Literature DB >> 26498298

Maize hybrids derived from GM positive and negative segregant inbreds are compositionally equivalent: any observed differences are associated with conventional backcrossing practices.

Tyamagondlu V Venkatesh, Erin Bell, Anna Bickel, Kevin Cook, Benjamin Alsop, Martijn van de Mortel, Ping Feng, Alan Willse, Tim Perez, George G Harrigan.   

Abstract

In this study, we show that compositional differences in grain harvested from genetically modified (GM) maize hybrids derived from near-isogenic trait-positive and trait-negative segregant inbreds are more likely related to backcrossing practices than to the GM trait. To demonstrate this, four paired GM trait-positive (NK603: herbicide tolerance) and trait-negative near-isogenic inbred male lines were generated. These were crossed with two different females (testers) to create a series of trait-positive and trait-negative hybrid variants. The hypothesis was, that compositional variation within the hybrid variants would reflect differences associated with backcrossing practices and provide context to any observed differences between GM and non-GM hybrids. The F1 hybrids, as well as corresponding conventional comparator hybrids, were grown concurrently at four field sites across the United States during the 2013 season. Grain was harvested for compositional analysis; proximates (protein, starch, and oil), amino acids, fatty acids, minerals, tocopherols (α-, δ-, γ-), β-carotene, phytic acid, and raffinose were measured. Statistical analysis showed that within each hybrid tester set, there were very few significant (p < 0.05) differences between the paired trait-positive and trait-negative hybrids or between the conventional comparators and the trait-positive or trait-negative hybrids. Assessments of the magnitudes of differences and variance component analysis highlighted that growing location, and the tester used in hybrid formation, had a markedly greater effect on composition than did the GM trait. Significantly, for each tester set, compositional differences within the trait-positive and trait-negative hybrid variants were greater than differences between the GM and non-GM comparators. Overall, GM trait insertion is not intrinsically a meaningful contributor to compositional variation, and observed differences between GM and non-GM comparators typically reflect incidental changes associated with conventional breeding practices. These results contribute to ongoing discussions on the relevance of negative segregants as comparators in GM assessments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26498298     DOI: 10.1007/s11248-015-9910-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Transgenic Res        ISSN: 0962-8819            Impact factor:   2.788


  10 in total

1.  Natural variation in crop composition and the impact of transgenesis.

Authors:  George G Harrigan; Denise Lundry; Suzanne Drury; Kristina Berman; Susan G Riordan; Margaret A Nemeth; William P Ridley; Kevin C Glenn
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 54.908

Review 2.  Marker-assisted selection: an approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first century.

Authors:  Bertrand C Y Collard; David J Mackill
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 3.  Molecular plant breeding as the foundation for 21st century crop improvement.

Authors:  Stephen P Moose; Rita H Mumm
Journal:  Plant Physiol       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 8.340

4.  Development of an agricultural biotechnology crop product: testing from discovery to commercialization.

Authors:  Laura S Privalle; Jingwen Chen; Gina Clapper; Penny Hunst; Frank Spiegelhalter; Cathy X Zhong
Journal:  J Agric Food Chem       Date:  2012-10-05       Impact factor: 5.279

5.  Unintended compositional changes in genetically modified (GM) crops: 20 years of research.

Authors:  Rod A Herman; William D Price
Journal:  J Agric Food Chem       Date:  2013-02-25       Impact factor: 5.279

6.  A look at product development with genetically modified crops: examples from maize.

Authors:  Rita H Mumm
Journal:  J Agric Food Chem       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 5.279

7.  The origin and evolution of maize in the Southwestern United States.

Authors:  Rute R da Fonseca; Bruce D Smith; Nathan Wales; Enrico Cappellini; Pontus Skoglund; Matteo Fumagalli; José Alfredo Samaniego; Christian Carøe; María C Ávila-Arcos; David E Hufnagel; Thorfinn Sand Korneliussen; Filipe Garrett Vieira; Mattias Jakobsson; Bernardo Arriaza; Eske Willerslev; Rasmus Nielsen; Matthew B Hufford; Anders Albrechtsen; Jeffrey Ross-Ibarra; M Thomas P Gilbert
Journal:  Nat Plants       Date:  2015-01-08       Impact factor: 15.793

8.  Compositional differences between near-isogenic GM and conventional maize hybrids are associated with backcrossing practices in conventional breeding.

Authors:  Tyamagondlu V Venkatesh; Kevin Cook; Bing Liu; Timothy Perez; Alan Willse; Ryan Tichich; Ping Feng; George G Harrigan
Journal:  Plant Biotechnol J       Date:  2014-09-04       Impact factor: 9.803

Review 9.  Genetically engineered crops: from idea to product.

Authors:  Jose Rafael Prado; Gerrit Segers; Toni Voelker; Dave Carson; Raymond Dobert; Jonathan Phillips; Kevin Cook; Camilo Cornejo; Josh Monken; Laura Grapes; Tracey Reynolds; Susan Martino-Catt
Journal:  Annu Rev Plant Biol       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 26.379

10.  Composition of forage and grain from second-generation insect-protected corn MON 89034 is equivalent to that of conventional corn (Zea mays L.).

Authors:  Suzanne M Drury; Tracey L Reynolds; William P Ridley; Natalia Bogdanova; Susan Riordan; Margaret A Nemeth; Roy Sorbet; William A Trujillo; Matthew L Breeze
Journal:  J Agric Food Chem       Date:  2008-05-20       Impact factor: 5.279

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  Stacking transgenic event DAS-Ø15Ø7-1 alters maize composition less than traditional breeding.

Authors:  Rod A Herman; Brandon J Fast; Peter N Scherer; Alyssa M Brune; Denise T de Cerqueira; Barry W Schafer; Ricardo D Ekmay; George G Harrigan; Greg A Bradfisch
Journal:  Plant Biotechnol J       Date:  2017-04-11       Impact factor: 9.803

2.  Evaluation of metabolomics profiles of grain from maize hybrids derived from near-isogenic GM positive and negative segregant inbreds demonstrates that observed differences cannot be attributed unequivocally to the GM trait.

Authors:  George G Harrigan; Tyamagondlu V Venkatesh; Mark Leibman; Jonathan Blankenship; Timothy Perez; Steven Halls; Alexander W Chassy; Oliver Fiehn; Yun Xu; Royston Goodacre
Journal:  Metabolomics       Date:  2016-03-15       Impact factor: 4.290

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.