What is the difference between a transformed and a transgenic plant? Can someone please elaborate these two technical terms completely.
Uncoupled from potential different use of terms in official GMO-regulations, one might understand the words as follows: when you carry out a transformation protocol, you have transformed plants afterwards. However, you have to check success to see whether the transgene really arrived properly in the plants. So, there might be some plants that have undergone the transformation process, but in the end they are not transgenic.
As far as I know there is actually no difference between these two terms and they are used interchangeably. A "transgenic plant" is a "genetically transformed plant". There maybe other types of "transforming" a plant into a different phenotype (e.g. putting it under stress and so change the plants transcriptional and metabolic configuration) that is not "genetic" but then one usually does not speak about "transformation". I would use the term "genetically transformed" or "transgenic" to be sure and to describe a plant who's DNA sequences has been altered to result in a different phenotype.
both terms are same. But if you mean transfection then it is called as transfer of gene to animal cell.
I think that for the most you are true. Let me though address a more technical discussion.
Officially, with the word "transformation" we denote the genetic alteration of a cell resulting from the direct uptake and incorporation of exogenous genetic material (exogenous DNA) from its surroundings and taken up through the cell membrane(s).
As you correctly said, this genetic uptake is able to modify the phenotype of the host cell.
At this point I want to emphasize that this process is exactly what a normal transient transformation does. The genetic material inserted does not bind to the DNA of the nucleus, but the expression remains at a cytosolic level.
As far as I know, to consider a organism (or a tissue) officially transgenic the stable transformation is absolutely needed. Thus in a transgenesis process, we have of course the transformation step as before, and we have the incorporatios of the transgene(s) into the cell's nucleus. This led the cell to pass the transformation to her daughter cells.
Then I think it is more correct to differentiate the two terms. I emphasize however that the difference is very subtle, and I could be wrong.
In my personal opinion I think that in the same period in which an organism is transiently transformed, it would be necessary to be considered to all intents and purposes a transgenic organism. At the legal level is not. That's why I think these techniques would be rather interesting for commercial industries. They will not encounter all the issues and raised by GMOs restrictions.
Uncoupled from potential different use of terms in official GMO-regulations, one might understand the words as follows: when you carry out a transformation protocol, you have transformed plants afterwards. However, you have to check success to see whether the transgene really arrived properly in the plants. So, there might be some plants that have undergone the transformation process, but in the end they are not transgenic.
Summarizing: a transgenic plant is a transformed plant but a transformed plant is not necessarily transgenic...
Yes I agree with Francesco Panara, all transgenic plants are transformed but all transformed plants may not be transgenic.
Regards
Thank you all for suggesting your ideas about these terminologies...
I suport Marcus Jansen opinion. Besides the difference pointed by Francesco Panara, there is mostly technically variable use of those 2 terms: transformed plants are obtained in an experiment and carry some foreign DNA as plasmid or integration into chromosome, etc. Transgenic plants is confirmed staible genotype usually homozygous for foreign DNA integration site.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Botany
- Plant Biology
- Plant Biotechnology