1. Most often no ill effects of using GUS. An undesirable effect may arise if the T-DNA integrates within a coding region or generates some type of other position effect. Screening several independent transformants will usually find an event that has no negative effects due to the GUS expression.

2. why not just cut out the gus coding region of CAMBIA 1305.1 and swap in your gene?GFP fusions are more commonly used and GUS fusions used much less frequently as it is a larger protein.

l agree with Gregory D Nugent.

Indeed, the GUS reporter should have no negative effect on the transgene. For protein localisation the GUS reporter is not reliable since the product (blue colour) can diffuse, even to neighbouring cells. For protein localisation you should use a fluorecent protein. Got best results with venus YFP.

Thanks Gregory D Nugent, Eric van der Graaff and Huiquan Zheng  for your suggestions. I ll proceed as suggested

Yes, I am also agree with Gregory D Nugent.

Expression of GUS doesn't cause obvious detrimental effect on plants. However, the constant expression of a constitutive-promoter-driven gus gene (ex. 35S::gus) and synthesis of the foreign protein can increase metabolic burden for the plants.

As an alternative to the gus gene you can use modified GUSplus sequence. Traditional gus gene shows some limitations in expression through the next generations. Application of GUSplus and other modified versions of this gene provides higher kinetic activity, thermal stability and greater tolerance to fixatives. But certainly, fluorescence microscopy is much more sensetive method with lower threshhold of the protein detection and quantity interpretation.

Thanks Dear Stefano D'Alessandro  and Alona Sergiivna Sekan for your answers. I am thinking all the options. however  the selected vector has GUSplus reporter system