Invasiveness, allelopathic potential and unintended effects of miraculin transgenic tomato to soil microbes

Nono Carsono; Fadlilah Aida Rahmani; Rangga Jiwa Wibawa; Santika Sari; Anas; Ryo Ohsawa; Ayako Shimono; Hiroshi Ezura; Nono Carsono; Fadlilah Aida Rahmani; Rangga Jiwa Wibawa; Santika Sari; Anas; Ryo Ohsawa; Ayako Shimono; Hiroshi Ezura

doi:10.3934/agrfood.2022053

AIMS Agriculture and Food

2022, Volume 7, Issue 4: 872-882. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022053

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

Invasiveness, allelopathic potential and unintended effects of miraculin transgenic tomato to soil microbes

1.
Lab of Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor Campus, Sumedang 45363, West Java, Indonesia
2.
Tsukuba Plant Innovation Research Center, University of Tsukuba, 1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8572, Japan
3.
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Toho University, Funabashi, Chiba, Japan

Received: 23 June 2022 Revised: 05 September 2022 Accepted: 27 September 2022 Published: 21 October 2022

Tomato cv. Moneymaker was modified by the insertion of a miraculin gene, which can modify a sour taste into a sweet taste. Environmental safety assessment for this special transgenic crop is an important step in assessing how safe this tomato is before it is released into the environment. Evaluation of invasiveness, allelopathy and unintended effects is highly essential for environmental safety assessment. The evaluation of invasiveness was carried out by growing a mixture of transgenic and non-transgenic tomatoes with ratios of 0:100 and 100:0 (sole-cultivation) and 25:75, 50:50 and 75:25 (mix-cultivation). Wet and dry biomasses of three-week-old tomato plants were measured. Soil microbes were evaluated by determining microbial populations (culturable) and estimating soil respiration. Microbial populations were determined through total plate count, while soil respiration was estimated using the titration method to calculate the levels of carbon dioxide released during the incubation. It was found that the aggressiveness of the miraculin transgenic tomato was equal to that of its counterpart. There were also no significant differences in microbial populations and soil respiration of miraculin transgenic tomato compared with those of wild type. In addition, miraculin transgenic tomato did not produce allelopathy that interfered with surrounding crops. It is concluded that transgenic tomato is equal to its counterpart in invasiveness, with no effect to soil microbes and no potential allelopathy found.
- allelopathy,
- invasiveness,
- miraculin,
- soil microbes,
- transgenic tomato
Citation: Nono Carsono, Fadlilah Aida Rahmani, Rangga Jiwa Wibawa, Santika Sari, Anas, Ryo Ohsawa, Ayako Shimono, Hiroshi Ezura. Invasiveness, allelopathic potential and unintended effects of miraculin transgenic tomato to soil microbes[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2022, 7(4): 872-882. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022053

Related Papers:

Abstract

Tomato cv. Moneymaker was modified by the insertion of a miraculin gene, which can modify a sour taste into a sweet taste. Environmental safety assessment for this special transgenic crop is an important step in assessing how safe this tomato is before it is released into the environment. Evaluation of invasiveness, allelopathy and unintended effects is highly essential for environmental safety assessment. The evaluation of invasiveness was carried out by growing a mixture of transgenic and non-transgenic tomatoes with ratios of 0:100 and 100:0 (sole-cultivation) and 25:75, 50:50 and 75:25 (mix-cultivation). Wet and dry biomasses of three-week-old tomato plants were measured. Soil microbes were evaluated by determining microbial populations (culturable) and estimating soil respiration. Microbial populations were determined through total plate count, while soil respiration was estimated using the titration method to calculate the levels of carbon dioxide released during the incubation. It was found that the aggressiveness of the miraculin transgenic tomato was equal to that of its counterpart. There were also no significant differences in microbial populations and soil respiration of miraculin transgenic tomato compared with those of wild type. In addition, miraculin transgenic tomato did not produce allelopathy that interfered with surrounding crops. It is concluded that transgenic tomato is equal to its counterpart in invasiveness, with no effect to soil microbes and no potential allelopathy found.

References

[1]	Sharma KK, Sharma HC, Seetharama N, et al. (2002) Development and deployment of transgenic plants: Biosafety considerations. Vitro Cell Dev Biol-Plant 38: 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1079/IVP2001268 doi: 10.1079/IVP2001268
[2]	James C (2016) Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2016, ISAAA. Available from: https://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/52/.
[3]	Sugaya T, Yano M, Sun HJ, et al. (2008) Transgenic strawberry expressing the taste-modifying protein miraculin. Plant Biotechnol 25: 329–333. https://doi.org/10.5511/plantbiotechnology.25.329 doi: 10.5511/plantbiotechnology.25.329
[4]	Sun HJ, Cui ML, Ma B, et al. (2006) Functional expression of the taste-modifying protein, miraculin, in transgenic lettuce. FEBS Lett 580: 620–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.febslet.2005.12.080 doi: 10.1016/j.febslet.2005.12.080
[5]	Sun HJ, Kataoka H, Yano M, et al. (2007) Genetically stable expression of functional miraculin, a new type of alternative sweetener, in transgenic tomato plants. Plant Biotechnol J 5: 768–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00283.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2007.00283.x
[6]	Al-Bachchu MA, Jin SB, Park JW, et al. (2011) Functional expression of miraculin, a taste modifying protein, in Transgenic Miyagawa Wase Satsuma mandarin (Citrus unshiu Marc.). J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem 54: 24–29. https://doi.org/10.3839/jksabc.2011.003 doi: 10.3839/jksabc.2011.003
[7]	Kurihara K, Beidler LM (1968) Taste-modifying protein from miracle fruit. Science 161: 1241–1243. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.161.3847.1241 doi: 10.1126/science.161.3847.1241
[8]	Theerasilp S, Kurihara Y (1998) Complete purification and characterization of the taste-modifying protein, miraculin, from miracle fruit. J Biol Chem 263: 11536–11539. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)37991-2 doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)37991-2
[9]	Endo C, Hirata A, Takami A, et al. (2018) Effect of miraculin on sweet and sour tastes evoked by mixed acid solutions. Food Nutr Sci 6: 757–764. https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2015.69078 doi: 10.1002/fsn3.617
[10]	Duhita N, Hiwasa-Tanase K, Yoshida S, et al. (2011) A simple method for purifying undenatured miraculin from transgenic tomato fruits. Plant Biotechnol 28: 281–286. https://doi.org/10.5511/plantbiotechnology.11.0207a doi: 10.5511/plantbiotechnology.11.0207a
[11]	OECD (1993) Safety Evaluation of Foods Derived by Modern Biotechnology: Concepts and Principles. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/science/biotrack/41036698.pdf.
[12]	Tabei Y (2003) Risk Assessment of GM Crops and the Challenge of Building Public Acceptance in Japan. Available from: https://www.fftc.org.tw/en/publications/main/624.
[13]	Bergmans H (2006) Basic framework for risk assessment for transgenic plants developed by the OECD: 20 years after the OECD "Blue Book". Environ Biosafety Res 5: 213–218. https://doi.org/10.1051/ebr:2007010 doi: 10.1051/ebr:2007010
[14]	Ramessar K, Peremarti A, Gómez-Galera S, et al. (2007) Biosafety and risk assessment framework for selectable marker genes in transgenic crop plants: A case of the science not supporting the politics. Transgenic Res 16: 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-007-9083-1 doi: 10.1007/s11248-007-9083-1
[15]	Mackenzie R, Burhenne-Guilmin F, La Viña AGM, et al. (2003) An explanatory guide to the cartagena protocol on biosafety, Cambridge: IUCN.
[16]	Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Government of India (2016) Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Plants: A Guide for Stakeholders. Available from: https://ibkp.dbtindia.gov.in/DBT_Content_Test/CMS/Guidelines/20181115134854330_Guidelines%20for%20the%20Environmental%20Risk%20Assessment%20of%20Genetically%20Engineered%20Plants,%202016.pdf.
[17]	Rao NSS (1994) Soil microorganisms and plant growth, 2 Eds., Jakarta: UI Press.
[18]	Bahagiawati, Herman M (2008) Peraturan Perundang-undangantentang Keamanan Produk Bioteknologi dan Status Perakitan Tanaman Produk Bioteknologidi Indonesia. Available from: http://www.litbang.pertanian.go.id/info-aktual/854/file/Bagian-1.pdf.
[19]	Herman M (2010) Fourteen years of development of the biosafety and food safety regulations of genetic engineering products and their implementation in Indonesia. J AgroBiogen 6: 113–125.
[20]	Kusano M, Redestig H, Hirai T, et al. (2011) Covering chemical diversity of genetically-modified tomatoes using metabolomics for objective substantial equivalence assessment. PLoS ONE 6: e1698. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016989 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016989
[21]	Canadian Food Inspection Agency, The Biology of Glycine max (L.) Merr. (Soybean), 1996.
[22]	Olubode OO, Ogunsakin TA, Salau AW, et al. (2015) Influence of intercrop population and applied poultry manure rates on component crops productivity responses in a snake tomato/celosia cropping system. Am J Plant Sci 6: 1040–1057. https://doi.org/10.4236/ajps.2015.67109 doi: 10.4236/ajps.2015.67109
[23]	Fujii Y, Shibuya T, Nakatani K, et al. (2004) Assessment method for allelopathic effect from leaf litter leachates. Weed Biol Manag 4: 19–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-6664.2003.00113.x doi: 10.1111/j.1445-6664.2003.00113.x
[24]	Walker TS, Harsh PB, Erich G, et al. (2003) Root exudation and rhizosphere biology. Plant Physiol 132: 44–51. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.102.019661 doi: 10.1104/pp.102.019661
[25]	Hirai T, Fukukawa G, Kakuta H, et al. (2010) Production of recombinant miraculin using transgenic tomatoes in a closed cultivation system. J Agri Food Chem 58: 6096–6101. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf100414v doi: 10.1021/jf100414v
[26]	Koch M (2004) Manual on Biosafety Risk Assessment and Risk Management for Cameroon, Cameroon National Biosafety Committee. Available from: https://pdfkiwi.com/preview/manual-on-biosafety-risk-assessment-and-risk-management-for-6048570e81c02.
[27]	Giraldo PA, Shinozuka H, Spangenberg GC, et al. (2019) Safety assessment of genetically modified feed: Is there any difference from food? Front Plant Sci 10: 1592. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01592 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01592
[28]	Kuiper HA, Kleter GA, Noteborn HPJM, et al. (2002) Substantial equivalence—an appropriate paradigm for the safety assessment of genetically modified foods? Toxicology 181–182: 427–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-483X(02)00488-2 doi: 10.1016/S0300-483X(02)00488-2
[29]	Singh OV, Jain RK, Ghai S, et al. (2006) Genetically modified crops: Success, safety assessment, and public concern. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 71: 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00253-006-0449-8 doi: 10.1007/s00253-006-0449-8
[30]	Itani T, Nakahata Y, Kato-Naguchi H (2013) Allelopathic activity of some herb plant species. Int J Agri Biol 15: 1359–1362.

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2022 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)