Safety of Pseudomonas chlororaphis as a gene source for genetically modified crops
Genetically modified crops undergo extensive evaluation to characterize their food, feed and environmental safety prior to commercial introduction, using a well-established, science-based assessment framework. One component of the safety assessment includes an evaluation of each introduced trait, including its source organism, for potential adverse pathogenic, toxic and allergenic effects. Several Pseudomonas species have a history of safe use in agriculture and certain species represent a source of genes with insecticidal properties. The ipd072Aa gene from P. chlororaphis encodes the IPD072Aa protein, which confers protection against certain coleopteran pests when expressed in maize plants. P. chlororaphis is ubiquitous in the environment, lacks known toxic or allergenic properties, and has a history of safe use in agriculture and in food and feed crops. This information supports, in part, the safety assessment of potential traits, such as IPD072Aa, that are derived from this source organism.
KeywordsGenetically modified crops Pseudomonas chlororaphis Safety assessment Insect protection Agricultural biotechnology
Genetically modified (GM) crops were first commercialized in the mid-1990s and currently are planted on over 90% of corn, cotton and soybean acres in the United States (USDA-NASS 2017). GM crop adoption continues to increase globally, due to their economic and sustainability benefits (Anderson et al. 2016; ISAAA 2016). Most commercial GM crops containing insect protection traits currently rely on genes derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) to provide selective protection against economically important pests. The safety of Bt as a source of insecticidal genes for GM crops is well established (Box 1). Bt was initially developed as a microbial pesticide spray and has a history of safe use in agriculture when applied, as intended, on food and feed crops (US-EPA 1998). Bt is ubiquitous in the environment (Schnepf et al. 1998), non-toxic to mammals and does not have pathogenic or allergenic properties (US-EPA 1998).
Pseudomonads are rod-shaped, aerobic, gram-negative bacteria. Certain Pseudomonas species have previously been reported to have entomopathogenic properties and represent a promising source of insecticidal genes for use in GM crops (Kupferschmied et al. 2013). A gene, ipd072Aa, from Pseudomonas chlororaphis, which encodes the IPD072Aa protein, has recently been reported to confer protection against certain coleopteran pests when expressed in maize plants (Schellenberger et al. 2016).
The safety assessment framework for GM crops is well established and has been adopted globally to evaluate a variety of trait types, including those for insect protection (Codex Alimentarius Commission 2009; EFSA 2006; FAO/WHO 1991). The assessment includes, in part, an evaluation of each introduced trait, including its source organism, for potential adverse pathogenic, toxic and allergenic effects (Delaney et al. 2008). This paper provides an assessment of the safety of P. chlororaphis as a gene source for GM crops. Like Bt, certain species of Pseudomonas including P. chlororaphis are ubiquitous in the environment, have a history of safe use in agriculture as seed treatments, foliar-applied biopesticides and as a gene source for GM crops, and lack known pathogenic, toxic or allergenic properties. This information supports, in part, the safety assessment of potential traits, such as IPD072Aa, derived from this source organism.
Ubiquity in the environment
Most Pseudomonas species, including P. chlororaphis, are ubiquitous in the environment, have widespread distribution in soil and water (Peix et al. 2009) and perform a range of economic services and ecological functions. Some Pseudomonas species inhabit the rhizosphere, are associated with plant roots and provide benefits to the plant by competing with soil-borne plant pathogens and protecting against fungal pests (Anderson and Kim 2018; Kupferschmied et al. 2013; Mauchline and Malone 2017). P. chlororaphis, specifically, has been reported to promote plant growth, stimulate microbial communities and protect plants by producing compounds (e.g., phenazine-type antibiotics, hydrogen cyanide, chitinases and proteases) that inhibit fungal growth (EFSA 2015b), insects and nematodes (Anderson and Kim 2018). Other Pseudomonas species protect plants by preventing colonization by deleterious microorganisms (Mendes et al. 2011).
Certain Pseudomonas species have been utilized in a variety of applications, including the biological control of phytopathogens (Walsh et al. 2001), promotion of plant growth (Mercado-Blanco and Bakker 2007), phosphate solubilization (Rodríguez and Fraga 1999) and bioremediation of organic compounds (Moore et al. 2006; Peix et al. 2009). Many Pseudomonas species have a history of safe use in agriculture and other sectors (EFSA 2015b; Montie 1998). For example, certain Pseudomonas species are entomopathogenic and are being utilized as biopesticides to provide plant protection against insect pests. Insecticidal toxins in the genome of P. entomophilia have been identified (Luiu et al. 2013), and P. fluorescens has been shown to exert insecticidal activity against aphids, termites and other agricultural pests (Kupferschmied et al. 2013). Similarly, other species of Pseudomonas, including P. chlororaphis, P. protegens and P. aeruginosa, have demonstrated insecticidal activity (see Table 2 of Kupferschmied et al. 2013). Because of their role in plant protection and defense, P. chlororaphis and other Pseudomonas species with biopesticidal activity are being marketed for use as seed-treatment and foliar-applied biopesticides or as gene donors for GM crops (Kupferschmied et al. 2013).
History of safe use in agriculture
Pseudomonas-based biopesticides and plant protection products
Biopesticide products and genetically modified (GM) crops utilizing Pseudomonas spp. (Only naturally occurring strains of Pseudomonas spp. are reported) or a related species as the donor source
Date first approveda
Use in agriculture
Pseudomonas syringae strains ESC-10 and ESC-11
1990 and 1996 (US-EPA)
Bio-Save® 10 LP and Bio-Save® 11 LP
Pseudomonas fluorescens strain A506
Biopesticide—provides protection from frost and suppresses bacterial pathogens (US-EPA 1992b)
Pseudomonas aureofaciens strain Tx-1
Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain 63-28
Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134; closely related to P. fluorescens)
Pseudomonas fluorescens strain D7
Biopesticide—suppression of certain invasive grass species (US-EPA 2014)
Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain MA 342
Cedomon® and Cerall®
Biopesticide—protection against fungal pathogens on cereals (EFSA 2017)
Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain AFS009
Howler™, Howler™ Technical, and Howler™ T&O
Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain G65
Event 8338 tomatoes; OECD Unique Identifier CGN-89322-3
Gene donor for GM crop—Accd gene encodes the 1-amino-cyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase (ACCd) enzyme which reduces ethylene production and delays ripening (USDA-APHIS 1995).
Pseudomonas fluorescens strain A32
Soybean event FG72; OECD Unique Identifier MST-FGØ72-2
Gene donor for GM crop—Source of recombinant DNA for GM crop; confers tolerance to isoxaflutole (IFT) herbicides when expressed in plants (USDA-APHIS 2013)
Delftia acidovorans (formerly classified as Pseudomonas acidovorans)
OECD Unique Identifier DAS-68416-4
Gene donor for GM crop—Source of recombinant DNA for GM crop—confers tolerance to aryloxyalkanoate herbicides when expressed in plants (USDA-APHIS 2014b)
OECD Unique Identifier DAS-44406-6
Gene donor for GM crop—Source of recombinant DNA for GM crop—confers tolerance to aryloxyalkanoate herbicides when expressed in plants (USDA-APHIS 2014a)
OECD Unique Identifiers DAS-81910-7
Gene donor for GM crop—Source of recombinant DNA for GM crop—confers tolerance to aryloxyalkanoate herbicides when expressed in plants (USDA-APHIS 2015)
Weight of evidence supporting the safety of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) as a source of insecticidal genes
Presence in the environment—ubiquitous, both in soil and on plants (Schnepf et al. 1998)
History of safe use in the field of agriculture—Bt products were initially developed as microbial pesticide sprays and have been approved for use on multiple food and feed crops (US-EPA 1998)
Phylogenetic relatedness to known human pathogens—Bt is not closely related to known human pathogens
Known mammalian toxic, pathogenic or allergenic potential—Bt is not toxic to mammals and has no known pathogenic or allergenic potential (US-EPA 1998)
As part of the registration requirements of biopesticide products, environmental and human health risk assessments are conducted prior to commercialization (US-EPA 2017c). The US-EPA concluded that these Pseudomonas strains are low risk, therefore these strains were granted exemptions from the requirement for a tolerance (40 CFR Parts 180.1114, 180.1145, 180.1212, 180.1304, 180.1326 and 180.1341). The human health and environmental safety of P. chlororaphis strain 63-28 and P. aureofaciens strain Tx-1 have been reviewed by the US-EPA. Both strains were determined to have no toxicity or human health concerns (US-EPA 2000, 2001d). Similarly, the human health and environmental safety of P. chlororaphis strains MA 342 and DSMZ 13134 have been reviewed by the European Commission (EC 2002; Velivelli et al. 2014) and EFSA (2012, 2017). For strain MA 342, the European Commission acknowledged that there were no signs of toxicity or pathogenicity based on a rat acute oral study, and P. chlororaphis is unlikely to grow at mammalian body temperature (EC 2002); EFSA recommended additional studies to finalize the risk assessment (EFSA 2017). For DSMZ 13134, EFSA concluded that this strain of P. chlororaphis is unlikely to cause toxicity or pathogenicity via oral exposure based on clinical and other experimental data (EFSA 2012).
Pseudomonas syringae strains ESC-10 and ESC-11 and P. fluorescens strain A506 were registered with the US-EPA in the early 1990s. According to the US-EPA, these strains of P. syringae pose low risk to humans or birds because they do not survive at temperatures above 32 °C, and they do not cause adverse effects in mammals when ingested, inhaled or applied topically (US-EPA 2009b). Similarly, P. fluorescens is ubiquitous in the environment, is not generally considered to be a human or animal pathogen (US-EPA 1992a) and is not expected to have adverse ecological effects on avian wildlife, aquatic organisms, non-target insects, mammalian systems or endangered species (US-EPA 1992a, 2009a).
Pseudomonas species and related species as a gene source for GM Crops
Certain Pseudomonas species and related species have also served as gene sources for genetically modified crops (Table 1). The GM crop products developed with these strains also emphasize the long history of safe use of Pseudomonas species as gene donors, as the first GM crop containing a gene from P. chlororaphis was deregulated by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1995 (USDA-APHIS 1995, 2017). Event 8338 tomato (OECD Unique Identifier CGN-89322-3) was developed by Monsanto (Monsanto Company 1995). These GM tomatoes contain a gene from P. chlororaphis that encodes the 1-amino-cyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase (ACCd) enzyme, which has been shown to delay ripening when expressed in tomato plants by reducing ethylene production.
Similarly, in 2013 and 2014, the USDA deregulated four herbicide tolerant GM soybean and cotton varieties that were developed with genes from P. fluorescens and Delftia acidovorans (USDA-APHIS 2017). The gene from P. fluorescens encodes the hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD) protein, which has been demonstrated to confer tolerance to isoxaflutole (IFT) herbicides when expressed in plants. Bayer CropScience developed herbicide tolerant soybean event FG72 (OECD Unique Identifier MST-FGØ72-2) using the HPPD W366 gene from P. fluorescens strain A32 (USDA-APHIS 2013). The gene from D. acidovorans has been demonstrated to confer tolerance to aryloxyalkanoate herbicides by expression of the aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase-12 (AAD-12) protein. Herbicide tolerance traits have been developed using the aad-12 gene from D. acidovorans in soybean and cotton by Dow AgroSciences LLC [OECD Unique Identifiers DAS-44406-6; DAS-68416-4 and DAS-81910-7 (USDA-APHIS 2014a, b, 2015), respectively]. Delftia acidovorans was previously classified as Pseudomonas acidovorans and Comamonas acidovorans, before being reclassified recently as Delftia (Dow AgroSciences 2010; Tamaoka et al. 1987). The safety of both P. fluorescens and D. acidovorans as a gene sources for GM crops has been assessed by several regulatory authorities [for example, EFSA (2015a), FSANZ (2013), USDA-APHIS (2013) and CFIA (2013), FSANZ (2014), Health Canada (2014), USDA-APHIS (2014c), respectively]. Based on this and other evidence, GM soybean containing the gene from P. fluorescens and the GM soybean and cotton events containing the gene from D. acidovorans have been approved by several regulatory authorities globally (ISAAA 2018).
Pathogenic, toxic or allergenic properties
As previously reviewed by Leuschner et al. (2010), regulatory authorities in the US and Europe concluded that P. chlororaphis strains used for plant protection purposes pose no health concerns for humans (EC 2002; US-EPA 2001d). Additionally, P. chlororaphis was previously reviewed by EFSA using a Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) Approach (EFSA 2015b), which included a thorough assessment of the species’ life history characteristics, commercial uses and safety concerns. The thorough review of P. chlororaphis safety resulted in a general consensus that it is non-pathogenic to humans and livestock because of its inability to grow and proliferate at mammalian body temperatures (EC 2002). Based on this weight of evidence, P. chlororaphis was determined to be safe for biocontrol applications (Chen et al. 2015).
While there have been a few reports where P. chlororaphis has been isolated from animals with disease or illness (for example, Hatai et al. 1975), these reports are rare and there has been no causal link to clinical illness (EC 2002; EFSA 2015b). As part of the QPS evaluation, microorganisms are considered within the context that they are “deliberately introduced in the food chain either directly or as a source of additive or food enzyme” (Leuschner et al. 2010). The QPS assessment does not consider the organism’s safety for use as a gene source for GM crops, therefore the utility of this QPS assessment is limited to applications where the organism is either used directly or as a source of additive or food enzyme in food and feed applications. The QPS assessment for P. chlororaphis noted that it may produce secondary metabolites (for example, rhamnolipids and phenazine compounds) (EFSA 2015b). However, the potential for a gene source to produce a secondary metabolite like rhamolipids or phenazine compounds does not indicate inherent risk for the GM crop. Secondary metabolites like rhamolipids or phenazine compounds are synthesized through complex biochemical pathways involving multiple genes. For example, rhamnolipids biosynthesis occurs in sequential reactions catalyzed by RhlA, RhlB and RhlC proteins [under the control of the rhlA, rhlB and rhlC genes, respectively (Gunther et al. 2005; Reis et al. 2011)]. Biosynthesis of phenazine compounds is controlled by phz genes (Dowling and O’Gara 1994). The safety of the specific gene inserted into the plant and gene products is assessed as part of the safety assessment of GM crops, and there is no evidence to suggest that the ipd072Aa gene from P. chlororaphis is involved in the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites like rhamnolipids or phenazine compounds.
Phylogenetic relatedness to known human and plant pathogens
There is currently a robust understanding of the phylogenetic relatedness within the genus Pseudomonas (Anzai et al. 2000; Burr et al. 2010; Garrity et al. 2005; Gomila et al. 2015; Moore et al. 2006). The Pseudomonas genus does contain some well-recognized plant and human pathogens, including P. aeruginosa and P. syringae (Peix et al. 2009). Therefore, the phylogenetic relatedness of pathogenic Pseudomonas species and other Pseudomonas species intended for agricultural applications should be considered before potential use. P. aeruginosa is a gram-negative, aerobic bacterium that is relatively ubiquitous in the environment and can be found in soil and water, as well as on the surface of plants. P. aeruginosa is well recognized as both a plant pathogen and an opportunistic human pathogen that can cause respiratory infection in immunocompromised patients (Sadikot et al. 2005). The pathogenicity of P. aeruginosa is thought to be related to virulence factors carried by pathogenicity islands. For example, the pathogenicity islands PAPI-1 and PAPI-2 have been linked to the virulence of P. aeruginosa. It has been confirmed that P. chlororaphis does not contain virulence factors and shares no genomic homology with these known pathogenicity islands (Chen et al. 2015). P. aeruginosa is phylogenetically distant from P. chlororaphis (Anzai et al. 2000; EC 2002; Fig. 1).
The pathogenicity of P. syringae to plants is well understood. The taxonomy of the species is separated into pathovars, each distinguishable based on the primary host plant(s) and carbon source(s) they utilize for growth (Garrity et al. 2005). The plant pathogenicity of P. syringae is based on an array of phytotoxins that produce disease symptoms. For example, P. syringae pathovar syringae disrupts the plasma membrane in host plants via production of syringomycins, syringopeptins and syringotoxins. P. syringae is phylogenetically distant from P. chlororaphis (Anzai et al. 2000; Fig. 1). Additionally, it has been confirmed that P. chlororaphis does not contain the genes that code for the biosynthesis of these or other phytotoxins or exoenzymes (cellulases, pectinases, pectin lyases) that compromise plant cell walls (EFSA 2015b).
While it is important to consider phylogenetic relatedness to known pathogens, identifying a pathogen in the same genus as a potential source donor for a GM crop does not indicate inherent risk. Many species share phylogenetic relatedness with known pathogens without being pathogenic themselves. For example, the phylogenetic relatedness of species belonging to the Bacillus genus has been published previously based on 16S rRNA gene sequences (see Fig. 2 in Alcaraz et al. 2010). While Bt shares distant phylogenetic relatedness with a few pathogens (e.g., Bacillus anthracis; Alcaraz et al. 2010), it has a long history of safe use as a biopesticide and as a gene source for GM crops (US-EPA 1998, 2001c). Similarly, the phylogenetic relatedness of species belonging to the Streptomyces genus has been published previously based on 16S rRNA gene sequences (see Fig. 1 in Kämpfer 2006). Very few species of Streptomyces are human, animal or plant pathogens (Kämpfer 2006). For example, Streptomyces scabiei is a well-known plant pathogen associated with potato scab (Zhang et al. 2016), and Streptomyces somaliensis is a human pathogen that causes deep tissue and bone infections (Kirby et al. 2012). Even though phylogenetically related to these pathogens, the safety of Streptomyces viridochromogenes as a gene source for GM crops is well established (OECD 2007).
The safety assessment framework for GM crops is well established and is appropriate for assessing traits derived from non-Bt source organisms. One component of the safety assessment includes an evaluation of each introduced trait, including its source organism, for potential adverse pathogenic, toxic and allergenic effects. Establishing a history of safe use, and a lack of known allergenic, toxic or pathogenic properties, contributes to the weight of evidence that a gene, and its expression product (protein), derived from a source donor is safe for its intended use, when expressed in a modified crop. Pseudomonas species represent a potential source of genes with insecticidal properties. The ipd072Aa gene from P. chlororaphis encodes the IPD072Aa protein, which confers protection against certain coleopteran pests when expressed in maize plants. This paper provides an assessment of the safety of P. chlororaphis as a gene source for GM crops. Like Bt, Pseudomonas species are ubiquitous in the environment and several have been utilized in a variety of agricultural and industrial applications. Certain Pseudomonas species, including P. chlororaphis, have been used in biopesticide products and as a gene source for GM crops, and their safety as applied plant protection products has been previously assessed. Although P. chlororaphis is distantly related to plant and human pathogens (e.g., P. aeruginosa and P. syringae), it is not a human, animal or plant pathogen and has no known potential to cause toxic or allergenic effects in mammals. This information supports, in part, the safety assessment of potential traits, such as IPD072Aa, derived from P. chlororaphis.
The authors wish to acknowledge and thank Ian Lamb, Bryan Delaney, Greg Dana, Mieko Kasai, Chad Boeckman, Mark Nelson, Daria Schmidt, Mary Locke and many others for their editorial contributions and constructive feedback. The authors also thank Yojiro Anzai for permission to reproduce the Pseudomonas phylogenetic tree in this paper.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors are employees of DuPont Pioneer.
- AgBiome (2017) Howler fungicide receives EPA registration. PR Newswire. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/howler-fungicide-receives-epa-registration-300507179.html Accessed 15 Dec 2017
- CFIA (2013) Decision document DD2013-97: Determination of the safety of Dow AgroSciences Canada Inc.’s soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) event DAS-44406-6. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. http://cera-gmc.org/files/cera/GmCropDatabase/decdocs/DAS444066/DAS444066_soybean_Canada_envt_feed.pdf
- Codex Alimentarius Commission (2009) Foods derived from modern biotechnology, 2nd edn. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, World Health Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
- Dow AgroSciences (2010) Petition for determination of nonregulated status for herbicide tolerant DAS-68416-4 soybean. Dow AgroSciences LLC. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/09_34901p.pdf
- EC (2002) Opinion of the Scientific Committee on plants on specific questions from the commission regarding the evaluation of Pseudomonas chlororaphis in the context of Council Directive 91/414/EEC. European Commission, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
- EFSA (2006) Guidance document of the scientific panel on generically modified organisms for the risk assessment of genetically modified plants and derived food and feed. EFSA J 99:1–100Google Scholar
- EFSA (2012) Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Pseudomonas sp. strain DSMZ 13134. EFSA J 10:2954. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2954
- EFSA (2015a) Scientific Opinion on an application (EFSA-GMO-BE-2011-98) for the placing on the market of herbicide-tolerant genetically modified soybean FG72 for food and feed uses, import and processing under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Bayer CropScience. EFSA J 13:4167. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4167 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- EFSA (2015b) Statement on the update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 3: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2015. EFSA J 13:4331Google Scholar
- FAO/WHO (1991) Strategies for assessing the safety of foods produced by biotechnology. Report of Joint FAO/WHO Consultation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
- FSANZ (2013) Application A1051—food derived from herbicide-tolerant soybean line FG72, safety assessment report (approval). Food Standards Australia New Zealand. http://cera-gmc.org/files/cera/GmCropDatabase/decdocs/FG72/FG72_soybean_Australia_food_SafetyAssess.pdf
- FSANZ (2014) Approval report—application A1094: Food derived from herbicide-tolerant cotton line DAS-81910-7. Food Standards Australia New Zealand. http://cera-gmc.org/files/cera/GmCropDatabase/decdocs/DAS819107/DAS819107_cotton_Australia_food.pdf
- ISAAA (2016) Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2016 ISAAA Brief No. 52. ISAAA, Ithica, NYGoogle Scholar
- ISAAA’s GM Approval Database (2018) http://www.isaaa.org/gmapprovaldatabase/. Accessed 1 2018
- Kämpfer P (2006) The family streptomycetaceae, part i: taxonomy. In: Dworkin M, Falkow S, Rosenberg E, Schleifer K-H, Stackebrandt E (eds) The prokaryotes: volume 3: Archaea. Bacteria: firmicutes, actinomycetes. Springer, New York, pp 538–604Google Scholar
- Kirby R, Sangal V, Tucker NP, Zakrzewska-Czerwińska J, Wierzbicka K, Herron PR, Chu C-J, Chandra G, Fahal AH, Goodfellow M (2012) Draft genome sequence of the human pathogen Streptomyces somaliensis, a significant cause of actinomycetoma. J Bacteriol 194:3544–3545. https://doi.org/10.1128/JB.00534-12 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Leuschner RG, Robinson TP, Hugas M, Cocconcelli PS, Richard-Forget F, Klein G, Licht TR, Nguyen-The C, Querol A, Richardson M (2010) Qualified presumption of safety (QPS): a generic risk assessment approach for biological agents notified to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Trends Food Sci Technol 21:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Luiu L, Satta A, Floris I (2013) Emerging entomopathogenic bacteria for insect pest management. Bull Insectology 66:181–186Google Scholar
- Monsanto Company (1995) Petition for determination of non-regulated status: tomatoes with a delayed ripening gene. Monsanto Company. http://www.cera-gmc.org/files/cera/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/05-242-013.pdf
- Nufarm Americas Inc. (2012) BlightBan® A506, Specimen Label. Nufarm Americas Inc. http://cru66.cahe.wsu.edu/~picol/pdf/WA/57861.pdf
- OECD (2007) Consensus document on safety information on transgenic plants expressing Bacillus thuringiensis—derived insect control proteins. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, ParisGoogle Scholar
- Schellenberger U, Oral J, Rosen BA, Wei JZ, Zhu G, Xie W, McDonald MJ, Cerf DC, Diehn SH, Crane VC, Sandahl GA, Zhao J-Z, Nowatzki TM, Sethi A, Liu L, Pan Z, Wang Y, Lu AL, Wu G, Liu L (2016) A selective insecticidal protein from Pseudomonas for controlling corn rootworms. Science 354:634–637. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf6056 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tamaoka J, Ha D-M, Komagata K (1987) Reclassification of Pseudomonas acidovorans den Dooren de Jong 1926 and Pseudomonas testosteroni Marcus and Talalay 1956 as Comamonas acidovorans comb. nov. and Comamonas testosteroni comb. nov., with an emended description of the genus Comamonas. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 37:52–59. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-37-1-52 Google Scholar
- USDA-APHIS (1995) Determination on a petition 95-053-01p of Monsanto Company seeking nonregulated status for delayed-ripening tomato line 8338. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. http://www.cera-gmc.org/files/cera/GmCropDatabase/docs/decdocs/01-290-096.pdf
- USDA-APHIS (2013) Bayer CropScience petition (09-328-01p) for determination of non-regulated status of event FG72 soybean, plant pest risk assessment. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/09_32801p_fpra.pdf
- USDA-APHIS (2014a) Determination of nonregulated status for Dow AgroSciences DAS-44406-6 soybean. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/11_23401p_det.pdf
- USDA-APHIS (2014b) Determination of nonregulated status for Dow AgroSciences DAS-68416-4 soybean. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/09_34901p_det.pdf
- USDA-APHIS (2014c) Record of Decision: Dow AgroSciences petitions (09-233-01p, 09-349-01p, and 11-234-01p) for determination of nonregulated status for 2,4-D-resistant corn and soybean varieties. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/24d_rod.pdf
- USDA-APHIS (2015) Determination of nonregulated status for Dow AgroSciences DAS-81910-7 cotton. United States Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/brs/aphisdocs/13_26201p_det.pdf
- USDA-APHIS (2017) Petitions for determination of nonregulated status. United States Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/biotechnology/permits-notifications-petitions/petitions/petition-status
- USDA-NASS (2017) Crop production historical track records. United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/htrcp/htrcp-04-13-2017.pdf
- US-EPA (1992a) Briefing memorandum, registration of new biological pesticides: Pseudomonas fluorescens strain A506, Pseudomonas fluorescens strain 1629RS, and Pseudomonas syringae strain 742RS. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/cleared_reviews/csr_PC-006418_1-Sep-92_008.pdf
- US-EPA (1992b) Notice of pesticide registration—64004-2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/064004-00002-19920916.pdf
- US-EPA (1998) Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Bacillus thuringiensis. United States Environmental Protection Agency, EPA738-R-98-004. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/reregistration/red_PC-006400_30-Mar-98.pdf
- US-EPA (1999a) Notice of pesticide registration 70688-1. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/070688-00001-19990211.pdf
- US-EPA (1999b) Notice of pesticide registration—68182-17. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/068182-00017-19991116.pdf
- US-EPA (2000) Pseudomonas aureofaciens strain Tx-1 (006473) technical document. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/related_PC-006473_1-Apr-00.pdf
- US-EPA (2001a) Notice of pesticide registration—68182-18. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/068182-00018-20010620.pdf
- US-EPA (2001b) Notice of pesticide registration—70688-2. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/070688-00002-20010928.pdf
- US-EPA (2001c) Overview; biopesticides registration action document: Bt plant-incorporated protectants. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/pip/bt_brad2/1-overview.pdf
- US-EPA (2001d) Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain 63-28 (006478) fact sheet. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_PC-006478_01-Apr-01.pdf
- US-EPA (2009a) Frost-preventing bacteria: Pseudomonas fluorescens A506 (006438); Pseudomonas fluorescens 1629RS (006439); Pseudomonas syringae 742RS (006411) fact sheet. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_G-136_25-Oct-09.pdf
- US-EPA (2009b) Pseudomonas syringae strain ESC-10 (006441), Pseudomonas syringae strain ESC-11 (006451) fact sheet. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/reg_actions/registration/fs_G-149_25-Oct-09.pdf
- US-EPA (2014) Notice of pesticide registration—71975-4. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/071975-00004-20140827.pdf
- US-EPA (2017a) Notice of pesticide registration—91197-3. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0251-0019 Accessed 15 December 2017
- US-EPA (2017b) Pesticide chemical search. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://iaspub.epa.gov/apex/pesticides/f?p=chemicalsearch:1
- US-EPA (2017c) Pesticide registration manual: Chapter 2—registering a pesticide product. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/pesticide-registration/pesticide-registration-manual-chapter-2-registering-pesticide-product
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.