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

In vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis techniques in plants

EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) et al. EFSA J. .

Abstract

Mutations are changes in the genetic material that may be transmitted to subsequent generations. Mutations appear spontaneously in nature and are one of the underlying driving forces of evolution. In plants, in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis relies on the application of physical and chemical mutagens to increase the frequency of mutations thus accelerating the selection of varieties with important agronomic traits. The European Commission has requested EFSA to provide a more detailed description of in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis techniques and the types of mutations and mechanisms involved, to be able to conclude on whether in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis techniques are to be considered different techniques. To address the European Commission request, a literature search was conducted to collect information on the random mutagenesis techniques used in plants both in vivo and in vitro, on the type of mutations generated by such techniques and on the molecular mechanisms underlying formation of those mutations. The GMO Panel concludes that most physical and chemical mutagenesis techniques have been applied both in vivo and in vitro; the mutation process and the repair mechanisms act at cellular level and thus there is no difference between application of the mutagen in vivo or in vitro; and the type of mutations induced by a specific mutagen are expected to be the same, regardless of whether such mutagen is applied in vivo or in vitro. Indeed, the same mutation and the derived trait in a given plant species can be potentially obtained using both in vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis and the resulting mutants would be indistinguishable. Therefore, the GMO Panel concludes that the distinction between plants obtained by in vitro or in vivo approaches is not justified.

Keywords: chemical mutagenesis; in vitro; in vivo; mutagen; mutation; physical mutagenesis; random mutagenesis.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Amano E, 2006. Use of induced mutants in rice breeding in Japan. Plant Mutation Reports, 1, 21–24.
    1. Anai T, 2011. Potential of a mutant‐based reverse genetic approach for functional genomics and molecular breeding in soybean. Breeding Science, 61, 462–467. 10.1270/jsbbs.61.462 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ando A, 1968. Mutation induction in rice by radiation combined with chemical protectants and mutagens. Vienna.
    1. Auti SG and Apparao BJ (Shu QY), 2009. Induced mutagenesis in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Vienna, Austria, Joint FAO/IAEA Division of Nuclear Techniques in Food and Agriculture, International Atomic Energy Agency.
    1. Bado S, Forster BP, Nielen S, Ali AM, Lagoda PJL, Till BJ and Laimer M, 2015. Plant mutation breeding: current progress and future assessment. Plant Breeding Reviews, Oxford, UK, Wiley‐Blackwell.