Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011;6(12):e29730.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029730. Epub 2011 Dec 27.

Gene flow in genetically modified wheat

Affiliations

Gene flow in genetically modified wheat

Silvan Rieben et al. PLoS One. 2011.

Abstract

Understanding gene flow in genetically modified (GM) crops is critical to answering questions regarding risk-assessment and the coexistence of GM and non-GM crops. In two field experiments, we tested whether rates of cross-pollination differed between GM and non-GM lines of the predominantly self-pollinating wheat Triticum aestivum. In the first experiment, outcrossing was studied within the field by planting "phytometers" of one line into stands of another line. In the second experiment, outcrossing was studied over distances of 0.5-2.5 m from a central patch of pollen donors to adjacent patches of pollen recipients. Cross-pollination and outcrossing was detected when offspring of a pollen recipient without a particular transgene contained this transgene in heterozygous condition. The GM lines had been produced from the varieties Bobwhite or Frisal and contained Pm3b or chitinase/glucanase transgenes, respectively, in homozygous condition. These transgenes increase plant resistance against pathogenic fungi. Although the overall outcrossing rate in the first experiment was only 3.4%, Bobwhite GM lines containing the Pm3b transgene were six times more likely than non-GM control lines to produce outcrossed offspring. There was additional variation in outcrossing rate among the four GM-lines, presumably due to the different transgene insertion events. Among the pollen donors, the Frisal GM line expressing a chitinase transgene caused more outcrossing than the GM line expressing both a chitinase and a glucanase transgene. In the second experiment, outcrossing after cross-pollination declined from 0.7-0.03% over the test distances of 0.5-2.5 m. Our results suggest that pollen-mediated gene flow between GM and non-GM wheat might only be a concern if it occurs within fields, e.g. due to seed contamination. Methodologically our study demonstrates that outcrossing rates between transgenic and other lines within crops can be assessed using a phytometer approach and that gene-flow distances can be efficiently estimated with population-level PCR analyses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cross-pollination of GM wheat over short distances and in two wind directions.
A: Upper and lower boundaries of cross-pollination rate estimates (mean±1 SE, back-transformed from logit scale) for western and eastern distance subplots. Data from all lines were pooled. B: Maximum likelihood estimate of cross-pollination rate for the western and eastern subplots for the lines Pm3b#1, Pm3b#2 and A9 chi. These estimates indicate cross-pollination rates between 1.2% and 0.16% in the closest and 0.05% and 0.0% in the farthest subplots.

References

    1. Wolfenbarger LL, Phifer PR. The ecological risks and benefits of genetically engineered plants. Science. 2000;290:2088–2093. - PubMed
    1. Cellini F, Chesson A, Colquhoun I, Constable A, Davies HV, et al. Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2004;42:1089–1125. - PubMed
    1. Conner AJ, Glare TR, Nap JP. The release of genetically modified crops into the environment. Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant Journal. 2003;33:19–46. - PubMed
    1. Snow AA, Andow DA, Gepts P, Hallerman EM, Power A, et al. Genetically engineered organisms and the environment: Current status and recommendations. Ecological Applications. 2005;15:377–404.
    1. Andow DA, Zwahlen C. Assessing environmental risks of transgenic plants. Ecology Letters. 2006;9:196–214. - PubMed

Publication types