US 6,204,436 B1Grant

Transgenic plants

Issue Date:2001-03-20

•8 Claims

Abstract

The present invention relates to transgenic sugar beet plants which due to the expression of cp4/epsps enzyme activity tolerate treatment with about 4 to about 18 liters Roundup® per hectar. The plants can be characterized by theis specific integration site. The invention further relates to seeds obtained from said plants and a method for producing said plants.

Metadata

Assignee

Novartis AG

Inventors

Marie Mannerloef
Paul Peter Tenning
Per Steen

Application Information

Application Number:US 09/182,117

Filing Date:1998-10-29

Priority Date:1997-10-31

Art Unit:7

Classifications

IPC:

C12N 504C12N 1582C12N 1590A01H 500A01H 510

Field of Search:

435 6914353201435410435418435419435468435469536 237800278800288800294800295800298800300

Patent Drawings

This patent does not have any drawings.

Description

[0002] This U.S. application Ser. No. 09/182,117 claims the benefit of U.S. application Ser. No. 60/112,003, filed Oct. 31, 1997.

[0003] The present invention relates to transgenic sugar beet plants capable of tolerating herbicide treatment with glyphosate as active ingredient.

[0004] Weeds in sugar beet fields are a major problem for the farmer. They compete with the crop thus reducing yield. Today, no single herbicide is able to effectively control all weeds without harming the sugar beet crop itself (Miller et al, J. Sugar Beets Res. 26: 3-4, 1989). In practice, farmers use mixtures of herbicides, which also reduce growth of the crop. Meanwhile the number of weed species having developed resistance to said herbicides continues to increase (Schweizer et al, J. of Sugar Beet Research 28: 1-23, 1991) thereby aggravating the problem of weed control in sugar beet fields.

[0005] Roundup® is a broadspectrum, environmentally preferable herbicide inhibiting the growth of both weed and crop species. In the context of the present invention one liter of a herbicidal Roundup® solution comprises 360 g of its active ingredient (a.i.) glyphosate (the common name of N-phosponomethyl-glycine) which is taken up by foliage. So far no glyphosate resistant weed has developed in over 20 years of use (Holt et al., Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol., 1993); additionally no natural tolerance to glyphosate has been found in sugar beet. However, pre-emergence use of Roundup® seems to be more efficient for weed control in sugar beet fields than a combination of herbicides often used in sugar beet agriculture, consisting of phenmediphan, metamitron and ethofumesate (Madsen et al, Weed Res. 35: 105-111, 1995).

[0006] Glyphosate inhibits the biosynthesis of aromatic amino acids, through irreversible binding to 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate synthase (epsps). Within the chloroplast this enzyme catalyzes the reaction of shikimate-3-phosphate and phosphoenolpyruvate to form 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate and phosphate. Approximately one week after application of the herbicide, visible effects can be seen including wilting, yellowing followed by complete browning, deterioration of plant tissue, and decomposition of the roots.

[0007] To impart glyphosate tolerance to crop species, focus has been on the introduction into plants of epsps genes capable of increasing glyphosate tolerance. Besides plants bacteria and fungi naturally express epsps enzyme activity. The cp4/epsps from Agrobacterium sp.

[0008] CP4 was found to confer tolerance to glyphosate (Barry et al., “Inhibitors of Amino Acid Biosynthesis: Strategies for Imparting Glyphosate Tolerance to Crop Plants”, in: Biosynthesis and Molecular Regulation of Amino Acids in Plants, Singh et al (eds), American Society of Plant Physiologists, pages 139-145, 1992). Introduction of the cp4/epsps gene into soybean and oilseed rape yielded tolerance to foliar application of the herbicide under field conditions (Delannay et al., Crop Sci. 35: 1461-1467, 1995; Padgette et al., Crop Sci. 35: 1451-1461, 1995).

[0009] Glyphosate oxidase reductase (gox) isolated from Achromobacter sp. strain LBAA (Barry etal., supra) degrades glyphosate into aminomethyl phosphonic acid, a compound non-toxic for the plant. A combination of the cp4/epsps and glyphosate oxidase (gox) genes has been successfully used to obtain transgenic wheat (Zhou et al., Plant Cell Rep. 15: 159-163, 1995) tolerant to glyphosate.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

[0010] The object of the present invention is to provide sugar beet plants which tolerate glyphosate in doses sufficiently high to effect optimal herbicidal activity. Such plants can be further improved by backcrossing with elite sugar beet lines to optimize agronomic properties such as yield, pathogen resistance, etc.

[0011] Sugar beets may be transformed using Agrobacterium tumefaciensmediated transformation (Fry et al, Third international congress of plant mol. biol., Tuscon, Arizona, USA; D'Halluin et al, Bio/Technology 10: 309-314, 1992; Konwar, J. Plant Biochem & Biotech 3: 37-41, 1994). Agrobacterium-mediated transformation often results in more than one copy of the T-DNA being integrated into the plant's genome. The gene to be integrated is preferably introduced into the T-DNA such that it becomes located close to the T-DNA right border which, contrary to the left border, will almost always be transferred to the plant.

[0012] Plants according to the present invention tolerate treatment with more than about 3×6 liters of the herbicide Roundup® per hectar (about 18 liters per hectar). The total standard dose to obtain good weed control varies between 4 and 6 liters per hectare, depending on weed pressure. At these concentrations herbicide treatment exerts no detectable effect on plant vigour and leaf chlorosis. The tolerance exhibited by the plants according to the invention is conferred by a transgenically expressed cp4/epsps enzyme activity. A preferred embodiment of the present invention has been deposited with the National Collections of Industrial and Marine Bacteria Limited (23 St Machar Drive, Aberdeen AB2 1 RY, Scotland UK) on Oct. 24, 1997, under the Accession No. 40905. The deposit has been deposited under the Budapest Treaty and will be irrevocably and without restriction or condition be released to the public upon the issuance of the patent.

[0013] The present invention thus relates to a sugar beet plant including the descendants thereof expressing cp4epsps enzyme activity. In particular the invention relates to a sugar beet plant including the descendants thereof tolerating the treatment with about 4 to about 18 liters Roundup® per hectar.

[0014] Plants according to the present invention can be obtained by routine Agrobacterium mediated transformation using a transformation vector comprising between right and left T-DNA border sequences a piece of DNA as described in SEQ ID NO: 5 encoding i.a. cp4/epsps.

[0015] It was surprisingly found within the scope of the present invention, that a transformation event (RRMax) lacking left and right T-DNA border sequences within the transgenic genome and resulting in deletion of a considerable part of the transformation vector DNA while retaining the cp4/epsps encoding DNA provides superior glyphosate tolerance. In particular a piece of DNA as characterized by SEQ ID NO: 1 is found integrated into a highly repetitive region of the genome simlutaneously replacing part of said repetitive genomic sequence. The genomic DNA directly adjacent to that part of the transgene sequence which in the transformation vector used is linked to the T-DNA right border sequence, has the sequence given in SEQ ID NO: 2. The genomic DNA directly adjacent to the other end of the integrated transgenic DNA has the sequence given in SEQ ID NO: 3. The complete DNA sequence of the newly formed genomic DNA arrangement is given in SEQ ID NO: 4.

[0016] Accordingly, the present invention relates to a sugar beet plant including the descendents thereof wherein DNA characterized by the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 forms part of the plant's genome and said nucleotide sequence preferably replaces highly repetitive DNA sequences within the plant's genome.

[0017] Preferred herein is a sugar beet plant including the descendents thereof wherein those parts of the genome directly linked to said nulceotide sequence are characterized by the nucleotide sequences of SEQ ID NO: 2 and SEQ ID NO: 3, resepctively.

[0018] Further preferred is a sugar beet plant including the descendents thereof wherein DNA characterized by the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 4 forms part of the plant's genome.

[0019] The herbicide tolerance engineered into the transgenic seeds and plants mentioned above are passed on by sexual reproduction or vegetative growth and can thus be maintained and propagated in descendant plants. Generally said maintenance and propagation make use of known agricultural methods developed to fit specific purposes such as tilling, sowing or harvesting. As the growing crop is vulnerable to attack and damages caused by insects or infections, measures are undertaken to control plant diseases, insects, nematodes, and other adverse conditions to improve yield. These include mechanical measures such a tillage of the soil or removal of infected plants, as well as the application of agrochemicals such as fungicides, gametocides, nematicides, growth regulants, ripening agents and insecticides.

[0020] Use of the herbicide tolerance of the transgenic plants and seeds according to the invention can further be made in plant breeding which aims at the development of plants with improved properties such as tolerance of pests, herbicides, or stress, improved nutritional value, increased yield, or improved structure causing less loss from lodging or shattering. The various breeding steps are characterized by well-defined human intervention such as selecting the lines to be crossed, directing pollination of the parental lines, or selecting appropriate descendant plants. Depending on the desired properties different breeding measures are taken. The relevant techniques are well known in the art and include but are not limited to hybridization, inbreeding, backcross breeding, multiline breeding, variety blend, interspecific hybridization, aneuploid techniques, etc. Thus, the transgenic seeds and plants according to the invention can be used for the breeding of improved plant lines which for example increase the effectiveness of conventional methods such as herbicide or pesticide treatment or allow to dispense with said methods due to their modified genetic properties. Alternatively new crops with improved stress tolerance can be obtained which, due to their optimized genetic “equipment”, yield harvested product of better quality than products which were not able to tolerate comparable adverse developmental conditions.

[0021] In seeds production germination quality and uniformity of seeds are essential product characteristics, whereas germination quality and uniformity of seeds harvested and sold by the farmer is not important. As it is difficult to keep a crop free from other crop and weed seeds, to control seedborne diseases, and to produce seed with good germination, fairly extensive and well-defined seed production practices have been developed by seed producers, who are experienced in the art of growing, conditioning and marketing of pure seed. Thus, it is common practice for the farmer to buy certified seed meeting specific quality standards instead of using seed harvested from his own crop. Propagation material to be used as seeds is customarily treated with a protectant coating comprising herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, bactericides, nematicides, molluscicides or mixtures thereof. Customarily used protectant coatings comprise compounds such as captan, carboxin, thiram (TMTD®), methalaxyl (Apron®), and pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic®). If desired these compounds are formulated together with further carriers, surfactants or application-promoting adjuvants customarily employed in the art of formulation to provide protection against damage caused by bacterial, fungal or animal pests. The protectant coatings may be applied by impregnating propagation material with a liquid formulation or by coating with a combined wet or dry formulation. Other methods of application are also possible such as treatment directed at the buds or the fruit.

[0022] It is a further aspect of the present invention to provide new agricultural methods such as the methods exemplified above which are characterized by the use of transgenic plants, transgenic plant material, or transgenic seed according to the present invention.

[0023] In another embodiment, the present invention relates to a transgenic plant cell, tissue, organ, seed or plant part obtained from the transgenic plant. Also included within the invention are transgenic descendants of the plant as well as transgenic plant cells, tissues, organs, seeds and plant parts obtained from the descendants.

[0024] The invention further relates to a commercial bag containing Roundup® tolerant sugar beet seed capable of expressing cp4/epsps, together with lable instructions for the use thereof. Preferred within this invention is a commercial bag comprising seed of a transgenic plant comprising stably integrated into its genome a piece of DNA having the nucleotide sequence depicted in SEQ ID NO: 1. The transformation methodology employed can be summarized as follows:

[0025] (a) transforming in vitro grown sugar beet cotyledons using Agrobacterium tumefacienswith a vector comprising a piece of DNA encoding cp4/epsps such as described in SEQ ID NO: 5;

[0026] (b) regenerating shoots in the presence of glyphosate;

[0027] (c) transferring the shoots to soil in the greenhouse;

[0028] (d) treating plantlets with glyphosate;

[0029] (e) visually grading plant vigour and leaf chlorosis;

[0030] (g) selecting completely normal plants with normal vigour and leafes uneffected by glyphosate treatment; and

[0031] (h) propagating the selected plants using conventional breeding techniques.

[0032] In particular shoots are regenerated in the presence of about 0.1 to about 10 mM, preferably about 1 mM glyphosate after 8-12 weeks of selection. Each transgenic shoot is further propagated into ten copies which can optionally be analyzed for the presence of the cp4/epsps transgene using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) before it is transferred to the greenhous for rooting. Light conditions in the greenhouse are 16 hours of light and 8 hours of darkness with a temperature of 22±2° C. At the three to four leaf stage, the plantlets are sprayed with an aqueous solution of Roundup® at a dose of 0.1 to 20 liters, preferably 1 liter per hectar. Visual injury ratings for plant vigour and plant chlorosis based on a scale from 0 (dead plant) to 9 (completely uneffected plant) are taken on individual plants 2 weeks after glyphosate application. Ratings of 0 to 3 are characteristic of susceptible plants. Ratings of 3 to 7 indicate a low to intermediate level of tolerance, and ratings of 8 or 9 indicate good levels of tolerance. In particular the the ratings have the following meaning:

[0033] 9 . . . Unaffected plant identical to untreated control

[0034] 8 . . . Only very small necrosis on the tips of the leaves with less than 5% of the leaf area affected and yellow

[0035] 7 . . . Very small necrosis on the tips of the leaves which start to curl; less than 5% of the leaf area are affected and yellow

[0036] 6,5,4 . . . Increasing necrosis and leaf curl; leaves are becoming smaller than normal

[0037] 3,2 . . . No or very limited leaf growth; all leaves are curled and affected by necrosis

[0038] 1 . . . No growth of the plant; up to 5% of the plant stay green

[0039] 0 . . . Dead plant

[0040] To collect data from field trials plants with normal vigour and uneffected by glyphosate treatment (rating 9) are further propagated or bred by convential techniques.

[0041] Transformation is preferably performed using a Ti vector comprising a piece of DNA with the sequence given in SEQ ID NO: 5 containing the cp4/epsps and gox genes both of which have been reported to confer tolerance to glyphosate in certain plant species, and the reporter gene uidA encoding the β-glucuronidase enzyme. The enhanced 35S promoter (Odell et al., Nature 313: 810-812, 1985) is linked to the uidA gene, the figworth mosaic virus (FMV) promoter (Gouwda et al., J. Cell. Biochem. Suppl. 13D: 301, 1989) to the cp4/epsps and gox genes. Upstream of the cp4/epsps and the gox genes a transit peptide (Gasser et al., J. Biol. Chem. 263:4280-4289, 1988) is inserted to achieve targeting of both of the proteins to the chloroplast.

[0042] One transformation event which was generated in accordance with the present invention is surprisingly found to be uneffected by doses of up to about 3×6 liters (about 18 liters) of the herbicide Roundup® per hectar. Molecular analysis reveals that

[0043] there is a single copy of transgenic DNA integrated at a single locus;

[0044] the integrated DNA encodes cp4/epsps and corresponds to truncated vector DNA;

[0045] the integrated DNA replaces a piece of genomic DNA and has the sequence shown in SEQ ID NO: 1;

[0046] the genomic DNA directly adjacent to the integrated DNA is characterized by the sequences of SEQ ID NO: 2 and SEQ ID NO: 3 resulting in the new genomic sequence arrangment of SEQ ID NO: 4;

[0047] the cp4/epsps and the uidA genes are intact whereas the gox gene is truncated;

[0048] other vector sequences are not present in the transgenic plants.

[0049] Now that this information is available plants derived from one of the specific transformation events according to the invention can be easily distnguished from other sugar beet plants by means of PCR. Suitable primer pair combinations allow to specifically identify genomic DNA sequences which are only present in plants directly or indirectly resulting from identical transformation events. Such events are not in any way limited to those obtained by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation but may also result from biolistic transformation experiments.

[0050] The present invention thus further relates to a sugar beet plant including the descendents thereof characterized in that PCR amplification with its genomic DNA as template results in amplification of

[0051] a 739 bp DNA fragment when using a pair of oligonucleotide primers characterized by the sequences of SEQ ID NO: B and SEQ ID NO: a; or

[0052] a 834 bp DNA fragment when using a pair of oligonucleotide primers characterized by the sequences of SEQ ID NO: D and SEQ ID NO: e; or

[0053] a 1057 bp DNA fragment when using a pair of oligonucleotide primers characterized by the sequences of SEQ ID NO: A and SEQ ID NO: b; or

[0054] a 1224 bp DNA fragment when using a pair of oligonucleotide primers characterized by the sequences of SEQ ID NO: C and SEQ ID NO: f.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

EXAMPLES

[0055] The following examples further describe the materials and methods used in carrying out the invention and the subsequent results. They are offered by way of illustration, and their recitation should not be considered as a limitation of the claimed invention.

Example 1

[0056] Sugar Beet Transformation

[0057] Sugar beet of genotype A1012 is transformed with a vector containing a cp4/epsps and a gox gene capable of confering glyphosate tolerance, the nptll gene, which confers resistance to the antibiotic kanamycin and the reporter gene uidA encoding β-glucuronidase (GUS). The nptil and the uidA gene are functionally linked to the enhanced 35S promoter (Odell et al., Nature 313: 810-812,1985) whereas the cp4/epsps and gox genes are under control of the the figworth mosaic virus (FMV) promoter (Gouwda et al., J. Cell. Biochem. Suppl. 13D: 301, 1989). Additionally the cp4/epsps and gox gene are linked to a transit peptide (Gasser et al., J. Biol. Chem. 263: 4280-4289,1988) positioned 5′ to target both proteins to the chloroplast. cp4/epsps and uidA make use of the E9 3′ terminator sequences whereas gox and nptll use the corresponding NOS 3′ sequence. In vitro grown sugar beet (Beta vulgaris. L) are transformed using A. tumefaciens. Plants are regenerated as described by Fry et al. (“Genotype-independent transformation of sugarbeet using Agrobacterium tumefaciene”, Third international congress of plant mol. biol., Tuscon, Ariz., USA.,1991) and Konwar (J. Plant Biochem & Biotech 3: 37-41, 1994) using glyphosate at a concentration of 1 mM as selection agent. In order to eliminate A. tumefaciensthe cotyledons are three times incubated in MS medium containing 500 mg/lit cefotaxime (60 min at 45-50 rpm). Regenerated shoots are analyzed after 8-12 weeks of selection on 1 mM glyphosate, 500 mg/lit cefotaxime including passage to fresh media every third week. Each transgenic shoot is further micropropagated into ten copies, analyzed for the presence of the transgene, and transferred to the greenhouse for rooting.

[0058] Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) is used to verify the presence of the cp4/epsps gene. Twenty mg of plant material is collected in an eppendorf tube from regenerated in vitro shoots. Total DNA is extracted essentially according to Tai et al, Plant Mol. Biol. Rep 8: 297-303, 1990. Minor modifications are adding 500 μl of 100 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.0 containing 50 mM Na-EDTA, 1,25% SDS (W/V), 0,38% Na-Bisulfite (W/V), and 200 jg/ml proteinase K and incubating at 65° C. for two hours. Undissolved leaf material is hooked out and total DNA precipitated and frozen for 2 hours at −20° C. PCR is performed according to the instructions included with the Perkin-Elmer Gene-Amp PCR kit (Perkin-Elmer Corp.) using a modified 10× reaction buffer consisiting of 100 mM Tris-HCl pH 8.3, 500 mM KCl, 30 mM MgCl₂, 1.0% Nonidet P-40 (W/V), 0.4 μM cresol red in 24% sucrose (W/V) and the Taq Start Antibody (Clontech). For amplifying cp4/epsps sequences the following primers are used (Shah et al., Science 233: 478-481, 1986):

[0059] 5′-CAC CGG TCT TTT GGA AGG TGA AG-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 6) and

[0060] 5′-AAC GAG ACC CAT AAC GAG GAA GC-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 7). For amplifying a genomic internal control sequence (surA, surB) the following primers are used:

[0061] 5′-AAA CAG TCC CGT GCA TCC CCA AC-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 8) and

[0062] 5′-GAC GCT CTC CTT GAT TCT GTC CC-3′ (SEQ ID NO: 9).

[0063] No variation in transformation efficiency is seen between different binary plasmids.

[0064] Micropropagated shoots are transferred to soil in the greenhouse. Light conditions in the greenhouse are 200 μmol m⁻²sec⁻¹, (Osram Power Star HQI-Z, 400W), 16 hours of light, 8 hours of darkness, and a temperature of 22±2° C. At the three to four leaf stage plantlets derived from 260 independent transformants are treated with Roundup®. A calibrated sprayer is used to apply an aqueous solution of the herbicide at a dose of 1 lit per ha. (360 g.a.i.l⁻¹)). Visual injury ratings for phytotoxic effects, based on a scale from 0 (complete leaf necrosis) to 9 (no visible effects) are taken on individual plants 2 weeks after glyphosate application. For 75 different transformants phytotoxic effects ranging from score 0-6 are detected. The other 185 (71%) transformants score 7 or more which means they show minor or no visible effects after treatment with the herbicide. Those are further crossed with non-transgenic sugar beets to produce F1 progeny for subsequent evaluation in field trials.

[0065] Field trials are performed to evaluate the different transformation events under field conditions. The plots consist of three rows, each row 9 meter long, with a distance between the rows of 0.5 meter. One individual transformant is drilled in each plot. After an initial is Roundup® application of 1 lit per ha (360 g a.i.l⁻¹), at the cotyledon stage, to eliminate non-transgenic segregating plants, the rows are singled by hand, to a final stand of 1 plant per 20 centimeter. Each plot is divided in three parts that are treated independently. One plot is treated with the conventional herbicides metamitron 0.1 kg a.i.ha⁻¹, phenmediphan 0.2 kg a.i.ha⁻¹and ethofumesate 0.1 kg a.i.ha⁻¹. The other plot is treated with 2 times 2 lit per ha (1440 g a.i.l⁻¹) of Roundup® and the third plot is treated with 2 times 4 liter (2880 g a.i.l⁻¹) of Roundup®. The plants are treated at the two leaf stage and at the four leaf stage. Two weeks after the last application, the plants are scored for phytotoxic effects due to herbicide application. Symptoms ranging from complete susceptibility to complete tolerance are found. Differences between scoring in the greenhouse and scoring in the field trial are observed. This is probably due to environmental differences between the greenhouse and the field trial including absence of UVB light under glass. There were no morphological or physiological changes between plants from plots treated with different doses of Roundup®, compared to treatments with a conventional herbicide mixture. Two transformants show high tolerance to Roundup® after treatment with 2 times 2 lit and 2 times 4 lit per ha.

[0066] After spraying with Roundup®, tolerance was measured by grading for plant vigour (Tr.vig) and leaf chlorosis (Tr.chl). The various grades have the following meaning:

[0067] 9 . . . Unaffected plant identical to untreated control

[0068] 8 . . . Only very small necrosis on the tips of the leaves with less than 5% of the leaf area affected and yellow

[0069] 7 . . . Very small necrosis on the tips of the leaves which start to curl; less than 5% of the leaf area are affected and yellow

[0070] 6,5,4 . . . Increasing necrosis and leaf curl; leaves are becoming smaller than normal

[0071] 3,2 . . . No or very limited leaf growth; all leaves are curled and affected by necrosis

[0072] 1 . . . No growth of the plant; up to 5% of the plant stay green

[0073] 0 . . . Dead plant

[0074] 22 different transformation events (Entry 1-22) and 1 non-transgenic control (Entry 23) are sprayed with 1+4+4 liters of Roundup®/Ha (Total 9 l/Ha). The results of the visual injury rating are given in the following table.

Example 2

[0075] Copy Number of the Integrated Transgenic DNA

[0076] The copy number of the transgenic DNA integrated within the genome of the transformant with the highest glyphosate tolerance (RRMax) is determined by Southern blot analysis of restriction fragments extending beyond the right and left border sequences of the transformation vector used.

[0077] Genomic DNA from RRMax and a non-transgenic plant with the same genetic is isolated from 250 mg of freeze dried sugar beet leaf material according to Saghai-Maroof et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 81:8014-8018, 1984. DNA of the transformation vector used serves as the positive control. 15 μg of DNA are digested with 120 units of restriction enzyme for 4 hours at 37° C. in a total volume of 400 μl. The digested DNA is precipitated and redissolved in a total volume of 50 μl. Digested DNA, positive plasmid control, and molecular marker size standard (Lambda digested with EcoRI and HindIII) are separated on a 0.8% agarose gel. DNA is visualized with ethidium bromide and a photograph including a ruler is taken. The DNA is then transferred onto a Hybond N+ membrane and hybridized to the probe as described by Ausubel et al. (eds.) in: “Current protocols in molecular biology”, Green Publishing Associates, Inc. and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1987.

[0078] Probes complementary to basepairs 975-1766 of the cp4/epsps gene sequence (SEQ ID NO: 5) and basepairs 7108-7535 of the gox gene sequence (SEQ ID NO: 5) are prepared by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) wherein the transformation vector used serves as the template DNA for the reaction. The cp4/epsps probe is used to determine the number of inserts flanking the right border region. The gox probe is used to determine the number of inserts flanking the left border region. The PCR products are purified using the Geneclean II® Kit of BIO 101 (La Jolla, Calif.). Labelling of the probe with ³²P is achieved making use of the Megaprime™ DNA labelling system of Amersham International (Little Chalfont, UK).

[0079] Determination of copy number can be performed by analysis of genomic DNA flanking the right border region. Genomic DNA is digested with the restriction enzyme Ncol which cuts the plasmid derived sequences between the 35S promoter and the uidA gene and within the sugar beet genome. The membrane is probed with the internal PCR fragment from the cp4/epsps gene. After digestion with Ncol and hybridizing with the cp4/epsps probe, a single band of 4.7 kb is detected in RRMax. This demonstrates a single copy of transferred DNA at a single locus.

[0080] Determination of copy number can also be performed by analysis of genomic DNA flanking the left border region. Genomic DNA is digested with the restriction enzyme HindIII which cuts the plasmid derived sequences between the E9 3′ terminator of the uidA gene and the FMV promoter of the gox gene and within the sugar beet genome. After digestion with HindIII and hybridizing with the gox probe, a single band of approximately 2.0 kb is detected for the transformant RRMax. Since the minimum expected fragment size is ≧4.4 kb, the result indicates a truncation of the plasmid DNA during the transfer into the genomic DNA of the plant. Nevertheless, the result confirms that only a single copy of transferred DNA is integrated at a single locus.

Example 3

[0081] Sequence Analysis of the RRMax Integration Site

[0082] Genomic RRMax DNA is isolated from 250 mg of freezed dried sugar beet leaf material according to Saghai-Maroof et al. supra. A λFIXII phage library with insert sizes of 9-23 kb in an Xhol cloning site is made (ordered with Stratagene) and probed with cp4/epsps and gox probes to screen for putative clones covering the integration event. A total of 25 phages are detected which hybridize to the cp4epsps or the gox probe. Two clones are found to hybridize to the cp4/epsps probe and the gox probe, respectively. One of them is purified (Fritsch et al.,1987) and further evaluated by Southern blot analysis and PCR. It contains a 15-16 kb insert of genomic DNA including the transgenic DNA and the flanking sugar beet sequences. Said flanking sequences are amplified by PCR using a primer matching FMV promoter or gox gene sequences in combination with a primer matching a sequence in the λFIXII cloning cassette (detailed sequences are given in Table 1 below). The integrated DNA/sugar beet junction regions are sequenced by the Sanger dideoxy-mediated chain-termination method using Applied Biosystems, Model 373A,Version 2.1.1. The primers used for sequencing are given in Table 2.

[0083] Sequence analysis revealed that the transgenic DNA integrated in the genome of RRMax has the nucleotide sequence given in SEQ ID NO: 1. The integration start point lies between the right border sequence and the FMV promoter and terminates 897 basepairs downstream of the gox startcodon. Translational stop codons for the truncated gox gene can be found 130 and 235 basepairs downstream of the junction site. A HindIII site is identified 210 basepairs downstream and a transcriptional termination signal (AATAAA) 650 basepair downstream of the gox start codon. SEQ ID NO: 2 describes the DNA sequence of the genomic DNA directly linked to the right border region of the transgenic DNA and SEQ ID NO: 3 the DNA sequence of the genomic DNA directly linked to the left border region of the transgenic DNA.

Example 4

[0084] Characterization of the Transgenic DNA Integrated by RRMax

[0085] To further characterize the right border region, genomic DNA of RRMax and transformation vector DNA are digested with either restriction enzyme BamHI, HindIII, BcII or EcoRI. In southern blot analysis the cut DNA is probed with the cp4/epsps PCR fragment described in Example 2. Independent of the restriction enzyme used, digestion with the different restriction enzymes gives rise to a single fragment in Southern blot analysis. The size of the fragments detected are indicated in Table 3. The data demonstrate that a single copy of the DNA was transferred to the plant, and that the DNA transfer into the sugar beet plant resulted in complete transfer of the cp4/epsps gene. The results are in agreement with the results of the copy number determination in example 2 and the nucleotide sequence analysis of example 3.

[0086] To further characterize the piece of transgenic DNA integrated, genomic DNA from RRMax is digested with either restriction enzyme NcoI, BamHI or HindIII. As a control Transformation vector DNA is digested with the same restriction enzymes. The blot is probed with a PCR amplified DNA fragment spanning basepairs 3796-4837 of the uidA gene in SEQ ID NO: 5. The size of the fragments detected is indicated in Table 4. Independent of restriction enzyme used, digestion with the different restriction enzymes gives rise to a single signal on the autoradiographic film demonstrating that the DNA insert has the same characteristics as the internal DNA of the transformation vector used.

[0087] To further characterize the left border region, genomic DNA of RRMax and transformation vector DNA are digested with either restriction enzyme NcoI, BamHI, HindIII or EcoRI. In southern blot analysis the cut DNA is probed with the gox PCR fragment described in Example 2. The size of the fragments detected is indicated in Table 5. Independent of restriction enzyme used, digestion with the different restriction enzymes gives rise to a single fragment fragment on the autoradiographic film. Digestion with either restriction enzyme NcoI, BamHI or EcoRI is expected to identify an internal fragment of a known size. However, none of these restriction enzymes gives rise to such an internal fragment of the expected size. This indicates that the restriction sites for NcoI, BamHI, and EcoRI are absent in the transgenic plant. The results are in agreement with the results obtained by sequencing where it was found that the gox gene was only partly integrated in the plant. Digestion with restriction enzyme HindIII gives rise to a fragment of approximately 2 kb additionally confirming the sequencing data where a HindIII site is located downstream the gox gene in the genome. The results also show that a single copy of the transgenic DNA has been transferred to the plant. They correlate well to the primary results of the copy number determination in example 2 and the nucleotide sequence analysis in example 3. A single copy is integrated in the plant genome whereas the gox gene is partly deleted.

Example 5

[0088] Absence of Other Vector DNA Sequences

[0089] To verify the absence of oriV, ori-322, aad and nptII sequences in the transformation event RRMax southern blot analysis can be performed using restriction enzyme/probe combinations covering oriV, ori-322, aad and nptII.

[0090] Transformation vector DNA is digested with restriction enzyme NspI which cuts the plasmid at 17 sites. For the purpose of the analysis a NspI fragment covering oriV and a fragment covering ori-322 and aad are purified and used for Southern Blot analysis. A PCR amplified fragment with the nucleotide sequence given in SEQ ID NO: 26 is used to probe for nptII sequences. All fragments are purified with the Geneclean II® Kit of BIO 101 (La Jolla, Calif.). Labelling with ³²P is achieved with the Megaprime™ DNA labelling system of Amersham International (Little Chalfont, UK).

[0091] Genomic DNA of RRMax is digested with the restriction enzyme BamHI which cuts the transformation vector DNA at three sites, positioned at basepairs 2321, 5544 and 8413 of SEQ ID NO: 5. Hybridization of the corresponding southern transfer membrane with the probe covering oriV failed to detect a signal. It has to be concluded that oriV is not present in RRMax.

[0092] Hybridization of the corresponding southern transfer membrane with the probe covering ori-322 and aad failed to detect a signal. It has to be concluded that ori-322 and aad sequences are not present in RRMax.

[0093] Hybridization of the corresponding southern transfer membrane with the nptII probe also failed to detect a signal, which demonstrates that an nptII gene is not present in line RRMax.

Example 6

[0094] Stability of the RRMax Line

[0095] Digestion of genomic DNA with the restriction enzyme BcII and Southern blot analysis using the cp4/epsps gene as a probe are performed as described in Example 2. Four plants from generations 2 and 3, and five plants from generation 4 are used for this analysis. In addition, 3 non-transgenic plants are used as a negative control. Analysis of the primary transformation event results in a single fragment of 3.2 kb. Southern blot analysis of the progeny generations also results in a single fragment of 3.2 kb. If the introduced DNA is stably inherited from generation to generation, the same fragment of 3.2 kb is expected in all plants.

[0096] Digestion of genomic DNA with HindIII and Southern blot analysis using an internal fragment of the gox gene as a probe are performed as described in Example 2. Analysis of the primary transformation event results in a single fragment of 2.0 kb. Southern blot analysis of the progeny generations also results in a single fragment of 2.0 kb indicating stable inheritance of the trait.

Example 7

[0097] PCR Characterization of RRMax

[0098] Genomic DNA of line RRMax is prepared as described in example 2. About 0.5 μg of DNA are used as template DNA in a PCR reaction using specific combinations of primers characterized by the sequences given in Table 6. Said specific combinations and the size of the fragment amplified are given in Table 7. Depending on the primer pair combination an annealing temperature between 55° C. and 65° C. is used in each of the 30 to 35 amplification cycles.

Claims

What is claimed is:

1. A glyphosate tolerant sugar beet plant, or parts thereof, seed of said sugar beet plant having been deposited with the National Collections of Industrial and Marine Bacteria Limited under Accession No. NCIMB 40905.

2. The glyphosate tolerant sugar beet plant of claim 1, or parts thereof, wherein DNA characterized by the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 1 forms part of the plant's genome.

3. The glyphosate tolerant sugar beet plant of claim 1, or parts thereof, wherein DNA characterized by the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO: 4 forms part of the plant's genome.

4. Descendants of the plant of claim 1, wherein DNA characterized by the nucleotide sequence of SEO ID NO:27 forms part of the plant's genome.

5. The plant of claim 4, wherein DNA characterized by the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:1 forms part of the plant's genome.

6. The plant of claim 5, wherein DNA characterized by the nucleotide sequence of SEQ ID NO:4 forms part of the plant's genome.

7. The plant of claim 4, wherein the parts of the genome directly linked to said nucleotide sequence are characterized by the nucleotide sequences of SEQ ID NO: 2 and SEQ ID NO: 3.

8. Seed of the glyphosate tolerant sugar beet plant of claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7.

Patent Citations (25)

Patent	Date	Inventor	Cited By
US4535060	1985-08-01	Comai	Applicant
US4769061	1988-09-01	Comai	Applicant
US4940835	1990-07-01	Shah et al.	Applicant
US4971908	1990-11-01	Kishore et al.	Applicant
US5094945	1992-03-01	Comai	Applicant
US5145783	1992-09-01	Kishore et al.	Applicant
US5188642	1993-02-01	Shah et al.	Applicant
US5312910	1994-05-01	Kishore et al.	Applicant
US5463175	1995-10-01	Barry et al.	Applicant
US5508468	1996-04-01	Lundquist et al.	Applicant
US5510471	1996-04-01	Lebrun et al.	Applicant
US5538877	1996-07-01	Lundquist et al.	Applicant
US5538880	1996-07-01	Lundquist et al.	Applicant
US5550318	1996-08-01	Adams et al.	Applicant
US5554798	1996-09-01	Lundquist et al.	Applicant
US5627061	1997-05-01	Barry et al.	Applicant
US5631152	1997-05-01	Fry et al.	Applicant
US5633435	1997-05-01	Barry et al.	Applicant
US5776760	1998-07-01	Barry et al.	Applicant
US5804425	1998-09-01	Barry et al.	Applicant
US5859348	1999-01-01	Penner et al.	Applicant
WO95/06128	1995-03-01		Applicant
WO98/39419	1997-03-01		Applicant
WO97/36488	1997-10-01		Applicant
WO98/44140	1998-10-01		Applicant

Non-Patent Literature (13)

Jacq et al, Plant Cell Rep., vol. 12, pp. 621-624, 1993.Applicant
Catlin, D.W., Plant Cell Rep., vol. 9, pp. 285-288, 1990.Applicant
McGarvey et al, Biotechniques, vol. 11, pp. 428-432.Applicant
Boudry et al., “The origin and evolution of weed beets: consequences for the breeding and release of herbicide-resistant transgenic sugar beets,” Theor. Appl. Genet. 87: pp. 471-478 (1993).Applicant
D'Halluin et al., “Transformation of Sugarbeet (Beta Vulgaris L.) and Evaluation of Herbicide Resistance in Transgenic Plants,” Bio/Technology, 10: pp309-314 (1992).Applicant
Mannerloef et al., “Transgenic sugar beet tolerant to glyphosate,” Euphytica, 94: pp83-91 (1997).Applicant
Pedersen and Steen, “The Stability of Transgenes Inserted into Sugarbeet (Beta Vulgaris L.), ” 58th Congress of the International Institute for Beet Research at the French Technical Institute for Sugar Beet: pp. 197-200 (Jun. 1995).Applicant
Steen and Pedersen, “Gene Transfer for Herbicide Resistance,” Journal of Sugar Beet Research, 30(4): pp. 267-273 (1993).Applicant
Steen and Pedersen, “Strategies in Creating Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Sugarbeet (Beta Vulgaris L.) Varieties.” 58th Congress of the International Institute for Beet Research at the French Technical Institute for Sugar Beet: pp. 189-192 (Jun. 1995).Applicant
Steen and Pedersen, “Yield and Quality Characters in Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Sugarbeet (Beta Vulgaris L.),” 58th Congress of the International Institute for Beet Research at the French Technical Institute for Sugar Beet: pp. 185-188 (Jun. 1995).Applicant
Steen et al., “Roundup Ready™ Sugar Beet,” 58th Congress of the International Institute for Beet Research at the French Technical Institute for Sugar Beet: pp. 557-559 (Jun. 1995).Applicant
Tenning et al., “Glyphosate Tolerance in Transgenic Sugar Beet,” 58th Congress of the International Institute for Beet Research at the French Technical Institute for Sugar Beet: p. 183 (Jun. 1995) absrtact.Applicant
Wells, B. H., “Development of Glyphosate Tolerant Crops Into the Market,” Chemical Abstracts, 124(8): abstract No. 79375 (1996).Applicant

Abstract