Content uploaded by Sabir Hussain Shah
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Sabir Hussain Shah on Jan 09, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
Global Veterinaria 14 (3): 377-381, 2015
ISSN 1992-6197
© IDOSI Publications, 2015
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.gv.2015.14.03.92166
Corresponding Author: Sohail Ahmad Jan, Department of Biotechnology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
E-mail: sjan.parc@gmail.com; sohailahmadjan3@gmail.com
377
Impact of Bt Cotton on Animal Health: A Review
Muhammad Amir Zia, Sohail Ahmad Jan, Zabta Khan Shinwari,
1 11
Sabir Hussain Shah and Ali Talha Khalil
21
Department of Biotechnology, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad, Pakistan
1
PARC Institute of Advanced Studies in Agriculture (PIASA), NARC, Islamabad, Pakistan
2
Abstract: Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) cotton is commonly grown in all over the world to control wide range of
pests. Bt cotton have several advantages over conventional chemical fertilizers and biological control methods
as it provide safe, quick, efficient and long term resistance against diverse range of cotton insects. With the
passage of time several technical, socio-economical, ethical and biosafety issues arises with use of Bt cotton.
As Bt cotton adversely affects a variety of non targeted organisms including many beneficial animals. Several
researchers have been reported that Bt toxins affect several different species of animals such as cows,
buffaloes, model mice, goats, pigs, chickens, herbivores and human. The effect of Bt toxin is more lethal on
Gastro Intestinal Tract (GIT) than other organs in all tested mammals that feed on Bt cotton seeds. Besides its
usefulness, Bt toxin also interrupt normal biochemical and biological processes of many important animals.
However some findings revealed that Bt toxins affect human lymphocytes and other physiological characters
when used in higher concentration. Therefore, the present review is designed to describe the possible lethal
effects of different types of Bt proteins on non-target animal species. The present study will be useful to
minimize the toxicity associated with Bt cotton on wide ranges of animals.
Key words: Bt Cotton Toxin Biosafety Non-Target Animals
INTRODUCTION America, Africa and Asia due to its quick and efficient
Insect is one of the major plant enemies that decades several technical, socio-economical and
damage about 15% of important crops in the world [1, 2]. environmental issues arise from the use of Bt crops as it
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) is one of the important genetic affect a large number of innocent non-target organisms
engineered gram positive bacterium that is used to control including animals [11, 12]. Vertical gene flow of Bt genes
major crops pests. Bt produced a specialize type of through pollen or seeds to non-target organism produce
crystalline proteins against a wide range of insects such some serious biosafety problems [13-15]. Therefore the
as A, D and E- endotoxins. The cry genes also encode present review provides a baseline to describe the
ä-Endotoxins (Cry toxins) that form a crystalline negative effects of Bt cotton on wide range of animal
appearance during sporulation time that cause death of species. The major effects of various Bt toxin alone or in
insect larvae [3-5]. Bt genes have been transformed to combination on non-target organisms are mentioned
many important crops including cotton that provide short below.
and long term tolerance against a large number of insects
from order Lepidoptera, Diptera and Coleoptera [6,7]. Effects of Bt Toxin on Various Tissues and Organs
Genetic engineered (Bt) crops have several advantages
over chemical pesticides as it is environmental friendly,
remains for short time in soil and provide durable
resistance against wide range of insects [1, 8, 9]. Bt cotton
plants have been widely adopted by many developed and
developing countries of world such as North and South
mode of action against a wide range of pests. Since last
of Animals: Gastro Intestinal Tract (GIT) is an important
entry system for foreign molecules in animals.
The epithelial lining of GIT gives specific route to the
foreign DNA and protein fragments that comes from
animal feeds [16]. The foreign DNA-fragments of many
important plant genes were found in blood, muscles
Global Veterinaria, 14 (3): 377-381, 2015
378
tissues and many other internal organs of many buffalo feeding on transgenic cotton seeds carrying
agriculture important animals such as broiler chickens, Cry1Ac gene. Blood urea N and creatinine concentrations
calves, pigs and cattles [17-19]. Two fragments of cry1Ab were also found similar in cows both controlled and
gene such as P35S and cp4epsps, cry1Ab gene were experimental lactating cows groups after feeding on Bt
found in liver, kidney, heart and muscle tissues of cotton seeds for 430 days [32].
goats [20]. Sajjad et al. [21] studied the presence of
cry1AC gene of cotton in digestive system of model Bt Toxins in Animal Excretion: The lethal concentration
animal mice. The mice were fed with normal feed along
with 50% mixture of crushed Bt cotton seeds. The tissue
samples were taken from stomach, intestines, blood, liver,
kidney, heart and brain. The isolated DNA from all the
tested samples was screened through Polymerase Chain
Reaction (PCR) with a set of specific primer of cry1AC
gene and tnos promoter. The targeted gene was found
only in intestinal tissues that affect the inner lining of
intestine. They also reported that the acidic medium of
stomach degrade the foreign Bt DNA fragments.
Effects of Bt Toxin on Lactating Animals:
Several researchers investigated the effects of Bt genes
on nutrient utilization, blood composition and other
performance of dairy lactating animal that feeds on cotton
seeds. For example Mohanata et al. [22] studied that
effect of cry1Ac gene on important nutrient utilization,
blood biochemical composition and other performance of
lactating dairy cows. The tested animals were fed on
both non-transgenic and transgenic cotton seeds for
4 weeks. From the result they revealed that nutrient
uptake, digestion process, milk yield, composition,
body physiology and blood composition were not varied
in control and non-control tested animals. The Bt protein
(Cry1Ac) was not found in both milk and plasma.
They concluded that Bt protein (Cry1Ac) have no
adverse effect on qualitative and quantitative characters
of lactating cows. Similar findings were noted by Singhal
et al. [23] for lactating cows that fed on Bt cotton seeds.
Singhal et al. [23] and Castillo et al. [24] envisaged the
effect of Cry1Ac alone or in combination with Cry2Ab on
lactating cows. The milk saturation content and milk
quality was similar in both control and treated
experimental cows and no adverse morpho-physiological
effects were found. The milk and blood of ruminates,
tissues of pigs and other poultry are free from any Bt gene
after feeding on Bt seeds, as it shows safer food for all
animals [25-29]. Moreira et al. [30] found no toxic effect of
Bt toxins on digestion process of animals. While,
Sullivan et al. [31] noted that low level of digestibility in
lactating cows feeding was similar or having higher level
of Bt cotton seeds. Higher concentration of haemoglobin
and other serum compositions were noted in lactating
of Cry1Ab toxin from animals faeces come to our
environment both directly and indirectly that affect target
and non-target organisms. Certain animals like pigs and
cattle that feed on Bt crops to excrete toxic proteins in
their wastes by effecting targeted and non-targeted
organisms [33]. Foreign DNA fragments of Bt cotton was
also found in the muscles of many types of chickens
[34].
Influence of Bt Cotton on Other Non-target Animals:
Several researchers have studied the effect of Bt cotton
on non-target herbivores. Zhang et al. [35] studied the
effect of Bt cotton on non-target Aphis gossypii that feed
on both Bt and non-Bt cotton. The enzyme-linked
immunosorbant assay (ELISA) was used to screen the
presence of Bt proteins in A. Gossypii. Results showed
that a minute amount (=10 ng/g) of Bt protein was
detected in Bt fed A. Gossypii. So, only small amount of Bt
protein was ingested during feeding on Bt-cotton. Lawo
et al. [36] performed similar type of experiment by
feeding A. gossypii on Bt cotton expressing Cry1Ac
protein. 11 out of 12 samples showed the presence of Bt
antigen through ELISA. Liu et al. [37] studied the effect
of Bt and Cowpea trypsin inhibitor (CpTI) genes in
combination on Aphis gossypii. From the results they
concluded that Bt gene along with CpTI gene leads lower
survival and reproductive rates in all tested organisms.
But, in second and third generation the aphid population
gain immunity and fitness. Bt toxins effect five major
groups of herbivores species such as Spodoptera
littorals,Apis mellifera, monarch butterfly, spider mites
Rhopalosiphum padi and two important predators
Chrysoperla carnea and coleomegilla maculate [38-40].
The long term application of Bt protein at pollen stage
adversely affect the larvae of monarch butterfly [41].
Many researchers proved that Bt cotton is safe for
other living organisms. Farag Dahi [42] studied the effect
of two Bt genes Cry 1Ac and Cry 2Ab of Egyptian Bt
cotton on non- target organisms i.e. arthropods (aphids,
whiteflies, leafhopper green bugs and spider mites) and
other beneficial arthropods (green lacewing, ladybird
coccinella, rove beetle, Orius bugs and true spider).
No significant differences were found in all tested
Global Veterinaria, 14 (3): 377-381, 2015
379
organisms after feeding on control and Bt cotton. Romeis awareness in people to develop new Bt cotton cultivars
et al. [43] developed a new method of direct application of
Bt toxin to the larva of green lacewing (Chrysoperla
carnea). Their finding showed no toxic effects of Cry1Ab
protein on C. carnea larvae. Genetically engineered
cotton plants have no adverse effects on non-targeted
organisms like coccinellids and spiders [44]. Romeis et al
[45] treated C. Carnea with Cryl Ab toxin at higher
concentration but no adverse effect was observed in all
tested samples.
Effects of Bt Cotton on Human Health: Several antibiotics
are used as marker gene to screen transgenic plants.
Several bacterial species tolerate antibiotics. So, it is a
major concern to people who excessively use antibiotic
for controlling many lethal human diseases but on the
other hand, it is used in plant transformation experiments.
If, these pathogens produce tolerance against antibiotics
so, it will no longer to be used for controlling human
diseases. Similarly, the horizontal transfer of marker genes
or other lethal genes to other pathogens further produce
serious problem to human health and other non-target
organism [46-49]. There are several reports that Bt genes
cause some serious problem to human health. Bhat et al.
[50] studied the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects of Cry1Ac
toxin from Bt cotton (RCH2) on human lymphocytes.
The MIT test, cytokinesis blocked micronucleus and
erythrolysis tests showed that high dose of Cry1Ac
toxin decreased the cell survival ability up to 47.08% after
72 hour of incubation period. Only 2.52% of micronuclei
were found in test samples. The Cry1Ac toxin also
showed lethal effect on human leukocytes by their
haemolytic action. They concluded that Cry1Ac toxin at
higher concentration have lethal cytotoxic and genotoxic
effects on the human lymphocytes.
CONCLUSION
The evidences clearly reveal that acreage and
popularity of Bt cotton is increasing day by day as it
plays a vital role to provide durable resistance against a
wide range of insect species. Bt cotton has played
important role to sustain agriculture in all over the world
for their maximum yield and other agronomic practices as
well. With the passage of time, several biosaefty and
environmental issues arise with the use of different Bt
genes. Several researchers have reported the toxic effects
of Bt proteins of cotton and other crops on diverse range
of non-target animal species including human being.
Now it is the responsibilities of the scientists to bring
that assure no or very low toxicity on non-target
organisms to minimize risks associated with Bt cotton
technology.
REFERENCES
1. Kumar, S., A. Chandra and K.C. Pandey, 2008.
Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) transgenic crop: An
environment friendly insect-pest management
strategy. J. Environ. Biol., 29(5): 641-653.
2. Maxmen, A., 2013. Crop pests: under attack. Nature.,
501: 15-17.
3. Krieg, A., 1986. Bacillus thuringiensis,
einmikrobielles Insektizid, Grundlagen und
Anwendung, Acta Phytomedica, Beiheft zur
Phytopathologischen Zeitung, Paul Parey,Berlin und
Hamburg.
4. Peferoen, M., 1997. Insect control with transgenic
plants expressing Bacillus thuringiensiscrystal
proteins in Carozzi, N. and Koziel, M. (Eds),
Advances in Insect Control: The role of transgenic
plants. Taylor and Francis, London., pp: 21-48.
5. Van Rie, J., 2000. Bacillus thuringiensis and its use in
transgenic insect control technologies. Int. J.
Medical Microbiol., 290: 463-469.
6. James, C., 2006. Executive Summary of Global Status
of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops, International
Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA), Briefs No.35, Ithaca,
NY, USA.
7. Cannon, R., 1995. Bacillus thuringiensis in pest
control, in Hokkanen, H. M. T. and Lynch, J.M. (Eds)
Biological Control, Benefits and Risks, Plant and
Microbial Biotechnology Research, Series 4,
Cambridge University Press, pp: 190-200.
8. Krishna, V.V. and M. Qaim, 2012. Bt cotton and
sustainability of pesticide reductions in India, Agric.
Sys., 107: 47-55.
9. Kouser, S. and M. Qaim, 2011. Impact of Bt cotton
on pesticide poisoning in smallholder agriculture:
a panel data analysis. Ecological Economics.,
70: 2105-2113.
10. James, C., 2013. Global status of commercialized
biotech/GM crops: 2013. ISAAA Briefs No.
46. Ithaca, NY, International Service for the
Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
11. Virla, E.G., M. Casuso and E.A. Frias, 2010.
A preliminary study on the effects of a transgenic
corn event on the non-target pest Dalbulus maidis
(Hemiptera: Cicadellidae). Crop Prot., 29: 635-638.
Global Veterinaria, 14 (3): 377-381, 2015
380
12. Duan, J.J., J.G. Lundgren, S. Naranjo and M. Marvier, 22. Mohanta, R.K., K.K. Singhal, A.K. Tyagi and
2010. Extrapolating non-target a risk of Bt crops from
laboratory to field. Biol. Lett., 6: 74-77.
13. Squire, G.R., 2005. Contribution to gene flow by
seed and pollen, in Proceedings of the Second
International Conference on the Coexistence of
Genetically Modified and Non-GM Based
Agricultural Supply Chains, ed. by Messean A.
Agropolis Productions, Montpellier, France,
pp: 73-77.
14. Pons, E., A. Navarro, P. Ollitrault and L. Pena, 2011.
Pollen competition as a reproductive isolation barrier
represses transgene flow between compatible and
co-flowering citrus genotypes. PLoS ONE., 6: 25810.
15. Scorza, R., A.B. Kriss, A.M. Callahan, K. Webb,
M. Demuth and T. Gottwald, 2013. Spatial and
Temporal Assessment of Pollen- and Seed- Mediated
Gene Flow from Genetically Engineered Plum Prunus
domestica. PLoS ONE., 8: 75291.
16. Aurora, R., L. Nordgrd and K.M. Nielsen, 2011.
The Stability and Degradation of Dietary DNA in the
Gastrointestinal Tract of Mammals. Implications for
Horizontal Gene Transfer and the Biosafety of GMOs.
17. Tony, M.A., A. Butschke, H. Broll, L. Grohmann,
J. Zagon, I. Halle, S. Danicke, M. M. Schauzu,
H.M. Hafez and G. Flachowsky, 2003. Safety
assessment of Bt 176 maize in broiler nutrition:
degradation of maize-DNA and its metabolic fate.
Tierernahr., 57: 235-252.
18. Reuter, T. and K. Aulrich, 2003. Investigations on
genetically modified maize (Bt-maize) in pig nutrition:
fate of feed-ingested foreign DNA in pig bodies.
Food Res., Technol., 216: 185-192.
19. Nemeth, A., A. Wurz, L. Artim, S. Charlton, G. Dana,
K. Glenn, P. Hunst, J. Jennings, Shilito and R. Song,
2003. Sensitive PCR analysis of animal tissue samples
for fragments of endogenous and transgenic plant
DNA. J. Agric. Food Chem., 52: 6129-6135.
20. Swiatkiewicz, M., Hanczakowska. E. Twa-d-0wska,
M. Mazur, M. Kwiatek, W. Kozaczynski, S. Swia
tkiewicz and M. Sieradzki, 2011. Effect of genetically
modified feeds on fattening results and transfer
of transgenic DNA to swine tissues. Pulawy.,
55: 121-125..
21. Sajjad, A.M., A. Yasmeen, S. Ahmad and U. Sagheer,
2013. Determination of the persistence frequency of
different components of the cry1Ac transgene
cassette in mammalian tissues. J. Int. Sci.
Publications: Agric. Food., 2: 448-456.
Y.S. Rajput, 2010. Effect of feeding transgenic
cottonseed (Bt-cry1Ac gene) on nutrient utilization,
production performance and blood biochemical
status in lactating dairy cows. Ind. J. Animal Sci.,
80(12): 1220-25.
23. Singhal, K.K., R.S. Kumar, A.K. Tyagi and Y.S. Rajput
Y.S. 2006. Evaluation of Bt cottonseed as protein
supplement in the ration of lactating dairy cows. Ind.
J. Animal Sci., 76: 532-37.
24. Castillo, R., M.R. Gallardo, M. Maciel, J.M. Giordano,
G.A. Conti, M.C. Gaggiotti, O. Quaino, C. Gianni and
G.F. Hartnell, 2004. Effects of feeding rations with
genetically modified whole cottonseed to lactating
Holstein cows. J. Dairy Sci., 87: 1778-85.
25. Phipps, R.H., E.R. Deaville and B.C. Maddison, 2003.
Detection of transgenic and endogenous plant DNA
in rumen fluid, duodenal digesta, milk, blood and
feces of lactating dairy cows. J. Dairy Sci.,
86: 4070-78.
26. Faust, M., B. Smith, D. Rice, F. Owens, M. Hinds,
G. Dana and P. Hunst, 2007. Performance of lactating
dairy cows fed silage and grain from a maize hybrid
with the Cry1F trait versus its nonbiotech
counterpart. J. Dairy Sci., 90: 5706-13.
27. Huls, T.J., G.E. Erickson, T.J. Klopfenstein,
M.K. Luebbe, K.J. Vander, D.W. Rice, B. Smith,
M. Hinds, F. Owens and M. Liebergesell, 2008.
Effect of feeding DAS-59122-7 corn grain and
nontransgenic corn grain to individually fed finishing
steers. Professional Animal Scientist., 24: 572-77.
28. Jennings, J.C., D.C. Kolwyck, S.B. Kays,
A.J. Whetsell, J.B. Surber, G.L. Cromwell, R.P. Lirette
and K.C. Glenn, 2003. Determining whether
transgenic and endogenous plant DNA and
transgenic protein are detectable in muscle from
swine fed Roundup Ready soybean meal. J. Animal
Sci., 81: 1447-55.
29. Elangovan, A.V., P.K. Tyagi, A.K. Shrivastav,
P.K. Tyagi and A.B. Mandal, 2006. GMO (Bt-Cry 1
Ac gene) cottonseed meal is similar to non-GMO low
free gossypol cottonseed meal for growth
performance in broiler chickens. Animal Feed Sci.
Technol., 129: 252-63.
30. Moreira, V.R., L.D. Satter and B. Harding, 2004.
Comparison of conventional linted cottonseed and
mechanically delinted cottonseed in diets for dairy
cows. J. Dairy Sci., 87: 131-38.
Global Veterinaria, 14 (3): 377-381, 2015
381
31. Sullivan, H.M., J.K. Bernard, H.E. Amos and 41. Dorsch, J.A., M. Candas, N.B. Griko, W.S.A. Maaty,
T.C. Jenkins, 2004. Performance of lactating dairy E.G. Midboe, R.K. Vadlamudi, L.A. Bulla, 2002.
cows fed whole cottonseed with elevated Cry 1A toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis bind
concentrations of free fatty acids in the oil. J. Dairy specifically to a region adjacent to the
Sci., 87: 665-71. membrane-proximal extracellular domain of Bt-R1 in
32. Coppock, C.E., J.W. Moya, J.R. Thomson, K.G. Rowe, Manduca sexta: involvement of a cadherin in the
L.D. Nave L D and C.E. Gates C E, 1985. Effect of entomopathogenicity of Bacillus thuringiensis.
amount of whole cottonseed on intake, digestibility Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol., 32: 1025-1036.
and physiological responses of dairy cows. J. Dairy 42. Dively, G.P., R. Rose, M.K. Sears, R.L. Hellmich,
Sci., 68: 2248-58. D.E. Stanley-Horn, D.D. Calvin, J.M. Russo and
33. Chowdhury, E.H., H. Kuribar, A. Hino, P. Sultana, P.L. Anderson, 2004. Effects on monarch butterfly
O. Mikami, N. Shimada, K.S. Guruge, M. Saito and larvae (Lepidoptera: Danaidae) after continuous
Y. Nakajima, 2003. Detection of corn intrinsic and exposure to Cry1Ab expressing corn during anthesis.
recombinant DNA fragments and Cry1Ab protein in Env. Entomol., 33: 1116-1125.
the gastrointestinal contents of pigs fed genetically 43. Dahi. H.F., 2013. Assessment the Effects of
modified corn Bt11. J. Animal Sci., 81: 2546-2551. Transgenic Egyptian Bt Cotton that Contain
34. Einspanier, R., B. Lutz, S. Rief, O. Berezina, Two Genes Expressing Cry 1Ac and Cry 2Ab
V. Zverlov, W. Schwarz and J. Mayer, 2004. Delta-Endotoxin on the Abundance of the Non
Tracing residual recombinant feed molecules during Target Organisms Community. Nature and Science.,
digestion and rumen bacterial diversity in cattle fed 11(2): 117-122.
transgene maize. Eur. Food Res. Technol., 44. Romeis, J., A. Dutton and F. Bigler, 2004.
218: 269-273. Bacillus thuringiensis toxin has no direct effect on
35. Einspanier, R., A. Klotz, J. Kraft, K. Aulrich, R. Poser, larvae of the green lacewing Chrysoperla carnea
F. Schwagele, G. Jahreis and G. Flachowsky, 2001. (Stephens) (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae). J. Insect
The fate of forage plant DNA in farm animals: Physiol., 50: 175-183.
a collaborative case-study investigating cattle and 45. Rao, N.S. and P.A. Rao, 2008. Seasonal occurrence of
chicken fed recombinant plant material. Eur. natural enemies on Bt and non-Bt cotton. J. Appl.
Food Res. Technol., 212: 129-134. Zool Res., 19(1): 33-36.
36. Ju-Hong, Zhang, J.H., J.Y. Guo, J.Y. Xia and 46. Malik V.S., 1999. Marker gene controversy in
F.H. Wan, 2012. Long-term effects of transgenic transgenic plants. Scientific Publishers, USA,
Bacillus thuringiensis cotton on the non-target pp: 65-90.
Aphis gossypii (Homoptera: Aphididae) maintained 47. Thomson, J.A., 2001. Horizontal transfer of DNA from
for multiple generations. Afr. J. Biotechnol., GM crops to bacteria and to mammalian cells. J. Food
11(41): 9873-9880. Sci., 66: 188-193.
37. Lawo, N.C., F.L. Wackers and J. Romeis, 2009. 48. Celis, C., M. Scurrah, S. Cowgill, J. Chumbiauca,
Indian Bt cotton varieties do not affect the J. Green, G. Franco, D. Main, R.G.F. Kiezebrink,
performance of cotton aphids. PLoS ONE., 4: e4804. H.J. Visser and H.J. Atkinson, 2004.
38. Liu, X.D., B.P. Zhai, X.X. Zhang and J.M. Zong, 2005. Environmental biosafety and transgenic potato in a
Impact of transgenic cotton plants on a non-target centre of diversity for this crop. Nature, 432: 222-225.
pest, Aphis gossypii Glover. Ecol. Entomol., 49. Gay, P. and S. Gillespe, 2005. Antibiotic resistance
30: 307-315. markers in GM plants not a risk to human health,
39. Grochulski, P., L. Masson, S. Borisova, M. Pusztai- Published in Lancet-Infectious diseases-GM-plants
Carey, J.L. Schwartz, R. Brousseau and M. Cygler, Review.
1995. Cry1A(a) insecticidal toxin: crystal structure 50. Bhat, M.S., P. Parimala, S. Rama Lakshmi and
and channel formation. J. Mol. Biol., 254(3): 447-464. K. Muthuchelian, 2011. In-Vitro cytotoxic and
40. Aronson, A.I. and Y. Shai. 2001. Why Bacillus genotoxicity studies of Cry1Ac toxin isolated from
thuringiensis insecticidal toxins are so effective: Bt cotton (RCH2 Bt) on human lymphocytes. Acad.
unique features of their mode of action. FEMS J. Plant Sci., 4(3): 64-68.
Microbiol. Lett., 195: 1-8.