Auto Draft

ラウンドアップ エクセル may provide advantages to plants in the wild.

Credit Xiao Yang
A method of genetic modification used extensively to produce crops that are herbicide-resistant has been proven to provide advantages to an invasive form of rice, even in absence of herbicide. These findings suggest that such modifications can have a broad spectrum of effects that extend beyond farms, and possibly into the wild.

Many plants are genetically engineered to be resistant to the glyphosate. The herbicide, originally called Roundup it was released to the market in 1996 under the trade name Roundup. This resistance to glyphosate enables farmers to eradicate most plants without doing any harm to their crop.

Glyphosate inhibits growth of plants by stopping EPSP synthase (an enzyme that plays a role in the creation of certain amino acids as well as other molecules). This enzyme can make up as much as 35% or more of a plant’s total mass. The genetic-modification technique — utilized, for instance, in the Roundup Ready crops made by the biotechnology giant Monsanto which is headquartered in St Louis, Missouri -usually includes inserting genes into a plant’s genome to boost EPSP-synthase production. ラウンドアップ come from bacteria that has caused the infection of the plant.

The plant can endure the negative effects of glyphosate due to its additional EPSP-synthase. Biotechnology labs attempted to utilize plant genes to boost EPSP synthase production. This was partially to take advantage of a loophole in US law that permits the regulatory approval for transgenes in organisms that have not been derived from pests of bacteria.

There aren’ ラウンドアップ that have examined the possibility that transgenes, like those that confer resistance glyphosate, can increase the resilience of plants to surviving and reproduce once they cross-pollinate with wild or weedy species. Norman Ellstrand of University of California Riverside says, “The conventional expectation is that any transgene that is found in nature will cause disadvantages if there is no selection pressure , because the added machinery can reduce the health.”

Lu Baorong, an ecologist from Fudan University in Shanghai has rewritten that view. He found that glyphosate resistance gives an impressive fitness boost to a weedy version of the popular rice crop Oryza sativa.

Lu and his colleagues genetically modified the cultivated Rice species to express its EPSP synthase. Then, they crossed it with the marijuana-producing parent.

The researchers then allowed the offspring of cross-breeding to be bred with each other to produce second-generation hybrids. ラウンドアップ were genetically identical with the exception of the number and count of the EPSP synthase gene. It was expected that those with more copies had higher enzyme levels and produced more amino acid tryptophan in comparison to their unmodified counterparts.

Researchers also discovered that the hybrids with transgenic genes had higher rates of photosynthesis. They also produced more flowers and shoots and produced 48-125% more seeds than the non-transgenic hybrids — in the absence of the chemical glyphosate.

Making the weedy rice more competitive can exacerbate the problems it causes for farmers all over the world whose plots are invaded by pests, Lu says.

Brian Ford-Lloyd of the University of Birmingham, UK, says “If the EPSP synthase gene is introduced to wild rice varieties, their genetic variety is crucial for conserving, could be endangered because it will outcompete the normal varieties.” “This is among the clearest instances of the extremely damaging effects of GM crops] on the environment.”

The belief of the public that genetically modified crops containing additional copies of their genes are safer is questioned by this study. Lu claims that the research “shows that this is not always the case”. say this discovery requires rethinking the future regulation on the use of genetically modified plants. “Some people are now saying that biosafety regulations can be relaxed because we have a high level of comfort with the two decades of genetic engineering,” says Ellstrand. “But shows that novel products still need cautious assessment.”