* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Homologous Promoter Use in Genetic Modification
Butyric acid wikipedia , lookup
Interactome wikipedia , lookup
Proteolysis wikipedia , lookup
Eukaryotic transcription wikipedia , lookup
Gene nomenclature wikipedia , lookup
Protein–protein interaction wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Point mutation wikipedia , lookup
Two-hybrid screening wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression wikipedia , lookup
Genetic engineering wikipedia , lookup
Gene regulatory network wikipedia , lookup
Secreted frizzled-related protein 1 wikipedia , lookup
Genetically modified organism wikipedia , lookup
Endogenous retrovirus wikipedia , lookup
Gene therapy of the human retina wikipedia , lookup
Transcriptional regulation wikipedia , lookup
Silencer (genetics) wikipedia , lookup
ISB News Report September 2005 Homologous Promoter Use in Genetic Modification Keerti S. Rathore & Ganesan Sunilkumar Genetic modification generally requires stable transgene expression at a desired level in the transgenic organism, without adversely affecting native gene activities. The concept of gene stacking to introduce multiple agronomic traits requires coordinated expression of several genes. In addition, second and third generation biotechnology products require controlled expression of several transgenes. These applications necessitate a heterologous and/or a homologous promoter to drive the expression of one or more transgenes. For certain applications, a homologous promoter may be a better choice since it is likely to provide a more precise level of developmental and spatial control and its activity may be stronger in the native environment. The benefits of homologous promoter use were demonstrated recently in a study on the characterization of a cotton αglobulin promoter, which showed that this promoter resulted in a significantly higher level of gusA gene expression in cotton, compared to that of two other heterologous systems, Arabidopsis and tobacco1. However, it is generally believed that homologous promoters should be avoided, as they can lead to transgene and/or the resident gene/transgene silencing25 . This notion mainly stems from studies conducted by two independent groups who demonstrated that, in some tobacco lines, reintroduction of a heterologous promoter into a transgenic plant that contains a previously introduced copy of that promoter silenced transgenes driven by each promoter6-8. Methylation of the promoters was found to be the basis of their inactivation. If homology-dependent promoter inactivation is based on a general mechanism, it should apply not only to the multiple uses of a heterologous promoter but also to the single use of a homologous promoter. There are several reports on the successful use of homologous promoters for transgene expression (see references in ref. 9). However, to our knowledge, no systematic study has been conducted to specifically address the negative impact of a transgenic, homologous promoter on the activity of the endogenous promoter. Inactivation of a transgenic and/or resident promoter is a serious concern in agricultural biotechnology that requires a thorough investigation. We have directly addressed this important issue in transgenic lines that were created to enhance the levels of oleic acid in cottonseed9. The promoter region isolated from a cotton α-globulin B gene was used to drive an antisense construct of a ∆-12 desaturase gene in cotton. The seeds from several antisense lines exhibited increased levels of oleic acid and a concomitant decrease in the levels of linoleic acid. These lines exhibiting the antisense-mediated phenotype, as well as some transgenic lines that did not exhibit the high-oleate phenotype, provided a suitable resource to study the impact of the use of a homologous promoter on the activity of an endogenous promoter. The level of the α-globulin B protein in the seed is expected to accurately reflect the activity of its promoter. Therefore, we examined the quantity of this protein by estimating the intensity of the 52 kDa band on a Coomassie Brilliant Blue-stained SDS-PAGE gel. The levels of α-globulin B protein in the seeds from four selected, highest-oleate lines were compared with control seeds. The controls consisted of non-transgenic cottonseeds as well as seeds from two different null segregant plants derived from one of the high-oleate lines. Total proteins were extracted from a pooled sample of 10 seeds from each plant and the quantitation was performed on three replicate protein extracts that were fractionated on three different gels. The αglobulin B protein band was quantified from the digital photographs of the gels using AlphaEaseTM software. The levels of α-globulin B protein in the high-oleate lines were not significantly different from control seeds. Therefore, the endogenous promoter as well as the transgenic promoter in high-oleic acid lines were functioning normally. As with any transformation experiment, we obtained a few lines that did not exhibit the transgenic phenotype, i.e., higher levels of oleic acid in the seeds. One reason for the absence of the transgenic phenotype may be that the transgene was not expressed due to inactivation of the promoter. In this scenario, if the promoter homology-based mutual silencing mechanism was in operation, the possibility exists that the corresponding endogenous promoter was also silenced. To test this possibility, the levels of α-globulin B protein in the seeds from eight transgenic lines, which showed little or no increase in seed oleic acid, were compared with control seeds. The levels of α-globulin B protein were not significantly different between the seeds of control and transgenic lines that exhibited wild-type levels of oleic acid. These results, taken together, show that the ISB News Report September 2005 seed-specific, α-globulin promoter can be used effectively for genetic modification of cottonseed without interfering with the activity of the corresponding endogenous promoter9. Previous studies6,8 that led to the notion of promoter homology-mediated silencing were based on observations on a few, isolated transgenic events containing multiple T-DNA inserts or rearranged T-DNA structures. These events were subjected to detailed characterizations in subsequent investigations by each group. It is possible that the extensive nature of these series of studies may have helped create a perception that promoter homology causes silencing problems. In our study, we have directly addressed this issue and found that introduction of a homologous promoter, per se, does not cause silencing of either the transgenic or resident promoter. References 1. Sunilkumar G et al. (2002) Transgenic Res. 11, 347-359 2. Finnegan J & McElroy D. (1994) Biotechnol. 12, 883-888 3. 4. De Wilde C et al. (2000) Plant Mol. Biol. 43, 347-359 Halpin C et al. (2001) Plant Mol. Biol., 47, 295-310 5. Potenza C, Aleman L & Sengupta-Gopalan C (2004) In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol.-Plant 40, 1-22 6. Matzke MA et al. (1989) EMBO J., 8, 643-649. 7. Matzke MA, Neuhuber F & Matzke AJM. (1993) Mol. Gen. Genet. 236, 379-386 8. Vaucheret H (1993) C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris 316, 1471-1483 9. Sunilkumar G et al. (2005) Plant Biotechnology Journal 3, 319-330 Keerti S. Rathore & Ganesan Sunilkumar Institute for Plant Genomics & Biotechnology Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2123 [email protected]