Abstract
The introduction of genetically modified (GM) plants in agroecosystems raises concern about possible effects on nontarget species. The impact of a tomato line transformed for constitutive expression of tobacco beta-1,3-glucanase and chitinase on indigenous nonpathogenic fungi was investigated. In greenhouse experiments, no significant differences were found in the colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Diversity indices computed from over 20 500 colonies of culturable rhizosphere and phyllosphere saprotrophic microfungi, assigned to 165 species (plus > 80 sterile morphotypes), showed no significant differences between GM and wild-type plants. Differences were found by discriminant analysis in both the rhizosphere and the phyllosphere, but such effects were minor compared with those linked to different plant growth stages.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 3
Claim · model-written summary
The transformed tomato line did not significantly change arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal colonization.
- Taxon
- tomato
Solanum lycopersicume0 - Treatment
- a tomato line transformed for constitutive expression of tobacco beta-1,3-glucanase and chitinasee0
- Interactor
- arbuscular mycorrhizal fungie1symbiont
- Outcome
- colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungie1
- Direction
- no significant differencese1
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“a tomato line transformed for constitutive expression of tobacco beta-1,3-glucanase and chitinase”
e1“no significant differences were found in the colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi”
Claim · model-written summary
Fungal diversity indices did not differ significantly between GM and wild-type tomato plants.
- Taxon
- tomato plantsSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Treatment
- GMe0
- Interactor
- saprotrophic microfungie0other
- Outcome
- Diversity indicese0
- Direction
- no significant differencese0
- Comparator
- wild-type plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Diversity indices computed from over 20 500 colonies of culturable rhizosphere and phyllosphere saprotrophic microfungi, assigned to 165 species (plus > 80 sterile morphotypes), showed no significant differences between GM and wild-type plants”
t0“tomato plants”
Claim · model-written summary
Discriminant analysis found minor rhizosphere and phyllosphere differences relative to growth-stage effects.
- Taxon
- tomato plantsSolanum lycopersicumt0
- Organ / stage
- different plant growth stagese0
- Outcome
- Differencese0
- Qualifier
- minor compared with those linked to different plant growth stagese0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Differences were found by discriminant analysis in both the rhizosphere and the phyllosphere, but such effects were minor compared with those linked to different plant growth stages”
t0“tomato plants”
The same questions in other papers
Nicotiana tabacum · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 3 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →overexpression · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 11 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
10 papers more in this group
See all 14 papers →transgenic · disease · Solanum lycopersicum (tomato)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 16 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.