Resistance levels and fitness of glufosinate-resistant transgenic sweet potato in field experiments

Abstract

Transgenic herbicide-resistant sweet potato plants [ Ipomoea batatas (L.) Lam.] produced through a biolistic transformation were used in this study. The objectives of this research were to (a) quantify resistance levels of transgenic sweet potato expressing the bar gene to glutamine synthetase (GS)-inhibitors, glufosinate and methionine sulfoximine, protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO)-inhibiting herbicide, oxyfluorfen and photosynthesis-inhibiting herbicide, paraquat; (b) compare the relative chlorophyll content, quantum yield, growth, and tuberous root yield between transgenic and wild-type sweet potato; (c) compare the response of transgenic and wild-type sweet potato plants to chilling and high temperature, and (d) compare amino acids, minerals and sugar contents of transgenic and wild-type sweet potato tubers. The transgenic sweet potato lines were 20–82-fold more resistant to glufosinate than the wild-type. The representative transgenic line 7171 also showed resistance to methionine sulfoximine, but was not resistant to oxyfluorfen and paraquat, which have different target sites. The stem length, number of leaves, petiole length, shoot fresh weight, and storage roots of transgenic lines were lower than those of the wild-type in field experiments. Reduced growth and root yield were not due to reduced quantum yield and relative chlorophyll contents. Glufosinate increased the ammonium accumulation in leaves of wild-type plants, but had minimal or no effect on leaves of transgenic line 7171. There were differences in mineral contents, free sugars, total amino acids, and free amino acids in the petiole and storage roots between wild-type and line 7171. There was no difference in drought tolerance between wild-type and line 7171, but the transgenic line was more tolerant to chilling temperature than wild-type plants. Follow-up research is required to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the growth and yield differences, different nutritional values, and differential response to low temperature between wild-type and transgenic sweet potato.