CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 78Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchAgricultural safety and regulationsAnimal Genetics and Reproduction

Editor’s Choice: Crop Genome Plasticity and Its Relevance to Food and Feed Safety of Genetically Engineered Breeding Stacks

Open access
Weber, Natalie, Halpin, Claire, Hannah, L. Curtis, Jez, Joseph M., Kough, John, Parrott, Wayne·2012·Plant Physiology
DOI 10.1104/pp.112.204271PMC PMC3510115
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Genetically engineered (GE) stacks, combinations of two or more single transgenic events (i.e. single-locus insertions) that have been produced by crossing sexually compatible parents, are an important and growing sector of the crop seed market. Stacked traits covered 26% of the global transgenic crop area in 2011 and were the fastest growing trait group, with a 31% increase in the area planted compared with 2010 (James, 2011). Stacked traits already dominate the market in some regions. For example, 95% of the cotton (Gossypium spp.) grown in Australia during 2011 had both herbicide tolerance and insect resistance traits (James, 2011). Worldwide, at least 12 countries are now growing stacked varieties, of which nine are developing countries (James, 2011). The rapid adoption of GE stacks has focused attention on whether the safety of such products differs from that of the individual events. At issue is whether combining two or more events via conventional breeding creates changes that require additional safety assessment, even though the safety of each event in the stack has been assessed previously. The two main concerns are (1) whether combining two or more events into a plant by conventional breeding increases genomic instability and (2) whether potential interactions between the products of the transgenes in GE stacks impact safety. This paper draws on insights from plant breeding, describes the plasticity of conventional plant genomes over generations of crossing and selection, and considers the implications of event stacking on food and feed safety in the context of the normal plant genome. The term GE is used here to distinguish the process of specific, intentional, and directed physical modification of the genome of a plant from random genetic modifications that occur in conventional breeding or by mutagenesis. The term GE is preferred over the term “genetically modified” (commonly referred to as GM) for these reasons. The term “event” refers to a single-locus insertion of recombinant DNA into the host genome regardless of the number of genes contained on the inserted piece of DNA. The term “conventional breeding” refers to methods of crossing plants with desired characteristics to generate offspring combining those desirable characteristics. These characteristics may include both non-GE and GE traits. This paper focuses on (1) the potential of transgenes to alter genome stability and (2) the potential risks to food and feed safety associated with genome instability. A companion paper focuses on potential interactions that can occur from transgene stacking (H.Y. Steiner, C. Halpin, J.M. Jez, J. Kough, W. Parrott, L. Underhill, N. Weber, and L.C. Hannah, unpublished data). The potential environmental impact that may arise from the cultivation of crops with GE stacks is outside the scope of these articles. Crops containing a single event, that carry multiple traits that are introduced simultaneously (i.e. molecular stacks resulting from cotransformation), or that are produced by retransformation of an event require a de novo safety assessment, as is customary for all new events, and, hence, are also outside the scope of this paper. Plant breeding is a major underpinning of modern agriculture, as it creates varieties containing multiple desirable traits through the stacking of both known and many unknown genes. While increasing yield potential is a major objective, protecting yield potential (i.e. breeding for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses) is also critical. Many stress resistance genes have come from related species such as wild relatives of crop plants. Hajjar and Hodgkin (2007) reported that conventional breeding efforts in 19 of the world’s major crops had incorporated 111 genes from wild relatives into new varieties over the previous 20 years. Eighty percent of these genes confer disease resistance; the remainder control abiotic stress resistance or quality traits (Hajjar and Hodgkin, 2007). Modern non-GE crop varieties differ mainly from their predecessors by the incorporation and stacking of genes from distant relatives. For example, IR8 rice (Oryza sativa), released in 1966, is resistant to the green leafhopper (Nephotettix spp.) and moderately resistant to salinity, rice blast, and phosphorus deficiency. Just 11 years later, IR42 was released, which possessed resistance to multiple diseases (rice blast, Grassy stunt virus, Rice tungro virus, Ragged stunt virus, and bacterial blight), pests (brown planthopper [Nilaparvata lugens], stem borer), and abiotic stresses (nitrogen deficiency, zinc deficiency, iron deficiency, alkalinity, and iron toxicity; International Rice Research Institute, 1981). Today, many seed catalogs list the multiple resistance traits present in each variety. Although the genetic and biochemical bases for these traits are usually not well understood, conventional breeding has successfully stacked traits to create stable crop varieties that are considered safe and

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1104/pp.112.204271

Cites

140 of 140 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Recent information on the natural plasticity of plant genomes and the natural frequency of mutations and transposons in widely cultivated non-GM crops, such as maize, reinforces the implausibility of a simple insertion of a transgene generating de novo production of toxic proteins or secondary metabolites unrelated to either the parent crop or the source of the transgene.

    “recent information on the natural plasticity of plant genomes and the natural frequency of mutations and transposons in widely cultivated non-GM crops, such as maize, reinforces the implausibility of a simple insertion of a transgene generating de novo production of toxic proteins or secondary metabolites unrelated to either the parent crop or the source of the transgene (Weber et al., 2012).”

    From The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: Limitations and recommendations (2013) · cites this paper as Weber et al., 2012

  • Concerns over inadvertent, de novo negative effects of targeted transgene insertion are biologically implausible.

    “In the context of this understanding, concerns over inadvertent, de novo negative effects of targeted transgene insertion are biologically implausible (Weber et al., 2012).”

    From The use of whole food animal studies in the safety assessment of genetically modified crops: Limitations and recommendations (2013) · cites this paper as Weber et al., 2012

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. Acquaah G. (2007) Seed certification and commercial seed multiplication. In Principles of Plant Genetics and Breeding. Blackwell Publishing, Malden, MA, pp 435–449 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anonymous (1920) Sports in plants. In Encyclopedia Americana, Vol 25. Encyclopedia Americana Corporation, New York, pp 443–444 [Google Scholar]
  3. Creighton TE. (1992) Proteins, Ed 2. WH Freeman, New York [Google Scholar]
  4. International Rice Research Institute (1981) Annual Report for 1980. IRRI, Los Baños, Philippines [Google Scholar]
  5. James C. (2011) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2011. ISAAA Brief No. 43. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications, Ithaca, NY [Google Scholar]
  6. Jones SS, Murray TD, Allan RE. (1995) The development of disease resistance in wheat. Annu Rev Phytopathol 33: 429–443 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Singh RJ. (2003) Plant Cytogenetics, Ed 2. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL [Google Scholar]
  8. Vollmann J, Ruckenbauer P. (1997) From Gregor Mendel to molecular plant breeding: a review. Die Bodenkultur 48: 53–65 (in German with English abstract) [Google Scholar]
  9. Zabala G, Vodkin LO. (2005) The wp mutation of Glycine max carries a gene-fragment-rich transposon of the CACTA superfamily. Plant Cell 17: 2619–2632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Weber, N., Halpin, C., Hannah, L. C., Jez, J. M., Kough, J., & Parrott, W.
Affiliations
  • Pioneer Hi-Bred (US)
  • James Hutton Institute (GB)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
  • Environmental Protection Agency (US)
  • University of Georgia (US)
ORCID
Venue
Plant Physiology
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2012-10-11
Volume
160
Issue
4
Pages
1842-1853
ISSN
  • 0032-0889 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-2548
DOI
10.1104/pp.112.204271
PMC
PMC3510115
OpenAlex
W2035016809
Cited by
78
References
140
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 9
FWCI
8.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
aspb.org/publications/aspb-journals/open-articles (vor, 416 d)
Locations
  • PLANT PHYSIOLOGY (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Animal Genetics and Reproduction
Keywords
transgene stacking, genome plasticity, genomic instability, food safety, feed safety, conventional breeding, genetically modified crops, herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, plant genome evolution, maize, soybean, rice, wheat, canola, oilseed rape, sugar beet, potato
MeSH terms
Breeding, Food, Genetic Engineering, Crops, Agricultural, Genome, Plant, Plants, Genetically Modified, Food Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review