Risk assessment of gene flow from genetically engineered virus resistant cassava to wild relatives in Africa: an expert panel report

Karen E. Hokanson, Norman C. Ellstrand, Alfred G.O. Dixon, Heneriko P. Kulembeka, Kenneth M. Olsen, Alan Raybould

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

The probability and consequences of gene flow to wild relatives is typically considered in the environmental risk assessment of genetically engineered crops. This is a report from a discussion by a group of experts who used a problem formulation approach to consider existing information for risk assessment of gene flow from cassava (Manihot esculenta) genetically engineered for virus resistance to the ‘wild’ (naturalized) relative M. glaziovii in East Africa. Two environmental harms were considered in this case: (1) loss of genetic diversity in the germplasm pool, and (2) loss of valued species, ecosystem resources, or crop yield and quality due to weediness or invasiveness of wild relatives. Based on existing information, it was concluded that gene flow will occur, but it is not likely that this will reduce the genetic diversity in the germplasm pool. There is little existing information about the impact of the virus in natural populations that could be used to inform a prediction about whether virus resistance would lead to an increase in reproduction or survival, hence abundance of M. glaziovii. However, an increase in the abundance of M. glaziovii should be manageable, and would not necessarily lead to the identified environmental harms.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)71-81
Number of pages11
JournalTransgenic Research
Volume25
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2016

Keywords

  • Cassava
  • Environmental risk assessment
  • Problem formulation
  • Virus resistance

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Risk assessment of gene flow from genetically engineered virus resistant cassava to wild relatives in Africa: an expert panel report'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this