title: Innate and introduced resistance traits in genetically modified aspen trees and their effect on leaf beetle feeding.
abstract: Genetic modifications of trees may provide many benefits, e.g. increase production, and mitigate climate change and herbivore impacts on forests. However, genetic modifications sometimes result in unintended effects on innate traits involved in plant-herbivore interactions. The importance of intentional changes in plant defence relative to unintentional changes and the natural variation among clones used in forestry has not been evaluated. By a combination of biochemical measurements and bioassays we investigated if insect feeding on GM aspens is more affected by intentional (induction Bt toxins) than of unintentional, non-target changes or clonal differences in innate plant defence. We used two hybrid wildtype clones (Populus tremula x P. tremuloides and Populus tremula x P. alba) of aspen that have been genetically modified for 1) insect resistance (two Bt lines) or 2) reduced lignin properties (two lines COMT and CAD), respectively. Our measurements of biochemical properties suggest that unintended changes by GM modifications (occurring due to events in the transformation process) in innate plant defence (phenolic compounds) were generally smaller but fundamentally different than differences seen among different wildtype clones (e.g. quantitative and qualitative, respectively). However, neither clonal differences between the two wildtype clones nor unintended changes in phytochemistry influenced consumption by the leaf beetle (Phratora vitellinae). By contrast, Bt induction had a strong direct intended effect as well as a post experiment effect on leaf beetle consumption. The latter suggested lasting reduction of beetle fitness following Bt exposure that is likely due to intestinal damage suffered by the initial Bt exposure. We conclude that Bt induction clearly have intended effects on a target species. Furthermore, the effect of unintended changes in innate plant defence traits, when they occur, are context dependent and have in comparison to Bt induction probably less pronounced effect on targeted herbivores.
authors.affiliation: Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Science, Umeå, Sweden.
authors.forename: Joakim
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Hjältén
authors.forename: E Petter
authors.initials: EP
authors.lastname: Axelsson
authors.forename: Riitta
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Julkunen-Tiitto
authors.forename: Anders
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Wennström
authors.forename: Gilles
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Pilate
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D002851:Chromatography, High Pressure Liquid; D001517:Coleoptera / Q000502:physiology*; D060467:Disease Resistance / Q000235:genetics*; D005247:Feeding Behavior / Q000502:physiology; D006027:Glycosides / Q000032:analysis; D006790:Host-Parasite Interactions; D006824:Hybridization, Genetic; D010636:Phenols / Q000032:analysis; D010935:Plant Diseases / Q000235:genetics / Q000469:parasitology; D018515:Plant Leaves / Q000737:chemistry / Q000235:genetics / Q000469:parasitology; D030821:Plants, Genetically Modified; D032107:Populus / Q000737:chemistry / Q000235:genetics* / Q000469:parasitology*; D011794:Quercetin / Q000031:analogs & derivatives / Q000032:analysis
chemical_list: D006027:Glycosides; D010636:Phenols; D011794:Quercetin
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2002 Jun;20(6):607-12
references.pmid: 12042866
references.citation: Environ Entomol. 2011 Aug;40(4):955-63
references.pmid: 22251697
references.citation: Am Nat. 2011 Jun;177(6):800-11
references.pmid: 21597256
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 1984 Mar;10(3):499-520
references.pmid: 24318555
references.citation: Pest Manag Sci. 2005 Dec;61(12):1186-92
references.pmid: 16152673
references.citation: Phytochemistry. 2011 Sep;72(13):1497-509
references.pmid: 21376356
references.citation: Plant Biotechnol J. 2012 Sep;10(7):883-9
references.pmid: 22672155
references.citation: Ecology. 2009 Dec;90(12):3393-405
references.pmid: 20120808
references.citation: Toxicon. 2007 Mar 15;49(4):423-35
references.pmid: 17198720
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 2001 Apr;27(4):779-89
references.pmid: 11446300
references.citation: Planta. 2005 Nov;222(4):699-708
references.pmid: 15971066
references.citation: J Chem Ecol. 2003 Nov;29(11):2585-602
references.pmid: 14682535
references.citation: PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e30640
references.pmid: 22292004
references.citation: FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2001 Feb 5;195(1):1-8
references.pmid: 11166987
references.citation: J Econ Entomol. 2004 Dec;97(6):1965-71
references.pmid: 15666751
references.citation: Am J Bot. 2001 Sep;88(9):1704-6
references.pmid: 21669705
references.citation: Oecologia. 1984 Nov;64(3):375-380
references.pmid: 28311454
references.citation: Oecologia. 2003 Oct;137(2):312-20
references.pmid: 12908105
references.citation: Oecologia. 1985 Aug;67(1):52-56
references.pmid: 28309845
references.citation: Planta. 2002 Feb;214(4):653-60
references.pmid: 11925050
references.citation: BMC Ecol. 2003 Jun 24;3:5
references.pmid: 12823861
references.citation: Phytochemistry. 2011 Sep;72(13):1551-65
references.pmid: 21354580
references.citation: Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 1998 Sep;62(3):775-806
references.pmid: 9729609
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 1999 Aug;17(8):808-12
references.pmid: 10429249
references.citation: Theor Appl Genet. 2002 Jan;104(1):127-31
references.pmid: 12579437
references.citation: Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Jun;26(6):615-7
references.pmid: 18536678