Potato Research

, Volume 56, Issue 4, pp 293–324 | Cite as

Selection of Nontarget Testing Organisms for ERA of GM Potato with Increased Resistance to Late Blight

  • Frøydis T. Gillund
  • Lise Nordgaard
  • Thomas Bøhn
  • Odd Gunnar Wikmark
  • Heidi Sjursen Konestabo
  • Angelika Hilbeck


The deliberate release of any genetically modified (GM) organism in the European Union requires an environmental risk assessment (ERA) prior to commercialisation, including impact assessment on nontarget organisms. We report from two expert workshops where a newly developed selection procedure for identification of ecologically relevant testing organisms was applied to the case of a GM potato with increased resistance to late blight, planned for cultivation in southern Scandinavia. Species known to contribute to important ecological functions in the receiving environment were selected in a stepwise procedure, to arrive at a practical number of ecologically relevant species that are likely to be exposed to the transgene and suitable for experimental testing. Four ecological functional categories were identified: herbivory and disease transmission, natural enemies, ecological soil processes and pollination. Among these, relevant nontarget species were identified for herbivores and soil living pathogens, natural enemies and decomposers/beneficial soil organisms. Out of a total of 16 herbivores, 17 soil-living pathogens, 49 natural enemies and 14 decomposers/beneficial soil organisms in the initial lists, 8 herbivores, 10 soil-living pathogens, 15 natural enemies and 11 decomposers/beneficial soil organisms were identified as possible testing organisms, based on ecological criteria. These findings are highly relevant for determining the scope and structure of an ERA of this type of GM potato. The selection procedure could not be completed because of insufficient information about tissue- and developmental stage-specific expression levels of the transgenic products for this particular GM potato. Thus, the case study illustrates some of the difficulties and knowledge gaps that limit the relevance and quality of ERA of GM plants.


Environmental risk assessment GM potato Knowledge gaps Late blight resistance Nontarget organisms Unintended effects 



This work was funded by the Norwegian Environment Agency and GenØk—Centre for Biosafety. We would like to thank the workshop participants; Atle Wibe, Richard Meadow, Eline Hågvar, Peter Esbjerg, Barbara Ekbom, Dennis Jonason, Camilla Winqvist, Ricardo Holgado, Theo Ruissen, Ragnhild Nærstand, Tor J Johansen and Heidi Sjursen Konestabo and Arne Hermansen for their willingness to participate in the project, fruitful discussions during the workshop and also valuable comments to the workshop report.


  1. Andow DA, Tuat NV, Hilbeck A (eds) (2008) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, volume 4. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Artsdatabanken (2010) The 2010 Norwegian red list for species, ISBN-13: 978-82-92838-26-6. Available from Accessed 23 January 2013
  3. BASF (2011) Application for authorisation of Phytophthora resistant potato PH05-026-0048 for food and feed uses, processing and cultivation according to Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. Available from Accessed 23 January 2013
  4. BASF (2013) Press release. Available from Accessed 01 February 2013
  5. Bradeen JM, Iorizzo M, Mollov DS, Raasch J, Kramer LC, Millet BP, Austin-Phillips S, Jiang J, Carputo D (2009) Higher copy numbers of the potato RB transgene correspond to enhanced transcript and late blight resistance levels. Mol Plant Microbe In 22:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brurberg M, Elameen A, Le V, Nærstad R, Hermansen A, Lehtinen A, Hannukkala A, Nielsen B, Hansen J, Andersson B, Yuen J (2011) Genetic analysis of Phytophthora infestans populations in the Nordic European countries reveals high genetic variability. Fungal Biol 115:335–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Champouret N, Bouwmeester K, Rietman H, van der Lee T, Maliepaard C, Heupink A, van de Vondervoort PJI, Jacobsen E, Visser RGF, van der Vossen EAG, Govers F, Vleeshouwers GAA (2009) Phytophthora infestans isolates lacking Class I ipiO variants are virulent on Rpi-blb1 potato. Mol Plant Microbe In 22:1535–1545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen Y, Liy Z, Halterman DA (2012) Molecular determinants of resistance activation and supression by Phytophthora infestans effector IPI-O. PLoS Pathog 8:e1002595PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cooke LR, Schepers HTAM, Hermansen A, Bain RA, Bradshaw NJ, Ritchie F, Shaw DS, Evenhuis A, Kessel GJT, Wander JGN, Andersson B, Hansen JG, Hannukkala A, Nærstad R, Nielsen BJ (2011) Epidemiology and integrated control of potato late blight in Europe. Potato Res 54:183–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Cosa B, Moar W, Lee SB, Miller M, Daniell H (2001) Overexpression of the Bt cry2Aa2 operon in chloroplasts leads to formation of insecticidal crystals. Nat Biotechnol 19:71–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Schrijver A, Devos Y, Van den Blucke M, Cadot P, De Loose M, Reheul D, Sneyer M (2007) Risk assessment of GM stacked events obtained from crosses between GM events. Trends Food Sci Tech 18:101–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Directive 2001/18/EC (2001) On the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms. The European Parliament and the Council, Official Journal of the European Union, L 106, 17.4.2001. Available from Accessed 23 January 2013
  13. Dolezel M, Miklau M, Hilbeck A, Otto M, Eckerstorfer M, Heisenberger A, Tappeser B, Gaugitsch H (2011) Scrutinizing the current practice of the environmental risk assessment of GM maize applications for cultivation in the EU. Environ Sci Eur 23:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drenth A, Tas ICQ, Govers F (1994) DNA fingerprinting uncovers a new sexually reproducing population of Phytophthora infestans in the Netherlands. Eur J Plant Pathol 100:97–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. EFSA (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
  16. EFSA (2010a) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2010 8:1879. Available from Accessed 23 January 2013
  17. EFSA (2010b) Scientific opinion on the assessment of potential impacts of genetically modified plants on non- target organisms. EFSA Journal 8:1877. Available from Accessed 13 February 2013Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2013) Deliberate releases and placing on the EU market of genetically modified organisms—GMO register. Available from Accessed 23 January 2013
  19. Gillund F, Hilbeck A, Wikmark OG, Bøhn, T (2013) Genetically modified potato with increased resistance to P. infestans—selecting testing species for environmental risk assessment on non-target organisms. Biosafety Report 2013/01. Available from Accessed 10 June 2013
  20. Gulvik ME, Bloszyk J, Austad I, Bajaczyk R, Piwczynski D (2008) Abundance and diversity of soil microarthropod communities related to different land use regime in a traditional farm in Western Norway. Pol J Ecol 56:273–287Google Scholar
  21. Halpin C (2005) Gene stacking in transgenic plants—the challenge for 21st century plant biotechnology. Plant Biotechnol 3:141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Halterman DA, Kramer LC, Wielgus S, Jian J (2008) Performance of transgenic potato containing the late blight resistance gene RB. Plant Dis 92:339–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Halterman DA, Chen Y, Sopee J, Berduo-Sandoval J, Sánchez-Pérez A (2010) Competition between Phytophthora infestans effectors leads to increased aggressiveness on plants containing broad-spectrum late blight resistance. PLoS ONE 22:1–10Google Scholar
  24. Haselberger AG (2006) Need for an “Integrated Safety Assessment” of GMOs, linking food safety and environmental considerations. J Agric Food Chem 54:3173–3180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haverkort AJ, Struik PC, Visser RGF, Jacobsen E (2009) Applied biotechnology to combat late blight in potato caused by Phytophthora infestans. Potato Res 52:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hilbeck A, Andow DA (eds) (2004) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, volume 1. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Hilbeck A, Andow DA, Fontes EMG (eds) (2006) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified organisms, volume 2. CABI Publishing, WallingfordGoogle Scholar
  28. Hilbeck A, Jänsch S, Meier M, Römbke J (2008) Analysis and validation of present ecotoxicological test methods and strategies for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants. Federal Agency for Nature Concervation, Bonn-Bad Godesberg (DE) BfN-Skripten. Available from Accessed 23 January 2013
  29. Hilbeck A, Meier M, Römbke J, Jänsch S, Teichmann H, Tappeser B (2011) Environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants—concepts and controversies. Environ Sci Eur 23:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirk WW, Felcher KJ, Douches DS, Niemira BA, Hammerschmidt R (2001) Susceptibility of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) foliage and tubers to the US8 genotype of Phytophthora infestans. Am J Potato Res 78:319–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kramer LC, Choudoir MJ, Wielgus SM, Bhaskar PB, Jiang J (2009) Correlation between transcript abundance of the RB gene and the level of the RB-mediated late blight resistance in potato. Mol Plant Microbe In 22:447–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Krogh PH (1994) Microarthropods as bioindicators. A study of disturbed populations. Ph.D. dissertation, National Environmental Research Institute, Silkeborg, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  33. Lagerlöf J, Andren O (1988) Abundance and activity of soil mites (Acari) in 4 cropping systems. Pedobiologia 32:129–145Google Scholar
  34. Lagerlöf J, Andren O (1991) Abundance and activity of Collembola, Protura and Diplura (Insecta, Apterygota) in 4 cropping systems. Pedobiologia 35:337–350Google Scholar
  35. Latham JR, Wilson AK, Steinbrecher RA (2006) The mutational consequences of plant transformation. J Biomed Biotechnol. doi: 10.1155/JBB/2006/25376 PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu Z, Halterman D (2009) Different genetic mechanisms control foliar and tuber resistance to Phytopthora infestans in wild potato Solanum verrucosum. Am J Potato Res 86:476–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Malone LA, Todd JH, Burgess EPJ, Walter C, Wagner A, Barratt BIP (2010) Developing risk hypotheses and selecting species for assessing non-target impacts of GM trees with novel traits: the case of altered-lignin pine trees. Environ Biosafety Res 9:181–198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McAfee K (2008) Beyond techno-science: transgenic maize in the fight over Mexico’s future. Geoforum 39:148–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Park TH, Vleeshouwers VGAA, Kim JB, Hutten RCB, Visser RGF (2005) Dissection of foliage and tuber late blight resistance in mapping populations of potato. Euphytica 143:75–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Petersen H (2000) Collembola populations in an organic crop rotation: population dynamics and metabolism after conversion from clover-grass ley to spring barley. Pedobiologia 44:502–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Platt HWB, Tai G (1998) Relationship between resistance to late blight in potato foliage and tubers cultivars and breeding selections with different resistance levels. Am J Potato Res 75:175–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Podevin N, du Jardin P (2012) Possible consequences of the overlap between the CaMV 35S promoter regions in plant transformation vectors used and the viral gene VI in transgenic plants. GM Crops and Food 3:296–300PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Quist D, Chapela IH (2001) Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Nature 414:541–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sæthre MG, Hermansen A, Nærstad R (2006) Economic and environmental impacts of the introduction of Western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis) and potato late blight (Phytopthora infestans) to Norway. Bioforsk Report 1:64Google Scholar
  45. Sen GL, Blau HM (2006) A brief history of RNAi: the silencing of the genes. FASEB J 20:1293–1299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Spök A, Hofer H, Lehner P, Valenta R, Stirn S, Gaugitsch H (2004) Risk assessment of GMO products in the European Union. Umweltbundesamt GmbH, Vienna, Austria. Available from Accessed 23 January 2013
  47. Sujkowski LS, Goodwin SB, Dyer AT, Fry WE (1994) Increased genotypic diversity via migration and possible occurrence of sexual reproduction of Phytophthora infestans in Poland. Phytopathology 84:201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. van Wyk A, van den Berg J, van Hamburg H (2007) Selection of non-target Lepidoptera species for ecological risk assessment of Bt maize in South Africa. Afr Entomol 15:356–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vleeshouwers VGAA, Raffaele S, Vossen J, Champouret N, Oliva R, Segretin ME, Rietman H, Cano LM, Lokossou A, Kessel G, Pel MA, Kamoun S (2011) Understanding and exploiting late blight resistance in the Age of effectors. Annu Rev Phytopathol 49:507–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wainwright J, Mercer K (2009) The dilemma of decontamination: a Gramscian analysis of the Mexican transgenic maize dispute. Geoforum 40:345–354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wilson A, Latham JR, Steinbrecher RA (2006) Transformation-induced mutations in transgenic plants: analysis and biosafety implications. Biotechnol Genet Eng Rev 23:209–234PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zolla L, Rinalducci S, Antonioli P, Righetti PG (2008) Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications. J Proteome Res 7:1850–1861PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EAPR 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frøydis T. Gillund
    • 1
  • Lise Nordgaard
    • 1
  • Thomas Bøhn
    • 1
  • Odd Gunnar Wikmark
    • 1
  • Heidi Sjursen Konestabo
    • 2
  • Angelika Hilbeck
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.GenØk-Centre for BiosafetyTromsøNorway
  2. 2.Department of BiosciencesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
  3. 3.Swiss Federal Institute of TechnologyZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations