Obtaining canola (Brassica napus L.) plants resistant to both glyphosate and glufosinate herbicides

1Sakhno, LO
1Komarnitskii, IK
1Kuchuk, MV
1Institute of Cell Biology and Genetic Engineering of the NAS of Ukraine, Kyiv
Dopov. Nac. akad. nauk Ukr. 2015, 9:84-90
Section: Biology
Language: Ukrainian

The biotechnological lines of spring canola (Brassica napus L.) have been created due to the introduction of both synthetic enolpiruvate shikimate phosphate syntase gene and phosphinothricin acetyl transferase gene, which are responsible for the plant resistance to glyphosate and phosphinothricin, or glufosinate, respectively, in the same vector using Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of leaf disks of aseptic plants of two released Ukrainian varieties (Exgold and Titan). Molecular biological analyses showed the target gene integration into canola’s nuclear DNA. Resistance to Hurricane Forte, as well as BASTA herbicides, was proved under in vitro conditions. The glyphosate and phosphinothricin worked as active agents in the mentioned herbicides, respectively. The planting of biotechnological canola plants that simultaneously express resistance genes to herbicides from two different groups may be more effective in comparison with plants, which possess only one of such genes because of the opportunity of herbicide interchange under the applications. It decreases the probability of the emergence of spontaneously tolerant weeds.

Keywords: bar, Brassica napus L., epsps, glufosinate, glyphosate
  1. https://isaaa.org/resources/publications/pocketk/10/default.asp.
  2. Green J. M. Weed Science, 2009, 57, No 1: 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1614/WS-08-030.1
  3. WO02/36831 Canola event pv-bngt04 (rt73) and compositions and methods for detection thereof, R. Krieb, Q. Zeng, PCT filed Oct. 22, 2001; PCT publ. Date May 10, 2002.
  4. EU register of genetically modified food and feed. Oilseed rape GT73. Art. 8(1)(a),(b) and 20(1)(b) of the Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003, Article 19(3) of Directive 2001/18/EC.
  5. Kahrizi D., Salmanian A. H., Afshari A. et al. Plant Cell Rep, 2007, 26, No 1, P. 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-006-0208-4
  6. Nicolia A., Ferradini N., Molla G. et al. J. Biotechnol, 2014, 184: 201–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiotec.2014.05.020
  7. What-is-Triazine-Tolerant-Roundup-Ready-canola1.pdf
  8. Sakhno L. A., Gocheva E. A., Komarnitskii I. K., Kuchuk N. V. Cytol. Genet., 2008, 42, No 1: 21–28 (in Russian). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11956-008-1003-7
  9. Cheung W. Y., Hubert N., Landry B. S. PCR Method Appl., 1993, 3, No 1: 69–70. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.3.1.69
  10. Murashige T., Skoog F. Physiol Plant, 1962, 15, No 3: 473–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1962.tb08052.x
  11. Bradford M. M. Anal. Biochem, 1976, 72: 248–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3
  12. Wang J. X., Zhao F. Y., Xu P. Crop Sci, 2006, 46, No 2: 706–711. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2005.0290
  13. Spivak S. G., Berdichevets I. N., Yarmolinsky D. G. et al. Russ. J. Genet., 2009, 45, No 9: 1067–1073. https://doi.org/10.1134/S1022795409090075