Miracul in your tomatoes

Know your tomatoes May 13, 2011 Re-posted from Phys.org

Genetically modified (GM) tomatoes look much the same as traditional varieties (Fig. 1). But are they?
By comparing the chemical diversity of strains of GM tomatoes with a control strain and traditional reference cultivars, a research team in Japan has developed a way to distinguish between them.

Know your tomatoes
Figure 1: Genetically modified (GM) and natural cultivar tomatoes. From left to right: Moneymaker (parental control), GM (56B), GM (7C), Aichi First, Alisa Craig, M82, Micro-Tom and Rutgers. Credit: Reproduced from Ref. 1 2011 Tadayoshi Hirai

Consumers need to be confident that GM tomatoes are safe, so initial risk assessments must show that they are ‘substantially equivalent’ to traditional varieties in their chemical make-up. Scientists can then focus on those chemicals, or ‘metabolites’, found only in particular GM varieties for toxicological testing.
As a case study, the team—led by Kazuki Saito of the RIKEN Plant Science Center in Yokohama—focused on GM tomatoes over-expressing a foreign gene encoding miraculin, a substance normally found in a tropical plant but not tomatoes. Miraculin is a glycoprotein—a protein with short carbohydrate side chains. It has the remarkable ability to make sour foods taste sweet. “Miraculin has fewer calories than sugar and has potential as a natural sweetener and flavor enhancer,” Saito notes.
Metabolism refers to the processes involved in maintaining life, including the building and breakdown of proteins, nucleic acids and carbohydrates. Complex metabolic pathways involve many enzymes and the chemical constituents of cells and tissues are in constant flux.
Whereas genomics provides an overview of the genetic composition of an organism, ‘metabolomics’ can give a snapshot of biochemical status. “We applied metabolomic techniques to compare the chemical diversity of GM tomatoes to that of traditional varieties,” Saito explains. Because there is currently no single technique for separating and characterizing all metabolites, the researchers used a range of metabolomic techniques to assess the chemical diversity of GM tomatoes over-expressing miraculin.
“Our multi-platform approach allowed us to identify metabolites in both types of tomato in an automated manner, and to evaluate variation between them using robust statistical methods,” says Saito.
The researchers found that the ripening GM tomatoes had a reproducible metabolic signature, and that over 92% of their metabolites showed an acceptable range of variation similar to that of the traditional varieties.
“Our aim was not to show that the GM tomatoes are safe, but rather to examine the chemical diversity of GM tomatoes compared with natural variants, and to possibly narrow down the list of potentially problematic metabolites as a guide to further investigation,” explains Saito.
The team believes that their multi-platform approach could be applied to any GM organism as a start to objective risk assessment.

More information

Kusano, M., et al. Covering chemical diversity of genetically-modified tomatoes using metabolomics for objective substantial equivalence assessment. PLoS ONE 6, e16989 (2011). Provided by RIKEN (news web)
A snippet of the peer-reviewed paper:

Miraculin over-expressors are remarkably similar to the control line

We performed PCA to obtain an overview of the annotated summarized data set (Figure 4a; loadings are listed in Data S1 in File S2 and PCA of the complete data set is shown in Figure S4a in File S1). The score scatter plot indicates that the main sources of variance were related to the ripening stages (PC1) and the cultivars (PC2) rather than the transgenic status of the plants. The same conclusion can be drawn from ANOVA results (see the overview of variance contribution in Figure 4b). Note that this result does not preclude differences between the transgenic lines and Moneymaker, but rather indicates that if they exist, then they are smaller than the differences between ripening stages and different traditional cultivars.


    That’s an insanely wrong-headed idea to put into tomatoes! It is NOT sweet, but causes acids to be perceived as such: I LIKE the acidity in my tomatoes!
    But it won’t affect cooked products, nor brix measurments, so I guess only my salads are in danger of tasting like kool-aid. Bleah.

  2. I imagine the point isn’t to make ‘sweet’ tomatoes but to make create a source of extractable miraculin that’s easier to grow than miracle berries, which I imagine has quite a bit of profit potential (if the FDA gives it the stamp of approval; apparently there’s quite the story behind the FDA and miracle berries). I have to feel sorry for the miracle berries though; they do one thing well and now the only job they know how to do might get outsourced to tomatoes.

  3. Greg,
    That makes sense. Whew! I was afraid I was facing a worse-objectionable aspect of the world’s (actually, the West’s) madness for sweet. I LIKE the canned fruit-flavoured water available at work, but not since the manufacturer started adding sucralose+aspartame to make it sweeter than could ever be achieved at that viscosity with any sugar.
    I have grown the boring-looking Synsepalum. It doesn’t even do “sweet” well: the berries are insipid and simultaneously mealy and slimy with a big pit. The coolth is only when you taste something else after masticating one of these.

Comments are closed.