Comparison of Tuber Proteomes of Potato Varieties, Landraces, and Genetically Modified Lines1

Crop improvement by genetic modification remains controversial, one of the major issues being the potential for unintended effects. Comparative safety assessment includes targeted analysis of key nutrients and antinutritional factors, but broader scale-profiling or “omics” methods could increase the chances of detecting unintended effects. Comparative assessment should consider the extent of natural variation and not simply compare genetically modified (GM) lines and parental controls. In this study, potato (Solanum tuberosum) proteome diversity has been assessed using a range of diverse non-GM germplasm. In addition, a selection of GM potato lines was compared to assess the potential for unintended differences in protein profiles. Clear qualitative and quantitative differences were found in the protein patterns of the varieties and landraces examined, with 1,077 of 1,111 protein spots analyzed showing statistically significant differences. The diploid species Solanum phureja could be clearly differentiated from tetraploid (Solanum tuberosum) genotypes. Many of the proteins apparently contributing to genotype differentiation are involved in disease and defense responses, the glycolytic pathway, and sugar metabolism or protein targeting/storage. Only nine proteins out of 730 showed significant differences between GM lines and their controls. There was much less variation between GM lines and their non-GM controls compared with that found between different varieties and landraces. A number of proteins were identified by mass spectrometry and added to a potato tuber two-dimensional protein map.

[1]  F. Wright,et al.  A potato α-glucosidase gene encodes a glycoprotein-processing α-glucosidase II-like activity. Demonstration of enzyme activity and effects of down-regulation in transgenic plants. , 2000 .

[2]  M. Bevan,et al.  Binary Agrobacterium vectors for plant transformation. , 1984, Nucleic acids research.

[3]  H. Kuiper,et al.  Assessment of the food safety issues related to genetically modified foods. , 2001, The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology.

[4]  D. Galbraith,et al.  Methods for Transcriptional Profiling in Plants. Be Fruitful and Replicate , 2004, Plant Physiology.

[5]  A. Posch,et al.  Evaluation of patatin as a major cross-reactive allergen in latex-induced potato allergy. , 2002, Annals of allergy, asthma & immunology : official publication of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology.

[6]  A. Shevchenko,et al.  Mass spectrometric sequencing of proteins silver-stained polyacrylamide gels. , 1996, Analytical chemistry.

[7]  J. Schell,et al.  New plant binary vectors with selectable markers located proximal to the left T-DNA border , 1992, Plant Molecular Biology.

[8]  K. Koistinen,et al.  Birch PR-10c is induced by factors causing oxidative stress but appears not to confer tolerance to these agents. , 2002, The New phytologist.

[9]  R. Visser,et al.  Sequence of the structural gene for granule-bound starch synthase of potato (Solarium tuberosum L.) and evidence for a single point deletion in the amf allele , 1991, Molecular and General Genetics MGG.

[10]  P. Sanders,et al.  Comparison of cauliflower mosaic virus 35S and nopaline synthase promoters in transgenic plants. , 1987, Nucleic acids research.

[11]  E J Kok,et al.  Unintended effects and their detection in genetically modified crops. , 2004, Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association.

[12]  P. Piffanelli,et al.  Analysis of 1.9 Mb of contiguous sequence from chromosome 4 of Arabidopsis thaliana , 1998, Nature.

[13]  F. Cánovas,et al.  Plant proteome analysis , 2004, Proteomics.

[14]  D. M. Gottlieb,et al.  Multivariate approaches in plant science. , 2004, Phytochemistry.

[15]  M. Taylor,et al.  Potato plants expressing antisense and sense S‐adenosylmethionine decarboxylase (SAMDC) transgenes show altered levels of polyamines and ethylene: antisense plants display abnormal phenotypes , 1996 .

[16]  J. Bradshaw,et al.  Breeding strategies for clonally propagated potatoes. , 1994 .

[17]  D. Barstow,et al.  The pMTL nic- cloning vectors. I. Improved pUC polylinker regions to facilitate the use of sonicated DNA for nucleotide sequencing. , 1988, Gene.

[18]  C. Plomion,et al.  Combining proteomic and genetic studies in plants. , 2002, Journal of chromatography. B, Analytical technologies in the biomedical and life sciences.

[19]  Mauro Fasano,et al.  Proteomics as a tool to improve investigation of substantial equivalence in genetically modified organisms: The case of a virus‐resistant tomato , 2004, Proteomics.

[20]  J. Seilhamer,et al.  A comparison of selected mRNA and protein abundances in human liver , 1997, Electrophoresis.

[21]  Erik Millstone,et al.  Beyond ‘substantial equivalence’ , 1999, Nature.

[22]  C. Dillmann,et al.  Genetic variability of proteome expression and metabolic control , 2001 .

[23]  H. Ross,et al.  cDNA cloning and characterisation of an alpha-glucosidase gene from potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). , 1998, The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology.

[24]  S. Gygi,et al.  Correlation between Protein and mRNA Abundance in Yeast , 1999, Molecular and Cellular Biology.