The comparative analysis of agronomic, compositional, and physiological traits of miraculin transgenic tomato in the confined field trial

Nono Carsono; Faza A. Maulana; Iqbal F. Elfakhriano; Ade Ismail; Noladhi Wicaksana; Santika Sari; Hiroshi Ezura; Nono Carsono; Faza A. Maulana; Iqbal F. Elfakhriano; Ade Ismail; Noladhi Wicaksana; Santika Sari; Hiroshi Ezura

doi:10.3934/agrfood.2023010

AIMS Agriculture and Food

2023, Volume 8, Issue 1: 187-197. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023010

Previous Article Next Article

Research article

The comparative analysis of agronomic, compositional, and physiological traits of miraculin transgenic tomato in the confined field trial

1.
Lab. of Plant Breeding, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor Campus, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
2.
Agrotechnology Study Program, Faculty of Agriculture, Universitas Padjadjaran, Jatinangor Campus, Sumedang 45363, Indonesia
3.
Tsukuba Plant Innovation Research Center, University of Tsukuba, 2-Amakubo, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-0005, Japan

Received: 07 September 2022 Revised: 16 December 2022 Accepted: 06 February 2023 Published: 14 February 2023

The miraculin transgenic tomato is a genetically modified (GM) crop that can be used as an alternative for low calories food and a natural non-sugar sweetener. Before the release and distribution, transgenic crop needs to go through an environmental risk assessment (ERA) as a backbone to achieve biosafety. Comparative analysis is a general principle of ERA to identify differences between transgenic crop and its non-transgenic counterpart which may indicate substantial equivalence and unintended effects. This experiment was aimed to compare the agronomic, compositional, and physiological characteristics of miraculin transgenic tomato cv. Moneymaker with non-transgenic tomato. The data obtained were plant height, stem diameter, relative growth rate, chlorophyll content, stomatal conductance, days to 50% flowering, days to fruit maturity, a number of flowers per cluster, a number of fruits per cluster, a number of fruits per plant, fruit weight, fruit diameter, harvest index, total dissolved solids, fructose, glucose, and sucrose contents, and total carotenoids, lycopene, and β-carotene contents. This study found that there were no significant differences between miraculin transgenic and non-transgenic tomato in all variables observed. It suggests that miraculin transgenic tomato is equivalent to its counterpart and unintended effects are not detected as.
- environmental risk assessment,
- limits of concern,
- substantial equivalence,
- tomato,
- unintended effects
Citation: Nono Carsono, Faza A. Maulana, Iqbal F. Elfakhriano, Ade Ismail, Noladhi Wicaksana, Santika Sari, Hiroshi Ezura. The comparative analysis of agronomic, compositional, and physiological traits of miraculin transgenic tomato in the confined field trial[J]. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 2023, 8(1): 187-197. doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2023010

Related Papers:

Abstract

The miraculin transgenic tomato is a genetically modified (GM) crop that can be used as an alternative for low calories food and a natural non-sugar sweetener. Before the release and distribution, transgenic crop needs to go through an environmental risk assessment (ERA) as a backbone to achieve biosafety. Comparative analysis is a general principle of ERA to identify differences between transgenic crop and its non-transgenic counterpart which may indicate substantial equivalence and unintended effects. This experiment was aimed to compare the agronomic, compositional, and physiological characteristics of miraculin transgenic tomato cv. Moneymaker with non-transgenic tomato. The data obtained were plant height, stem diameter, relative growth rate, chlorophyll content, stomatal conductance, days to 50% flowering, days to fruit maturity, a number of flowers per cluster, a number of fruits per cluster, a number of fruits per plant, fruit weight, fruit diameter, harvest index, total dissolved solids, fructose, glucose, and sucrose contents, and total carotenoids, lycopene, and β-carotene contents. This study found that there were no significant differences between miraculin transgenic and non-transgenic tomato in all variables observed. It suggests that miraculin transgenic tomato is equivalent to its counterpart and unintended effects are not detected as.

References

[1]	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
[2]	Yano M, Hirai T, Kato K, et al. (2010) Tomato is a suitable material for producing recombinant miraculin protein in genetically stable manner. Plant Sci 178: 469–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.02.016 doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2010.02.016
[3]	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
[4]	Theerasilp S, Hitotsuya H, Nakajo S, et al. (1989) Complete amino acid sequence and structure characterization of the taste-modifying protein, miraculin. J Biol Chem 264: 6655–6659. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9258(18)37991-2 doi: 10.1016/S0021-9258(18)37991-2
[5]	Ezura H, Hiwasa-Tanase K (2018) Mass production of the taste-modifying protein miraculin in transgenic plants. In: Merillon JM, Ramawat K (Eds.), Sweeteners. Reference Series in Phytochemistry, Springer, Cham, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27027-2_17
[6]	EFSA (2010) Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 8: 1879. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879
[7]	Ladics GS, Andrew B, Phil B, et al. (2015) Genetic basis and detection of unintended effects in genetically modified crop plants. Transgenic Res 24: 587–603. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-015-9867-7 doi: 10.1007/s11248-015-9867-7
[8]	Li J, Wei S, Bo O, et al. (2012) Tomato SIDREB gene restirict leaf expansion and elongation by downregulating key genes for gibberelin biosynthesis. J Exp Bot 18: 6407–6420. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2010.00547.x doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7652.2010.00547.x
[9]	Morran S, Eini O, Pyvovarenko T, et al. (2011) Improvement of stress tolerance of wheat and barley by modulation of expression of DREB/CBF factors. Plant Biotechnol J 9: 230–249. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ers295 doi: 10.1093/jxb/ers295
[10]	Jiang Y, Ling L, Zhang L, et al. (2018) Comparison of transgenic Bt rice and their non-Bt counterpart in yield and physiological response to drought stress. Field Crops Res 217: 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2017.12.007 doi: 10.1016/j.fcr.2017.12.007
[11]	Gayen D, Paul S, Sarkar SN, et al. (2016) Comparative nutritional compositions and proteomics analysis of transgenic Xa21 rice seeds compared to conventional rice. Food Chem 203: 301–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.02.058 doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2016.02.058
[12]	Li X, Ding C, Wang X, et al. (2015) Comparison of the physiological characteristics of transgenic insect-resistant cotton and conventional lines. Sci Rep 5: 8739. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep08739 doi: 10.1038/srep08739
[13]	EFSA (2015) Guidance on the agronomic and phenotypic characterisation of genetically modified plants. EFSA J 13: 4128. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4128 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4128
[14]	Carsono N, Quddus AQM, Rangga JW, et al. (2019) Evaluation of invasiveness and agronomic traits transgenic tomato with miraculin gene. Ecodevelopment J 2: 69–72. https://doi.org/10.24198/ecodev.v2i2.39103 doi: 10.24198/ecodev.v2i2.39103
[15]	EFSA (2021) Technical assistance in the field of risk communication. EFSA J 19: 6574. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6574 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6574
[16]	Sato S, Kamiyama M, Iwata T, et al. (2006) Moderate increase of mean daily temperature adversely affects fruit set of Lycopersicon esculentum by disrupting specific physiological processes in male reproductive development. Ann Bot 97: 731–738. https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcl037 doi: 10.1093/aob/mcl037
[17]	Karlsson M (2016) Pollination and Fruit Development in Tomatoes. University of Alaska Fairbanks Cooperative Extention Service. Avaible from: https://cespubs.uaf.edu/index.php/download_file/1177/
[18]	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: e16989. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0016989 doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016989
[19]	Dolezel M, Miklau M, Heissenberger A, et al. (2018) Limits of Concern: Suggestions for the operationalisation of a concept to determine the relevance of adverse effects in the ERA of GMOs. Environ Sci Eur 30: 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0169-6 doi: 10.1186/s12302-018-0169-6
[20]	Dolezel M, Miklau M, Heissenberger A, et al. (2017) Are Limits of Concern a useful concept to improve the environmental risk assessment of GM plants? Environ Sci Eur 29: 7. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-017-0104-2 doi: 10.1186/s12302-017-0104-2
[21]	Hiwasa-Tanase K, Yano T, Kon T, et al. (2021) Environmental risk assessment of transgenic miraculin-accumulating tomato in a confined field trial in Japan. Plant Biotechnol (Tokyo) 38: 421–431. https://doi/10.5511/plantbiotechnology.21.1021a doi: 10.5511/plantbiotechnology.21.1021a
[22]	Carsono N, Rahmani FA, Wibawa RJ, et al. (2022) Invasiveness, allelopathic potential and unintended effects of miraculin transgenic tomato to soil microbes. AIMS Agric Food 7: 872–882. https://doi/10.3934/agrfood.2022053 doi: 10.3934/agrfood.2022053
[23]	Rajeevkumar S, Anunanthini P, Ramalingam S (2015) Epigenetic silencing in transgenic plants. Front Plant Sci 6: 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00693 doi: 10.3389/fpls.2015.00693
[24]	Dastan S, Ghareyazie B, Abdollahi S (2020) Field trial evidence of non-transgenic and transgenic Bt. rice genotypes in north of Iran. J Genet Eng Biotechnol 18: 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43141-020-00028-8 doi: 10.1186/s43141-020-00028-8
[25]	Bauer-Panskus A, Miyazaki J, Kawall K, et al. (2020) Risk assessment of genetically engineered plants that can persist and propagate in the environment. Environ Sci Eur 32: 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-020-00301-0 doi: 10.1186/s12302-020-00301-0
[26]	Oladitan TO, Oluwasemire KO (2018) Influence of weather condition on selected tomato varieties in response to season of sowing in akure, a rainforest zone of Nigeria. Art Human Open Acc J 2: 422–426. https://doi.org/10.15406/ahoaj.2018.02.00092 doi: 10.15406/ahoaj.2018.02.00092
[27]	Yeshiwas Y, Belew D, Tolessa K (2016) Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Yield and fruit quality attributes as affected by varieties and growth conditions. World J Agric Sci 12: 404–408. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wjas.2016.404.408 doi: 10.5829/idosi.wjas.2016.404.408
[28]	Shamshiri RR, James W, Kelly R, et al. (2018) Review of optimum temperature, humidity, and vapour pressure deficit for microclimate evaluation and control in green house cultivation of tomato. Int Agropyhs 32: 287–302. https://doi.org/10.1515/intag-2017-0005 doi: 10.1515/intag-2017-0005
[29]	Snider JL, Oosterhuis DM (2011) How does timing, duration, and severity of heat stress influence pollen-pistil interactions in angiosperms? Plant Signal Behav 6: 930–933. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.6.7.15315 doi: 10.4161/psb.6.7.15315
[30]	Oladitan TO, Polytechinic RG, Akinseye FM (2014) Influence of weather elements on phenological stages and yield components of tomato varieties in rainforest ecological zone, Nigeria. J Nat Sci Res 4: 19–23.
[31]	Sholeh A, Yulianah I, Purnamaningsih SL (2017) Resistant character performance of bacteria wilt disease (Ralstonia solanacearum) and high productivity pepper (Capsicum annuum) in 24 F5 family. Jurnal Produksi Tanaman 5: 957–964.
[32]	Xue H, Lozano-Durán R, Macho AP (2020) Insights into the root invasion by the plant pathogenic bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum. Plants 9: 516. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9040516 doi: 10.3390/plants9040516
[33]	Dwinanti AW, Damanhuri (2021) Yield test of tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum Mill.) hybrid varieties candidates during rainy season. Plantropica: J Agric Sci 6: 38–48. https://doi.org/10.21776/ub.jpt.2020.006.1.5 doi: 10.21776/ub.jpt.2020.006.1.5
[34]	Fan X, Lin W, Liu R, et al. (2018) Physiological response and phenolic metabolism in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) mediated by silicon under Ralstonia. J Integr Agric 17: 2160–2171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(18)62036-2 doi: 10.1016/S2095-3119(18)62036-2

Reader Comments

Your name:*

Email:*
© 2023 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)