4.5 Review

Hybridisation within Brassica and allied genera:: evaluation of potential for transgene escape

Journal

EUPHYTICA
Volume 158, Issue 1-2, Pages 209-230

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10681-007-9444-0

Keywords

Brassica napus; database; gene flow; interspecific hybridisation; risk assessment; transgenic crops

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Determining the potential for hybridisation between transgenic crops and their relatives is a major component of risk assessment. Recent assessments of the extent of reproductive compatibility between crops and their relatives draw heavily on existing data from experimental crosses to infer the likelihood of hybridisation and introgression. Since the literature in this area continues to grow at a rapid pace, it is essential that such analyses can be easily updated. We used a database approach to assemble data on reproductive compatibility for eight crop species in Brassica, Raphanus and Sinapis, using data from hand pollination, spontaneous (unassisted) pollination and trials using in vitro techniques (e.g. embryo rescue), incorporating 326 studies and 216 species combinations. We found many reports for major crop species (B. juncea, B. napus, B. oleracea and B. rapa), but fewer for minor crops (B. carinata, B. nigra, Raphanus sativus and Sinapis alba). Many species combinations remain untested, and we highlight these information gaps. While reproductively incompatible species can be discounted as targets for transgene escape, compatible species must be evaluated further in the particular context where transgenic crops are grown. Because the data is retained in a database in a relatively unmodified form, multiple views of the data can be generated; this review represents one possible view of this data. Our approach also allows new data to be easily incorporated into future reanalyses and can be extended to other crop groups, and as such is a useful method of assembling, analysing and sharing data for risk assessment.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available