Advertisement

Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture

, Volume 73, Issue 3, pp 201–212 | Cite as

Gene flow assessment in transgenic plants

  • Joaquima Messeguer
Article

Abstract

In most of the important crops in the world, gene flow between cultivars and between wild and weedy relatives has always taken place. Factors influencing this gene flow, such as the mating system, mode of pollination, mode of seed dispersal and the particular characteristics of the habitat where the crops grow, are difficult to evaluate and in consequence, the quantification of gene flow is not easy. Transgene flow from engineered crops to other cultivars or to their wild and weedy relatives is one of the major concerns in relation to the ecological risks associated with the commercial release of transgenic plants. With transgenic crops it is important to quantify this gene flow and to try to establish strategies to control or minimise it, taking into account the possible ecological effect of the newly introduced genes, whether advantageous or disadvantageous. The use of transgenic plants has proven to be an effective tool to quantify the gene flow to other cultivars of the same species or to wild and weedy relatives in all crops analysed. Here we review the major studies in this area, and conclude that the potential risk of gene flow has to be assessed case by case and caution is necessary when making general conclusions.

cotton and potato maize rapeseed risk assessment rice sugar beet transgenic crops 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson E (1961) The analysis of variation in cultivated plants with special reference to introgession. Euphytica 10: 79-86Google Scholar
  2. Arriola PE & Ellstrand NC (1997) Fitness of interspecific hybrids in the genus Sorghum: persistence of crop genes in wild populations. Ecol. Appl. 7: 512-518Google Scholar
  3. Baranger A (1995) Evaluation en conditions naturelles des risques de flux d'un transgène d'un colza (Brassica napus L.) résistant à un herbicide à une espècie adventice (Raphanus raphanistrum L.). Thèse de Doctorat de l'Université Paris-SudGoogle Scholar
  4. Baranger A, Chevre AM, Eber F & Renard M (1995) Effect of an oilseed rape genotype on the spontaneous hybridization rate with a weedy species: an assessment of transgene dispersal. Theor. Appl. Genet. 91: 956-963Google Scholar
  5. Benz BF (2001) Archaelogical evidence of teosinte domestication from Guila Naquitz, Oaxaca. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 98: 2104-2106Google Scholar
  6. Bock AD, Lheureux K, Libeau-Dulos M, Nilsagard H & Rodriguez-Cerezo E (2002) Scenarios for co-existence of genetically modified, conventional and organic crops in European Agriculture. European Commission. Joint Research Centre. Report EUR 20394ENGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown J & Brown AP (1996) Gene transfer between canola (Brassica napus L. and B. campestris L.) and related weed species. Ann. Appl. Biol. 129: 513-522Google Scholar
  8. Brubaker CL, Brown AHD, Stewart JMcD, Kilby MJ & Grace JP (1999) Production of fertile hybrid germplasm with diploid Australian Gossypium species for cotton improvement. Euphytica 108: 199-213Google Scholar
  9. Castillo-Gonzalez F & Goodman MM (1995) Research on gene flow between improved maize and landraces. In: Serratos JA, Willcox MC & Castillo-Gonzalez F (eds) Proceedings of the Forum: Gene Flow Among Maize Landraces, Improved Maize Varieties and Teosinte: Implications for Transgenic Maize (pp. 67-72)Google Scholar
  10. Chèvre AM, Eber F, Baranger A & Renard M (1997) Gene flow from transgenic crops. Nature 389: 924Google Scholar
  11. Chèvre AM, Eber F, Baranger A, Hureau G, Barret P, Picault H & Renard M (1998) Characterization of backcross generations obtained under field conditions from oilseed rape-wild radish F1 interspecific hybrids: an assessment of transgene dispersal. Theor. Appl. Genet. 97: 90-98Google Scholar
  12. Chevre AM, Eber F, Darmency H, Fleury A, Picault H, Letanneur JC & Renard M (2000) Assessment of interspecific hybridization between transgenic oilseed rape and wild radish under normal agronomic conditions. Theor. Appl. Genet. 100: 1233-1239Google Scholar
  13. Christou P (2002) No credible scientific evidence is presented to support claims that transgenic DNA was introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico. Transgenic Res. 11: 3-5Google Scholar
  14. CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center) (2001) Further tests at CIMMYT find no presence of promoter associated with transgenes in Mexican landraces in gene bank or from recent field collections. Press Release, 14 December 2001Google Scholar
  15. Colbach N, Clermon-Dauphin C & Meynard JM (2001a) GEN-ESYS: a model of the influence of cropping system on gene escape from herbicide tolerant rapeseed crops to rape volunteers I. Temporal evolution of a population of rapeseed volunteers in a field. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 83: 235-253Google Scholar
  16. Colbach N, Clermon-Dauphin C & Meynard JM (2001b) GEN-ESYS: a model of the influence of cropping system on gene escape from herbicide tolerant rapeseed crops to rape volunteers II. Genetic exchanges among volunteer and cropped populations in a small region. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 83: 255-270Google Scholar
  17. Conner AJ (1993) Monitoring 'escapes' from field trials of transgenic potatoes: a basis for assessing environmental risks. In: Seminar Sci Approaches Assessment Res Trials Genet Modified Plants (pp. 34-40). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
  18. Conner AJ (1994) Analysis of containment and food safety issues associated with the release of transgenic potatoes. In: Belknap WR, Vayda ME & Park WD (eds) The Cellular and Molecular Biology of Potatoes (pp. 245-264). CAB Int, Wallingford Conner AJ & Dale PJ (1996) Reconsideration of pollen dispersal data from field trials of transgenic potatoes. Theor. Appl. Genet. 92: 505-508Google Scholar
  19. Crawley MJ, Brown SL, Hails RS, Kohn DD & Rees M (2001) Transgenic crops in natural habitats. Nature 409: 682-683Google Scholar
  20. Dale PJ, McPartlan HC, Parkinson R, MacKay GR & Scheffler JA (1992) Gene dispersal from transgenic crops by pollen. In: Casper R & Landsmann J (eds) The Biosafety Results for Field Tests of Genetically Modified Plants and Microorganisms. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Biol Bundesanstalt Landund Forswirtschaft, Braunschweig, Germany (pp. 73-78)Google Scholar
  21. Desplanque B, Boundry P, Broomberg K, Saumitou-Laprade P, Cuguen J & van Dijk H (1999) Genetic diversity and gene flow between wild, cultivated and weedy forms of Beta vulgaris L. (Chenopodiaceae), assessed by RFLP and microsatellite markers. Theor. Appl. Genet. 98: 1194-1201Google Scholar
  22. Doebley JF (1984) Maize introgressions into teosinte. A reappraisal. Ann. MO Bot. Gard. 71: 1100-1113Google Scholar
  23. Doebley J (1990) Molecular evidence for gene flow among zea species. BioScience 49: 443-447Google Scholar
  24. Doney DL, Whitney ED, Terry J, Frese L & Fitzgerald P (1990) The distribution and dispersal of Beta vulgaris L. ssp. maritima germplasm in England,Wales, and Ireland. J. Sugar Beet Res. 27: 29-37Google Scholar
  25. Eastham K & Sweet J (2002) Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs): The Significance of Gene Flow Through Pollen Transfer. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, DenmarkGoogle Scholar
  26. Eber F, Chèvre AM, Baranger A, Vallée P, Tanguy X & Renard M (1994) Spontaneous hybridization between a male-sterile oilseed rape and two weeds. Theor. Appl. Genet. 88: 362-368Google Scholar
  27. Ellstrand NC (2001) When transgenes wander, should we worry? Plant Physiol. 125: 1543-1545Google Scholar
  28. Ellstrand NC, Prentice HC & Hancock JF (1999) Gene flow and introgression from domesticated plants into their wild relatives. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 30: 539-563Google Scholar
  29. Felsot A (2002) Some corny ideas about gene flow and biodiversity. Agrichem. Environ. News 193: 4-8Google Scholar
  30. Frankel R & Galun E (1977) Pollination Mechanisms, Reproduction and Plant Breeding. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Hancock JF, Grumet R & Hokanson SC (1996) The opportunity for escape of engineered genes from transgenic crops. HortScience 31: 1080-1085Google Scholar
  32. Harlan JR (1965) The possible role of weed races in the evolution of cultivated plants. Euphytica 4: 173-176Google Scholar
  33. Ingram J (2000) Report on the separation distances required to ensure cross-pollination is below specified limits in non-seed crops of sugar beet, maize and oilseed rape. Commissioned by UK Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF). Project No. RG0123Google Scholar
  34. James C (2002) Global GM Crop Area Continues to Grow and Exceeds 50 million Hectares for First Time in 2001. ISAAA. Activities. In: http / /www.isaaa.org/ pres release /Global Area-Jan2002.htmGoogle Scholar
  35. Jones MD & Brooks JS (1950) Effectiveness of distance and border rows in preventing outcrossing in corn. Oklahoma Agricultural Experimental Station. Technical Bulletin No. T-38Google Scholar
  36. Kato TA (1997) Review of introgression between maize and teosinte. In: Serratos JA, Willcoz MC & Castillo-Gonzales (eds) Gene Flow Among Maize Landraces. Improved Maize Varieties and Teosinte: Implications for Transgenic Maize. CIMMYT, Mexico, DF. (pp. 44-53) (available at http / /www.cimmyt.org/ ABC/geneflow/geneflow-pdf-Engl/ contents.htm)Google Scholar
  37. Khush GS (1993) Floral structure, pollination biology, breeding behaviour, transfer distance and isolation considerations. World Bank Technical Paper, Biotechnology Series No 1, Rice Biosafe-ty. The Rockefeller FoundationGoogle Scholar
  38. Kiang YT, Antonovics J & Wu L (1979) The extinction of wild rice (Oryza perennis formosana) in Taiwan. J. Asian Ecol. 1: 1-9Google Scholar
  39. Klinger T, Elam DR & Ellstrand NC (1991) Radish as a model system for the study of engineered gene escapes via crop-weed mating. Conserv. Biol. 5: 531-535Google Scholar
  40. Langevin SA, Clay K & Grace JB (1990) The incidence and effects of hybridisation between cultivated rice and its related weed red rice (Oryza sativa L.). Evolution 44: 1000-1008Google Scholar
  41. Lavigne C, Klein EK, Pierre J, Godelle B & Renard M (1998) A pollen-dispersal experiment with transgenic oilseed rape. Estimation of the average pollen dispersal of an individual plant within a field. Theor. Appl. Genet. 96: 886-896Google Scholar
  42. Lefol E, Danileou V & Darmency H (1996a) Predicting hybridization between transgenic oilseed rape and wild mustard. Field Crops Res. 45: 153-161Google Scholar
  43. Lefol E, Danileou V, Fleury A & Darmency H (1996b) Gene flow within a population of the outbreeding Sinapis arvensis: isozyme analysis of half-sib families. Weed Res. 36: 189-195Google Scholar
  44. Lefol E, Fleury A & Darmency H (1996c) Gene dispersal from transgenic crops. II. Hybridization between oilseed rape and the wild hoary mustard. Sex Plant Reprod. 9: 189-196Google Scholar
  45. Llewellyn D & Fitt G (1996) Pollen dispersal from two field trials of transgenic cotton in the Namoi Valley, Australia. Mol. Breed. 2: 157-166Google Scholar
  46. Louette D (1995) Seed exchange among farmers and gene flow among maize varieties in traditional agricultural systems. In: Serratos JA, Willcoz MC & Castillo-Gonzales (eds) Gene Flow Among Maize Landraces. Improved Maize Varieties and Teosinte: Implications for Transgenic Maize. CIMMYT, Mexico, DF (pp. 56-66) (available at http / /www.cimmyt.org/ABC/ geneflow/geneflow-pdf-Engl/ contents.htm)Google Scholar
  47. Louette D & Smale M (2000) Farmer's seed selection practices and traditional maize varieties in Cuzalapa, Mexico. Euphytica 113: 25-41Google Scholar
  48. Lutman PJW, Lopez-Granados F & Pekrun C (1994) The biology and control of volunteer oilseed rape. In: Proceedings of the Conference of Home-Grown Cereals Authority on Oilseed R and D (pp. 5.1-5.11)Google Scholar
  49. Mann CC (2002) Has GM Corn 'Invaded' Mexico? Science 295: 16-17Google Scholar
  50. Martinez-Soriano JPR & Leal-Klevezas DS (2000) Transgenic maize in Mexico: no need for concern. Science 287: 1399Google Scholar
  51. Mayr E (1970) The breakdown of isolating mechanisms (hibridization) (Chapter 6). In: Populations, Species and Evolution (pp.69-81). Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  52. Messeguer J, Fogher C, Guiderdoni E, Marfa V, Catala MM, Baldi G & Mele E (2001) Field assessments of gene flow from transgenic to cultivated rice (Oryza sativa L.) using a herbicide resistance gene as tracer marker. Theor. Appl. Genet. 103: 1151- 1159Google Scholar
  53. Metz PLJ, Jacobsen E & Stiekema WJ (1997) Aspects of the biosafety of transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). Acta Bot. Neerl. 46: 51-67Google Scholar
  54. Mew TW, Datta SK, Oca A & Veracruz CM (1999) Evaluation of transgenic rice with the Xa gene for bacterial blight resistance. IRRI Program Report, 1999Google Scholar
  55. Mikkelsen TR, Jensen J & Jorgensen RB (1996) Inheritance of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) RAPD markers in a backcross progeny with Brassica campestris. Theor. Appl. Genet. 92: 492- 497Google Scholar
  56. Morris WK, Kareiva PM & Raymer PL (1994) Do barren zones and pollen traps reduce gene escape from transgenic crops? Ecol. Appl. 4:157-165Google Scholar
  57. National Research Council (NRC) (2000) Genetically Modified Pest-Protected Plants: Science and Regulation. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  58. Noldin JA, Chandler JM & McCauley GN (1999) Red rice (Oryza sativa) biology: I. Characterization of red rice ecotypes. Weed Technol. 13: 12-18Google Scholar
  59. Oard J, Cohn MA, Linscombe S, Gealy D & Gavois K (2000) Field evaluation of seed production, shattering and dormancy in hybrid populations of transgenic rice (Oryza sativa) and the weed, red rice (Oryza sativa). Plant Sci. 157: 12-22Google Scholar
  60. Pessel FD & Lecomte J (2000) Towards an understanding of the dynamics of rape populations that have 'escaped' from largescale cultivation in an agricultural region. OCL 7: 324-328Google Scholar
  61. Pleasants JM, Hellmich RL, Dively GP, Sears MK, Stanley-Horn DE, Mattila HR, Foster JE, Clark TL & Jones GD (2001) Corn pollen deposition on milkweeds in and near cornfields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98: 11919-11924Google Scholar
  62. Phipps RH & Park JR (2002) Environmental benefits of genetically modified crops: Global and European perspectives on their ability to reduce pesticide use. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 11: 1-18Google Scholar
  63. Pohl-Orf M, Brand U, Drieben S, Hesse PR, Lehnen M, Morak C, ¨ Mucher T, Saeglitz C, von Soosten C & Bartsch D (1999) Overwintering of genetically modified sugar beet, Beta vulgaris L. subsp. vulgaris, as a source for dispersal of transgenic pollen. Euphytica 108: 181-186Google Scholar
  64. Pohl-Orf M, Brand U, Schuphan I & Bartsch D (1998) The spread of foreign genes from genetically modified plants of Beta vulgaris L. - monitoring in agricultural and coastal ecosystems. In: Pfadenhauer J, Kappen L, Mahn EG, Otte A & Plachter H (eds) Verhandlungen der Gesellschaft fur Okologie, Vol. 28, Muncheberg, Germany (pp. 327-336)Google Scholar
  65. Price JS, Hobson RN, Neale MA & Bruce DM (1996) Seed losses in commercial harvesting of oilseed rape. J. Agric. Eng. Res. 65: 183-191Google Scholar
  66. Rothmaler W (1990) In: Schubert RV & Vent W (eds) Exkursionsflora von Deutschland. Kritischer Band (p. 811)Google Scholar
  67. Saeglitz C, Pohl M & Bartsch D (2000) Monitoring gene flow from transgenic sugar beet using cytoplasmic male-sterile bait plants. Mol. Ecol. 9: 20035-2040Google Scholar
  68. Scheffler JA, Parkingson R & Dale PJ (1993) Frequency and distance of pollen dispersal from transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus). Transgenic Res. 2: 356-364Google Scholar
  69. Scheffler JA, Parkingson R & Dale PJ (1995) Evaluating the effectiveness of isolation distances for field plots of oilseed rape (Brassica napus) using a herbicide-resistance transgene as a selectable marker. Plant Breed. 114: 317-321Google Scholar
  70. Sears MK & Stanley-Horn D (2000) Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms. In: Fairbairn C, Scoles G & McHughen A (eds) Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms. University Extension Press, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  71. Small E (1984) Hybridization in the domesticated-weed-wild complex. In: Grant WF (ed) Plant Biosystematics (pp. 195-210). Academic Press, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  72. Staniland BK, McVetty PBE, Friesen LF, Yarrow S, Freyssinet G & Freyssinet M (2000) Effectiveness of border areas in confining the spread of transgenic Brassica napus pollen. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80: 521-526Google Scholar
  73. St Amand PC, Skinner DZ & Peaden RN (2000) Risk of alfalfa transgene dissemination and scale-dependent effects. Theor. Appl. Genet. 101: 107-114Google Scholar
  74. Treu R & Emberlin J (2000) Pollen dispersal in the crops Maize (Zea mays), Oil seed rape (Brassica napus ssp. oleifera), Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum), Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris ssp. vulgaris) and wheat (Triticumaestivum). Report for the Soil Association from the National Pollen Research Unit, January 2000Google Scholar
  75. Tynan JL, Williams MK & Conner AJ (1990) Low frequency of pollen dispersal from a field trial of transgenic potatoes. J. Genet. Breed. 44: 303-305Google Scholar
  76. Vigouroux Y, Darmency H, de Garambe TG & Richard-Molard M (1999) Gene flow between sugar beet and weed beet. In: Gene Flow and Agriculture: Relevance for Transgenic Crops. Proceedings of a Symposium held at Keele, UK, 12-14 April 1999,Vol. 72 (p. 9)Google Scholar
  77. Wheeler CC, Gealy D & TeBeest DO (2000) Bar gene transfer from transgenic rice (Oryza sativa) to red rice (Oryza sativa). In: Wells BR (ed) Ongoing Studies: Breeding, Genetics and Physiology (pp. 33-36). AAES Research SeriesGoogle Scholar
  78. Yoshida S (1981) Growth and development of rice plants. In: The International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) (eds) Fundamentals of Rice Crops Science.Google Scholar
  79. Zhang B-H, Guo T-L, Zhang BH & Guo TL (2000) Frequency and distance of pollen dispersal from transgenic cotton. Chinese J. Appl. Environ. Biol. 6: 39-42Google Scholar
  80. Zhang CQ, Lu QY, Wang ZZ, Jia SR, Zhang CQ, Lu QY, Wang ZX & Jia SR (1997) Frequency of 2,4-D resistant gene flow of transgenic cotton. Scientia-Agricultura Sinica 30: 92-93Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Departament de Genètica VegetalCentre de Cabrils (IRTA)BarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations