Report

Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil

Volume: 1 Number: 2 September 1, 2010
EN TR

Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil

Abstract

Currently transgenic plants are grown in more than 20 countries with maize, soybean, canola and cotton being the most predominant crops. Inexperience in the outcomes of the technology and growing public concern necessitates proper detection and regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from farmland to market. Due to their high specifity and sensitivity, polymerase chain reaction (PCR) based systems are currently the method of choice in detection of genetic modifications. This study compares the efficiency of three different PCR based methods; reversetranscription PCR (RT-PCR), real-time PCR (qPCR) and conventional PCR in reference with the transgene copy numbers assessed by Southern blot hybridization, in detection of genetic modification. In the study, first generation transgenic lentil (Lens culinaris M.) plants carrying beta-glucuronidase (gus) gene in control of CaMV-35S promoter and A.tumefaciens nos terminator was used. Conventional PCR was used in detection of gus gene signal and RT PCR was performed in detection of gene’s expression. qPCR was used to detect expression signals of both 35S promoter and nos terminator. All of the methods were successful in producing amplification signals for each target gene. Although qPCR signal strengths were in consistency with the band intensities obtained by RT-PCR to some extent, outcomes of both PCR-based methods appeared to be independent from copy number of genes detected in Southern blot hybridization. Band intensities obtained by conventional PCR showed no particular correlation with any other PCRbased method. Inconsistency in copy number of gene and qPCR signal strength, even in pure DNA samples may have a contribution for the debates on the influence of various factors on qPCR and reliability of the method in genetic modification quantification.  

Keywords

References

  1. Mafra, I., Ferreira, M.P.L.V.O., Beatriz, M. and P.P. Oliveira, 2008. “Food authentication by PCR-based methods” Eur Food Res Technol, Vol. 227, pp.649–665.
  2. Anklam, E., Gadani, F., Heinze, P., Pijnenburg, H. and G. Van Den Eede, 2002. “Analytical methods for detection and determination of genetically modified organisms in agricultural cropsand plant-derived food products” Eur Food Res Technol, Vol. 214, pp.3–26.
  3. Cankar, K., Chauvensy-Ancel, V., Fortabat, M.N., Gruden, K., Kobilinsky, A., Jana, Z. and Y. Bertheau , 2008. “Detection of nonauthorized
  4. differentialquantitative polymerase chain reaction: application to 35S in maize” Analytical Biochemistry, Vol. 376, pp. 189–199. modified organisms
  5. using [4] Giovannini, T. and L. Concilio, 2002. “PCR Detection of Genetically Modified Organisms: A Review” Starch/Stärke, Vol. 54, pp. 321–327.
  6. Studer, E., Rhyner, C., Lüthy, Y. and P. Hübner, 1998. “Quantitative competitive PCR for the detection of genetically modified soybean and maize” Z. Lebensm Unters Forsch, Vol. 207, pp. 207–213.
  7. F.E. Ahmed, 2002. “Detection of genetically modified organisms in foods” TRENDS in Biotechnology, Vol.20, pp. 215-223.
  8. Yates, K., ed., 1999. Detection Methods for Novel Foods Derived from Genetically Modified Organisms ILSI Europe

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Engineering

Journal Section

Report

Authors

Gülsüm Kalemtaş This is me

Meral Yücel This is me

Hüseyin Avni Öktem This is me

Publication Date

September 1, 2010

Submission Date

December 23, 2009

Acceptance Date

-

Published in Issue

Year 2010 Volume: 1 Number: 2

APA
Çelikkol Akçay, U., Kalemtaş, G., Yücel, M., & Öktem, H. A. (2010). Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil. Mühendislik Bilimleri Ve Tasarım Dergisi, 1(2), 73-78. https://izlik.org/JA49AF48RG
AMA
1.Çelikkol Akçay U, Kalemtaş G, Yücel M, Öktem HA. Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil. JESD. 2010;1(2):73-78. https://izlik.org/JA49AF48RG
Chicago
Çelikkol Akçay, Ufuk, Gülsüm Kalemtaş, Meral Yücel, and Hüseyin Avni Öktem. 2010. “Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil”. Mühendislik Bilimleri Ve Tasarım Dergisi 1 (2): 73-78. https://izlik.org/JA49AF48RG.
EndNote
Çelikkol Akçay U, Kalemtaş G, Yücel M, Öktem HA (September 1, 2010) Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi 1 2 73–78.
IEEE
[1]U. Çelikkol Akçay, G. Kalemtaş, M. Yücel, and H. A. Öktem, “Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil”, JESD, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 73–78, Sept. 2010, [Online]. Available: https://izlik.org/JA49AF48RG
ISNAD
Çelikkol Akçay, Ufuk - Kalemtaş, Gülsüm - Yücel, Meral - Öktem, Hüseyin Avni. “Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil”. Mühendislik Bilimleri ve Tasarım Dergisi 1/2 (September 1, 2010): 73-78. https://izlik.org/JA49AF48RG.
JAMA
1.Çelikkol Akçay U, Kalemtaş G, Yücel M, Öktem HA. Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil. JESD. 2010;1:73–78.
MLA
Çelikkol Akçay, Ufuk, et al. “Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil”. Mühendislik Bilimleri Ve Tasarım Dergisi, vol. 1, no. 2, Sept. 2010, pp. 73-78, https://izlik.org/JA49AF48RG.
Vancouver
1.Ufuk Çelikkol Akçay, Gülsüm Kalemtaş, Meral Yücel, Hüseyin Avni Öktem. Comparison Of Different Molecular Methods In Screening Genetically Modified Lentil. JESD [Internet]. 2010 Sep. 1;1(2):73-8. Available from: https://izlik.org/JA49AF48RG