General informationNotification NumberB/FR/09/11/01Member State to which the notification was sentFranceDate of acknowledgement from the Member State Competent Authority30/11/2009Title of the ProjectExpérimentation en milieu non-confiné de porte-greffes transgéniques de vigne exprimant le gène de la protéine de capside du Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV)Proposed period of release:01/06/2010 to 01/06/2014Name of the Institute(s) or Company(ies)INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique, ;
3. Is the same GMPt release planned elsewhere in the Community?Not knownHas the same GMPt been notified elsewhere by the same notifier?NoGenetically modified plantComplete name of the recipient or parental plant(s)
2. Description of the traits and characteristics which have been introduced or modified, including marker genes and previous modifications:The coat protein (CP) gene of Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) and the marker gene Neomycine phosphotransferase II (NPT II) have been introduced into the genome of the grapevine rootstock 41 B.Genetic modification3. Type of genetic modification:Insertion; In case of insertion of genetic material, give the source and intended function of each constituent fragment of the region to be inserted:The coat protein (CP) gene of Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV) strain F13 will confer resistance to GFLV and the NPT II gene enables the recovery of transgenic plants upon Agrobacterium-mediated transformation.6. Brief description of the method used for the genetic modification:Embryogenic cells of the grapevine rootstock 41 B were transformed using Agrobacterium tumefasciens strain LB4404 harboring the GFLV CP and NPT II genes within the T-DNA borders of pBin19-derived plasmid. Kanamycin-resistant somatic embryos were selected and developed into plantlets.Experimental Release1. Purpose of the release:The objective of the release is to evaluate the level of resistance toward GFLV, characterize its functionality (namely which molecules and plant genes are involved into), assess the potential environmental impact of the transgenic grapevine rootstocks on (1) the plant level (scion), (2) the natural viral diversity and (3) potential exchanges between GMHP and soil microorganisms. These scientific questions have been addressed by a Local Monitoring Committee (LMC). The experimental protocols have been co-constructed and will be followed by the LMC as it was essentially made since 2004 (http://www.inra.fr/la_science_et_vous/dossiers_scientifiques/ogm/questions_de_recherche/porte_greffe_transgenique_de_vigne)2. Geographical location of the site:The release site is located on the Huben experimental farm at the INRA Research Center in Colmar, 68021, France.3. Size of the site (m2):The size of the site is 1000m2, including 35m2 established with transgenic rootstocks.4. Relevant data regarding previous releases carried out with the same GM-plant, if any, specifically related to the potential environmental and human health impacts from the release:For the period 2005-2009, we did not observe any impact on environment and human health so far. This is the same field trial which will be extended for another 4 years.Environmental Impact and Risk ManagementSummary of the potential environmental impact from the release of the GMPts:1.Likelihood of the GMHP becoming more persistent than the recipient or parental plants in agricultural habitats or more invasive in natural habitats.
|Common Name||Family Name||Genus||Species||Subspecies||Cultivar/breeding line|
|grape||vitaceae||vitis||vitis vinifera||rootstock 41B|
There is no risk, that the combination -transgenic rootstock/non transgenic scion would be more persistent in agricultural habitats or more invasive in natural landscapes, compared to the wild-type vines.
2. Any selective advantage or disadvantage conferred to the GMHP.
The expected trait conferred by the transgenic rootstock is to confer a resistance toward GFLV, the causing agent of fanleaf disease. This family of agronomic traits have been already extensively spread in the resistant varieties toward pathogens in agriculture, without giving any advantages to the resistant cultivars.
3. Potential for gene transfer to the same or other sexually compatible plant species under conditions of planting the GMHP and any selective advantage or disadvantage conferred to those plant species
All inflorescences will be removed, during the flowering period each year from all the vines planted in the plot, grafted onto either transgenic or non-transgenic rootstocks. Moreover, grapevine is exclusively multiplied by vegetative manner, and the transgenic rootstock being female, does not produce pollen.
4. Potential immediate and/or delayed environmental impact resulting from direct and indirect interactions between the GMHP and target organisms, such as predators, parasitoids, and pathogens (if applicable).
Concerning the GFLV natural population structure, although recent studies focusing on CP sequence did not show any effect of the viral transgene in assisting the emergence of viral variants or recombinants, we aim to address this question using a GFLV-whole genome deep-sequencing approach. This is the research question #2 from the scientific purpose of the release.
5. Possible immediate and/or delayed environmental impact resulting from direct and indirect interactions of the GMHP with non-target organisms, (also taking into account organisms which interact with target organisms), including impact on population levels of competitors, herbivores, symbionts (where applicable), parasites and pathogens.
All the transgenic side-shouts are being pruned, during whole vegetative cycle. So there are no organs except the rootlets that could be eaten by predators. Concerning the NPTII transgene environnemental impact on soil bacteria, the question is being addressed by the LMC through this trial. This is the research question #3 from the scientific purpose of the release.
6. Possible immediate and/or delayed effects on human health resulting from potential direct and indirect interactions of the GMHP and persons working with, coming into contact with or in the vicinity of the GMHP release(s).
We have never observed so far any abnormalities on persons working on these genetically modified rootstocks, expressing a viral and the kanamycin-resistance marker transgenes.
7. Possible immediate and/or delayed effects on animal health and consequences for the feed/food chain resulting from consumption of the GMO and any products derived from it if it is intended to be used as animal feed.
This trial has been set-up following the LMC recommendations, with systematic destruction of inflorescences. Consequently, as no bunches neither berries can be produced on this experimental plot we do not expect any consumption by humans working on the trial or animals.
8. Possible immediate and/or delayed effects on biogeochemical processes resulting from potential direct and indirect interactions of the GMO and target and non-target organisms in the vicinity of the GMO release(s).
9. Possible immediate and/or delayed, direct and indirect environmental impacts of the specific cultivation, management and harvesting techniques used for the GMHP where these are different from those used for non-GMHPs.
This experiment will be conducted similarly to a plot of commercial grapevines, with the exception of inflorescences removal. No harvest is expected from this trial.Brief description of any measures taken for the management of risks:1. the site is isolated from other grapevine fields
2. a non-transgenic scion will be grafted onto the transgenic rootstock
3. side-shoots will be eliminated from transgenic rootstock, as well as inflorescences from scions
4. a fallowed area and border rows of non transgenic grapevines will enable to control and monitor the spread of the virus and its nematode vector
5. all material collected upon pruning will be autoclaved
6. plants will be uprooted and destroyed at the end of the trial and the soil disinfected with nematicides
7. Yearly inspections and reports will be made by authorized persons from French Ministry of Agriculture.Final reportEuropean Commission administrative informationConsent given by the Member State Competent Authority:Not known