Ecological Archives C006-092-A3

Rogelio Cruz-Reyes, Germán Ávila-Sakar, Gumersindo Sánchez-Montoya, and Mauricio Quesada. 2015. Experimental assessment of gene flow between transgenic squash and a wild relative in the center of origin of cucurbits. Ecosphere 6:248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/es15-00304.1

Appendix C. Number of transgenic plants per family and comparisons of performance of hybrids, between plants VRT and non-VRT.

Table C1. Number of hybrids F1 transgenic (TRV) and non transgenic (non-TRV) per family.

 

Pollination treatment

 

 

Saturation

15 : 1

7:1

3:1

Families

TRV

non-TRV

TRV

non-TRV

TRV

non-TRV

TRV

non-TRV

1

15

18

12

15

4

3

3

10

2

17

23

6

3

3

8

3

40

3

56

44

4

4

6

27

7

2

4

18

20

34

43

4

17

10

30

5

8

4

14

11

3

19

3

13

6

35

36

7

6

1

7

2

14

7

17

13

24

19

11

11

4

21

8

4

6

10

20

5

10

4

27

9

11

9

9

4

4

25

1

10

10

12

11

3

4

1

6

5

23

11

9

4

10

7

2

15

1

4

12

4

5

5

13

2

15

3

4

13

6

8

3

8

 

 

5

28

14

6

9

14

32

 

 

4

19

15

20

22

6

22

 

 

2

15

16

16

25

7

1

 

 

3

14

17

33

38

 

 

 

 

15

60

18

13

20

 

 

 

 

 

 

19

9

13

 

 

 

 

 

 

20

50

51

 

 

 

 

 

 

21

30

41

 

 

 

 

 

 

22

4

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

23

9

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

24

72

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

25

8

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

26

9

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

27

12

15

 

 

 

 

 

 

28

19

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

29

6

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

30

4

7

 

 

 

 

 

 

31

9

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

32

10

12

 

 

 

 

 

 

33

55

72

 

 

 

 

 

 

34

14

24

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

3

14

 

 

 

 

 

 

36

9

24

 

 

 

 

 

 

37

13

37

 

 

 

 

 

 

38

21

37

 

 

 

 

 

 

39

5

24

 

 

 

 

 

 

40

3

11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table C2. Number of hybrids F2 transgenic (TRV) and non transgenic (non-TRV) per families.

 

Pollination treatment

 

F1 non-TRV × F1 TRV

F1 TRV × F1 TRV

Families

TRV

non-TRV

TRV

non-TRV

1

12

13

18

15

2

7

10

7

16

3

42

3

46

24

4

9

20

26

6

5

7

6

16

17

6

5

8

32

10

7

18

52

31

19

8

14

39

52

13

9

13

27

28

15

10

9

17

23

8

11

16

11

21

1

12

28

24

10

1

13

26

30

9

1

14

43

47

17

22

15

20

19

12

9

16

17

13

47

17

17

5

5

17

12

18

12

12

49

71

19

42

56

28

16

20

28

33

 

 

21

29

26

 

 

22

10

3

 

 

23

28

49

 

 

24

50

38

 

 

25

16

30

 

 

26

31

19

 

 

27

13

27

 

 

 

Table C3. Number of transgenic (TRV) backcross plants and non transgenic (non-TRV) per families.

 

Pollination treatment

 

F1 VRT × W

W ×   F1 VRT

Families

TRV

non-TRV

TRV

non-TRV

1

4

7

14

6

2

14

17

5

4

3

22

23

16

18

4

4

7

 

 

 

Table C4. Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVA) for the effects of the type of cross (see Table A1) and transgene (presence / absence) on the performance of F1 and F2 hybrid progeny.

Source

df

Wilks λ

F

P

F1 generation

 

 

 

 

 Type of cross

15, 97

0.745

0.727

0.751

 Transgene

5, 35

0.835

1.382

0.255

F2 generation

 

 

 

 

 Type of cross

4, 17

0.611

2.69

0.066

 Transgene

4, 17

0.713

1.71

0.194

Table C4 (continued)

F1

Eigen Analysis for Type of cross

Eigenvalue

0.2041

0.07292

0.03884

0.00000

0.00000

Proportion

0.6461

0.23089

0.12300

0.00000

0.00000

Cumulative

0.6461

0.87700

1.00000

1.00000

1.00000

Eigenvector

1

2

3

4

5

Days to emergence

-0.3409

-3.200

-1.345

0.179

-0.188

Pistillate flowers

0.1435

-0.192

0.021

-0.091

-0.099

Staminate flowers

-0.4458

0.518

-0.193

0.183

-0.491

Seeds per fruit

-0.1889

-0.072

-0.012

-0.245

0.043

Seed mass

1.0807

0.688

-2.467

0.000

0.471

Eigen Analysis for Transgene

Eigenvalue

0.1974

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

Proportion

1.0000

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

Cumulative

1.0000

1.00000

1.00000

1.00000

1.00000

Eigenvector

1

2

3

4

5

Days to emergence

-1.380

-0.394

2.948

0.572

1.076

Pistillate flowers

-0.080

-0.068

0.165

-0.193

0.025

Staminate flowers

-0.406

-0.145

-0.685

0.344

0.079

Seeds per fruit

-0.067

-0.111

0.112

0.107

-0.249

Seed mass

-1.205

2.549

0.000

0.000

0.000

F2

Eigen Analysis for Type of cross

Eigenvalue

0.6347

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

Proportion

1.0000

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

Cumulative

1.0000

1.00000

1.00000

1.00000

Eigenvector

1

2

3

4

Days to emergence

1.840

2.860

2.697

-0.062

Foliar area at d 14

-0.075

-0.577

0.817

-0.728

Pistillate flowers

-0.621

-0.029

0.034

0.143

Staminate flowers

-0.677

0.000

0.000

-1.115

Eigen Analysis for Transgene

Eigenvalue

0.4023

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

Proportion

1.0000

0.00000

0.00000

0.00000

Cumulative

1.0000

1.00000

1.00000

1.00000

Eigenvector

1

2

3

4

Days to emergence

3.339

0.220

2.517

1.145

Foliar area at d 14

-0.016

-0.645

0.693

-0.801

Pistillate flowers

0.491

-0.330

-0.217

0.105

Staminate flowers

-0.758

0.000

0.000

-1.062

 

Table C5. Two-way univariate analyses of variance for the effects of the type of backcross (see Table A1), transgene (presence / absence), and their interaction on the performance of backcross progeny.

Source

Days to germination

Leaf

area

Number of pistillate flowers

Number of staminate flowers

 

df

F

P

d.f

F

P

df

F

P

df

F

P

Type of backcross (B)

1

1.50

0.222

1

0.73

0.401

1

0.005

0.965

1

0.05

0.823

Transgene (T)

1

0.09

0.758

1

2.80

0.108

1

0.02

0.892

1

0.59

0.446

B × T

1

0.13

0.721

1

0.23

0.639

1

0.06

0.804

1

3.28

0.078

Error

186

 

 

23

 

 

23

 

 

38

 

 

Total

189

 

 

26

 

 

26

 

 

41

 

 

Note: Variables analyzed were days to germination, leaf area (cm²)14 days after emergence, number of pistillate, and staminate flowers produced.


[Back to C006-092]