Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

The 10th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO), Wellington, New Zealand, November 2008*

  • Jeremy Sweet (a1)

Abstract

The Symposium consisted of eight sessions of oral presentations as well as various workshops and poster sessions. This report reviews the presentations in the following sessions and discusses the main conclusions and issues arising from each session:

Session 1: Biosafety – experience and results

Session 2: Introgression, invasion and fitness

Session 3: Biotic and abiotic stress resistance

Session 4: GM animals

Session 5: Effects of GM crops on soil ecosystems

Session 7: Biocontainment methods

Session 8: Post market environmental monitoring

Abstracts of the presentations in these sessions are available at: http://www.isbgmo.info/assets_/isbgmo_symposium_handbook.pdf

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The 10th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO), Wellington, New Zealand, November 2008*
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The 10th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO), Wellington, New Zealand, November 2008*
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The 10th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO), Wellington, New Zealand, November 2008*
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

References

Hide All
[1] Abel, PP, Nelson, RS, De, B, Hoffmann, N, Rogers, SG, Fraley, RT, Beachy, RN (1986) Delay of disease development in transgenic plants that express the tobacco mosaic virus coat protein gene. Science 232: 738-743
[2] Bais, HP, Weir, TL, Perry, LG, Gilroy, S, Vivanco, JM (2006) The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 57: 234-266
[3] Balázs E, Petrik K, Gell G, Divéki Z (2008) Recombination studies of maize dwarf mosaic potyvirus (MDMV) as an important factor for risk assessment in maize plants. 10th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms, Wellington, November 16-21, 2008, Symposium Handbook, 128 p
[4] Baumgarte, S, Tebbe, CC (2005) Field studies on the environmental fate of the Cry1Ab Bt toxin produced by transgenic maize (MON810) and its effect on bacterial communities in the maize rhizosphere. Mol. Ecol. 14: 2539-2551
[5] Birch, ANE, Griffiths, BS, Caul, S, Thompson, J, Heckman, LH, Krogh, PH, Cortet, J (2007) The role of laboratory, glasshouse and field scale experiments in understanding the interactions between genetically modified crops and soil ecosystems: A review of the ECOGEN project. Pedobiologia 51: 251-260
[6] Brimecombe MJ, De Leij FA, Lynch JM (2001) The effect of root exudates on rhizosphere microbial populations. In Pinton R, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P, eds, The rhizosphere, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 95-140
[7] Broeckling, CD, Broz, AK, Bergelson, J, Manter, DK, Vivanco, JM (2008) Root exudates regulate soil fungal community composition and diversity. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 74: 738-744
[8] Christeller, JT, Markwick, NP, Poulton, J, O'Callaghan M (2006) Binding of an insecticidal transgene product to soil: biological activity of soil-bound avidin and the effects of time and microbial activity. Soil Biol. Biochem. 38: 2043-2052
[9] Demanèche, S, Sanguin, H, Poté, J, Navarro, E, Bernillon, D, Mavingui, P, Wildi, W, Vogel, TM, Simonet, P (2008) Antibiotic resistance soil bacteria in transgenic plant fields. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105: 3957-3962
[10] Dunfield, KE, Germida, JJ (2003) Seasonal changes in the rhizosphere microbial communities associated with field grown genetically modified canola (Brassica napus). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 69: 3710-3718
[11] Dunfield, KE, Germida, JJ (2004) Impact of genetically modified crops on soil and plant associated microbial communities. J. Env. Qual. 33: 806-815
[12] EFSA (2009) Guidance for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants used for non-food or non-feed purposes. EFSA 2009, Parma
[13] Godfree, RC, Thrall, PH, Young, AG (2007) Enemy release after introduction of disease-resistant genotypes into plant-pathogen systems. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 104: 2756-2760
[14] Gonsalves D (2003) Commercialization of transgenic papaya: Weighing benefits and potential risks. In Lelley T, Balázs E, Tepfer M, eds, Ecological Impact of GMO Dissemination in Agro-ecosystems, Facultas Verlags Wien, pp 131-137
[15] Gulden RH, Lerat S, Blackshaw RE, Powell JR, Levy-Booth D, Dunfield KE, Trevors JT, Pauls KP, Klironomos JN, Swanton CJ (2008) Factors affecting the presence and persistence of plant DNA in the soil environment in corn and soybean rotations. Weed Sci. 56: 767-774
[16] Head, G, Surber, JB, Watson, JA, Martin, JW, Duan, JJ (2002) No detection of Cry1Ac protein in soil after multiple years of transgenic Bt cotton (Bollgard) use. Environ. Entomol. 31: 30-36
[17] Icoz, I, Stotzky, G (2008) Fate and effects of insect-resistant Bt crops in soil ecosystems. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40: 559-586
[18] Kowalchuk, GA, Bruinsma, M, van Veen, JA (2003) Assessing responses of soil microorganisms to GM plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 18: 403-410
[19] Levy-Booth, DJ, Campbell, RG, Gulden, RH, Hart, MH, Powell, JR, Klironomos, JN, Pauls, KP, Swanton, CL, Trevors, JT, Dunfield, KE (2007) Cycling of extracellular DNA in the soil environment. Soil Biol. Biochem. 39: 2977-2991
[20] Levy-Booth, DJ, Campbell, RG, Gulden, RH, Hart, MH, Powell, JR, Klironomos, JN, Pauls, KP, Swanton, CL, Trevors, JT, Dunfield, KE (2008) Real-time polymerase chain reaction monitoring of recombinant DNA entry into soil from decomposing Roundup Ready® leaf biomass. JAFC 56: 6339-6347
[21] Marvier, M, McCreedy, C, Regetz, J, Karieva, P (2007) A meta-analysis of effects of Bt cotton and maize on non target invertebrates. Science 316: 1475-1477
[22] Neumann G, Römheld V (2001) The release of root exudates as affected by the plant's physiological status. In Pinton R, Varanini Z, Nannipieri P, eds, The rhizosphere, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 41-93
[23] Nickson, T (2008) Planning environmental risk assessment for genetically modified crops: Problem formulation for stress-tolerant crops. Plant Physiol. 147: 494-502
[24] O'Callaghan, M, Glare, TR, Burgess, EPJ, Malone, LA (2005) Effects of plants genetically modified for insect resistance on non-target organisms. Ann. Rev. Entomol. 50: 271-292
[25] O'Callaghan, M, Brownbridge, M, Stilwell, W, Gerard, EM, Burgess, EPJ, Barraclough, EI, Christeller, JT (2007) Effects of tobacco genetically modified to express the protease inhibitor BSTI on non-target soil organisms. Environ. Biosafety Res. 6: 183-195
[26] O'Callaghan, M, Gerard, EM, Bell, NL, Waipara, NW, Aalders, LT, Baird, DB, Conner, AJ (2008) Bacterial and fungal communities associated with potatoes genetically modified to express the antimicrobial peptide magainin. Soil Biol. Biochem. 40: 1446-1459
[27] Powell, J, Levy-Booth, D, Gulden, R, Asbil, WL, Campbell, RG, Dunfield, KE, Hamill, AS, Hart, M, Lerat, S, Nurse, RE, Pauls, PP, Sikkema, PH, Swanton, CJ, Trevors, J, Klironomos, J (2009) Variety and management effects on soil food web dynamics and litter decomposition in a genetically-modified, herbicide-tolerant cropping system. J. Appl. Ecol. 46: 388-396
[28] Raaijmakers, JM, Paulitz, CT, Steinberg, C, Alabouvette, C, Moënne-Loccoz Y (2009) The rhizosphere: a playground and battlefield for soilborne pathogens and beneficial microorganisms. Plant Soil 321: 341-361
[29] Raybould, A (2007) Ecological versus ecotoxicological methods for assessing the environmental risks of transgenic crops. Plant Sci. 173: 589-602
[30] Singh, BK, Milard, P, Whitely, AS, Murrell, JC (2004) Unravelling rhizosphere-microbial interactions: opportunities and limitations. Trends Microbiol. 12: 386-393
[31] Sørensen J (1997) The rhizosphere as a habitat for soil microorganisms. In van Elsas JD, Trevors JT, Wellington EMH, eds, Modern soil microbiology, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 21-45
[32] Sweet JB (2006) Integrated Approaches to General Surveillance. Journal für Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit (Journal of Consumer Protection and Food Safety) 1, Supplement 1: 49-50
[33] Tapp, H, Stotzky, G (1995) Insecticidal activity of the toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis susbspecies kurstaki and tenebrionis adsorbed and bound on pure and soil clays. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 61: 1786-1790
[34] Tapp, H, Stotzky, G (1998) Persistence of the insecticidal toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki in soil. Soil Biol. Biochem. 30: 471-476
[35] Tepfer, M (2002) Risk assessment of virus-resistant transgenic plants. Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 40: 467-491
[36] Tepfer M, Balázs E (eds) (1997) Virus-resistant Transgenic Plants: Potential Ecological Impact. Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York
[37] Weinert, N, Meincke, R, Gottwald, C, Heuer, H, Gomes, NC, Schloter, M, Berg, G, Smalla, K (2009a) Rhizosphere communities of genetically modified zeaxanthin-accumulating potato plants and their parent cultivar differ less than those of different potato cultivars. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 75: 3859-3865
[38] Weinert N, Meincke R, Gottwald C, Radl V, Dong X, Schloter M, Berg G, Smalla K (2009b) Effects of genetically modified potatoes with increased zeaxanthin content on the abundance and diversity of rhizobacteria with in vitro antagonistic activity do not exceed natural variability among cultivars. Plant Soil, DOI: 10.1007/s11104-009-0024-z
[39] Zwahlen, C, Hilbeck, A, Gugerli, P, Nentwig, W (2003) Degradation of the Cry1Ab protein within transgenic Bacillus thuringiensis corn tissue in the field. Mol. Ecol. 12: 765-775

Related content

Powered by UNSILO

The 10th International Symposium on the Biosafety of Genetically Modified Organisms (ISBGMO), Wellington, New Zealand, November 2008*

  • Jeremy Sweet (a1)

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.