» Articles » PMID: 31160654

Comparative Proteomics of Phytase-transgenic Maize Seeds Indicates Environmental Influence is More Important Than That of Gene Insertion

Overview
Journal Sci Rep
Specialty Science
Date 2019 Jun 5
PMID 31160654
Citations 5
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Proteomic differences were compared between phytase-transgenic (PT) maize seeds and nontransgenic (NT) maize seeds through two-dimensional electrophoresis (2-DE) with mass spectrometry (MS). When maize was grown under field conditions, 30 differentially accumulated proteins (DAPs) were successfully identified in PT seeds (PT/NT). Clusters of Orthologous Groups (COG) functional classification of these proteins showed that the largest group was associated with posttranslational modifications. To investigate the effects of environmental factors, we further compared the seed protein profiles of the same maize planted in a greenhouse or under field conditions. There were 76 DAPs between the greenhouse- and field-grown NT maize seeds and 77 DAPs between the greenhouse- and field-grown PT maize seeds However, under the same planting conditions, there were only 43 DAPs (planted in the greenhouse) or 37 DAPs (planted in the field) between PT and NT maize seeds. The results revealed that DAPs caused by environmental factors were more common than those caused by the insertion of exogenous genes, indicating that the environment has much more important effects on the seed protein profiles. Our maize seed proteomics results also indicated that the occurrence of unintended effects is not specific to genetically modified crops (GMCs); instead, such effects often occur in traditionally bred plants. Our data may be beneficial for biosafety assessments of GMCs at the protein profile level in the future.

Citing Articles

Comparison of the Phenotypic Performance, Molecular Diversity, and Proteomics in Transgenic Rice.

Sun Y, Zhao H, Chen Z, Chen H, Li B, Wang C Plants (Basel). 2023; 12(1).

PMID: 36616286 PMC: 9824520. DOI: 10.3390/plants12010156.


Transcriptomic Analysis of Mature Transgenic Poplar Expressing the Transcription Factor Gene in Two Different Environments.

Zhang W, Wang Y, Zhang T, Zhang J, Shen L, Zhang B Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022; 10:929681.

PMID: 35774064 PMC: 9237257. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.929681.


Comparative proteome analyses of rhizomania resistant transgenic sugar beets based on RNA silencing mechanism.

Hejri S, Salimi A, Malboobi M, Fatehi F GM Crops Food. 2021; 12(1):419-433.

PMID: 34494497 PMC: 8820250. DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2021.1954467.


Metabolic Analysis Reveals Gene Transformation Does Not Affect the Sensitivity of Rice to Rice Dwarf Virus.

Chang X, Ning D, Mao L, Wang B, Fang Q, Yao H Metabolites. 2021; 11(4).

PMID: 33808359 PMC: 8065979. DOI: 10.3390/metabo11040209.


Plant breeding involving genetic engineering does not result in unacceptable unintended effects in rice relative to conventional cross-breeding.

Liu Q, Yang X, Tzin V, Peng Y, Romeis J, Li Y Plant J. 2020; 103(6):2236-2249.

PMID: 32593184 PMC: 7540705. DOI: 10.1111/tpj.14895.

References
1.
Consoli L, Damerval C . Quantification of individual zein isoforms resolved by two-dimensional electrophoresis: genetic variability in 45 maize inbred lines. Electrophoresis. 2001; 22(14):2983-9. DOI: 10.1002/1522-2683(200108)22:14<2983::AID-ELPS2983>3.0.CO;2-#. View

2.
Zolla L, Rinalducci S, Antonioli P, Righetti P . Proteomics as a complementary tool for identifying unintended side effects occurring in transgenic maize seeds as a result of genetic modifications. J Proteome Res. 2008; 7(5):1850-61. DOI: 10.1021/pr0705082. View

3.
Yi X, Sun Y, Yang Q, Guo A, Chang L, Wang D . Quantitative proteomics of Sesuvium portulacastrum leaves revealed that ion transportation by V-ATPase and sugar accumulation in chloroplast played crucial roles in halophyte salt tolerance. J Proteomics. 2014; 99:84-100. DOI: 10.1016/j.jprot.2014.01.017. View

4.
De Steur H, Wesana J, Blancquaert D, Van Der Straeten D, Gellynck X . The socioeconomics of genetically modified biofortified crops: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016; 1390(1):14-33. DOI: 10.1111/nyas.13199. View

5.
Azadi H, Taube F, Taheri F . Co-existence of GM, conventional and organic crops in developing countries: Main debates and concerns. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr. 2017; 58(16):2677-2688. DOI: 10.1080/10408398.2017.1322553. View