Abstract
Insect pests are a menace to the crop plants as they cause 15–22% annual crop loss. Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) crystal protein toxin(s) have been observed to be effective against lepidopteran, coleopteran, dipteran and hemipteran insect pests. With the emergence of recombinant DNA technology, computational biology and plant transformation procedures, it is now possible to design, modify and transfer any gene (natural or synthetic) into crop plants especially, to cope with insect pests, herbicide tolerance, various abiotic stresses and to enhance the expression level and nutritional quality. Bt-based biopesticides are an alternative to synthetic pesticides and are insect- specific, effective, eco-friendly and cost-effective. Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation technique utilizes the natural genetic engineering property of Agrobacterium tumefaciens which has played a pivotal role in plant genetic engineering and development of stable transgenics, over conventional breeding procedures. Several stable Bt-transgenics (potato, maize, cotton, soybean, canola, squash, rice, etc.) developed by various companies (Monsanto, Dow AgroSciences, Syngenta, Bayer cropScience, etc.) have been approved by Genetic Engineering Appraisal Committee (GEAC), Environment Protection Agency (EPA), and commercialized. The most successful story of Bt-transgenics is that of Bt-cotton (Bollgard: trade name) harbouring Bt-cry1Ac like gene. In order to avoid the development of insect resistance, various strategies such as use of hybrid gene, Bt-gene pyramiding, refugia strategies, enhanced expression of Bt-gene(s) and use of sterile insects are followed as and when required for maintaining the sustainability of Bt-technology. In the last few years, after analysing the effectiveness and promising future of this ‘green technology,’ there has been a remarkable progress in the list of countries accepting the Bt-GM crops.
Access provided by Autonomous University of Puebla. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
2.1 Introduction
The sustainable plant productivity and crop yield(s) in coming years is the major constrain for food and nutritional security for the human population in developing countries, where arable land per capita is shrinking, while human and livestock population is steadily increasing. Plant and crop productivity and yield are the result of interaction of several physiological, biochemical and metabolic processes over a defined period of time, reflected in gain of total biomass or converted harvestable commodity like seeds, fruits or edible plant parts under a set of environmental conditions that consist of several physical, geo-chemical and biological components. Therefore, besides the genetic potential of plant species, the phenotypic performance of crop plants in field profoundly depends on and is influenced by several physical, abiotic and biotic parameters and is highly variable. Hence, plant yield or harvest index is dependent on several factors and several of them are beyond human control and are part of climate change and environment. Among biotic components that influence plant/crop yield perhaps infestation of plant pathogens and insect pest are major issues after the agronomic inputs and practices. The infestation of insect pests alone during field and storage condition may affect up to from 24 to 65 ± 5% loss in grain yield of major crops (Ronald 2011). Control of agricultural insect pests under field and storage conditions largely depend on the wide spread use of synthetic insecticides and pesticides which are harmful to the ecosystem and human population (Hilder and Boulter 1999; Wahab 2009). Alternative to conventional chemical insecticides, application of microbial insecticides containing different microbial preparations and delta endotoxins (Cry proteins) from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) have emerged as ecofriendly and sustainable method for control of agricultural insect pests in the last 50–60 years (Sanahuja et al. 2011). Attempts are being made to use alternative bioinsecticides in field as well as in storage conditions to minimize the losses in grain yield. In recent past, with the development of diverse biotechnological tools and techniques of recombinant DNA and genetic engineering, it is now possible to transfer and express a desired gene in its native or modified form into the identified organism including plants, animals and microbes. Among the battery of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the transgenic plants, expressing genes from either trans- or cis-origin, are the latest introduction for sustainable crop and plant yield (Park et al. 2011).
The most widely used and well-documented example of transgenic plant in agriculture practice is the Bt-cotton, where Bt-toxin crystalline proteins of Cry1A family are expressed starting from the native wild cry1Ab and cry1Ac genes of Bacillus thuringiensis to highly modified synthetic version that are expressed in cotton followed by maize and soybean which are released for commercial cultivation (Perlak et al. 2001; James 2012). Since then, transgenics of major crop plants like cotton, maize, soybean, canola, tomato, rice, squash, potato, papaya, sugarcane and mustard have been developed for insect-pest resistance, herbicide tolerance and resistance to viruses and have been grown in more than 30 countries over 181.5 million hectares in 2016. About 17.3 million farmers over the world have been benefited by transgenic technology and are growing biotech crops. Interestingly, recently, five conservative European countries, namely Spain, Portugal, Czechia, Romania and Slovakia, have agreed to cultivate Bt-maize. Therefore, the transgenic technology has been adopted by both developed and developing countries like the United States, China, Brazil, Argentina, Canada and India and African countries, for different traits.
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is a gram-positive soil bacterium which can produce crystalline inclusions during the second phase of sporulation. These inclusions eventually develop into hydrophobic crystalline structures consisting of several toxin proteins that are of insecticidal nature against a wide spectrum of agricultural insect pests (Whiteley and Schnepf 1986). Most of the crystal proteins are protoxins of proteinaceous nature and are proteolytically converted into smaller toxic polypeptides in the midgut region of corresponding agricultural insect. This activated toxin interacts with the midgut epithelial cells of susceptible insects (Hofmann et al. 1988; Bravo et al. 2007, 2011; Vachon et al. 2012; Pardo Lopez et al. 2013) and biochemically generate the pores in the cells of brush border membrane, thus disturbing the osmotic balance and eventually the septicemia in the target insect leading into death of the insect (Knowles and Ellar 1988; Bravo et al. 2007, 2011). Several specific high-affinity binding sites on insect membranes to B. thuringiensis toxins have been documented for specificity of different toxin peptides generated by different strains/species/isolates of B. thuringiensis owing to different genes coding for the corresponding crystal protein (Schnepf et al. 1998; Hofte and Whiteley 1989).
Since the first cloning of an insecticidal crystal protein (ICP) gene (cry) from B. thuringiensis by Schnepf and Whiteley (1981), a large number of cry genes from different strains/species of Bt have been cloned, identified and characterized (Crickmore et al. 1998; deMaagd et al. 2001). Till date, more than 500 different cry genes from B. thuringiensis have been characterized and systematically documented in the literature and enlisted in website maintained by Crickmore and his group (www. glfc.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/bacillus). These insecticidal genes code specific toxins effective against insect orders belonging to Lepidoptera, Diptera and Coleoptera. Some are effective against other insect orders like Hymenoptera, Homoptera, Orthoptera, and Mallophaga, nematodes, mites and protozoa as well (Feitelson et al. 1992; Bravo et al. 2007). B. thuringiensis strains have a genome size of 2.4–5.7 million bp, and most of these bacterial strains possess both circular and sometimes linear extra chromosal elements; however, the cry genes are mostly located on the large plasmid (Gonzalez et al. 1981; Gonzalez et al. 1982). A large number of cry genes producing insecticidal toxins effective against common agricultural insect pests have been identified, cloned and expressed in different plant species to develop insect pest resistance genetically modified transgenic plants (James 2012).
Since the first introduction of cry gene into model plant tobacco for expressing insect-resistant trait (Barton et al. 1987; Vaeck et al. 1987), several major crop species have been genetically modified for expression of different insecticidal cry genes affective against different order of insects (Fischhoff et al. 1987; Perlak et al. 1990; Perlak and Fischhoff 1993; Fujimoto et al. 1993; Koziel et al. 1993; Adang et al. 1993; Nayak et al. 1997; Sanyal et al. 2005). The initial studies with introduction and expression of native full-length cry genes from B. thuringiensis into plants have shown very poor expression of toxin production, and the produced toxin was unstable in the plant system (Perlak et al. 1990; Schnepf et al. 1998). Several biochemical and genetical reasons have been attributed for poor stability and low expression of Bt-toxins in transgenic plants.
The earlier studies with transfer of Bt-cry genes showing poor expression were attributed to silencing of foreign gene, instability of RNA transcripts of insecticidal crystal protein genes (Murray et al. 1989), early termination of the transcript due to existence of polyadenylation at multiple sites in coding region of native Bt-cry genes (Diehn et al. 1996, 1998) and rapid degradation of mRNA (Perlak et al. 1991; Adang et al. 1993; DeRocher et al. 1998). The evidence to these factors was associated to earlier reports for lack of a correlation between promoter activity and mRNA accumulation (Fischhoff et al. 1987; Vaeck et al. 1987). The analytical results of tobacco transgenics expressing full-length native cry1Ac showed majority of transcript shorter than anticipated full length of the gene (Barton et al. 1987). These studies based on expression of full-length native cry1Ac and cry1Ab insecticidal genes lead to characterization of several polyadenylation sequences along with cryptic termination sequences in native Bt-cry genes.
These early reports suggested reinvesting the Bt-cry gene for its structure and functioning in the plant system. Subsequently, by analysing the nucleotide sequences of several cry genes, it was evident that crystal protein genes of B. thuringiensis were destined for expression in prokaryotic cell and of typical prokaryotic architecture in having codon sequences preferable to prokaryotes and gene length for optimum expression and stability of toxin in hydrophobic state and nucleotide sequences and GC content suitable to prokaryotes. These observation lead to several modifications in Bt-cry genes which included truncation of 3′ end of gene to eliminate hydrophobicity of the endotoxin, removable of polyadenylation, mRNA instability and criptic termination sequences, for higher expression of Bt-cry genes in plants (Fischhoff et al. 1987; Vaeck et al. 1987; Perlak et al. 1991). A major modification in the cry gene was incorporated to modify and introduce plant-preferred codons in the truncated version of Bt-cry genes (Delannay et al. 1989; Perlak et al. 1990, 1991).
These studies eventually led to major modification in designing of synthetic version of truncated cry1Ac and cry1Ab genes comprising of about ~1845 bp, where maximum care was taken to possibly use plant-preferred codons, elimination of all the termination sequences and mRNA instability components (Perlak et al. 1991; Sardana et al. 1996; Cheng et al. 1998). The designed genes were successfully shown to express the Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac toxins in different plant species, and promising transgenic plants of various species were developed (Perlak et al. 1991; Stewart Jr et al. 1996; Singsit et al. 1997; Perlak et al. 2001; Sanyal et al. 2005). Based on these developments and further molecular investigation of cry toxin and its interaction with different receptor on susceptible insect resulted in development of hybrid and fusion cry genes for wider host range and enhanced toxicity against agriculturally important target insects (Datta et al. 1998; Wu et al. 2000; Naimov et al. 2003; Singh et al. 2004; Ho et al. 2006; Rajamohan et al. 2006). To enhance host range of Cry toxin and to address the growing resistance development in target insects against these toxins, several mutations have been incorporated in the toxin for effective binding to receptor (Bravo and Soberon 2008; Soberon et al. 2013). Similarly, translation fusions of two cry genes or additional sequences for wider host range have been designed (Bohorova et al. 2001; Mehlo et al. 2005).
Lepidoptera is the most devastating group of field insects causing significant damages to large number of crop plants. Among them, Helicoverpa armigera, Heliothis virescens, Ostrinia nubilalis, Spodoptera spp., Plutella xylostella and Pectinovophora gossypiella are the important insects infesting several important crops like cotton, cabbage, okra, tomato, cauliflower, chickpea, maize and soybean. Two Bt-genes, cry1Ab and cry1Ac, have been documented for coding most effective toxin showing maximum mortality in range of 20–80 ng toxin/mg of fresh weight. Both these genes are most widely used for developing insect-resistant phenotype. To make these two toxins highly effective and efficient against target insect pests, several modifications have been incorporated including truncation, codon optimization, point mutations and application of 5′ regulatory sequences for over expression of the toxins at desired level in different plant species. The mechanism for pore formation and recognition of different receptors and their affinity to these toxins have been well documented. The native and modified versions of full length cry1Ab (3.5 kb) and cry1Ac (3.5 kb) and their synthetic modified truncated versions of 1.8 kb size have been widely used for developing the transgenic plants of different species exhibiting resistance against a number of insect pests (Cheng et al. 1992; Koziel et al. 1993; Stewart Jr et al. 1996; Alam et al. 1998; Cheng et al. 1998; Perlak et al. 2001; Sanyal et al. 2005; Mehrotra et al. 2011; Sanahuja et al. 2011). Except for selection of a unique event of transgenic cotton expressing a full-length native cry1Ac gene with few modifications and transgenic maize expressing cry1Ab, which have gone for commercial cultivation (Koziel et al. 1993; Perlak et al. 2001; Ferry et al. 2004; James 2012), most of the transgenics of different plant species are limited to demonstration under laboratory conditions. Despite several modifications incorporated in native wild type cry1Ab and cry1Ac genes which share more than 94 ± 0.5% sequence homology, their over-expression, however, in different plant species to recover promising transgenic plants with sufficient level of Bt-toxin(s) have been a matter of concern (Diehn et al. 1996; DeRocher et al. 1998). The most widely used successful transgenic event of Bt-cotton (Monsanto to 531) resistant to bollworm complex of Heliothis virescens/Helicoverpa armigera, Pectinophora gossypiella and Helicoverpa zea was developed with native full-length cry1Ac gene having some specific minor modification (Perlak et al. 2001). The event has been designated as Bollgard I and been grown commercially in large areas in several countries (James 2012). Subsequently, to check the possibility of insect developing resistance against Bt-cotton technology, a second version of transgenic cotton plant designated as Bollgard II, expressing two different cry genes such as cry1Ac and cry2Ab, has been developed and released for commercial cultivation (Purcell et al. 2004; Ferry et al. 2004). Interestingly, native cry1Ac coding gene was documented for very poor expression in higher plants owing to high AT content and presence of several pre-termination sequences. This situation necessitated the truncation and enrichment of GC content, since plants in general have a higher GC content than that found in bacterial genes (Murray et al. 1989), and particularly delta-endotoxin cry genes have higher AT content. Modifying the coding sequences to increase GC content, 3′ truncation and possible elimination of polyadenylation or termination sequences of the native cry genes resulted into dramatic increase in the expression of the insecticidal toxin proteins (Delannay et al. 1989; Perlak et al. 1991; Carozzi et al. 1992). A highly modified cry1Ab gene-coding toxin protein of 648 amino acid of the native proto-toxin of 1155 amino acids was expressed in maize to develop resistance against European corn borer (ECB), Ostrinia nubilalis (Hubner), a major pest of maize (Carozzi et al. 1992; Koziel et al. 1993). Comparative nucleotide and amino acid sequences of prominent cry1A group of genes (cry1Aa, Ab and Ac) coding insecticidal crystal proteins affective against large number of Lepidopteran insects showed distinct homology and similarities in 5′ coding sequences for toxin molecules comprising of pore forming and receptor-binding domains except for the specific changes in the sequences coding for the receptor-recognizing domains of the toxin molecules (Haider and Ellar 1987; Schnepf et al. 1998; Bravo and Soberon 2008). This comparative and exhaustive sequence analysis was further executed to other group of insecticidal crystal protein genes to reflect the diversity and evolution of different cry genes coding different insecticidal toxin proteins effective against specific insects (Feitelson et al. 1992; DeMaagd et al. 2001; Sanahuja et al. 2011).
Among cry1A group of genes, the response of the toxins against lepidopteran insects has been found in the order cry1Ac > cry1Ab and least in cry1Aa gene. This is further attributed to the molecular structure of insecticidal Cry toxin and its affinity to bind with a different receptor on the midgut of susceptible insects and attachment of toxin molecules with different epitopes of same or different receptors on BBMV cells (Estela et al. 2004; Bravo et al. 2007). Considering the close resemblance and high homology of nucleotide sequences of cry1Ab and cry1Ac gene and based on the architecture of toxin-coding sequences, completely synthetic version of both the 1.8 kb genes has been developed and extensively used for optimal expression in higher plants (Sardana et al. 1996; Cheng et al. 1998). The comparative sequence analyses of both cry1Ab and cry1Ac genes have shown three blocks of 668, 403 and 279 bp which are identical in both the case while the fourth block of 495 bp comprises sequence variations that seem to code for the receptor-binding domain of the toxin protein and may be the possible reason for differential toxicity. Considering the high homology and similarities between modified synthetic cry1Ab and cry1Ac genes for enhanced expression of toxin in higher plant, achieving promising number of transgenic with high level of toxin expression is not a routine process. Despite the successful commercial release of Bt-cotton expressing cry1Ac gene but recovery of stable transgenic plant with high level of Cry1Ac toxin is still confined to laboratory level around the globe. Only restricted plant species have been documented for high level expression of Cry1Ac toxin compared to number of transgenic plants developed with Cry1Ab toxin. The modified-cry1Ab gene has been successfully introduced and expressed to sufficient level in several plant species like maize (Koziel et al. 1993; Singh et al. 2005), rice (Fujimoto et al. 1993; Wunn et al. 1996; Wu et al. 1997; Cheng et al. 1998; Alam et al. 1998, 1999; Tu et al. 2000; Marfà et al. 2002), cotton (Perlak et al. 1990), brinjal (Kumar et al. 1998), soybean (Parrott and Clemente 2004), tomato (Kumar and Kumar 2004), sugar beet (Jafari et al. 2009) and chickpea (Mehrotra et al. 2011). However, restricted plant species have been transformed with cry1Ac gene to develop stable transgenic plants of cotton (Perlak et al. 1990, 2001; Rawat et al. 2011), tobacco (Barton et al. 1987; Vaeck et al. 1987), tomato (Fischhoff et al. 1987; Mandaokar et al. 2000), chickpea (Kar et al. 1997; Sanyal et al. 2005), peanut (Singsit et al. 1997) and canola (Stewart Jr et al. 1996).
2.2 Genetic Transformation
Genetic transformation is the deliberate alternation and modification of the genome of an organism (bacteria, plant, animal) by introduction of one or few specific foreign genes using other than conventional procedures, and the modified organism is termed as transformed or transgenic organism. Genetic transformation of plants is becoming an indispensable aid to plant physiologists, biochemists and biotechnologists in understanding the role of individual and application of these procedures for crop improvement with newer traits. Scientists of Calgene Inc. of Davis, California, used the antisense RNA technology to inactivate the gene (polgalacturonase [PG]) responsible for softening the tomato to produce first genetically modified tomato ‘Flavr-Savr’ in 1991 and was approved by the US FDA in 1994.
2.3 Gene Transfer Method
2.3.1 Direct DNA Transfer Methods
The direct DNA transfer method has been proved to be simple and effective for introducing foreign DNA into plant genomes (Fig. 2.1). Among these methods, the most frequently used one is the microprojectile bombardment procedure where transforming DNA is coated onto metal microcarriers like tungsten or gold that are accelerated with high velocity either by gun powder device or through compressed inert gases. The microcarriers acquire sufficient kinetic energy to allow them to penetrate to the intact plant, animal or bacterial cell wall and plasma membrane without killing the cells.
2.3.2 Indirect DNA Transfer Method
As with other dicotyledonous crops, Agrobacterium-mediated transformation is the most widely used method for gene transfer. Among the various vectors used in plant transformation, the Ti plasmid of Agrobacterium tumefaciens has been widely used. This bacteria is known as ‘natural genetic engineer’ of plants, because these bacteria have natural ability to transfer T-DNA of their plasmids into plant genome upon infection of cells at the wound site and cause an unorganized growth of a cell mass known as crown gall. Ti plasmids are used as gene vectors for delivering useful foreign genes into target plant cells and tissues. The foreign gene is cloned in the T-DNA region of Ti plasmid in place of unwanted sequences.
2.4 Agrobacterium-Mediated Genetic Transformation
Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a gram-negative, soil phytopathogen of family Rhizobiaceae that causes the disease ‘crown gall’ in a wide variety of dicotyledonous plants (Fig. 2.2). Crown gall is a plant tumour, a lump of undifferentiated tissue, which often forms at the area of crown, the junction between the root and the stem of the infected plants. The pathogenic property of this bacterium was recognized much earlier (Smith and Townsend 1907).
A. tumefaciens: induces crown gall disease.
A. rhizogenes: induces hairy root disease.
A. radiobacter: an avirulent strain.
During the infection at wound site, the bacterium transfers a small part of its own plasmid DNA called T-DNA (transfer DNA) into the plant cell that results in two key events.
-
1.
The plant cell begins to proliferate and form tumours and receive the ability to grow in cultures, which even do not have any growth regulator.
-
2.
They begin to synthesize an unusual arginine derivative called opines (octopine, nopaline, etc.) which are not found in normal tissues.
Bacteria can be classified as octopine, nopaline, agropine, succinamopine or chrysopine strains (octopine is condensation product of arginine and pyruvic acid). The metabolism of opines is a central feature of crown gall disease. The type of opine produced is not determined by the host plant but by the bacterial strain. In general, the bacterium induces the synthesis of an opine, which it can catabolize and use as its sole energy source for carbon and nitrogen. Clearly, an interesting interrelationship is evolved, where A. tumefaciens subvert the plant’s metabolism to make amino acids, which can be utilized only by the bacteria as a food and energy source.
2.4.1 Ti Plasmid of Agrobacterium
The ability of Agrobacterium tumefaciens to induce crown gall disease in plants is controlled by genetic information carried on a large conjugative plasmid (of about 200 kb size) called Ti plasmid for its tumour-inducing capacity. Virulence is lost when the bacterium is cured for the plasmid, and cured strains have lost the capacity to utilize octopine or nopaline. Ti plasmids have temperature-sensitive replication, i.e. high temperature (more than 30 °C) leads to curing of plasmids. Ti plasmids have regions for replication (origin of replication), conjugal transfer, virulence and T-DNA.
Three bacterial genetic elements are required for T-DNA transfer to plants.
-
1.
25 bp direct repeated flanking and defining the T-DNA
-
2.
Virulence (vir) genes encoded by the Ti plasmid in a region outside of the T-DNA.
-
3.
Number of chromosomal genes, of which some are important for attachment to the bacterium to the plant cell
2.4.2 Organization of T-DNA
T-DNA (transfer DNA) is about 23 kb segment of Ti plasmid, which is transferred into the plant genome during Agrobacterium infection. T-DNA contains the gene for constitutive synthesis of auxins, cytokinins and opines and is defined on both the sides by 24 bp direct inverted repeat called border sequences, which are required for T-DNA excision and transfer. The deletion of either border sequence completely blocks the transfer of T-DNA into the plant cell. However, mutational analysis shows that only the right repeat is absolutely required for T-DNA transfer and they function in cis and polar fashion. The T-DNA is organized into two distinct regions called TL (left T-DNA) and TR (right T-DNA). Both TL and TR are always transferred together in nopaline plasmids and integrated into the plant genome as a single segment. But in octopine plasmids, the TL and TR are transferred independently so that a single cell may contain one or both of these segments. T-DNA has three genes, which are involved in crown gall formation. Two of these genes, iaaM and iaaH encodes tryptophan 2-monooxygenase and indoleacetamide hydrolase, respectively, which together convert tryptophan into indole 3-acetic acid (IAA); the locus was earlier called ‘shooty’ locus, and the genes were designated as tms1 (tumour with shoots) and tms2. The third gene, ipt, encodes a zeatin-type cytokinin, isopentenyl transferase; the locus was earlier designated as ‘rooty’ locus and designated as tmr (tumour having roots). T-DNA also contains genes involved in opine biosynthesis near the right border. All the genes present in T-DNA contain eukaryotic regulatory sequences. As a result, these genes are expressed only in plant cells, and they are not expressed either in Agrobacterium or in E. coli.
2.4.3 Organization of vir Region
The vir region of the Ti plasmid contains 8 operons, which together span to about 40 kb of DNA and possesses 25 genes. This region mediates the transfer of T-DNA in both cis and trans fashion into plant genome, and hence is essential for virulence and transfer of T-DNA (Hooykaas and Mozo 1994). Among the eight vir operons, four operons, viz., virA, virB, virD and virG are essential for virulence, while the remaining four operons play an accessory role in transfer of T-DNA. VirA and virG, which are constitutively expressed, regulate the expression of other vir loci. Signal transduction proceeds via activation of virG by virA, in response to the activation of virA by plant phenolics like acetosyringone and α-hydroxy acetosyringone. After activation, virG dimerizes and activates the transcription of other vir genes (Zambryski et al. 1989). The functions of different vir genes are given in Table 2.1.
2.4.4 T-DNA Transfer Process
T-DNA transfer begins with the introduction of bacteria into a plant wound (Fig. 2.3). Wounding is a necessary event in the process and may, at least is part, be required for the synthesis by the plant, certain compounds that induce the expression of the vir genes. Two of the most active substances identified are acetosysingone and β-hydroxy acetosysingone. T-DNA transfer process starts by binding of virD1 gene product to the right border (RB) sequence, virD1 has the topoisomerase activity that facilitates the action of protein virD2, as endonuclease; in nicking, at the right border and covalently binds to the 5′ end. The 3′ end produced at the site of nick serves as a primer for replacement synthesis of DNA in the 5′ → 3′ direction as a result of which the T-strand is displaced from the DNA duplex.
The virE2 protein is a single-strand DNA-binding protein and about 600 copies of it binds to the single-stranded T-DNA, thus protecting it from nuclease action. VirB operon encodes membrane-bound proteins, which participate in conjugal tube formation between the bacterial and plant cells to provide a channel for T-DNA transfer, whereas virB11 has ATPase activity, which generates energy needed for the delivery of T-DNA into the plant cells (Zambryski et al. 1989). The nuclear localization signals present on the virD2 and virE2 proteins drive the T-DNA towards the nucleus of the plant cell. This mechanism accounts for the polarity; cis-acting nature of the border repeat sequences also explains the importance of right border repeat in T-DNA transfer. Apart from Ti plasmid, chromosomal virulence genes (chv) are also involved in T-DNA transfer from Agrobacterium to plants. The chv genes are required for the synthesis of cyclic glucans, which are involved in plant cell-binding Chv A, chvB and psc A that are involved in the synthesis and export of cyclic β-1,2-glucan. A more direct role in attachment has been demonstrated for rhicadhesin, a calcium-binding protein located on bacterial cell surface. The induction of Agrobacterium vir genes in response to plant wound-specific compounds implies that a bacterial recognition system must detect the plant signal and transmit the information inside the bacterial cells. This process is mediated by products of vir A and vir G.
2.4.5 Vectors Derived from Ti Plasmids
Large size, absence of unique restriction sites and tumourigenic properties of Ti plasmids precluded the use of wild-type Ti plasmids as vectors. Presently, plant transformation vectors have been produced by replacing tumour-including genes with dominant selectable markers and desired traits. These types of vectors are known as disarmed vectors; with functional vir genes and T-DNA border sequences. Such non-oncogenic plant transformation vectors are either co-integrated or binary types.
2.4.6 Co-integrate Vector System
Vectors that recombine via DNA homology into a resident Ti plasmid are often referred to as integrative or cointegrative vectors. In this type of vector systems, both T-DNA and vir regions are present in the same Ti plasmids. Gene of interest can be inserted in between T-DNA borders by a co-integration event between the homologous sequences present in the cloning vector and T-DNA region of Ti plasmid. Efficiency of co-integrate system relies on the frequency of conjugal transfer and homologous recombination.
2.4.7 Binary Vector System
The binary vector system consists of two autonomously replicating plasmids within A. tumefaciens a shuttle (more commonly referred to as binary) vector that contains gene of interest between the T-DNA border and a helper Ti plasmid that provides the vir gene products. The vir gene can act in trans and encode proteins, which are required for the transfer of T-DNA. The standard components of binary vector are:
-
1.
Multiple cloning site
-
2.
A broad host range origin of replication functional in both E. coli and A. tumefaciens
-
3.
Selectable markers for both bacteria and plants
-
4.
T-DNA border sequences (although only right border is absolutely essential)
2.4.8 Selectable Markers
Selection of transformed cells is a key factor in developing successful methods for genetic transformation. This is done by certain selectable marker genes that are present in the vector along with the gene of interest. Selectable markers are an integral part of plant transformation strategies (Table 2.2).
Each selectable marker presents some favourable and some unfavourable features. Therefore, the choice of a marker should be based on the plant species and other considerations in the study. The NPT II gene from transposon Tn5 confers resistance to the amino glycoside antibiotics kanamycin, neomycin and G 418. The NPT II gene product, neomycin phosphotransferase, inactivates these antibiotics through its phosphorylation (Bevan et al. 1983). This marker is a most widely used system for plant selection and screening as no endogenous level is reported so far in green plants.
2.4.9 Advantages of Agrobacterium-Mediated Plant Transformation
It is a natural means of DNA transfer and is perceived as a more acceptable technique over long conventional breeding procedures. It is capable of infecting intact plant cells, tissues and organs. Transformed plants can be regenerated more rapidly. It is capable of transferring large fragments of DNA very efficiently without substantial rearrangements of the transgene. Integration of DNA is relatively a precise process; it serves as an ideal insertional mutagenesis vehicle as it introduces one to several copies of the transferred DNA into the intact genome at one or few loci. The integrated DNA gives consistent maps and appropriate segregation ratios. The stability of the gene(s) and the respective trait(s) have been found to be stable over many generations. All of these features make this technique reliable for commercialization of transgenic plants. A wide range of explants have been successfully transformed using Agrobacterium, although cotyledons have been most commonly used (McCormick et al. 1986). Other explants like vegetative leaves and hypocotyl (McCormick et al. 1986) stem have also been used with high transformation frequency both with binary as well as co-integrate Ti plasmid vectors used in these experiments.
2.4.10 Disadvantages of Agrobacterium-Mediated Plant Transformation
There is limitation of host range as it cannot transform many important food crops. Cells and tissues that are able to regenerate are difficult to transform. The embryogenic cells are placed in deeper layers and are thus not amenable to T-DNA transfer.
2.5 Factors Affecting Plant Transformation
A successful gene transfer procedure is mainly dependant on the following factors: (1) simple, reproducible, genotype-independent and cost-effective regeneration protocol for (2) target tissues, which are both competent for transformation and regeneration, (3) an efficient DNA delivery method, (4) procedure to select for transgenic tissues and (5) the ability to recover fertile plants avoiding somaclonal variation in transgenic plants (Velcheva et al. 2005; Thi Van et al. 2010).
Availability of high-frequency genotype-independent in vitro regeneration system amenable to Agrobacterium-mediated transformation is the major pre-requisite for developing transgenic lines (Birch 1997). A number of factors influencing genetic transformation such as genotype, type of explant, explant orientation, wounding procedure, co-cultivation duration, the role of phenolic compounds, Agrobacterium strain, bacterial cell density, etc. play an important role in determining overall transformation efficiency. The optimization of selection and screening procedures are crucial for improving transformation efficiency and most importantly developing non-chimeric transgenic plants.
2.6 Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) Endotoxin Crystal Protein Genes for Insect Resistance
Agricultural pests are mostly controlled by the use of synthetic pesticides and rarely by cultural practices. Therefore, the excessive and reckless use of agrochemicals has been a subject of public concern as it has led to harmful consequences on the environment and carcinogenicity to non-targets organisms.
The reliance on gene transfer technology to transfer insect-resistance genes of diverse origin into crop plants provides an economical, feasible and eco-friendly alternative to the extensive use of chemicals pesticides. Insect-resistant transgenic plants may be raised by introducing foreign genes encoding either δ-endotoxin, protease inhibitors (PI), lectins, amylase inhibitors, etc. (Boulter 1993; Gatehouse et al. 1997). The most widely used, well-documented and reliable approach in this context is the insecticidal crystal protein (ICP) genes of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) which code for δ-endotoxin (Whiteley and Schnepf 1986). Gram-positive spore-forming entomopathogenic bacteria of Bacillaceae family particularly Bacillus thuringiensis produce a large variety of protein toxins to aid them to invade, infect and kill their hosts. This bacterium produces an insecticidal crystal protein which forms inclusion bodies of bipyramidal, cuboidal, flat rhomboid or a composite with two or more crystal types during sporulation (Bajwa and Kogan 2001). ICPs are one of the several classes of endotoxins produced during sporulation, and δ-endotoxins (delta endotoxins) are the most effective than other classes of α-, β- and γ-endotoxins (alpha, beta and gamma) to agricultural insect pests. The genes coding these toxins are called cry genes.
Although the Cry proteins exhibit diversity, they are specific to the target insect orders: lepidoptera (moths and butterflies), diptera (mosquitoes and flies) and coleopteran (weevils and beetles), and few new toxins have been identified to kill hymenopterans (bees and wasps) and nematodes (Schnepf et al. 1998; Pigott and Ellar 2007; Bravo et al. 2007). Considering a large number of cry genes and diversity of encoded toxins against different groups of insects and microbes, several nomenclatures and classification of ICP genes have been proposed (Hofte and Whiteley 1989; Sanchis et al. 1988; Crickmore et al. 1998; Crickmore et al. 2011). However, new toxin-encoding genes are being identified and the number is increasing therefore, nomenclature and name of the new cry genes is assigned according to the extent of evolutionary divergence, as projected by phylogenetic tree algorithms. The large and variable family of insecticidal proteins of BT was earlier classified on the basis of their activity, into five major classes, as shown in Table 2.3. Later, Crickmore et al. (1998) suggested a common platform for nomenclature of Bt-cry genes and broadly classified them into 22 groups of cry genes and two groups of cytolytic (cyt) parasporal inclusion protein genes that exhibited hemolytic activity.
According to Crickmore et al. (2011), Cry toxins have been classified on the basis of their primary amino acid sequence and more than 500 different cry gene sequences have been classified into 70 subgroups. These cry gene sequences have been divided into four phylogentically unrelated protein families with different modes of action: three domain Cry toxins (3D), mosquitocidal Cry toxins (Mtx), binary-like (Bin) and the Cyt toxins. Among these toxins, the family of three-domain Cry toxins represents the largest group with more than 53 different subgroups.
As mentioned before, Bt-toxins are extremely specific to the target insect pests, non-toxic to animals including non-target insects and human beings, non-hazardous and eco-friendly (DeMaagd et al. 2001). These characteristics led to the advancement of bioinsecticides, and formulations based on Bt-spores to control agricultural insects have been developed and used extensively. Besides production of insecticidal δ-endotoxins by B. thuringiensis, some of the bacterial species are documented to express toxins during the non-sporulating state called ‘Vip,’ or vegetative insecticidal protein, which are toxic to insects and microbes (Gatehouse 2008). Both Cry and Cyt toxins interact with very specific receptors on susceptible insect pests. The primary mode of Cry protein is to recognize the receptor on insect midgut epithelial cells and lyse the cells by inserting the domain I and resulting into pore formation.
The three-domain Cry toxins are globular molecules harbouring three distinct domains connected by single linkers. The domain I at the N-terminal end comprises a series of α-helices arranged in a cylindrical formation while domain II comprises a triple β-sandwich for receptor binding. Most of the Bt-toxins are expressed as protoxin of higher molecular weight and are non-toxic; however, their proteolytic products are of smaller size and are highly toxic to the susceptible insects. The main difference between the 65 and 130-kDa three-domain Cry toxin is a C-terminal extension that is found in the 130-kDa protoxins, which is cleaved by proteases present in the larval midgut and is therefore dispensable for toxicity (DeMaagd et al. 2001). The N-terminal region of all three-domain cry genes codes for the N-terminal fragment of protoxin which comprises 20–60 residues, while the active toxin is composed of approximately 600–620 amino acid residues. The X-ray crystallographic studies of different trypsin-activated Cry toxins, such as Cry1Aa (Lepidopteran specific), Cry3Aa, Cry3Bb and Cry8Ea (Coleopteran specific), Cry4Aa and Cry4Ba (Dipteran specific) and Cry2Aa protoxin (Dipteran-lepidopteran specific), have been determined (Li et al. 1991; Grochulski et al. 1995; Galitsky et al. 2001; Morse et al. 2001; Boonserm et al. 2005, 2006; Guo et al. 2009).
Cry proteins are modular in structure, consisting of three different functional domains as I, II and III (Schnepf et al. 1998). N-terminal part of the toxin fragment comprising six amphipathic helices (α-1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7) with a central hydrophobic helix (α-5) makes the domain I of δ-endotoxins (Li et al. 1991; Grochulski et al. 1995). Two alternative models, viz. ‘Penknife Model’ (Hodgman and Ellar 1990) and ‘umbrella model’ (Li et al. 1991), were proposed to explain the pore-forming mechanism of domain I of δ-endotoxins. Following insertion of the toxin, helix α-1 is removed due to protease digestion, and it is the only helix that does not bind to BBMV vesicles as synthetic peptide mimicking studies show that α-5 helix and α-4-α-5 helix loop is important for toxin aggregation and ion channel formation (Gerber and Shai 2000). It has been proposed that after the toxin binds to the receptor, there occurs a change in the conformation of this domain allowing the hydrophobic surfaces of the helices to face the exterior of the bundle, leading to insertion into the membrane and the formation of ion channels (Knowles 1994). Domain II is made of three antiparallel β-sheets, oriented parallel to the α-helices of domain I. Domain III is made of two antiparallel β-sheets into β-sandwich structure which is involved in several functions such as stability, as receptor binding, specificity determination and ion channel gating (Schnepf et al. 1998). Arginine-rich block in domain III of δ-endotoxin is called ‘arg face,’ through which domain III makes contact with domain I and regulates ion channel conductance (Saraswathy and Kumar 2004).
The results of phylogenetic analysis suggest that domain I sequences seem common only for a subgroup of toxin proteins. Shuffling of the functional domains was observed only for domain II and III in some toxins. Toxins with dual specificity for lepidopteran and coleopteran insects are examples of domain III shuffling among coleopteran and lepidopteran-specific toxins. The phylogenetic analysis of the Cry toxin family shows that the great variability in the biocidal activity has resulted from two fundamental evolutionary processes: (i) independent evolution of the three functional domains and (ii) domain swapping among different toxins. These two processes have generated toxin proteins with similar modes of action but with diverse specificities. It is suggested that sequence divergence in combination with domains swapping by homologous recombination might have caused extensive range of specificities and evolution of different Bt-toxins (DeMaagd et al. 2001; Bravo et al. 2007).
After ingestion of Bt-ICP by a target insect, Bt-protoxin first passes through the peritrophic matrix (PM) diffusing into the midgut brush border, where it is digested to yield toxin of smaller molecular mass that mediates insect death (Gill et al. 1992; Knowles 1994). The PM is a single semiporous tube consisting of several layers of mucin like glycoproteins and chitin microfibrils (Nation 2002; Ma 2005). It serves as a barrier against the entry of virus, bacteria and bacterial products, such as Bt-protoxin (Nation 2002). Receptor binding is a key factor for specificity, specific binding involves two steps: one that is reversible and other is irreversible. Recent data suggested that toxicity correlates with irreversible binding (Aronson and Shai 2001). Irreversible binding might be related to insertion of the toxin into the membrane but could also reflect a tighter interaction of the toxin with the receptor. The delta endotoxin-binding receptors in the larval midgut are identified as glycoprotein. Domain II loops showed immunoglobulin-like structural folds, and carbohydrates are used as recognition epitopes by these folds (Li et al. 1991). CryIAc toxin specifically binds to a 120 kDa aminopeptidase-N (APN) receptor and binding interaction is mediated by Gal NAc, presumably covalently attached to the APN. Knight et al. (1994) have shown that O-glycans associated with a C-terminal O-glycosylated ‘Stalk’ structure in the APN molecule are the most likely site for CryIAc toxin binding determined by lectin binding and carbohydrate compositional analysis.
Cadherin-like proteins also serve as receptors for CryIAc toxins in lepidopteran insects. Cadherin is critical for initial binding with toxin followed by further proteolytic changes, oligomerization, binding to APNs in lipid rafts and insertion into the cell membrane for forming pores (Hua et al. 2004). Regions of domain II of CryIA toxins bind to specific sites on Bt-R1 Cadherin-like protein. Three CryIAb toxin-binding regions in Manduca sexta Bt-R1 have been mapped to aa865–aa875 (Site 1), aa1331–aa1342 (Site 2) and aa1363–aa1464 (Site 3). The first site 865NITIHITDTNN875 is involved in binding loop 2 and second site 1331 IPLPASILTVTV1342 binds to loop α-8 located on CR11. Ectodomain CR12 (Site 3) is a critical Cry1Ab receptor epitope and is the minimum region found to be crucial to confer cell susceptibility to Cry1Ab to the same level as full-length Bt-R1 (Hua et al. 2004; Xie et al. 2005).
2.7 Mechanism of Action of Three-Domain Cry Toxins in Lepidoptera
The activated toxin of 60 kDa goes through a complex sequence of binding events with different insect gut Cry-binding proteins (receptors), leading to membrane insertion and pore formation (Bravo et al. 2004; Pigott and Ellar 2007; Pacheco et al. 2009). Two models have been proposed which demonstrate the series of events that occur during receptor–Bt-protein interaction: [A] pore formation model and [B] signal transduction model.
2.7.1 Pore Formation Model
According to the pore formation model, binding to Bt-R1 (receptor) is possibly the first event in the interaction with the microvilli membrane. This initial binding promotes a conformational change in the toxin-facilitating proteolytic cleavage of helix α-1, by a membrane-bound protease followed by formation of pre-pore oligomeric structure. The oligomeric toxin then binds to the APN which induces a conformation change and a molten globule state of the toxin which is inserted into lipid rafts inducing pore formation and cell swelling (Bravo et al. 2007). After insertion into the membrane bilayers, the toxin inhibits k+ transport and amino acid assimilation in the gut lumen, causing imbalance in pH, ion and other macro molecules and culminate into insect death (Ma 2005). According to a recent report of Pardo Lopez et al. (2013), which is an extension of pore-formation model, the first binding/interaction of activated Cry1A toxins is a low-affinity interaction with ALP (alkaline phosphatase) and APN receptors (aminopeptidase-N) (.d = 101 nM for APN and 287 nM for ALP). The interaction with APN occurs through exposed loop 3 of domain II and interaction with ALP through strand β-16 of domain III (Masson et al. 1995; Pacheco et al. 2009; Arenas et al. 2010). ALP and APN are highly abundant proteins anchored to the membrane by a glycosyl phosphatidylinositol anchor (Upadhyay and Singh 2011). The interaction with ALP and APN concentrates the activated toxin in the microvilli of the midgut cells due to which the toxin is able to bind in a high affinity interaction to the cadherin receptor (.d = 1 nm; Vadlamudi et al. 1995; Gómez et al. 2006, Pacheco et al. 2009; Arenas et al. 2010). A schematic representation of mechanism of action of three-domain Cry toxin in Lepidopterans at the molecular level has been shown in Fig. 2.4.
2.7.2 Signal Transduction Model
Another model which is signal transduction suggests that Bt-toxicity could be related to G-protein-mediated apoptosis following the receptor binding (Zhang et al. 2006). Binding of Cry toxin to Bt-R1 mediates cell death by activating a signalling pathway involving stimulation of the stimulatory G-protein-α-subunit (G-αs) and adenylyl cyclase (AC), which increases the cyclic adenosine monophosphate (AMP) levels, and activation of protein kinase A (PKA). Activation of AC/PKA signalling pathway initiates a series of cytological events that include membrane blebbing, appearing of nuclear ghosts and cell swelling followed by cell lysis (Zhang et al. 2006). Diagrammatic view of the two models of Cry toxin action has been shown in Fig. 2.5.
Broderick et al. (2006) have put up an interesting observation that B. thuringiensis toxicity depends on the interaction with microorganisms of the normal gut community. Elimination of gut microbial community by oral administration of antibodies abolished insecticidal toxicity, and re-establishment of an enterobacter sp., that normally resides in the midgut microbial community has restored B. thuringiensis-mediated killing.
Transgenic plants expressing B. thuringiensis toxins have been used successfully to provide resistance against selected agricultural insects. Since the development of first transgenic tobacco and tomato plants with native Bt-cry gene (Vaeck et al. 1987; Fischhoff et al. 1987; Barton et al. 1987) considerable progress has been made to develop promising transgenic plants with highly modified Bt-cry genes for stability of mRNA and high-level expression (Gatehouse 2008). A large number of stable transgenic plants of different families, expressing various Bt-cry genes have been developed which exhibit significant protection to insect damages in lab and field (Hilder and Boulter 1999; Sharma et al. 2000; Tabashnik et al. 2003).
2.8 BT-GM Crops
A large number of crop plants expressing Bt-insecticidal endotoxin have been successfully transformed by Agrobacterium-mediated approach. Major reports on development of insect-resistant plants are summarized in Table 2.4.
Stable transgenic plants of tobacco (Barton et al. 1987), tomato (Delannay et al. 1989; Gordon-Kamm et al. 1990), rice (Koziel et al. 1993; Datta et al. 1998;), soybean (Parrott et al. 1994; Stewart Jr et al. 1996), groundnut (Singsit et al. 1997), pigeonpea (Surekha et al. 2005) and chickpea (Kar et al. 1997; Sanyal et al. 2005) have been developed. Recently, very high level of expression of Bt-cry2Aa2 protein in chloroplast up to 35.5% of total protein (DeCosa et al. 2001) and expression and inheritance of multiple transgenes (gene pyramiding) in rice (Cheng et al. 1998; Maqbool et al. 2001) and cabbage (Cao et al. 2001; Zhao et al. 2003) have been documented, for efficient management of insects and as insect-resistance management strategy. The global status of approved and commercially available Bt-GM crops is shown in Table 2.5.
2.9 Management of Resistance Development
Since most of the insect-resistant transgenic plants released for commercial cultivation harbour single insecticidal Bt-cry gene and the target insect populations are consistently being exposed to the single toxin protein, the possibility of insects evolving resistance to single Bt-toxin is high (Zhao et al. 2005; Gunning et al. 2005). There are reports on development of resistance to cry1Ab in open field populations of the diamond black moth, Plutella xylostella (Tabashnik et al. 1993; Ballester et al. 1994) and resistance to cry1Aa, cry1Ab, cry1Ac and cry1F have been reported in laboratory selection experiments (Tabashnik et al. 1997). In recent years, several Bt-cotton hybrid lines expressing cry1Ac have been approved for commercial cultivation in India, and due to small farm holdings, diverse cropping system and immigration of insects to alternative hosts, the possibility of developing heterogeneous insect population is very high (James 2012). Moreover, pink bollworm resistant to Bt-cotton harbouring the Bt-cry1Ac gene has been reported in the fields in India, where farmers rarely follow the refugia strategy (Tabashnik et al. 2010). Several strategies have been proposed for the management of resistance development in field insects, including the application of diverse mixture of toxins, high expression of Bt-toxin, weedy refugia, hybrid and pyramiding of different Bt-toxin genes and use of sterile insect (Gatehouse 2008; Tabashnik et al. 2010). Few key reports that have demonstrated the beneficial aspect of gene pyramiding in transgenic plants have been summarized in Fig. 2.6.
In recent years, transgenic plants expressing two dissimilar insect toxins have been developed, and the most successful example is Bt-cotton ‘Bollgard II’ expressing cry1Ac and cry2Ab2 genes (Perlak et al. 2001; Zhao et al. 2005). The efficacy and sustainability of transgenic plants towards prevention of resistance development in insects rely on the pyramiding and co-expression of two or more diverse transgenes, without affecting the yield parameters (Zhao et al. 2003; Gatehouse 2008).
2.10 Conclusions
The transfer of Bt-cry gene(s) into plants has provided potentially powerful alternative strategies for the protection of crops against major agricultural field insects. The toxin encoded by cry1A gene(s) is highly effective against Lepidopteran group of insects that causes major damages to crop plants. A comparative interaction of Bt-toxins Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab and Cry1Ac encoded by corresponding genes with larval midgut binding sites (receptors) of Helicoverpa armigera has shown their competition for common binding sites to different epitopes of the receptors in the order of Cry1Ac > 1Ab > 1Aa and exerting corresponding toxicity (Estela et al. 2004; Bravo et al. 2007).
The cry1Ac gene has been extensively modified and codon optimized along with other modifications for over-expression in different plant species like tobacco, cotton, tomato, potato, chickpea and rice (Sharma et al. 2004; Ferry et al. 2004). The most successful story is the commercialization of transgenic cotton expressing the cry1Ac gene as Bollgard I in 1996 and Bollgard II with cry1Ac and cry2Ab in the year 2000 that has offered significant benefits over the application of synthetic insecticides and yield to the farmers (Perlak et al. 2001). The expression of native (wild type) full-length cry1Ac gene in plants was very low due to instability and premature termination of transcript (DeRocher et al. 1998; Perlak et al. 1990). Several modifications have been incorporated in the cry gene for over-expression, and the major breakthrough has been in the designing of synthetic versions of the gene with codon modifications to remove the putative polyadenylation sequences and use of plant preferred codons for high-level expression in plants (Perlak et al. 1990).
The 5′ and 3′ UTR leader sequences play an important role in transgene expression by regulating transcription and translation initiation of the foreign gene (Tyc et al. 1984; Lu et al. 2008). In particular, the use of viral leaders 5′ UTR has shown to greatly increase the accumulation of recombinant proteins (Dowson Day et al. 1993). The most preferred are tobacco mosaic virus Ω sequence (TMV), tobacco etch virus (TEV) and alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV) leader sequences (Datla et al. 1993; Gallie et al. 1995; Wang et al. 2001) which have been used for optimization of expression of several foreign proteins in plants (Haq et al. 1995; Agarwal et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2008). The 3′ UTR contains message for transcript polyadenylation that directly affects mRNA stability (Chan and Yu 1998). Heterologous 3′ UTR from plant or plant viruses have been used to stabilize the transcript formation (Hood et al. 1997; Staub et al. 2000; Ko et al. 2003).
The use of a synthetic truncated version (1.85 kb) of the cry genes coding toxin portion has been demonstrated to be most effective for Bt-transgenics against Lepidopteran insects (Perlak et al. 1990; Sardana et al. 1996). However, the most promising transgenic event of cotton (Monsanto 531) which has been commercialized is developed with full-length modified cry1Ac gene (Perlak et al. 2001; Purcell et al. 2004). All insect-resistant transgenic cotton varieties derived from this single event are performing well under field conditions in different agroclimatic regions across the globe (James 2012). Interestingly, development of stable transgenic plants of tomato expressing Cry1Ab toxin has been documented for insect protection (Kumar and Kumar 2004; Fischhoff et al. 1987; Srivastava 2007). Moreover, frequency and recovery of promising transgenic plant expressing Bt-toxin coded by full-length gene is also extremely low. But a question arises as to why the full-length synthetic gene was used, while the initial trials were performed with its truncated version? The answer to this is the modified full-length Cry1Ac toxin, although exhibits lower expression levels, efficiently induces oligomerization, prepore formation and insecticidal activity compared to modified truncated Cry1Ac toxin, at higher expression levels. These results suggest the importance of modified full-length cry1Ac gene for stability and integrity of the insect-resistance trait compared to truncated version of cry1Ab or cry1Ac gene(s) alone (Koul 2013). In reality, the commercially released Bt-cotton was developed with full-length cry1Ac-like gene whose nucleotide alignment study revealed that ‘Monsanto 531’ cry gene sequence is a hybrid gene where the sequence 1–1398 bp is that of cry1Ab gene. It was done in order to provide a blend of binding characteristics offered by Cry1Ab as well as pore formation characteristics offered by Cry1Ac, in the aforementioned successful cry1Ac-like gene, for raising transgenic cotton and its commercialization.
References
Adang MJ, Brody MS, Cardineau G, Eagan N, Roush RT, Shewmaker CK, Jones A, Oakes JV, McBride KE (1993) The reconstruction and expression of a Bacillus thuringiensis cryШA gene in protoplasts and potato plants. Plant Mol Biol 21:1131–1145
Agarwal S, Singh R, Sanyal I, Amla DV (2008) Expression of modified gene encoding functional human .-1-antitrypsin protein in transgenic tomato plants. Transgenic Res 17:881–896
Alam MF, Datta K, Abrigo E, Vasquez A, Senadhira D, Datta SK (1998) Production of transgenic deepwater indica rice plants expressing a synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis cry1A(b) gene with enhanced resistance to yellow stem borer. Plant Sci 135:25–30
Alam MF, Datta K, Abrigo E, Oliva N, Tu J, Virmani SS, Datta SK (1999) Transgenic insect-resistant maintainer line (IR 68899B) for improvement of hybrid rice. Plant Cell Rep 18:572–575
Arenas I, Bravo A, Soberon M, Gomez I (2010) Role of alkaline phosphate from Manduca sexta in the mechanism of action of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin. J Biol Chem 258:12497–12503
Arencibia A, Vázquez RI, Prieto D, Téllez P, Carmona ER, Coego A, Hernández L, De la Riva GA, Selman-Housein G (1997) Transgenic sugarcane plants resistant to stem borer attack. Mol Breed 3(4):247–255
Aronson AI, Shai Y (2001) Why Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal toxins are so effective: unique features of their mode of action. FEMS Microbiol Lett 195:1–8
Bajwa WI, Kogan M (2001) Bacillus thuringiensis based biological control of insect pests. http://www.ppc.orst.edu/dir/microbial/bt/
Ballester V, Escriche B, Mensua JL, Riethmacher GW, Ferre J (1994) Lack of cross-resistance to other Bacillus thuringiensis crystal proteins in a population of Plutella xylostella highly resistant to cry1A(b). Biocontrol Sci Tech 4:437–443
Barton KA, Whiteley HR, Yang NS (1987) Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin expressed in transgenic Nicotiana tabaccum provides resistance to lepidopteran insects. Plant Physiol 85:1103–1109
Bevan MW, Flavell RB, Chilton MD (1983) A chimaeric antibiotic resistance gene as a selectable marker for plant cell transformation. Nature 304:184–187
Bhattacharya N, Bhat SR, Kirti PB, Chopra VL (2002) Development of insect-resistant transgenic cabbage plants expressing a synthetic cry1A(b) gene from Bacillus thuringiensis. Curr Sci 83:146–150
Birch RG (1997) Plant transformation: problems and strategies for practical application. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 48:297–326
Bohorova N, Frutos R, Royer M, Estanol P, Pacheco M, Rascon Q, Mclean S, Hoisington D (2001) Novel synthetic Bacillus thuringiensis cry1B gene and cry1B-cry1Ab translational fusion confer resistance to south western corn borer, sugarcane borer and fall army worm in transgenic tropical maize. Theor Appl Genet 103:817–826
Boonserm P, Davis D, Ellar J, Li J (2005) Crystal structure of the mosquito-larvicidal toxin Cry4Ba and its biological implications. J Mol Biol 348:363–382
Boonserm P, Mo M, Angsuthanasombat C, Lescar J (2006) Structure of the functional form of the mosquito larvicidal Cry4Aa toxin from Bacillus thuringiensis at a 2.8-angstrom resolution. J Bacteriol 188:3391–3401
Boulter D (1993) Insect pest control by copying nature using genetically-engineered crops. Biochemistry 34:1453–1466
Bravo A, Soberon M (2008) How to cope with insect resistance to Bt toxins? Cell 26:573–579
Bravo A, Gomez I, Conde J, Munoz-Garay C, Sanchez J, Miranda R, Zhuang M, Gill SS, Soberon M (2004) Oligomerization triggers binding of a Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab pore-forming toxin to aminopeptidase N receptor leading to insertion into membrane microdomains. Biochem Biophys Acta 1667:38–46
Bravo A, Gill SS, Soberon M (2007) Mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis cry and Cyt toxins and their potential for insect control. Toxicon 49(4):423–435
Bravo A, Likitvivatanavong S, Gill SS, Soberon M (2011) Bacillus thuringiensis: a story of a successful bioinsecticides. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 4:423–431
Breitler JC, Vassal JM, del Mar Catala M, Meynard D, Marfà V, Melé E, Royer M, Murillo I, San Segundo B, Guiderdoni E, Messeguer J (2004) Bt rice harbouring cry genes controlled by a constitutive or wound-inducible promoter: protection and transgene expression under Mediterranean field conditions. Plant Biotechnol J 2(5):417–430
Broderick NA, Raffa KF, Handelsman J (2006) Midgut bacteria required for Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal activity. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:15196–15199
Cao J, Shelton AM, Earle ED (2001) Gene expression and insect resistance in transgenic broccoli containing a Bacillus thuringiensis cry1Ab gene with the chemically inducible PR-1a promoter. Mol Breed 8:207–216
Carozzi NB, Warren GW, Desai N, Jayne SM, Lotstein R, Rice DA, Evola S, Koziel MG (1992) Expression of a chimeric CaMV35S Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal protein gene in transgenic tobacco. Plant Mol Biol 20:539–548
Chakrabarti SK, Mandaokar AD, Shukla A, Pattanayak D, Naik PS, Sharma RP, Kumar PA (2000) Bacillus thuringiensis cry1Ab gene confers resistance to potato against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Potato Res 43(2):143–152
Chan MT, Yu SM (1998) The 3′ untranslated region of a rice alpha-amylase gene functions as a sugar-dependent mRNA stability determinant. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:6543–6547
Chen M, Liu X, Wang Z, Song J, Qi Q, Wang PG (2005) Modification of plant .-glycans processing: the future of producing therapeutic protein by transgenic plant. Med Res Rev 25:343–360
Cheng J, Bolgard MG, Saxena RC, Sticklen MB (1992) Production of insect resistant potato by genetic transformation with a delta-endotoxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis var. kurstaki. Plant Sci 81:83–91
Cheng X, Sardana R, Kaplan H, Altosaar I (1998) Agrobacterium-transformed rice plants expressing synthetic cry1A(b) and cry1A(c) genes are highly toxic to striped stem borer and yellow stem borer. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 95:2767–2772
Coombs J, Douches D, Li W, Grafius E, Pett W (2002) Combining engineered (Bt-cry3A) and natural resistance mechanisms in potato for control of Colorado potato beetle. J Am Soc Hort Sci 127:62–68
Cornu D, Leple JC, Bonade M, Ross A, Augustin S, Delplanque A, Jouanin L, Pilate G (1996) Expression of proteinase inhibitor and a Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin in transgenic poplars. In: Proceedings IUFRO meeting on somatic cell genetics and molecular genetics of trees. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 131–136
Crickmore N, Ziegler DR, Feitelson J, Schnepf E, Van Rie J, Lereclus D, Baum J, Dean DH (1998) Revision of the nomenclature for the Bacillus thuringiensis pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62:807–813
Crickmore N, Zeigler DR, Schnepf E, Van Rie J, Lereclus D, Baum J, Bravo A, Dean DH (2011) Bacillus thuringiensis toxin nomenclature. http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/Neil_Cricknore/Bt/index.html
Datla RS, Bekkaoui F, Hammerlindl JK, Pilate G, Dunstan DI, Crosby WL (1993) Improved high level constitutive foreign gene expression in plants using an AMV RNA4 untranslated leader sequence. Plant Sci 94:139–149
Datta K, Vasquez A, Tu J, Torrizo L, Alam MF, Oliva N, Abrigo E, Khush GS, Datta SK (1998) Constitutive and tissue-specific differential expression of cry1A(b) gene in transgenic rice plants conferring resistance to rice insect pests. Theor Appl Genet 97:20–30
DeCosa B, Moar W, Lee SB, Miller M, Daniell H (2001) Over-expression of the Bt cry2Aa2 operon in chloroplasts leads to transformation of insecticidal crystals. Nat Biotechnol 19:71–74
Delannay X, LaVallee BJ, Proksch RK, Fuchs RL, Sims SR, Greenplate JT, Marrone PG, Dodson RB, Augustine JJ, Layton JG, Fischhoff DA (1989) Field performance of transgenic tomato plants expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis var kurstaki insect control protein. Nat Biotechnol 7:1265–1269
DeMaagd RA, Bravo A, Crickmore N (2001) How Bacillus thuringiensis has evolved specific toxins to colonize the insect world. Trends Genet 17:193–199
DeRocher EJ, Vargo-Gogola TC, Diehn SH, Green PJ (1998) Direct evidence for rapid degradation of Bacillus thuringiensis toxin mRNA as a cause of poor expression in plants. Plant Physiol 117:1445–1461
Diehn SH, De Rocher EJ, Green PJ (1996) Problems that can limit the expression of foreign genes in plants: lessons to be learned from B.t.-toxin genes. In: Setlow JK (ed) Genetic engineering: principles and methods, vol 18. Plenum Press, New York, pp 83–99
Diehn SH, Chiu W-L, DeRocher EJ, Green PJ (1998) Premature polyadenylation at multiple sites within a Bacillus thuringiensis toxin gene-coding region. Plant Physiol 117:1433–1443
Douches DS, Westedt AL, Zarka K, Schroeter B, Grafius EJ (1998) Potato transformation to combine natural and engineeered resistance for controlling tuber moth. Hort Sci 33:1053–1056
Dowson Day MJ, Ashurst JL, Mathias SF, Watts JW, Wilson TM, Dixon RA (1993) Plant viral leaders influence expression of a reporter gene in tobacco. Plant Mol Biol 23:97–109
Dutton A, Romies J, Bigler F (2005) Effects of Bt maize expressing cry1Ab and Bt spray on Spodoptera littoralis. Entomol Exp Appl 114:161–169
Estela A, Escriche B, Ferre J (2004) Interaction of Bacillus thuringiensis toxins with larval midgut binding sites of Helicoverpa armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). App Environ Microbiol 70:1378–1384
Fearing PL, Brown D, Vlachos D, Meghji M, Privalle L (1997) Quantitative analysis of CryIA(b) expression in B.t. maize plants, tissues, and silage and stability of expression over successive generations. Mol Breed 3:169–176
Feitelson JS, Payne J, Kim L (1992) Bacillus thuringiensis: insect and beyond. Biotech 10:271–275
Ferry N, Edwards MG, Gatehouse JA, Gatehouse AMR (2004) Plant-insect interactions: molecular approaches to insect resistance. Curr Opin Biotechnol 15:155–161
Fischhoff DA, Bowdish KS, Perlak FJ, Marrone PG, McCormick SM, Niedermeyer JG, Dean DA, Kusano-Kretzmer K, Mayer EJ, Rochester DE, Rogers SG, Fraley RT (1987) Insect tolerant transgenic tomato plants. Nat Biotechnol 5:807–813
Fujimoto H, Itoh K, Yamomoto M, Kyojuka J, Shimamoto K (1993) Insect resistant rice generated by introduction of a modified δ-endotoxin gene of Bacillus thuringiensis. Nat Biotechnol 11:1151–1155
Galitsky N, Cody V, Wojtczak A, Ghosh D, Luft JR, Pangborn W, English L (2001) Structure of the insecticidal bacterial δ-endotoxin Cry3Bb1 of Bacillus thuringiensis. Acta Cryst D 57:1101–1109
Gallie DR, Tanguay RL, Leathers V (1995) The tobacco etch viral 5′ leader and poly(A) tail are functionally synergistic regulators of translation. Gene 165:233–238
Gatehouse JA (2008) Biotechnological prospects for engineering insect-resistant plant. Plant Physiol 146:881–887
Gatehouse AMR, Davidson GM, Newell CA, Merryweather A, Hamilton WDO, Burgess EPJ, Gilbert RJC, Gatehouse JA (1997) Transgenic potato plants with enhanced resistance to the tomato moth Laccanobia oleracea: growth room trials. Mol Breeding 3:49–63
Gerber D, Shai Y (2000) Insertion and organization within membranes of delta-endotoxin pore-forming domain, helix-4-loop-helix 5 and inhibition of its activity by a mutant helix 4 peptide. J Biol Chem 275:23602–23607
Gill SS, Cowles EA, Pietrantonio FV (1992) The mode of action of Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxins. Annu Rev Entomol 37:615–636
Gleave AP, Mitra DS, Markwick NP, Morris BAM, Beuning LL (1998) Enhanced expression of the Bacillus thuringiensis cry9Aa2 gene in transgenic plants by nucleotide sequence modification confers resistance to potato tuber moth. Mol Breed 4:459–472
Gómez I, Arenas I, Benitez I, Miranda-Rios J, Becerri B, Grande R, Almagro JC, Bravo A, Soberon M (2006) Specific epitopes of domain II and III of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin involved in the sequential interaction with cadherin and aminopeptidase-N receptors in Manduca sexta. J Biol Chem 281:34032–34039
Gonzalez JM, Dulmage HT Jr, Carlton BC (1981) Correlation between specific plasmids and delta-endotoxin production in Bacillus thuringiensis. Plasmid 5:351–365
Gonzalez JM, Brown BJ Jr, Carlton BC (1982) Transfer of Bacillus thuringiensis plasmids coding for delta-endotoxin among strains of B. thuringiensis and B. cereus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 79:6951–6955
Gordon-Kamm WJ, Spencer TM, Mangano ML, Adams TR, Daines RJ, Start WG, O’Brien JV, Chambers SA, Adams WR, Willetts NG, Rice TB, Mackey CJ, Krueger RW, Kausch AP, Lernaux PG (1990) Transformation of maize cells and regeneration of fertile transgenic plants. Plant Cell 2:603–618
Grochulski P, Masson L, Borisova S, Pusztai-Carery M, Schwartz JL, Brousseau R, Cygler M (1995) Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1A(a) insecticidal toxin: crystal structural and channel formation. J Mol Biol 254:447–464
Gulbitti-Onarici S, Zaidi MA, Taga I, Ozcan S, Altosaar I (2009) Expression of Cry1Ac in transgenic tobacco plants under the control of a wound-inducible promoter (AoPR1) isolated from Asparagus officinalis to control Heliothis virescens and Manduca sexta. Mol Biotechnol 42(3):341–349
Gunning RV, Dang HT, Kemp FC, Nicholson IC, Moores GD (2005) New resistance mechanism in Helicoverpa armigera threatens transgenic crops expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac toxin. Appl Environ Microbiol 71:2558–2563
Guo S, Ye S, Liu Y, Wei L, Xue J, Wu H, Song F, Zhang J, Wu X, Huang D, Rao Z (2009) Crystal structure of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry8Ea1: an insecticidal toxin toxic to underground pests, the larvae of Holotrichia parallela. J Struct Biol 168:259–266
Haider MZ, Ellar DJ (1987) Analyses of the molecular basis of insecticidal specificity of Bacillus thuringiensis crystal delta-endotoxin. Biochem J 248:197–201
Haq TA, Mason HS, Clements JD, Artnzen CJ (1995) Oral immunization with recombinant bacterial antigen produced in transgenic plants. Science 268:714–716
Hilder VA, Boulter D (1999) Genetic engineering of crop plants for insect resistance-a critical review. Crop Prot 18:177–191
Ho NH, Baisakh N, Oliva N, Datta K, Frutos R, Datta SK (2006) Translational fusion hybrid Bt genes confer resistance against yellow stem borer in transgenic Elite Vietnamese rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars. Crop Sci 46:781–789
Hodgman TC, Ellar DJ (1990) Models for the structure and function of the Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxins determined by compilational analysis. DNA Seq 1:97–106
Hofmann C, Vanderbruggen H, Hofte H, Van Rie J, Jansens S, Van Mellaert H (1988) Specificity of Bacillus thuringienis δ-endotoxin is correlated with the presence of high-affinity binding sites in the brush border membrane of target insect midguts. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 85:7844–7848
Hofte H, Whiteley HR (1989) Insecticidal crystal proteins of Bacillus thuringiensis. Microbiol Rev 53:242–255
Hood E, Witcher D, Maddock S, Meyer T, Baszezynski C, Bailey M (1997) Commercial production of Avidin from transgenic maize: characterization of transformant, production, processing, extraction and purification. Mol Breed 3:291–306
Hooykaas PJJ, Mozo T (1994) Agrobacterium molecular genetics. Plant Molecular Biology Manual B, vol 3. Klwer Academic Publishers, Belgium, pp 1–9
Hua G, Jurat-Fuentes JL, Adang MJ (2004) Bt-R1a extracellular cadherin repeat 12 mediates Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab binding and cytotoxicity. J Biol Chem 279:28051–28056
Indurker S, Misra HS, Eapen S (2010) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) with an insecticidal protein gene: optimisation of different factors. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 16(3):273–284
Jafari M, Norouzi P, Malboobi MA, Ghareyazie B, Valizadeh M, Mohammadi SA, Mousavi M (2009) Enhanced resistance to a lepidopteran pest in transgenic sugar beet plants expressing synthetic cry1Ab gene. Euphytica 165:333–344
James C (2012) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. ISAAA Brief No. 44. ISAAA, Ithaca, NY
Jelenkovic G, Billings S, Chen Q, Lashomb J, Hamilton G, Ghidiu G (1998) Transformation of eggplant with synthetic cryIIIA gene produces a high level of resistance to the Colorado potato beetle. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 123:19–25
Kamble S, Misra HS, Mahajan SK, Eapen S (2003) A protocol for efficient biolistic transformation of mothbean Vigna aconitifolia L. Jacq. Marechal. Plant Mol Biol Rep 21:457–457
Kar S, Basu D, Das S, RamKrishnan NA, Mukherjee P, Nayak P (1997) Expression of cry1Ac gene of Bacillus thuringiensis in transgenic chickpea plants inhibits development of pod borer (Heliothis armigera) larvae. Transgenic Res 6:177–185
Khanna HK, Raina SK (2002) Elite Indica transgenic rice plants expressing modified Cry1Ac endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis show enhanced resistance to yellow stem borer (Scirpophaga incertulas). Transgenic Res 11(4):411–423
Knight P, Crickmore N, Ellar DJ (1994) The receptor for Bacillus thuringiensis CryIA(c) delta-endotoxin in the brush border membrane of the lepidopteran Manduca sexta is aminopeptidase N. Mol Microbiol 11:429–436
Knowles B (1994) Mechanisms of action of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal endotoxins. Adv Insect Physiol 24:275–308
Knowles BH, Ellar DJ (1988) Differential specificity of two insecticidal toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis var aizawai. Mol Microbiol 2:153–157
Ko K, Tekoah Y, Rudd PM, Harvey DJ, Dwek RA, Spitsin S (2003) Function and glycosylation of plant-derived antiviral monoclonal antibody. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 100:8013–8018
Kota MDH, Varma S, Gareznski F, Moar WJ (1999) Overexpression of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt)cry2Aa2 protein in chloroplasts confers resistance to plants against susceptible and Bt-resistant insects. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:1840–1845
Koul B (2013) Expression of insecticidal toxin coded by modified full-length and truncated Bt-cry1Ac genes in transgenic tomato for assessment of their stability and efficacy against target insects, PhD thesis. Banasthali Vidyapith, Rajasthan, India
Koziel MG, Beland GL, Bowman C, Carozzi NB, Crenshaw R, Crossland L, Dawson J, Desai N, Hill M, Kadwell S, Launis K, Lewis K, Maddox D, McPherson K, Meghji MR, Merlin E, Rhodes R, Warren GW, Wright M, Evola SV (1993) Field performance of elite transgenic maize plants expressing an insecticidal protein derived from Bacillus thuringiensis. Biotech 11:194–200
Kumar H, Kumar V (2004) Tomato expressing Cry1A(b) insecticidal protein from Bacillus thuringiensis protected against tomato fruit borer, Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) damage in the laboratory, greenhouse and field. Crop Prot 23:135–139
Kumar PA, Mandaokar A, Sreenivasu K, Chakrabarti SK, Bisaria S, Sharma SR, Kaur S, Sharma RP (1998) Insect-resistant transgenic brinjal plants. Mol Breed 4:33–37
Leroy T, Henry AM, Royer M, Altosaar I, Frutos R, Duris D, Philippe R (2000) Genetically modified coffee plants expressing the Bacillus thuringiensis cry1Ac gene for resistance to leaf miner. Plant Cell Rep 19:382–389
Li J, Carroll J, Ellar DJ (1991) Crystal structure of insecticidal δ-endotoxin from Bacillus thuringiensis at 2.5 A resolution. Nature 353:815–817
Lu J, Sivamani E, Azhakanandam K, Samadder P, Li X, Qu R (2008) Gene expression enhancement mediated by the 5' UTR intron of the rice rubi3 gene varied remarkably among tissues in transgenic rice plants. Mol Gen Genomics 279:563–572
Ma G (2005) The molecular biology of tolerance to Bacillus thuringiensis endotoxin in Helicoverpa armigera: a novel mechanism and its genetic transmission. PhD Thesis, The University of Adelaide, Waite Campus, Australia
Mandaokar AD, Goyal RK, Shukla A, Bisaria S, Bhalla R, Reddy VS, Chaurasia A, Sharma I, Altosaar I, Kumar PA (2000) Transgenic tomato plant resistant to fruit borer (Helicoverpa armigera Hubner). Crop Prot 19:307–312
Maqbool SB, Husnain T, Riazuddin S, Masson L, Christou P (1998) Effective control of yellow stem borer and rice leaf folder in transgenic rice indica varieties basmati 370 and M7 using the novel δ-endotoxin cry2A Bacillus thuringiensis gene. Mol Breed 4(6):501–507
Maqbool SB, Riazuddin S, Loc NT, Gatehouse AMR, Gatehouse JA, Christou P (2001) Expression of multiple insecticidal genes confers board resistance against a range of different rice pests. Mol Breed 7:85–93
Marfà V, Melé E, Gabarra R, Vassal JM, Guiderdoni E, Messeguer J (2002) Influence of the developmental stage of transgenic rice plants (cv. Senia) expressing the cry1B gene on the level of protection against the striped stem borer (Chilo suppressalis). Plant Cell Rep 20:1167–1172
Masson L, Lu YJ, Mazza A, Brousseau R, Adang MJ (1995) The Cry1A(c) receptor purified from Manduca sexta displays multiple specificities. J Biol Chem 270:20309–20315
Mcbride KE, Svab Z, Schaaf DJ, Hogan PS, Stalker DM, Maliga P (1995) Amplification of a chimeric Bacillus thuringiensis gene in chloroplasts leads to an extraordinary level of an insecticidal protein in tobacco. Bio/Technology 13:362–365
McCormick S, Jeanne N, Fry J, Barnason A, Horsch R, Fraley R (1986) Leaf disc transformation of cultivated tomato (L. esculentum) using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Cell Rep 5:81–84
McCown BH, McCabe DE, Russell DR, Robison DJ, Barton KA, Raffa KF (1991) Stable transformation of Populus and incorporation of pest resistance by electric discharge particle acceleration. Plant Cell Rep 9:590–594
Mehlo L, Gahakwa D, Nghia PT, Loc NT, Capell T, Gatehouse JA, Gatehouse AMR, Christou P (2005) An alternative strategy for sustainable pest resistance in genetically enhanced crops. Proc Natl Acad Sci 102:7812–7816
Mehrotra M, Singh AK, Sanyal I, Altosaar I, Amla DV (2011) Pyramiding of modified cry1Ab and cry1Ac genes of Bacillus thuringiensis in transgenic chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) for improved resistance to pod borer insect Helicoverpa armigera. Euphytica 182(1):87–102
Morán R, García R, López A, Zaldúa Z, Mena J, García M, Armas R, Somonte D, Rodríguez J, Gómez M, Pimentel E (1998) Transgenic sweetpotato plants carrying the delta-endotoxin gene from Bacillus thuringiensis var. tenebrionis. Plant Sci 139:175–184
Morse RJ, Yamamoto T, Stroud RM (2001) Structure of Cry2Aa suggests an unexpected receptor binding epitope. Structure 9:409–417
Murray EE, Lotzer J, Eberle M (1989) Codon usage in plant genes. Nucleic Acids Res 17(2):477–498
Naimov S, Dukiandijiev S, de Maad RA (2003) A hybrid Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxin gene gives resistance against a coleopteran and lepidopteran pest in transgenic potato. Plant Biotechnol J 1:51–57
Nation J (2002) Insect physiology and biochemistry, 1st edn. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL
Nayak P, Basu D, Das S, Basu A, Ghosh D, Ramakrishnan NA, Ghosh M, Sen SK (1997) Transgenic elite indica rice plants expressing Cry1Ac δ-endotoxin of Bacillus thuringiensis are resistant against yellow stem borer (Scripophaga incertulas). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:2111–2116
Pacheco S, Gómez I, Arenas I, Saab-Rincon G, Rodríguez-Almazán C, Gill SS, Bravo A, Soberón M (2009) Domain II loop 3 of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ab toxin is involved in a “ping pong” binding mechanism with Manduca sexta aminopeptidase-N and cadherin receptors. J Biol Chem 284:32750–32757
Pardo Lopez L, Soberon M, Bravo A (2013) Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal three-domain cry toxins: mode of action, insect resistance and consequences for crop protection. FEMS Microbial Rev 37:3–22
Park JR, McFarlane I, Phipps RH, Ceddia G (2011) The role of transgenic crops in sustainable development. Plant Biotechnol J 9:2–21
Parrott WA, Clemente TE (2004) Transgenic soybean. In: Boerma HR, Specht JE (eds) Soybeans: improvement, production, and uses, Agronomy monograph no. 16, 3rd edn. American Society of Agronomy-Crop Science Society of America-Soil Science Society of America, Madison, WI, pp 265–302
Parrott WA, All JN, Adang MJ, Bailey MA, Boerma HR, Stewart CNJ (1994) Recovery and evaluation of soybean plants transgenic for a Bacillus thuringiensis var. Kurstaki insecticidal gene. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 30:144–149
Peferoen M, Jansens S, Reynaerts A, Leemans J (1990) Potato plants with engineered resistance against insect attack. In: Vayda M, Park W (eds) Molecular and cellular biology of the potato. CAB, Tucson, pp 193–204
Perlak FJ, Deaton RW, Armstrong TA, Fuchs RL, Sims SR, Greenplate JT, Fischhoff DA (1990) Insect-resistant cotton plants. Nat Biotechnol 8:939–943
Perlak FJ, Fischhoff DA (1993) Insect resistant cotton: from the laboratory to the marketplace. In: Kim L (ed) Advanced engineered pesticides. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 199–211
Perlak FJ, Fuchs RL, Dean DA, McPherson SL, Fischhoff DA (1991) Modification of the coding sequences enhances plant expression of insect control protein genes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 88:3324–3328
Perlak FJ, Oppenhuizen M, Gustafson K, Voth R, Sivasupramaniam S, Heering D, Carey B, Ihrig RA, Roberts JK (2001) Development and commercial use of Bollgard cotton in the USA-early promises versus today’s reality. Plant J 27:489–501
Pigott CR, Ellar DJ (2007) Role of receptors in Bacillus thuringiensis crystal toxin activity. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71(2):255–281
Purcell JP, Oppenhuizen M, Wofford T, Reed AJ, Perlak FJ (2004) The story of Bollgard cotton. In: Christou P, Klee H (eds) Handbook of plant biotechnology. John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY, pp 1147–1163
Rajamohan F, Alzate O, Cotrill JA, Curtiss A, Dean DH (2006) Protein engineering of Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxin: mutations at domain II of Cry1Ab enhance receptor affinity and toxicity toward gypsy moth larvae. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93:14338–14343
Ramesh S, Nagadhara D, Reddy VD, Rao KV (2004) Production of transgenic indica rice resistant to yellow stem borer and sap-sucking insects, using super-binary vectors of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Sci 166:1077–1085
Rawat P, Singh AK, Ray K, Chaudhary B, Kumar S, Gautam T, Kanoria S, Kaur G, Kumar P, Pental D, Burma PK (2011) Detrimental effect of expression of Bt endotoxin Cry1Ac on in vitro regeneration, in vivo growth and development of tobacco and cotton transgenics. J Biosci 36:363–376
Rico E, Ballester V, Mensua JL (1998) Survival of two strains of Phthorimae opercutella (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) reared on transgenic potatoes expressing a Bacillus thuringiensis crystal protein. Agronomie 18:151–155
Ronald P (2011) Plant genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food security. Genetics 188:11–20
Rukmini V, Reddy CY, Venkateswerlu G (2000) Bacillus thuringiensis crystal δ-endotoxin: role of proteases in the conversion of protoxin to toxin. Biochimie 82:109–116
Sanahuja G, Banakar R, Twyman RM, Capell T, Christou P (2011) Bacillus thuringiensis: a century of research, development and commercial applications. Plant Biotechnol J 9:283–300
Sanchis V, Lereclus D, Menou G, Chaufaux J, Lecadet MM (1988) Multiplicity of delta endotoxin genes with different insecticidal specificities in Bacillus thuringiensis aizawai. Mol Microbiol 2:393–404
Sanyal I, Singh AK, Kaushik M, Amla DV (2005) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) with Bacillus thuringiensis cry1Ac gene for resistance against pod borer insect Helicoverpa armigera. Plant Sci 168:1135–1146
Saraswathy N, Kumar PA (2004) Protein engineering of δ-endotoxins of Bacillus thuringiensis. Electron J Biotechnol 7(2)
Sardana R, Dukiandjiev S, Giband M, Cheng X, Cowan K, Sauder C, Altosaar I (1996) Construction and rapid testing of synthetic and modified toxin gene sequences Cry1A (b & c) by expression in maize endosperm culture. Plant Cell Rep 15:677–681
Schnepf HE, Whiteley HR (1981) Cloning and expression of the Bacillus thuringiensis crystal protein gene in Escherichia coli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 78:2893–2897
Schnepf HE, Crickmore N, Van Rie J, Lereculus D, Baum J, Feitelson J, Zeigler DR, Dean DH (1998) Bacillus thuringiensis and its pesticidal crystal proteins. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 62:775–806
Selvapandiyan A, Reddy VS, Kumar PA, Tewari KK, Bhatnagar RK (1998) Transformation of Nicotiana tabacum with a native cry1Ia5 gene confers complete protection against Heliothis armigera. Mol Breed 4(6):473–478
Sharma KK, Seetharama N, Ortiz R, Sharma HC (2000) Prospects for using transgenic resistance to insects in crop improvement. Electron J Biotechnol 3:76–95
Sharma HC, Sharma KK, Seetharama N, Crouch JH (2004) Genetic engineering of crops for insect control: potential and limitations. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci 23:47–72
Sharma KK, Lavanya K, Anjalah A (2006) Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated production of transgenic pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan [L.] mill sp.) expressing the synthetic BT cry1Ab gene. Invitro Cell Dev Biol 42:165–173
Shu Q, Ye G, Cui H, Cheng X, Xiang Y, Wu D, Gao M, Xia Y, Hu C, Sardana R, Altosaar I (2000) Transgenic rice plants with a synthetic cry1Ab gene from Bacillus thuringiensis were highly resistant to eight lepidopteran rice pest species. Mol Breed 6(4):433–439
Singh PK, Kumar M, Chaturvedi CP, Yadav D, Tuli R (2004) Development of a hybrid δ-endotoxin and its expression in tobacco and cotton for control of a polyphagous pest Spodoptera litura. Trans Res 14:1–14
Singh R, Channappa RK, Deeba F, Nagaraj NJ, Sukavaneaswaran MK, Manjunath TM (2005) Tolerance of Bt corn (MON810) to maize stem borer Chilo partellus (Lepidoptera: Crambidae). Plant Cell Rep 24:556–560
Singsit C, Adang MJ, Lynch RE, Anderson WF, Wang A, Cardineau G, Ozias-Akins P (1997) Expression of Bacillus thuringiensis cry1A(c) gene in transgenic peanut plants and its efficacy against lesser cornstalk borer. Trans Res 6:169–176
Smith EF, Townsend CO (1907) A plant-tumor of bacterial origin. Science 25:671–673
Soberon M, Lopez-Diaz JA, Bravo A (2013) Cyt toxins produced by Bacillus thuringiensis: a protein conserved in several pathogenic microorganisms. Peptides 41:87–89
Srivastava S (2007) Expression and performance of modified Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal cry1A genes in transgenic tomato for insect resistance. Ph.D. thesis, University of Lucknow, Lucknow, India
Staub JM, Garcia B, Graves J, Hajdukiewicz PTJ, Hunter P, Nehra N, Paradkar V, Schlittler M, Carroll JA, Spatola L, Ward D, Ye GN, Russell D (2000) High-yield production of a human therapeutic protein in tobacco chloroplasts. Nat Biotechnol 18:333–338
Stewart CN Jr, Adang MJ, All JN, Boerma HR, Cardineau G, Tucker D, Parrott WA (1996) Genetic transformation, recovery and characterization of fertile soybean transgenic for a synthetic B. thuringiensis cry1Ac gene. Plant Physiol 112:121–129
Strizhov N, Keller M, Mathur J, Koncz-Kálmán Z, Bosch D, Prudovsky E, Schell J, Sneh B, Koncz C, Zilberstein A (1996) A synthetic cryIC gene, encoding a Bacillus thuringiensis delta-endotoxin, confers Spodoptera resistance in alfalfa and tobacco. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 93(26):15012–15017
Surekha C, Beena MR, Arundhati A, Singh PK, Tuli R, Dutta-Gupta A, Kirti PB (2005) Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) using embryonal segments and development of transgenic plants for resistance against Spodoptera. Plant Sci 169:1074–1080
Tabashnik BE, Finson N, Johnson MW, Moar WJ (1993) Resistance to toxins from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. Kurstaki causes minimal cross-resistance to B. thuringiensis subsp. aizawai in the diamondback moth (Lepidoptera: Plutallida). Appl Environ Microbiol 59:1332–1335
Tabashnik BE, Liu YB, Finson N, Masson L, Heckel DG (1997) One gene in diamondback moth confers resistance to four Bacillus thuringiensis toxins. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94:1640–1644
Tabashnik BE, Dennehy TJ, Sims MA, Larkin K, Head GP, Moar WJ, Carrière Y (2002) Control of resistant pink bollworm by transgenic cotton with Bacillus thuringiensis toxin Cry2Ab. Appl Environ Microbiol 68:3790–3794
Tabashnik BE, Carrière Y, Dennehy TJ, Morin S, Sisterson MS, Roush RT, Shelton AM, Zhao JZ (2003) Insect resistance to transgenic Bt crops: lessons from the laboratory and field. J Eco Entomol 96:1031–1038
Tabashnik BE, Sisterson MS, Ellsworth PC, Dennehy TJ, Antilla L, Liesner L, Whitlow M, Staten RT, Fabrick JA, Unnithan GC, Yelich AJ, Ellers-Kirk C, Harpold VS, Li X, Carriere Y (2010) Suppressing resistance to Bt cotton with sterile insect release. Nat Biotechnol 28:1304–1307
Thi Van D, Ferro N, Jacobsen HJ (2010) Development of a simple and effective protocol for Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated leaf disc transformation of commercial tomato cultivars. GM Crops 1–5:312–321
Tu J, Zhang G, Datta K, Xu C, He Y, Zhang Q, Khush GS, Datta SK (2000) Field performance of transgenic elite commercial hybrid rice expressing Bacillus thuringiensis δ-endotoxin. Nat Biotechnol 18:1101–1104
Tyc K, Konarska M, Gross HJ, Filipowicz W (1984) Multiple ribosome binding to the 5′-terminal leader sequence of tobacco mosaic virus RNA. Assembly of an 80S ribosome X mRNA complex at the AUU codon. Eur J Biochem 140:503–511
Tzfira T, Citovsky V (2006) Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation of plants: biology and biotechnology. Curr Opinion Biotech 17:147–154
Upadhyay SK, Singh PK (2011) Role of alkaline phosphatase in insecticidal action of Cry1Ac against Helicoverpa armigera larvae. Biotechnol Lett 33:2027–2036
Vachon V, Laprade R, Schwartz JL (2012) Current models of the mode of acion of Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal crystal proteins: a critical review. J Invertebr Pathol 111:1–12
Vadlamudi RK, Weber E, Ji I, Ji TH, Bulla LA Jr (1995) Cloning and expression of a receptor for an insecticidal toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. J Biol Chem 270:5490–5494
Vaeck M, Reynaerts A, Hofte H, Jansens S, De Beuckeleer M, Dean C, Zabeau M, Van Montagu M, Leemans J (1987) Transgenic plants protected from insect attack. Nature 328:33–37
Valderrama AM, Velá squez N, Rodríguez E, Zapata A, Zaidi M, Altosaar I, Arango R (2007) Resistance to Tecia solanivora (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) in three transgenic andean varieties of potato expressing Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Ac protein. J Econ Entomol 100(1):172–179
Velcheva M, Faltin Z, Flaishman M, Eshdat Y, Perl A (2005) A liquid culture system for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L. Mill.). Plant Sci 168:121–130
Verma AK, Chand L (2005) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan L.) with uidA and cryIA(b) genes. Physiol Mol Biol Plant 11:99–109
Wahab S (2009) Biotechnological approaches in the management of plant pests, diseases and weeds for sustainable agriculture. J Biopest 2:115–134
Wang XG, Zhang GH, Liu CX, Zhang YH, Xiao CZ, Fang RX (2001) Purified cholera toxin B subunit from transgenic tobacco plants possesses authentic antigenicity. Biotechnol Bioeng 72:490–494
Wang DJ, Brandsma M, Yin Z, Wang A, Jevnikar AM, Ma S (2008) A novel platform for biologically active recombinant human interleukin-13 production. Plant Biotechnol J 6:504–515
Weng LX, Deng HH, Xu JL, Li Q, Zhang YQ, Jiang ZD, Li QW, Chen JW, Zhang LH (2010) Transgenic sugarcane plants expressing high levels of modified cry1Ac provide effective control against stem borers in field trials. Transgenic Res 20(4):759–772
Whiteley RH, Schnepf HE (1986) The molecular biology of parasporal crystal body formation in Bacillus thuringiensis. Ann Rev Microbiol 40:549–576
Wu C, Fan Y, Zhang C, Olica N, Datta SK (1997) Transgenic fertile japonica rice plants expressing a modified cryIA(b) gene resistant to yellow stem borer. Plant Cell Rep 17:129–132
Wu SJ, Koller CN, Miller DL, Bauer LS, Dean DH (2000) Enhanced toxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis Cry3A delta-endotoxin in coleopterans by mutagenesis in a receptor binding loop. FEBS Lett 473:227–232
Wunn J, Kloti A, Burkhardt PK, Biswas CG, Launis K, Iglesias VA, Potrykus I (1996) Transgenic indicia rice breeding line IR58 expressing a synthetic cryIAb gene from Bacillus thuringiensis provides effective insect pest control. Bio/Technology 14:171–176
Xie R, Zhuang M, Ross LS, Gomez I, Oltean DI, Bravo A, Soberon M, Gill SS (2005) Single amino acid mutations in the cadherin receptor from Heliothis virescens affect its toxin binding ability to Cry1A toxins. J Biol Chem 280:8416–8425
Ye GY, Yao HW, Shu QY, Cheng X, Hu C, Xia YW, Gao MW, Altosaar I (2003) High levels of stable resistance in transgenic rice with a cry1Ab gene from Bacillus thuringiensis Berliner to rice leaffolder, Cnaphalocrocis medinalis (Guenée) under field conditions. Crop Prot 22:171–178
Zaidi MA, Mohammadi M, Postel S, Masson L, Altosaar I (2005) The Bt gene cry2Aa2 driven by a tissue specific ST-LS1 promoter from potato effectively controls Heliothis virescens. Trans Res 14(3):289–298
Zambryski P, Tempe J, Schell J (1989) Transfer and function of T-DNA genes from agrobacterium Ti and Ri plasmids in plants. Cell 56(2):193–201
Zhang X, Candas M, Griko NB, Taussig R, Bulla LA Jr (2006) A mechanism of cell death involving an adenylyl cyclase PKA signaling pathway is induced by the Cry1Ab toxin of Bacillus thuringiensis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103(26):9897–9902
Zhao JZ, Li YX, Collins HL, Cao J, Earle ED, Shelton AM (2001) Different cross-resistance patterns in the diamond back moth (Lepidoptera: Plutellidae) resistant to Bacillus thuringiensis toxin cry1C. J Econ Entomol 94(6):1547–1552
Zhao JZ, Cao J, Li Y, Collins HL, Roush RT, Earle ED, Shelton AM (2003) Transgenic plants expressing two Bacillus thuringiensis toxins delay insect resistance evolution. Nat Biotechnol 21(12):1493–1497
Zhao J-Z, Cao J, Collins HL, Bates SL, Roush RT, Earle ED, Shelton AM (2005) Concurrent use of transgenic plants expressing a single and two Bacillus thuringiensis genes speeds insect adaptation to pyramided plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:8426–8430
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Koul, B. (2020). Genetically Modified (GM) Crops Harbouring Bacillus thuringiensis (BT) Gene(S) to Combat Biotic Stress Caused by Insect Pests. In: Kumar, M., Kumar, V., Prasad, R. (eds) Phyto-Microbiome in Stress Regulation. Environmental and Microbial Biotechnology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2576-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-2576-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-15-2575-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-15-2576-6
eBook Packages: Earth and Environmental ScienceEarth and Environmental Science (R0)