Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-cjp7w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T22:29:11.086Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Persistence of Agrobacterium tumefaciens in transformed conifers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2006

Julia A. Charity
Affiliation:
 Cellwall Biotechnology Centre, Scion Group (formerly Forest Research), Private Bag 3020, Rotorua, New Zealand
Krystyna Klimaszewska
Affiliation:
 Natural Resources Canada, Canadian Forest Service, 1055 du P.E.P.S., Sainte-Foy, Québec, Canada G1V4C7

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Previous studies have shown that the widely used plant transformation vector Agrobacterium tumefaciens can persist in genetically engineered plants in vitro and in transgenic greenhouse-grown plants, despite the use of counter-selective antibiotics. However, little is known regarding Agrobacterium persistence in tree species. To understand the kinetics of A. tumefaciens decline and persistence in transformation experiments, we assayed for the presence of A. tumefaciens in spruce and pine embryogenic tissue for up to 10 weeks post-transformation. The A. tumefaciens populations declined rapidly in the first five days post-cocultivation but generally declined more slowly in pine, relative to spruce. No bacteria were detected in spruce embryogenic tissue beyond four weeks after cocultivation, however in pine there were ~100 colony forming units per g tissue at 10 weeks post-cocultivation. We present evidence that the detection limit for PCR using virD2 primers to detect A. tumefaciens in a background of pine needle DNA was approximately 109–1010 A. tumefaciens cells per g of tissue. We also assayed for A. tumefaciens in transgenic pine and spruce embryogenic tissue and from needles, branches, stems and roots of transformed plants, up to four years post-inoculation. Occasionally A. tumefaciens was detected in embryogenic tissue up to 12 months post-inoculation. A. tumefaciens was never detected in cultured embryogenic tissue more than twelve months after inoculation, nor in developing somatic embryos or germinating plantlets, nor any of the parts of greenhouse-grown plants. From these data we conclude that if A. tumefaciens persists in transgenic conifers, it does so beneath our ability to detect it.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© ISBR, EDP Sciences, 2006

References

Barrett C, Cobb E, McNicol R, Lyan G (1997) A risk assessment study of plant genetic transformation using Agrobacterium tumefaciens and implications for analysis of transgenic plants. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 47:135–144
Bernaerts, MJ, De, Ley J (1963) A biochemical test for crown gall bacteria. Nature 197: 406407 CrossRef
Charity, JA, Holland, L, Donaldson, SS, Grace, L, Walter, C (2002) Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of Pinus radiata organogenic tissue using vacuum-infiltration. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 70: 5160 CrossRef
Charity, JA, Holland, L, Grace, L, Walter, C (2005) Consistent and stable expression of the nptII, uidA and bar genes in transgenic P. radiata after Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation using nurse cultures. Plant Cell Rep. 23: 606616 CrossRef
Chiter, A, Forbes, JM, Blair, GE (2000) DNA stability in plant tissues: implications for the possible transfer of genes from genetically modified food. FEBS Letters 481: 161168 CrossRef
Cubero J, López M (2005) Agrobacterium tumefaciens Persistence in Plant Tissues after Transformation. In Methods in Molecular Biology, Volume 286, Peña L. (ed.), Transgenic Plants Methods and Protocols, Humana Press, Inc. Totowa, NJ
DeCleene, M, DeLey, J (1976) The host range of crown gall. Bot. Rev. 42: 389466 CrossRef
Di-Giovanni, F, Kevan, PG (1991) Factors affecting pollen dynamics and its importance to pollen contamination: a review. Can. J. For. Res. 21: 11551170 CrossRef
Droege, W, Puehler, A, Selbitschka, W (1999) Horizontal gene transfer among bacteria in terrestrial and aquatic habitats as assessed by microcosm and field studies. Biol. Fertil. Soils 29: 221245
Ellstrand, NC (2001) When transgenes wander, should we worry? Plant Physiol. 125: 15431545 CrossRef
Gelvin, SB (2003) Improving plant genetic engineering by manipulating the host. Trends Biotechnol. 21: 9598 CrossRef
Hallman, J, Kloepper, JW, Rodríguez-Kábana R (1997) Application of the scholander pressure bomb to studies on endophytic bacteria of plants. Can. J. Microbiol. 43: 411416 CrossRef
Hammerschlag, FA, Zimmerman, RH, Yadava, UL, Hunsucker, S, Gercheva, P (1997) Effect of antibiotics and exposure to an acidified medium on the elimination of Agrobacterium tumefaciens from apple leaf explants and on shoot regeneration. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 122: 758763
Hay, I, Morency, M-J, Séguin, A (2002) Assessing the persistence of DNA in decomposing leaves of genetically modified poplar trees. Can. J. For. Res. 32: 977982 CrossRef
Holland L, Gemmell JE, Charity JA, Walter C (1997) Foreign Gene Transfer into Pinus radiata cotyledons by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. NZ J. For. Sci. 27: 289–304
Holland L, Grace LJ, Charity JA (2002) Effect of vancomycin and Timentin on Pinus radiata embryogenic tissue and the elimination of bacteria after Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transformation. Forest Research Report No. 9379
Hu, W, Phillips, G (2001) A combination of overgrowth-control antibiotics improves Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation efficiency for cultivated tomato (L. esculentum). In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. - Plant 37: 1218 CrossRef
Humara JM, Ordas RJ (1999) The toxicity of antibiotics and herbicides on in vitro adventitious shoot formation on Pinus pinea L. cotyledons. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol.- Plant 35: 339–343
Jefferson, A, Kavanagh, A, Bevan, W (1987) GUS fusions: beta-glucuronidase as sensitive marker in higher plants. EMBO J. 6: 39013907
Klimaszewska K, Lachance D, Pelletier G, Lelu M-A, Séguin A (2001) Regeneration of transgenic Picea glauca, P. mariana and P. abies after cocultivation of embryogenic tissue with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. - Plant 37: 748–755
Koncz, C, Schell, J (1986) The promoter of TL-DNA gene 5 controls the tissue-specific expression of chimaeric genes carried by a novel type of Agrobacterium binary vector. Mol. Gen. Genet. 204: 383396 CrossRef
Kube P, Carson M (2004) A review of risk factors associated with clonal forestry of conifers. In Walter C, Carson MJ (ed.) Plantation forest Biotechnology for the 21st Century, Research SignPost, pp 337–362
Kumar, S, Fladung, M (2001) Gene stability in transgenic aspen (Populus). II. Molecular characterisation of variable expression of transgenes in wild and hybrid aspen. Planta 213: 731740 CrossRef
Le VQ, Belles-Isles J, Dusabenyagasani M, Tremblay FM (2001) An improved procedure for production of white spruce (Picea glauca) transgenic plants using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. J. Exp. Bot. 364: 2089–2095
Leifert, C, Cassells, A (2001) Microbial hazards in plant tissue and cell cultures. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. - Plant 37: 133138 CrossRef
Lehoczky, J (1968) Spread of Agrobacterium tumefaciens in the vessels of the grapevine, after natural infection. Phytopath. Z. 63: 239246 CrossRef
Levée V, Garin E, Klimaszewska K, Séguin A (1999) Stable genetic transformation of white pine (Pinus strobus L.) after cocultivation of embryogenic tissues with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Mol. Breed. 5: 429–440
Lilley, A, Fry, J, Day, J, Bailey, M (1994) In situ transfer of an exogenously isolated plasmid between Pseudomonas spp. in sugarbeet rhizosphere. Microbiology 140: 2733 CrossRef
Marti R, Cubero J, Daza A (1999) Evidence of migration and endophytic presence of Agrobacterium tumefaciens in rose plants. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 105: 39–50 CrossRef
Matzk, A, Mantell, S, Schiemann, J (1996) Localization of persisting Agrobacterium tumefaciens in transgenic tobacco plants. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 9: 373381 CrossRef
Mogilner, N, Zutra, D, Gafny, R, Bar-Joseph M (1993) The persistence of engineered Agrobacterium tumefaciens in agroinfected plants. Mol. Plant. Microbe Interact. 6: 673675 CrossRef
Mullin, JT, Bertand, S (1998) Environmental release of transgenic trees in Canada – potential benefits and assessment of biosafety. For. Chron. 74: 203219 CrossRef
Nester, EW, Gordon, NP, Amasino, RM, Yanofsky, MF (1984) Crown Gall: A molecular and physiological analysis. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. 35: 387413 CrossRef
Smith D (1996) Growth medium US Patent Number: 5, 565, 355
Southern, PM (1996) Bacteremia due to Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Radiobacter). Report of infection in a pregnant woman and her stillborn fetus. Diag. Microbiol. Infection Dis. 24: 4345 CrossRef
Stewart, C, Richards, H, Halthill, M (2000) Transgenic plants and biosafety: science, misconceptions and public perceptions. BioTechniques 29: 832843
Tang, H, Ren, ZR, Krczal, G (2000) An evaluation of antibiotics for the elimination of Agrobacterium tumefaciens from walnut somatic embryos and for the effects on the proliferation of somatic embryos and regeneration of transgenic plants. Plant Cell Rep. 19: 881887 CrossRef
Trontin, J-F, Harvengt, L, Garin, E, Lopez-Bernaza, M, Arancia, L, Hoebeke, J, Canlet, F, Pâques, M (2002) Towards genetic engineering of maritime pine (Pinus pinaster Ait.). Ann. For. Sci. 59: 687697 CrossRef
Tzfira, T, Citovsky, V (2003) The Agrobacterium tumefaciens-Plant cell interaction: Taking biology lessons from a bug. Plant Physiol. 133: 943947 CrossRef
Yang, H-L, Sun, X-L, Song, W, Wang, Y-S, Cai, M-Y (1999) Screening, identification and distribution of endophytic associative diazotrophs isolated from rice plants. Acta Botanica Sinica 41: 927931