This is the definition I know:
genetic modification involves the mutation,insertion, or deletion of genes. inserted genes usually come from a different speciees in a form of horizontal gene transfer. in nature this can occur when exogenous DNA penetrates the cell membrane for any reason. to do this artificially may require:
attaching the genes to a virus
physically inserting the extra DNA into the nucleus of the intended host with a very small syringe
with the use of electroporation
with very small particles fired from a gene gun
I found another definition saying:
geneticaly modified crops are those that have been genetically enhanced using modern biotechnology to carry one or more beneficial new traits. moder biotechnology as defined by the cartagena protocol on biosafety means the applicaiton of
a. in vitro nucleic acid techniques, including recombinant DNA and direct injection of nucleic acid into cells or organelles,
b. fusion of cells beyond the taxonomic family
c. that over comes natural physiological reproductive or recombination barriers and that are not techniques used in traditional breeding and selection
Thanks Kabil for response, will you consider the result of this technique as GMO? my understanding based on first definition i have mentioned above.
Generally, it depends on the country and region. Here are some excepts from EU legislative, and the definitions are generally compatible with the ones in Cartagena Protocol.
According to EC Directive 2001/18 there is a difference between certain kinds of protoplast fusion and other genetic modification techniques like micro-injection.
Cell fusion (including protoplast fusion) and hybridisation techniques are only included in the Directive where “live cells with new combinations of heritable genetic material are formed through the fusion of two or more cells by means of methods that do not occur naturally”.
Cell fusion is excluded when it is a fusion “of plant cells of organisms which can exchange genetic material through traditional breeding methods”.
In practice the EC uses a very broad interpretation of this exception. Fusion of plant cells of organisms within the same family is not considered a technique of genetic modification under the Directive. Even when those species, for instance radish and cabbage, cannot “exchange genetic material through traditional breeding methods” .
Thank you very much everyone. @Dragana i was bit confused with Cartagena protocol that's why i asked this question in researchgate. thanks once again. more answers and views are welcome.
Since protoplast fusion stands to bring together within 'hybrid' protoplasts different organelle genomes, and combinations of nuclear and organelle genomes, that would not spontaneously co-occur, I would see it as constituting GM in such situations. But where there is no generally agreed definition or criterion, it is important to specify the definition or criterion that you are working to.
Protoplast fusion products are closer to the wide hybridization products than products of transgenesis. Although conditions in vitro may result in additional variability.
We are working with citrus protoplast fusion for many years in USA and have hundreds and hundreds of hybrids and cybrids which are in the field, my supervisor has released many hybrids and we never define them as GMOs. As Lidiya Pershina said " Protoplast fusion products are closer to the wide hybridization products than products of transgenesis".
To me, the term 'GMO' seems to be coined to especially refer to those products created by using 'Recombinant DNA technology' (or splicing technology, those involve in plasmids), after first transgenic organisms were created such as the 1987 transgenic plants. And later it becomes a buzzword.
In India, it is not GMO but equivalent to GMO of a protoplast fusion is carried out beyond taxonomic families.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Biochemistry
- Biomolecules
- Peptides