Comparative performance of modified full-length and truncated Bacillus thuringiensis-cry1Ac genes in transgenic tomato
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bt-cry1Ac gene has been reputedly effective against Helicoverpa armigera a notorious lepidopteran pest. Reports on the expression of full-length and truncated cry1Ac genes in plants for effective resistance against Helicoverpa sp. have been documented however, their performance is still ambiguous. Moreover, the question remains to be addressed that truncation of 3' end of the native gene was documented and suggested for active insecticidal toxin production while the most successful transgenic event(s) of commercialized-cotton are based on full-length of the cry gene. Therefore, we performed a comparative study on the efficacy of the two versions of cry1Ac genes (full-length: 3,510 bp and truncated: 1,845 bp) in T0 and T1 transgenic tomato plants and analyzed the extent of protection against H. armigera and also compared the results with our previous findings related to a successful transgenic tomato line Ab25E, expressing cry1Ab gene. The integration of cry1Ac gene(s) in T0 transgenic plants and its inheritance in T1 progeny was observed by PCR, RT-PCR and Southern blot hybridization analysis while, the toxin integrity, expression and toxicity was monitored by Western immunoassay, DAS-ELISA and insect bioassay respectively. RESULTS: An average transformation frequency and Bt-Cry protein content of 16.93 ± 2.10 and 0.0020-0.0128% of total soluble protein (TSP) was obtained with pRD400 vector (Trcry1Ac) while, a much lower value of 9.30 ± 2.041 and 0.0001 - 0.0026% of TSP was observed with pNBRI-1 vector (Flcry1Ac), respectively. The promising Trcry1Ac T0 transgenic plants and their T1 progeny gave full protection from H. armigera. Although Flcry1Ac gene showed lower transformation frequency and lower expression, it showed higher toxicity to H. armigera when compared with truncated Trcry1Ac gene. CONCLUSIONS: The full-length cry1Ac gene can be redesigned for higher expression and performance in dicots or a hybrid gene could be designed having a blend of strong receptor binding and stable expression characteristics for enhanced efficacy and toxicity to the susceptible insects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".