penn SR et al (1998) Factors influencing the survival of Helicoverpa zea on Bollgard cotton. In: Dugger, P, Richter D (eds) Proc Beltwide cotton conference, National Cotton Council of America, Memphis, TN, pp 1020–1022Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bates SL, Zhao JZ, Roush RT et al (2005) Insect resistance management in GM crops: past, present and future. Nat Biotechnol 23:57–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tabashnik BE, Gassmann AJ, Crowder DW et al (2008) Insect resistance to Bt crops: evidence versus theory. Nat Biotechnol 26:199–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sun GQ, Zhang R, Wang Y et al (2013) Influence of seed purity on onsect resistance and yield in transgenic cotton. Curr Biotechnol 3:27–31Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pettigrew WT, Adamczyk JJ (2006) Nitrogen fertility and planting date effects on lint yield and cry1a/c (bt) endotoxin production. Agron J 98:691–697CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guoqing Sun
    • 1
  • Dongling Zhang
    • 1
  • Rui Zhang
    • 1
  • Yuan Wang
    • 1
  • Zhigang Meng
    • 1
  • Tao Zhou
    • 1
  • Chenzhen Liang
    • 1
  • Tao Zhu
    • 1
  • Sandui Guo
    • 1
  1. 1.Biotechnology Research InstituteChinese Academy of Agricultural SciencesBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations