Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Field Safety Assessment of Recombination in Transgenic Grapevines Expressing the Coat Protein Gene of Grapevine fanleaf virus

  • Published:
Transgenic Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

One of the major environmental safety issues over transgenic crops containing virus-derived genes relates to the outcome of recombination events between viral transgene transcripts and RNAs from indigenous virus populations. We addressed this issue by assessing the emergence of viable Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) recombinants in transgenic grapevines expressing the GFLV coat protein (CP) gene. Test plants consisted of nontransgenic scions grafted onto transgenic and nontransgenic rootstocks that were exposed over 3 years to nematode-mediated GFLV infection in two distinct vineyard sites. The CP gene of challenging GFLV isolates was amplified from scions by IC-RT-PCR, and characterized by RFLP and nucleotide sequencing using strain F13 as reference since it provided the CP transgene. Analysis of EcoRI and StyI RFLP banding patterns from 347 challenging GFLV isolates and sequence data from 85 variants revealed no characteristics similar to strain F13 and no difference in the molecular variability among isolates from 190 transgenic and 157 nontransgenic plants, or from plants within (253 individuals) or outside (94 individuals) of the two sites. Interestingly, five GFLV recombinants were identified in three nontransgenic plants located outside of the two field settings. This survey indicates that transgenic grapevines did not assist the emergence of viable GFLV recombinants to detectable levels nor did they affect the molecular diversity of indigenous GFLV populations during the trial period. This is the first report on safety assessment of recombination with a transgenic crop expressing a CP gene under field conditions of heavy disease pressure but low, if any, selection pressure against recombinant viruses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aaziz R and Tepfer M (1999) Recombination in RNA viruses and in virus-resistant transgenic plants. J Gen Virol 80: 1339–1346.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Adair TL and Kearney CM (2000) Recombination between a 3-kilobase tobacco mosaic virus transgene and a homologous viral construct in the restoration of viral and nonviral genes. Arch Virol 145: 1867–1883.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Allison RF, Schneider WL and Greene AE (1996) Recombination in plants expressing viral transgenes. Sem Virol 7: 417–422.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Borja M, Rubio T, Scholthof HB and Jackson AO (1999) Restoration of wild-type virus by double recombination of tombusvirus mutants with a host transgene. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 12: 153–162.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bouquet A (1981) Resistance to grape fanleaf virus in muscadine grape inoculated with Xiphinema index. Plant Dis 65: 791–793.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovey R, Gärtel W, Hewitt WB, Martelli GP and Vuittenez A (1990) Soil-borne viruses transmitted by nematodes. In: Bovey R, Gärtel W, Hewitt WB, Martelli GP and Vuittenez A (eds), Virus and Virus-like Diseases of Grapevines. (pp. 46–50) Editions Payot, Lausanne.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandt S, Ibl M and Himmler G (1995) Capsid protein gene sequence of an Austrian isolate of GFLV. Arch Virol 140: 157–164.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Descottes A and Moncomble D (1995) Lutte contre le court-noué.Le Vigneron Champ 9: 20–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Zoeten GA (1991) Risk assessment: do we let history repeat itself? Phytopathology 81: 585–586.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Falk BW and Bruening G (1994)Will transgenic crops generate new viruses and new diseases? Science 163: 1395–1396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs M and Gonsalves D (1997) Genetic Engineering. In: Rechcigl NA and Rechcigl JE (eds), Environmentally Safe Approaches to Crop Disease Control. (pp. 333–368) CRC Press, Boca Raton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs M, Klas FE, McFerson JR and Gonsalves D (1998) Transgenic melon and squash expressing coat protein genes of aphid-borne viruses do not assist the spread of an aphid nontransmissible strain of cucumber mosaic virus in the field.Transgenic Res 7: 449–462.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs M, Gal-On A, Raccah B and Gonsalves D (1999) Epidemiology of an aphid nontransmissible potyvirus in fields of nontransgenic and coat protein transgenic squash. Transgenic Res 99: 429–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia-Arenal F, Fraile A and Malpica JM (2001) Variability and genetic structure of plant virus populations. Ann Rev Phytopathol 39: 157–186.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbs MJ, Armstrong JS and Gibbs AJ (2000) Sister-scanning: a monte carlo procedure for assessing signals in recombinant sequences. Bioinformatics 16: 573–582.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene AE and Allison FR (1994) Recombination between viral RNA and transgenic plant transcripts. Science 263: 1423–1425.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Greene AE and Allison RF (1996) Deletions in the 3' untranslated region of cowpea chlorotic mottle virus transgene reduce recovery of recombinant viruses in transgenic plants. Virology 225: 231–234.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Guan H, Cai W and Mang K (1996) The cloning, sequence analysis and expression in E. coli of coat protein gene of grapevine fanleaf virus Gh. Chin J Biotech 12: 73–79.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Harper G, Hull R, Lockhart B and Olszewski N (2002) Viral sequences integrated into plant genomes. Ann Rev Phytopathol 40: 119–136. 0

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hull R (1989) Non-conventional resistance to viruses in plants: concepts and risks. In: Gustafson JP (ed), Gene Manipulation in Plant Improvement. (pp. 289–304) Stadler Genetic Symposia Series, Columbia, MI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krastanova S, Perrin M, Barbier P, Demangeat G, Cornuet P, Bardonnet N, Otten L, Pinck L and Walter B (1995) Transformation of grapevine rootstocks with the coat protein gene of grapevine fanleaf nepovirus. Plant Cell Repts 13: 357–360.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin H-X, Rubio L, Smythe A, Jiminez M and Falk BW (2001) Genetic diversity and biological variation among California isolates of Cucumber mosaic virus. J Gen Virol 84: 249–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martelli GP (1993) Handbook for detection and diagnosis: grapevine degeneration – fanleaf. In: Martelli GP (ed), Grafttransmissible Diseases of Grapevines. (pp. 9–18) FAO, Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martelli GP (2001) Transgenic resistance to plant pathogens: bene-fits and risks. J Plant Pathol 83: 37–46.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Martelli GP and Savino V (1990) Fanleaf degeneration. In: Pearson R and Goheen AC (eds), Compendium of Grape Diseases. (pp. 48–49) APS Press, St Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mauro MC, Toutain S, Walter B, Pinck L, Otten L, Coutos-Thevenot P, Deloire A and Barbier P (1995) High efficiency regeneration of grapevine plants transformed with the GFLV coat protein gene.Plant Sci 112: 97–106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Miller WA, Koev G and Mohan BR (1997) Are there risks associated with transgenic resistance in luteoviruses? Plant Dis 81: 700–710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naraghi-Arani P, Daubert S and Rowhani A (2001) Quasispecies nature of the genome of grapevine fanleaf virus. J Gen Virol 82: 1791–1795.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Raski DJ, Goheen AC, Lider LA and Meredith CP (1983) Strategies against grapevine fanleaf virus and its nematode vetor. Plant Dis 67: 335–339.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rissler J and Mellon M (eds) (1996) The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops. MIT Press, Cambridge, p. 159.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson DJ (1996) Environmental risk assessment of releases of transgenic plants containing virus-derived inserts. Transgenic Res 5: 359–362.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rubio T, Borja M, Scholthof HB and Jackson AO (1999) Recombination with host transgenes and effects on virus evolution: an overview and opinion. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 12: 87–92.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez F, Chay C, Borja MJ, Rowhani A, Romero J, Bruening G et al. (1991) cDNA sequence of the capsid protein gene and 3' untranslated region of a fanleaf isolate of grapevine fanleaf virus.Nucl Acids Res 19: 5440.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sanford JC and Johnston SA (1985) The concept of parasite-derived resistance – deriving resistance genes from the parasite's own genome. J Theor Biol 113: 395–405.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schoelz JE and Wintermantel WM (1993) Expansion of viral host range through complementation and recombination in transgenic plants. Plant Cell 5: 1669–1679.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Serghini MA, Fuchs M, Pinck M, Reinbolt J, Walter B and Pinck L (1990) RNA2 of grapevine fanleaf virus: sequence analysis and coat protein cistron location. J Gen Virol 71: 1433–1441.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Serghini MA, Pinck M and Pinck L (1991) In vitro expression of a chimeric coat protein gene from grapevine fanleaf virus (strain F13). Arch Virol 117: 297–304.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tepfer M (2002) Risk assessment in virus-resistant transgenic plants. Ann Rev Phytopathol 40: 467–491.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Tepfer M and Balazs E (eds) (1997) Virus-resistant Transgenic plants: Potential Ecological Impact. INRA Editions, Paris, p. 123.

  • Thomas PE, Hassan S, Kaniewski WK, Lawson EC and Zalewski JC (1998) A search for evidence of virus/transgene interactions in potatoes transformed with the potato leafroll virus replicase and coat protein genes. Mol Breed 4: 407–417.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Valat L, Mode F, Mauro MC and Burrus M (2003) Preliminary attempts to biolistic inoculation of grapevine fanleaf virus. J Virol Meth 108: 29–40.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Varrelmann M, Palkovics L and Maiss E (2000) Transgenic or plant expression vector-mediated recombination of Plum pox virus. J Virol 74: 7462–7469.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vuittenez A, Munck MC and Kuszala J (1964) Souches de virus à haute aggressivité isolées de vignes atteintes de dégénérescence infectieuse. Etudes Virol App 5: 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker MA, Meredith CP and Goheen AC (1985) Sources of resistance to grapevine fanleaf virus (GFV) in Vitis species. Vitis 24: 218–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter B and Etienne L (1987) Detection of the grapevine fanleaf viruses away from the period of vegetation. J Phytopathol 120: 355–364.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wetzel T, Meunier L, Jaeger U, Reustle GM and Krczal G (2001) Complete nucleotide sequences of the RNAs 2 of German isolates of grapevine fanleaf and arabis mosaic nepoviruses. Virus Res 75: 139–145.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wintermantel WM and Schoelz JE (1996) Isolation of recombinant viruses between cauliflower mosaic virus and a viral gene in transgenic plants under conditions of moderate selection pressure. Virology 223: 156–164.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Worobey M and Holmes EC (1999) Evolutionary aspects of recombination in RNA viruses. J Gen Virol 80: 2535–2543.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Xue B, Ling KS, Reid CL, Sekiya M, Momol EA, Süle S et al. (1999) Transformation of five grape rootstocks with plant virus genes and a virE2 gene from Agrobacterium tumefaciens. In Vitro Cell Biol-Plant 35: 226–231.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Laboratoire de Virologie, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, Unité Mixte de Recherche Vigne et Vins d’Alsace, 28 rue de Herrlisheim, 68021, Colmar, France

    Emmanuelle Vigne, Véronique Komar & Marc Fuchs

Authors
  1. Emmanuelle Vigne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Véronique Komar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marc Fuchs
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marc Fuchs.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vigne, E., Komar, V. & Fuchs, M. Field Safety Assessment of Recombination in Transgenic Grapevines Expressing the Coat Protein Gene of Grapevine fanleaf virus . Transgenic Res 13, 165–179 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRAG.0000026075.79097.c9

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:TRAG.0000026075.79097.c9

Search

Navigation