Volume 9, Issue 2 (2018)                   JMBS 2018, 9(2): 213-218 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Karimi F, Khodaie E. Efficiency of PCR and Nanobiosensor Methods for Detection of Transplastomic Tobacco Plant. JMBS 2018; 9 (2) :213-218
URL: http://biot.modares.ac.ir/article-22-24442-en.html
1- Biology Department, Sciences Faculty, Maragheh University, Maraghrh, Iran, Maragheh University, Daneshgah Street, Madar Square, Amir Kabir Highway, Maraghrh, Iran. Postal Code: 55181883111 , karimifm@maragheh.ac.ir
2- Biotechnology Department, Agriculture Faculty, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran
Abstract:   (5912 Views)
Aims: In recent years, according the benefits of chloroplast transformation, the cultivation of transplastomic plants and their products have been increased. Due to their biosafety concerns, their identification and labeling have become more widely considered. The aim of this study was to present an optimal method based on polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and nanobiosensor for detection of transplastomic tobacco plants and compare their sensitivity.
Materials and Methods: In the present experimental research, aadA gene as a chloroplast selectable marker was considered to design specific primer and probe. In PCR method, after optimization of aadA gene amplification, its sensitivity was evaluated with different percentages of transplastomic DNA. In nanobiosensor method at first, the labeled aadA probe was immobilized on graphene oxide (GO) and, then, hybridization reaction was optimized to identify target DNA sequence.
Findings: The amplification of 800 bp DNA related to aadA gene was observed. The PCR reaction allowed up to 5% DNA transplostomy tobacco to reproduce the aadA gene. In results of nanobiosensor after immobilization of aadA probe on GO, fluorescence emission was quenched and by adding the trasplastomic tobacco, DNA was observed again. In this method, up to 1% transplastomic tobacco DNA, fluorescence emission was significant in comparison with control tobacco plant.
Conclusion: The PCR method can detect a transplastomic tobacco plant with 5% DNA sensitivity and detect biomarker sensitivity with 1% DNA sensitivity.
The PCR method can detect a transplastomic tobacco plant with 5% DNA sensitivity and nanobiosensor can detect with 1% DNA sensitivity. Therefore, nanobiosensor method is not only a reliable diagnostic method, in addition to the PCR method for detecting transplastomic plants, but also has a higher sensitivity.
Full-Text [PDF 723 kb]   (3119 Downloads)    
Subject: Agricultural Biotechnology
Received: 2018/08/25 | Accepted: 2018/08/25 | Published: 2018/10/2

1. Hashemi M, Shoja Sadati A. Genetically - modified food: Opportunities & challenges. J Food Sci Technol. 2010;7(24):89-102. [Persian] [Link]
2. Marsden T, Sonnino R. Rural development and the regional state: Denying multifunctional agriculture in the UK. J Rural Stud. 2008;24(4):422-31. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.jrurstud.2008.04.001]
3. Sonnino R, Marsden T. Beyond the divide: Rethinking relationships between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. J Econ Geogr. 2006;6(2):181-99. [Link] [DOI:10.1093/jeg/lbi006]
4. Brookes G, Barfoot P. Economic impact of GM crops. GM Crops Food Biotechnol Agric Food Chain. 2014;5(1):65-75. [Link] [DOI:10.4161/gmcr.28098]
5. Maliga P. Engineering the plastid genome of higher plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2002;5(2):164-72. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/S1369-5266(02)00248-0]
6. Maliga P. Plastid transformation in higher plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2004;55:289-313. [Link] [DOI:10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141633]
7. Goodman RE, Panda R, Ariyarathna H. Evaluation of endogenous allergens for the safety evaluation of genetically engineered food crops: Review of potential risks, test methods, examples and relevance. J Agric Food Chem. 2013;61(35):8317-32. [Link] [DOI:10.1021/jf400952y]
8. Goodman RE. Biosafety: Evaluation and regulation of genetically modified (GM) crops in the United States. J Huazhong Agric Univ. 2014;33(6):83-109. [Link]
9. Mehdizadeh M, Rabiei M, Alebooyeh M, Rastegar H. Labeling of genetically modified foods and Consumers' rights. Iran J Med Law. 2011;5(16):115-29. [Persian] [Link]
10. Camacho A, Van Deynze A, Chi-Ham C, Bennett AB. Genetically engineered crops that fly under the US regulatory radar. Nat Biotechnol. 2014;32(11):1087-91. [Link] [DOI:10.1038/nbt.3057]
11. Schnier DJ. Genetically Modified Organisms and the Cartagena Protocol. Fordham Environ Law Rev. 2001;12(2):376-415. [Link]
12. CAC/GL 45-2003 Guideline for the Conduct of Food Safety Assessment of Foods Derived from Recombinant. [Internet]. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization (FAO/WHO); 2003 [cited 2013, Jul, 26]. Available from: http://files.foodmate.com/2013/files_1782.html. [Link]
13. Tracy T. GMO labeling faces ballot test in Oregon, Colorado [Internet]. New York City: The Wall Street Journal; 2014 [cited 2014, Nov, 2]. Available from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/gmo-labeling-faces-ballot-test-in-oregon-colorado-1414961328. [Link]
14. Vodret B, Milia M, Orani MG, Serratrice G, Mancuso MR. Detection of genetically modified organisms in food: Comparison among three different DNA extraction methods. Vet Res Commun. 2007;31 Suppl 1:385-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s11259-007-0043-2]
15. Grobe D, Raab C. Voters' response to labeling genetically engineered foods: Oregon's experience. J Consum Aff. 2004;38(2):320-31. [Link] [DOI:10.1111/j.1745-6606.2004.tb00871.x]
16. Brune PD, Culler AH, Ridley WP, Walker K. Safety of GM crops: Compositional analysis. J Agric Food Chem. 2013;61(35):8243-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1021/jf401097q]
17. Ghazizadeh E, Mousavi A, Hadi F, Hashemi Sohi H. Detection of transgenic roundup ready soybean seeds by molecular methods. J Cell Mol Res. 2015;27(4):555-64. [Link]
18. Xu J, Miao H, Wu H, Huang W, Tang R, Qiu M, et al. Screening genetically modified organisms using multiplex-PCR coupled with oligonucleotide microarray. Biosens Bioelectron. 2006;22(1):71-7. [Link] [DOI:10.1016/j.bios.2005.12.001]
19. Arugula M, Chanysheva A, Vaglenov K, Simionian A. Biosensors for detecting genetically modified organisms in food and feed. ECS Trans. 2015;66(36):31-8. [Link] [DOI:10.1149/06636.0031ecst]
20. Randhawa G, Singh M, Sood P. DNA-based methods for detection of genetically modified events in food and supply chain. Curr Sci. 2016;110(6):1000-9. [Link] [DOI:10.18520/cs/v110/i6/1000-1009]
21. Wani SH, Sah SK, Sági L, Solymosi K. Transplastomic plants for innovations in agriculture, a review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2015;35(4):1391-430. [Link] [DOI:10.1007/s13593-015-0310-5]
22. He S, Song B, Li D, Zhu C, Qi W, Wen Y, et al. A graphene nanoprobe for rapid, sensitive, and multicolor fluorescent DNA analysis. Adv Funct Mater. 2010;20(3):453-9. [Link] [DOI:10.1002/adfm.200901639]
23. Maiti R, Manna S, Midya A, Ray SK. Broadband photoresponse and rectification of novel graphene oxide/n-Si heterojunctions. Opt Express. 2013;21(22):26034-43. [Link] [DOI:10.1364/OE.21.026034]
24. Huang P, Xu Ch, Lin J, Wang C, Wang X, Zhang Ch, et al. Folic acid-conjugated graphene oxide loaded with photosensitizers for targeting photodynamic therapy. Theranostics. 2011;1:240-50. [Link] [DOI:10.7150/thno/v01p0240]
25. Liu B, Sun Z, Zhang X, Liu J. Mechanisms of DNA sensing on graphene oxide. Anal Chem. 2013;85(16):7987-93. [Link] [DOI:10.1021/ac401845p]
26. Mao Y, Chen Y, Li S, Lin S, Jiang Y. A graphene-based biosensing platform based on regulated release of an aptameric DNA biosensor. Sensors (Basel). 2015;15(11):28244-56. [Link] [DOI:10.3390/s151128244]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.