Literature DB >> 20349115

Natural variation explains most transcriptomic changes among maize plants of MON810 and comparable non-GM varieties subjected to two N-fertilization farming practices.

Anna Coll1, Anna Nadal, Rosa Collado, Gemma Capellades, Mikael Kubista, Joaquima Messeguer, Maria Pla.   

Abstract

The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMO) in many countries follows strict regulations to ensure that only safety-tested products are marketed. Over the last few years, targeted approaches have been complemented by profiling methods to assess possible unintended effects of transformation. Here we used a commercial (Affymertix) microarray platform (i.e. allowing assessing the expression of approximately 1/3 of the genes of maize) to evaluate transcriptional differences between commercial MON810 GM maize and non-transgenic crops in real agricultural conditions, in a region where about 70% of the maize grown was MON810. To consider natural variation in gene expression in relation to biotech plants we took two common MON810/non-GM variety pairs as examples, and two farming practices (conventional and low-nitrogen fertilization). MON810 and comparable non-GM varieties grown in the field have very low numbers of sequences with differential expression, and their identity differs among varieties. Furthermore, we show that the differences between a given MON810 variety and the non-GM counterpart do not appear to depend to any major extent on the assayed cultural conditions, even though these differences may slightly vary between the conditions. In our study, natural variation explained most of the variability in gene expression among the samples. Up to 37.4% was dependent upon the variety (obtained by conventional breeding) and 31.9% a result of the fertilization treatment. In contrast, the MON810 GM character had a very minor effect (9.7%) on gene expression in the analyzed varieties and conditions, even though similar cryIA(b) expression levels were detected in the two MON810 varieties and nitrogen treatments. This indicates that transcriptional differences of conventionally-bred varieties and under different environmental conditions should be taken into account in safety assessment studies of GM plants.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20349115     DOI: 10.1007/s11103-010-9624-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Plant Mol Biol        ISSN: 0167-4412            Impact factor:   4.076


  51 in total

1.  Microarray analysis of the nitrate response in Arabidopsis roots and shoots reveals over 1,000 rapidly responding genes and new linkages to glucose, trehalose-6-phosphate, iron, and sulfate metabolism.

Authors:  Rongchen Wang; Mamoru Okamoto; Xiujuan Xing; Nigel M Crawford
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2003-06       Impact factor: 8.340

2.  The stability of the Arabidopsis transcriptome in transgenic plants expressing the marker genes nptII and uidA.

Authors:  Souad El Ouakfaoui; Brian Miki
Journal:  Plant J       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 6.417

3.  Microarray analyses reveal that plant mutagenesis may induce more transcriptomic changes than transgene insertion.

Authors:  Rita Batista; Nelson Saibo; Tiago Lourenço; Maria Margarida Oliveira
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-02-26       Impact factor: 11.205

4.  Capillary electrophoresis time-of-flight mass spectrometry for comparative metabolomics of transgenic versus conventional maize.

Authors:  Tuuli Levandi; Carlos Leon; Mihkel Kaljurand; Virginia Garcia-Cañas; Alejandro Cifuentes
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2008-07-09       Impact factor: 6.986

5.  A metabonomic study of transgenic maize (Zea mays) seeds revealed variations in osmolytes and branched amino acids.

Authors:  Cesare Manetti; Cristiano Bianchetti; Lorena Casciani; Cecilia Castro; Maria Enrica Di Cocco; Alfredo Miccheli; Mario Motto; Filippo Conti
Journal:  J Exp Bot       Date:  2006-07-10       Impact factor: 6.992

6.  MAPMAN: a user-driven tool to display genomics data sets onto diagrams of metabolic pathways and other biological processes.

Authors:  Oliver Thimm; Oliver Bläsing; Yves Gibon; Axel Nagel; Svenja Meyer; Peter Krüger; Joachim Selbig; Lukas A Müller; Seung Y Rhee; Mark Stitt
Journal:  Plant J       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 6.417

7.  Principal transcriptional programs regulating plant amino acid metabolism in response to abiotic stresses.

Authors:  Hadar Less; Gad Galili
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 8.340

8.  Analysis of chiral amino acids in conventional and transgenic maize.

Authors:  Miguel Herrero; Elena Ibáñez; Pedro J Martín-Alvarez; Alejandro Cifuentes
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2007-05-25       Impact factor: 6.986

9.  Assessing the potential for unintended effects in genetically modified potatoes perturbed in metabolic and developmental processes. Targeted analysis of key nutrients and anti-nutrients.

Authors:  Louise V T Shepherd; James W McNicol; Ruth Razzo; Mark A Taylor; Howard V Davies
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 3.145

10.  Multiway real-time PCR gene expression profiling in yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae reveals altered transcriptional response of ADH-genes to glucose stimuli.

Authors:  Anders Ståhlberg; Karin Elbing; José Manuel Andrade-Garda; Björn Sjögreen; Amin Forootan; Mikael Kubista
Journal:  BMC Genomics       Date:  2008-04-16       Impact factor: 3.969

View more
  24 in total

1.  Proteomic analysis of MON810 and comparable non-GM maize varieties grown in agricultural fields.

Authors:  Anna Coll; Anna Nadal; Michel Rossignol; Pere Puigdomènech; Maria Pla
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2010-10-23       Impact factor: 2.788

2.  Metabolic changes in transgenic maize mature seeds over-expressing the Aspergillus niger phyA2.

Authors:  Jun Rao; Litao Yang; Jinchao Guo; Sheng Quan; Guihua Chen; Xiangxiang Zhao; Dabing Zhang; Jianxin Shi
Journal:  Plant Cell Rep       Date:  2015-11-18       Impact factor: 4.570

Review 3.  Evaluation of genetically engineered crops using transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic profiling techniques.

Authors:  Agnès E Ricroch; Jean B Bergé; Marcel Kuntz
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2011-02-24       Impact factor: 8.340

4.  The environment exerts a greater influence than the transgene on the transcriptome of field-grown wheat expressing the Pm3b allele.

Authors:  Carolina Diaz Quijano; Susanne Brunner; Beat Keller; Wilhelm Gruissem; Christof Sautter
Journal:  Transgenic Res       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 2.788

5.  Differentially expressed genes distributed over chromosomes and implicated in certain biological processes for site insertion genetically modified rice Kemingdao.

Authors:  Zhi Liu; Yunhe Li; Jie Zhao; Xiuping Chen; Guiliang Jian; Yufa Peng; Fangjun Qi
Journal:  Int J Biol Sci       Date:  2012-07-12       Impact factor: 6.580

6.  Non-uniform distribution pattern for differentially expressed genes of transgenic rice Huahui 1 at different developmental stages and environments.

Authors:  Zhi Liu; Jie Zhao; Yunhe Li; Wenwei Zhang; Guiliang Jian; Yufa Peng; Fangjun Qi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-05-11       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Comparison of drought stress response and gene expression between a GM maize variety and a near-isogenic non-GM variety.

Authors:  Mariolina Gullì; Elisabetta Salvatori; Lina Fusaro; Claudia Pellacani; Fausto Manes; Nelson Marmiroli
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-02-18       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Tempest in a tea pot: How did the public conversation on genetically modified crops drift so far from the facts?

Authors:  Daniel A Goldstein
Journal:  J Med Toxicol       Date:  2014-06

9.  The use of massive sequencing to detect differences between immature embryos of MON810 and a comparable non-GM maize variety.

Authors:  Jose Luis La Paz; Maria Pla; Emilio Centeno; Carlos M Vicient; Pere Puigdomènech
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-06-26       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Assessment of pleiotropic transcriptome perturbations in Arabidopsis engineered for indirect insect defence.

Authors:  Benyamin Houshyani; Alexander R van der Krol; Raoul J Bino; Harro J Bouwmeester
Journal:  BMC Plant Biol       Date:  2014-06-19       Impact factor: 4.215

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.