Plant Molecular Biology Reporter

, Volume 27, Issue 2, pp 132–138 | Cite as

Glyphosate Resistance as a Versatile Selection Marker for Arabidopsis Transformation

  • Meenu Vikram
  • Hisashi Koiwa


Molecular genetic studies on the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana often involve multiple rounds of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Such procedures require multiple marker genes that would allow for efficient selection of transgenic plants in each cycle of transformation. Here, we report on a selection marker cassette based on a codon-modified glyphosate N-acetyltransferase (GAT) gene whose expression is driven by a powerful EL2Ω promoter. After introduction of the GAT expression cassette into A. thaliana via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, glyphosate-resistant primary transformants are efficiently selected by glyphosate, either added to the culture medium or by spraying a glyphosate solution onto seedlings grown in soil. Robust glyphosate-resistant phenotypes are always associated with the presence of the GAT cassette. In addition, RT-PCR analysis of T2 transformants has demonstrated that resistance to glyphosate is associated with higher levels of GAT expression. Resistance conferred by GAT is specific to glyphosate and not to other commonly used selection chemical compounds. These results demonstrate the versatility of the GAT cassette suitable for both large-scale, soil-based selection system of transgenic plants as well as their characterization in vitro.


Arabidopsis thaliana Transformation Glyphosate Vector Selection marker 



The authors thank Dr. Greg Cobb for critical reading of the manuscript. The authors thank Dr. Yuko Ohashi for pBE2113 plasmid, and Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center for pMDC100 plasmid. This work was supported by National Science Foundation (MCB0421889 and DBI0223905), Texas AgriLife Research Federal Initiative grant 2007-118409, and USDA-CSREES grant 2006-34402-17121 “Designing food for health”.


  1. Alonso JM, Stepanova AN, Leisse TJ, et al. Genome-wide insertional mutagenesis of Arabidopsis thaliana. Science. 2003;301:653–7. doi: 10.1126/science.1086391.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechtold N, Pelletier G. In planta Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of adult Arabidopsis thaliana plants by vacuum infiltration. Arabidopsis Protocols. JM Martinez-Zapater and J Salinas. Totowa, Humana Press 82; 1998. pp. 259–266.Google Scholar
  3. Castle LA, Siehl DL, Gorton R, et al. Discovery and directed evolution of a glyphosate tolerance gene. Science. 2004;304:1151–4. doi: 10.1126/science.1096770.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clough SJ, Bent AF. Floral dip: a simplified method for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J. 1998;16:735–43. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1998.00343.x.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Curtis MD, Grossniklaus U. A gateway cloning vector set for high-throughput functional analysis of genes in planta. Plant Physiol. 2003;133:462–9. doi: 10.1104/pp.103.027979.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Edwards K, Johnstone C, Thompson C. A simple and rapid method for the preparation of plant genomic DNA for PCR analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 1991;19:1349. doi: 10.1093/nar/19.6.1349.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ho SH, Hunt HD, Horton RM, et al. Site-directed mutagenesis by overlap extension using the polymerase chain reaction. Gene. 1989;77:51–9. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(89)90358-2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Initiative AG. Analysis of the genome sequence of the flowering plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Nature. 2000;408:796–815. doi: 10.1038/35048692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Koiwa H, Barb AW, Xiong L, et al. C-terminal domain phosphatase-like family members (AtCPLs) differentially regulate Arabidopsis thaliana abiotic stress signaling, growth, and development. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:10893–8. doi: 10.1073/pnas.112276199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Koiwa H, Hausmann S, Bang WY, et al. Arabidopsis C-terminal domain phosphatase-like 1 and 2 are essential Ser-5-specific C-terminal domain phosphatases. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004;101:14539–44. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0403174101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Koiwa H, Bressan RA, Hasegawa PM. Identification of plant stress-responsive determinants in arabidopsis by large-scale forward genetic screens. J Exp Bot. 2006;57:1119–28. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erj093.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miki B, McHugh S. Selectable marker genes in transgenic plants: applications, alternatives and biosafety. J Biotechnol. 2004;107:193–232. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2003.10.011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Mitsuhara I, Ugaki M, Hirochika H, et al. Efficient promoter casettes for enhanced expresion of foreign genes in dicotyledonous and monocotyledonous plants. Plant Cell Physiol. 1996;37:49–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Somerville C, Somerville S. Plant functional genomics. Science. 1999;285:380–3. doi: 10.1126/science.285.5426.380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ueda A, Li P, Feng Y, et al. The Arabidopsis thaliana carboxyl-terminal domain phosphatase-like 2 regulates plant growth, stress and auxin responses. Plant Mol Biol. 2008;67:683–97. doi: 10.1007/s11103-008-9348-y.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Weigel D, Ahn JH. Activation tagging in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2000;122:1003–13. doi: 10.1104/pp.122.4.1003.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wesley SV, Helliwell C, Wang MB, et al. Posttranscriptional gene silencing in plants. Methods Mol Biol. 2004;265:117–29.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vegetable and Fruit Improvement Center, Department of Horticultural Sciences and Molecular and Environmental Plant Science ProgramTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations