| Literature DB >> 25523171 |
Abstract
Convincing evidence has accumulated that unintended transgene escape occurs in oilseed rape, maize, cotton and creeping bentgrass. The escaped transgenes are found in variant cultivars, in wild type plants as well as in hybrids of sexually compatible species. The fact that in some cases stacked events are present that have not been planted commercially, implies unintended recombination of transgenic traits. As the consequences of this continuous transgene escape for the ecosystem cannot be reliably predicted, I propose to use more sophisticated approaches of gene technology in future. If possible GM plants should be constructed using either site-directed mutagenesis or cisgenic strategies to avoid the problem of transgene escape. In cases where a transgenic trait is needed, efficient containment should be the standard approach. Various strategies available or in development are discussed. Such a cautious approach in developing novel types of GM crops will enhance the sustainable potential of GM crops and thus increase the public trust in green gene technology.Entities:
Keywords: EPSP, enolpyruvylshikimate-3 phospathe conferring glyphosate resistance; PAT, phosphinothricin acetyl transferase conferring glufosinate resistance; VT, volunteer; apomixis; cisgenesis; cleistogamy; infertility; intragenesis; transgene flow; transgenic mitigation
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25523171 PMCID: PMC5033179 DOI: 10.4161/21645698.2014.945883
Source DB: PubMed Journal: GM Crops Food ISSN: 2164-5698 Impact factor: 3.074
Figure 1.Unintended transgene escape: Summary of the reports showing unintended escapes of transgenes from GM plants to volunteers, variants, wild type plant and related species. The GM maize in soybean crop exemplifies an inadequate handling in a test field. For details see Table 1.
Unintended escape of transgenes
| Hybridization | Comment and References | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intraspecific | Inter-specific | ||||||
| Species | Region | Escaped transgene | VT(a) | variant | wild | ||
| Oilseed rape | Japan (b) | EPSP | + | | | | |
| | Japan (b) | EPSP, PAT | + | + | | | Origin of double resistance unclear |
| | Japan (b) | EPSP, PAT | + | | | | |
| | Japan (b) | EPSP, PAT | + | | | | |
| | Japan (b) | EPSP, PAT | + | | | | |
| | Japan (b) | EPSP, PAT | + | + | | Origin of double resistance unclear | |
| | Switzerland (c) | EPSP | + | | | | |
| | Switzerland (c) | EPSP | + | | | | |
| | Alberta, Canada | EPSP | | + | | | Neighboring field, multiple herbicide resistance |
| | Saskatchewan, Canada | EPSP, PAT | | + | | | Neighboring field, multiple herbicide resistance, double resistance in seedlots |
| | Western Canada | EPSP, PAT | | + | | | Double-resistant seedlots |
| | Manitoba, Canada | EPSP, PAT | | + | | | Double resistance by transgene flow in escaped populations |
| | North Dakota, USA | EPSP, PAT | | + | | | Double resistance |
| | Canada? | PAT | | | | ||
| | Vancouver, Canada | EPSP | | | | ||
| | Québec, Canada | EPSP | | | | Commercial fields, no escape to | |
| | Québec, Canada | EPSP, PAT | | | | ||
| | Québec, Canada | EPSP | | | | Persistence over 6 y | |
| Maize | Mexico | Vector, CryIAb | | + | | | |
| | Mexico | CryIAb/Ac, EPSP | | + | | | |
| | Mexico | Not given | | + | | | Reviews and includes unpublished data |
| | Mexico | Vector | | + | | | |
| | Mexico | CryIAb/Ac, EPSP | | + | | | |
| Cotton | Mexico | Cry1AbAc, Cry2Ac, EPSP, PAT | | | + | | |
| Creeping bentgrass | Oregon, USA | EPSP | | | + | | Nonagronomic habitat following test production |
| | Oregon, USA | EPSP | | | + | | Establishment and persistence after 3 y |
| Oregon, USA | EPSP | Rabbit footgrass | Transgene transferred through maternal lineage | ||||
(a) Volunteers are only listed, if found far away from the production fields. Oilseed volunteers in countries where commercially grown are not included.
(b) Not grown in Japan.
(c) Not grown in Europe.
(d) A follow-up study of the pollen-mediated, landscape-level transgene flow from a 162 hectares production test area
Comparable listings have been published recently.
Likelihood of fatal transgene escape
| Likelihood of fatal event, e.g. invasive transgenic plant | |
|---|---|
| Specific GM plant with specific trait | 1 in 100,000 y (d) |
| 100 locations (a) | 1 in 1,000 y |
| 27 plant species (b) | 1 in 37 y |
| 97 specific transgenes (c) | 1 in 0.4 y |
(a) The assumed value reflects the number of areas with different environmental and climatic conditions where the GM plants are grown.
(b) Different GM crop species listed in ISAAA GM Approval Database (http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/).
(c) Genes listed in approved GM crops (http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/).
(d) The value is highly speculative and also depends on whether the plant has a very low or high probability of transgene dispersal.