1 Introduction
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is a widespread phenomenon across all domains of life, and has been a driving force of evolution (; ; ). Viral sequences have been found in all eukaryotic (; ; ) and prokaryotic kingdoms (; ), and HGT has been found to occur in all directions between kingdoms of the same domain (; ; ).
Plant species have stably integrated foreign sequences into their genomes. This natural transgenesis has occurred repeatedly in the evolution of plants, affecting their biology and genetic diversification (). Some of the mechanisms of natural HGT have been characterized to sufficient extent to be used for genetic engineering applications, and the list of mechanisms of gene transfer mastered and applied to engineering might expand with the advancement of scientific knowledge. In order to make the case that natural HGT must be taken into account when designing regulatory frameworks for transgenic organisms, and in particular of transgenic crops, we will address the particular case of HGT from bacteria to plants.
The term “transgenic” usually refers in the literature to DNA constructs resulting from the process of gene transfer between species through genetic engineering (; ). Agrobacterium1-mediated transformation has established itself as the most widely used method for this purpose. In this procedure, a modified Agrobacterium plasmid transfers the desired DNA into the recipient cell, integrating it into its genome and allowing its hereditary transmission ().
2 Horizontal gene transfer in plants
For stable incorporation of a sequence into a host organism and its transmission to offspring, certain conditions must be met. First, the foreign sequence must be integrated into the host genome. Then, the incorporated sequence must not be lost in the genomic rearrangements during cell divisions. In addition, the transformed cell must be part of the germline, to ensure inheritance. Finally, the integrated sequence must persist throughout evolution ().
HGT is a process by which genes are transferred between unrelated organisms, as opposed to inheritance from parents. A clear example of gene acquisition by HGT is nitrogen fixation, a metabolic process present in certain bacteria of the genus Paenibacillus and regulated by the nif (nitrogen fixation) operon. These metabolic pathways are not specific to Paenibacillus, but have been acquired from phylogenetically distant organisms, including some of the Archaea domain and closely related bacterial phyla. HGT plays a key role in these changes, which has resulted in great diversity in the sequence and structure of nitrogen fixation regulatory elements, reflecting the multiplicity of such events from different donor organisms (). Although this phenomenon has been widely documented in Bacteria and Archaea, it has also been observed in eukaryotes, including plants (). In the latter, one of the most studied examples of HGT is the transfer of DNA from bacteria of the genus Agrobacterium to various plant species ().
Agrobacterium can transfer part of its DNA (T-DNA) to plant cells. Once incorporated, this T-DNA is integrated into the recipient genome, resulting in naturally occurring transgenic plants, or naturally occurring genetically modified plants (nGMs) (). These plants have sequences in their genomes called cellular T-DNA (cT-DNA), homologous to Agrobacterium T-DNAs ().
Most cT-DNAs identified to date appear to originate from Agrobacterium rhizogenes. However, cT-DNAs have also been found with previously unknown T-DNA sequences or unusual combinations thereof ().
T-DNA sequences naturally transferred by various Agrobacterium species contain two types of genes, both regulated by promoters compatible with expression in eukaryotic cells. The first group of genes, called “oncogenes”, encodes proteins that regulate the biosynthesis or response of plant cells to phytohormones, particularly auxins and cytokinins. Their expression causes uncontrolled cell division, leading to tissue proliferation and the formation of neoplastic growths, known as crown galls (; ). The second group of genes encodes enzymes involved in the synthesis of opines that can be used by Agrobacterium cells as a source of carbon and nitrogen (). It has been proposed that for the emergence of a natural transgenic plant, two conditions must be met: the naturally infected plant must be able to regenerate from tissues transformed upon infection; and the structure of the incorporated T-DNA must allow or favor such regeneration ().
3 Evidence of natural transgenesis in plants
HGT in plants was initially identified in species of the genus Nicotiana, in whose genomes the presence of Agrobacterium T-DNA was detected (). Studies in N. glauca and N. sylvestris showed that bacterial DNA insertion was not an isolated event ().
The identification of new cT-DNA sequences in several plant species has been possible thanks to whole genome sequencing databases. The evidence suggests that HGT from bacteria to plants is a more common phenomenon than previously thought and that it has occurred in multiple plant lineages () (Table 1).
TABLE 1
| Family | Species | References |
|---|---|---|
| Apocynaceae | Apocynum venetum | |
| Burseraceae | Boswellia sacra | |
| Caprifoliaceae | Lonicera japonica | |
| Lonicera maackii | ||
| Caryophyllaceae | Silene noctiflora | |
| Silene uniflora | ||
| Convolvulaceae | Cuscuta australis | |
| Cuscuta campestris | ||
| Cuscuta gronovii | ||
| Cuscuta suaveolens | ||
| Ipomoea batatas | ||
| Ipomoea trifida | ||
| Ebenaceae | Diospyros lotus | |
| Elaeagnaceae | Elaeagnus angustifolia | |
| Ericaceae | Vaccinium corymbosum | |
| Vaccinium macrocarpon | ||
| Vaccinium microcarpum | ||
| Vaccinium oxycoccos | ||
| Erythroxylaceae | Erythroxylum cataractarum | |
| Erythroxylum daphnites | ||
| Erythroxylum densum | ||
| Erythroxylum havanense | ||
| Euphorbiaceae | Triadica sebifera | |
| Fabaceae | Aeschynomene evenia | |
| Arachis appressipila | ||
| Arachis macedoi | ||
| Arachis magna | ||
| Arachis monticola | ||
| Arachis paraguariensis | ||
| Arachis pintoi | ||
| Arachis pusilla | ||
| Arachis rigonii | ||
| Arachis stenophylla | ||
| Arachis stenosperma | ||
| Arachis trinitensis | ||
| Arachis valida | ||
| Arachis villosa | ||
| Eperua falcata | ||
| Kewaceae | Kewa caespitosa | |
| Myrtaceae | Eucalyptus cloeziana | |
| Molluginaceae | Pharnaceum exiguum | |
| Nyssaceae | Nyssa sinensis | |
| Paulowniaceae | Paulownia fortunei | |
| Plantaginaceae | Linaria acutiloba | |
| Linaria dalmatica | ||
| Linaria genistifolia subsp. dalmatica | ||
| Linaria vulgaris | ||
| Rhizophoraceae | Ceriops decandra | |
| Salicaceae | Populus alba × Populus glandulosa | |
| Solanaceae | Nicotiana glauca | |
| Nicotiana noctiflora | ||
| Nicotiana otophora | ||
| Nicotiana sylvestris | ||
| Nicotiana tabacum | ||
| Nicotiana tomentosa | ||
| Nicotiana tomentosiformis | ||
| Theaceae | Camellia oleifera |
Examples of nGM plants reported in the literature.
Genes acquired by HGT can retain their functionality in recipient plants and influence their traits. An example of this is Ipomoea batatas, where a cT-DNA has been identified with functional Agrobacterium genes which have remained stable over time (). In addition, such genes can affect certain phenotypic traits, such as the rol genes, associated with root development ().
Unlike transgenics obtained through genetic engineering, in which genes are inserted in a targeted manner in the laboratory, nGMs acquired foreign DNA through natural infections (). Between 5%–10% of dicotyledonous species are estimated to contain cT-DNAs (). With approximately 200 million species in this class, about 10,000 species would be nGM plants (). The existence of nGM plants challenges the separation between “natural” and “artificial” made by regulatory triggers when determining which types of plants should be subjected to biosafety assessments, by showing that transgenics are not only the result of human manipulation, but also a naturally occurring phenomenon.
4 Discussion
The natural presence of Agrobacterium sequences in plant organisms questions the logic of strictly regulating transgenics obtained through genetic engineering, while exempting organisms that are similar, but obtained through conventional methods (; ). cT-DNA evidence suggests that regulation focused on the method of production may be inadequate (). In many regulatory frameworks, a transgenic organism is one that contains deliberately altered genetic material which does not occur “naturally” through breeding or selection (). This inconsistency becomes more evident when considering that the same trait can be obtained both by genetic engineering techniques and by conventional breeding, creating different regulatory thresholds for products with the same traits.
These inconsistencies also extend to relevant aspects of risk assessment, given that HGT represents an important topic in the evaluation of GM plants. In regulatory practice, HGT is typically evaluated using a pathway-to-harm approach (). However, to date, no empirical evidence supports HGT from GM plants to soil bacteria under field conditions (; ; ). Similarly, while humans and animals routinely ingest DNA from multiple biological sources, the likelihood of HGT from GM plant-derived DNA to gut microbiota or host tissues remains extremely low (; ; ; ). A detailed assessment of the potential for HGT from GM plants to microorganisms is beyond the scope of this work. For further information, readers are encouraged to consult for a detailed review.
Given these complexities, the existence of nGM plants highlights the need for a product-based regulatory trigger in which biosafety assessment focuses on the traits and phenotype of the final organism rather than the process by which it was obtained (). This approach offers several important advantages over traditional process-based frameworks, particularly in the context of emerging breeding techniques. Focusing on the characteristics and potential risks of the final product ensures regulatory coherence and risk assessment proportionality, avoiding inconsistencies where crops with similar traits are subject to different oversight (; ). Not all GMOs pose the same level of risk; some have well-characterized, low-risk profiles; just as not all conventionally bred crops are inherently safe. Conventional methods such as wide crosses, mutagenesis, or spontaneous mutations can also result in traits with biosafety implications, including increased toxicity, allergenicity, or invasiveness (). While these products are generally not subject to a complete risk assessment, they are often regulated at various stages of the production chain (registration for the crop, safety assessment for the byproducts).
A product-based approach enables regulators to focus their efforts on the actual risk presented by a crop rather than presuming risk based on the technique employed (). This logic has already been adopted in the case of NBTs by countries such as Argentina, Brazil and Canada, that exclude certain products developed through NBTs from GMO regulations when no novel combination of genetic material is present in the final product (; ; ). This aligns with risk assessment principles that prioritize the traits of the crop. It also allows for the inclusion of conventionally bred crops in biosafety assessments when they present novel or potentially hazardous traits, which process-based systems tend to overlook (). Altogether, adopting a product-based perspective would contribute to building a coherent, adaptable, and science-driven regulatory framework for novel organisms.
Statements
Author contributions
DF: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal Analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. NB: Data curation, Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review and editing. SQ: Formal Analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. MG: Data curation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review and editing. EN: Data curation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review and editing. AA: Data curation, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review and editing. AC: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing.
Funding
The author(s) declare that financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article. This work was supported by the projects “Regulatory sciences in agricultural biotechnology” (PIC-45–2023), and “Innovation in Regulatory Science” (PIC-01–2024) from the Faculty of Exact and Natural Sciences, National University of Asunción.
Acknowledgments
The authors express their sincere appreciation to Rocío Riveros, Marcos Florentín, Samuel Gabaglio, and Vitor Pinoti for their kind contributions of scientific references.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Generative AI statement
The author(s) declare that no Generative AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1.^The collective term Agrobacterium is used in recognition of tradition and due to the impossibility of precisely identifying the bacterium responsible for the plant transformation that occurred millions of years ago. The T-DNA fragments present in plant genomes are insufficient for this determination (). The classification of the genus is still evolving, as the taxonomic affiliation of five Agrobacterium genomospecies has not yet been determined, suggesting a possible increase in the number of species in the future ().
References
1
AmmannK. (2014). Genomic Misconception: a fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation. New Biotechnol.31, 1–17. 10.1016/j.nbt.2013.04.008
2
BadosaE.MorenoC.MontesinosE. (2004). Lack of detection of ampicillin resistance gene transfer from Bt176 transgenic corn to culturable bacteria under field conditions. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.48, 169–178. 10.1016/j.femsec.2004.01.005
3
BogomazO. D.BemovaV. D.MirgorodskiiN. A.MatveevaT. (2024). Evolutionary fate of the opine synthesis genes in the Arachis L. Genomes. Biology13, 601. 10.3390/biology13080601
4
BotoL. (2010). Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges. Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.277, 819–827. 10.1098/rspb.2009.1679
5
BrookesG.SmythS. J. (2024). Risk-appropriate regulations for gene-editing technologies. Gm. Crops Food15, 1–14. 10.1080/21645698.2023.2293510
6
CaccamoM. (2023). New precision-breeding law unlocks gene editing in England. Nat. Biotechnol.41, 752–753. 10.1038/s41587-023-01795-8
7
ChenK.OttenL. (2017). Natural Agrobacterium transformants: recent results and some theoretical considerations. Front. Plant Sci.8, 1600. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01600
8
De CleeneM.De LeyJ. (1976). The host range of crown gall. Bot. Rev.42, 389–466. 10.1007/BF02860827
9
DemanècheS.MonierJ.-M.Dugat-BonyE.SimonetP. (2011). Exploration of horizontal gene transfer between transplastomic tobacco and plant-associated bacteria: HGT from transgenic plants to bacteria. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.78, 129–136. 10.1111/j.1574-6941.2011.01126.x
10
EFSA (2024). GMO. Glossary. Available online at: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/glossary/gmo (Accessed February 26, 2025).
11
FernandesP. M. B.FavarattoL.Merchán-GaitánJ. B.PagliariniR. F.ZerbiniF. M.NepomucenoA. L. (2024). “Regulation of CRISPR-edited plants in Latin America,” in Global regulatory outlook for CRISPRized plants (Elsevier), 197–212. 10.1016/B978-0-443-18444-4.00012-0
12
Flores-FélixJ. D.MenéndezE.PeixA.García-FraileP.VelázquezE. (2020). History and current taxonomic status of genus Agrobacterium. Syst. Appl. Microbiol.43, 126046. 10.1016/j.syapm.2019.126046
13
FoltaK.OttenL. (2021). Widespread GMOs in nature. Colabra. Available online at: https://www.colabra.ai/podcasts/talking-biotech/294-widespread-gmos-in-nature/(Accessed March 13, 2025).
14
FuchsmanC. A.CollinsR. E.RocapG.BrazeltonW. J. (2017). Effect of the environment on horizontal gene transfer between bacteria and archaea. PeerJ5, e3865. 10.7717/peerj.3865
15
GelvinS. B. (2009). Agrobacterium in the genomics age. Plant Physiol.150, 1665–1676. 10.1104/pp.109.139873
16
GilbertC.CordauxR. (2013). Horizontal transfer and evolution of prokaryote transposable elements in eukaryotes. Genome Biol. Evol.5, 822–832. 10.1093/gbe/evt057
17
GobernaM. F.LewiD. M.GodoyP.HoppE. (2023). “Regulatory framework of CRISPR-edited crops in Argentina,” in Global regulatory outlook for CRISPRized plants. Editors Abd-ElsalamK. A.AhmadA. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Elsevier Academic Press).
18
GordonJ. W.RuddleF. H. (1981). Integration and stable germ line transmission of genes injected into mouse pronuclei. Science214, 1244–1246. 10.1126/science.6272397
19
GouldF.AmasinoR. M.BrossardD.BuellC. R.DixonR. A.Falck-ZepedaJ. B.et al (2022). Toward product-based regulation of crops. Science377, 1051–1053. 10.1126/science.abo3034
20
HorschR. B.FryJ. E.HoffmannN. L.WallrothM.EichholtzD.RogersS. G.et al (1985). A simple and general method for transferring genes into plants. Science227, 1229–1231. 10.1126/science.227.4691.1229
21
JenningsJ. C.KolwyckD. C.KaysS. B.WhetsellA. J.SurberJ. B.CromwellG. L.et al (2003). Determining whether transgenic and endogenous plant DNA and transgenic protein are detectable in muscle from swine fed Roundup Ready soybean meal1,2,3. J. Anim. Sci.81, 1447–1455. 10.2527/2003.8161447x
22
KeelingP. J. (2009). Functional and ecological impacts of horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes. Curr. Opin. Genet. Dev.19, 613–619. 10.1016/j.gde.2009.10.001
23
KeelingP. J. (2024). Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotes: aligning theory with data. Nat. Rev. Genet.25, 416–430. 10.1038/s41576-023-00688-5
24
KeelingP. J.PalmerJ. D. (2008). Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic evolution. Nat. Rev. Genet.9, 605–618. 10.1038/nrg2386
25
KhafizovaG. V.MatveevaT. (2022). Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Nicotiana glauca and Nicotiana sylvestris. Vavilov J. Genet. Breed.26, 697–703. 10.18699/VJGB-22-84
26
Korwin-KossakowskaA.SartowskaK.TomczykG.PrusakB.SenderG. (2016). Health status and potential uptake of transgenic DNA by Japanese quail fed diets containing genetically modified plant ingredients over 10 generations. Br. Poult. Sci.57, 415–423. 10.1080/00071668.2016.1162281
27
KyndtT.QuispeD.ZhaiH.JarretR.GhislainM.LiuQ.et al (2015). The genome of cultivated sweet potato contains Agrobacterium T-DNAs with expressed genes: an example of a naturally transgenic food crop. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.112, 5844–5849. 10.1073/pnas.1419685112
28
LacroixB.CitovskyV. (2016). Transfer of DNA from bacteria to eukaryotes. mBio7, e008633–e916. 10.1128/mBio.00863-16
29
LipatovP.Yu.BogomazF. D.GosudarevK. D.KondrashovaS. A.KuchevskyM. V.MalyugaN. L.et al (2022). New cellular T-DNAs in naturally transgenic plants. Ecol. Genet.20, 40–41. 10.17816/ecogen112352
30
LiuH.FuY.LiB.YuX.XieJ.ChengJ.et al (2011). Widespread horizontal gene transfer from circular single-stranded DNA viruses to eukaryotic genomes. BMC Evol. Biol.11, 276. 10.1186/1471-2148-11-276
31
LubieniechiS. A.Van EenennaamA. L.SmythS. J. (2025). Regulation of animal and plant agricultural biotechnology. Trends Biotechnol.43, 511–521. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2024.11.003
32
MaB. L.BlackshawR. E.RoyJ.HeT. (2011). Investigation on gene transfer from genetically modified corn (Zea mays L.) plants to soil bacteria. J. Environ. Sci. Health Part B46, 590–599. 10.1080/03601234.2011.586598
33
MaJ.WangS.ZhuX.SunG.ChangG.LiL.et al (2022). Major episodes of horizontal gene transfer drove the evolution of land plants. Mol. Plant15, 857–871. 10.1016/j.molp.2022.02.001
34
MatveevaT. (2021a). New naturally transgenic plants: 2020 update. Biol. Commun.66. 10.21638/spbu03.2021.105
35
MatveevaT. (2021b). Why do plants need agrobacterial genes?Ecol. Genet.19, 365–375. 10.17816/ecogen89905
36
MatveevaT. (2022). Natural GMOs: a history of research. Ecol. Genet.20, 7–8. 10.17816/ecogen112371
37
MatveevaT. (2023). Prospects for the study of natural GMOs. Ecol. Genet.21, 56. 10.17816/ecogen487646
38
MatveevaT.LutovaL. A. (2014). Horizontal gene transfer from Agrobacterium to plants. Front. Plant Sci.5, 326. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00326
39
MatveevaT.OttenL. (2019). Widespread occurrence of natural genetic transformation of plants by Agrobacterium. Plant Mol. Biol.101, 415–437. 10.1007/s11103-019-00913-y
40
MatveevaT.OttenL. (2021). Opine biosynthesis in naturally transgenic plants: genes and products. Phytochemistry189, 112813. 10.1016/j.phytochem.2021.112813
41
McHughenA. (2016). A critical assessment of regulatory triggers for products of biotechnology: product vs. process. Gm. Crops Food7, 125–158. 10.1080/21645698.2016.1228516
42
NelsonK. E.ClaytonR. A.GillS. R.GwinnM. L.DodsonR. J.HaftD. H.et al (1999). Evidence for lateral gene transfer between Archaea and Bacteria from genome sequence of Thermotoga maritima. Nature399, 323–329. 10.1038/20601
43
NetherwoodT.Martín-OrúeS. M.O’DonnellA. G.GocklingS.GrahamJ.MathersJ. C.et al (2004). Assessing the survival of transgenic plant DNA in the human gastrointestinal tract. Nat. Biotechnol.22, 204–209. 10.1038/nbt934
44
OECD (2023). “Safety assessment of transgenic organisms in the environment, volume 10,” in OECD consensus document on environmental considerations for the release of transgenic plants (Paris: OECD). 10.1787/62ed0e04-en
45
OttenL. (2016). Functional analysis of cT-DNAs in naturally transformed plants, recent findings and general considerations. Ecol. Genet.14, 26–31. 10.17816/ecogen14426-31
46
PhilipsJ. G.Martin-AvilaE.RoboldA. V. (2022). Horizontal gene transfer from genetically modified plants - regulatory considerations. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.10, 971402. 10.3389/fbioe.2022.971402
47
Quispe-HuamanquispeD. G.GheysenG.KreuzeJ. F. (2017). Horizontal gene transfer contributes to plant evolution: the case of Agrobacterium T-DNAs. Front. Plant Sci.8, 2015. 10.3389/fpls.2017.02015
48
RamboI. M.LangwigM. V.LeãoP.De AndaV.BakerB. J. (2022). Genomes of six viruses that infect Asgard archaea from deep-sea sediments. Nat. Microbiol.7, 953–961. 10.1038/s41564-022-01150-8
49
SchleperC.KuboK.ZilligW. (1992). The particle SSV1 from the extremely thermophilic archaeon Sulfolobus is a virus: demonstration of infectivity and of transfection with viral DNA. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.89, 7645–7649. 10.1073/pnas.89.16.7645
50
SieradzkiZ.MazurM.KwiatekK.ŚwiątkiewiczS.ŚwiątkiewiczM.KoreleskiJ.et al (2013). Assessing the possibility of genetically modified DNA transfer from GM feed to broiler, laying hen, pig and calf tissues. Pol. J. Vet. Sci.16, 435–441. 10.2478/pjvs-2013-0061
51
SprinkT.ErikssonD.SchiemannJ.HartungF. (2016). Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process-vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts. Plant Cell Rep.35, 1493–1506. 10.1007/s00299-016-1990-2
52
SuzukiK.YamashitaI.TanakaN. (2002). Tobacco plants were transformed by Agrobacterium rhizogenes infection during their evolution. Plant J.32, 775–787. 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01468.x
53
TakemuraM. (2020). Medusavirus ancestor in a proto-eukaryotic cell: updating the hypothesis for the viral origin of the nucleus. Front. Microbiol.11, 571831. 10.3389/fmicb.2020.571831
54
VladimirovI. A.PavlovaO. A.PolevD. E.BogomazD. I. (2019). cT-DNA in Linaria vulgaris L. is multicopy, inverted and homogenized. 10.1101/615328
55
WhiteF. F.GarfinkelD. J.HuffmanG. A.GordonM. P.NesterE. W. (1983). Sequences homologous to Agrobacterium rhizogenes T-DNA in the genomes of uninfected plants. Nature301, 348–350. 10.1038/301348a0
56
WickellD. A.LiF. (2020). On the evolutionary significance of horizontal gene transfers in plants. New Phytol.225, 113–117. 10.1111/nph.16022
57
YugayY.RusapetovaT.VasyutkinaE.SorokinaM.GrigorchukV.DegtyarevaV.et al (2025). A naturally integrated RolD-like gene in sweet potato mediates stress-responsive pathways. Plant Physiol. biochem.223, 109875. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2025.109875
58
ZhangY.WangD.WangY.DongH.YuanY.YangW.et al (2020). Parasitic plant dodder (Cuscuta spp.): a new natural Agrobacterium-to-plant horizontal gene transfer species. Sci. China Life Sci.63, 312–316. 10.1007/s11427-019-1588-x
59
ZhidkinR.ZhurbenkoP.BogomazO.GorodilovaE.KatsapovI.AntropovD.et al (2023). Biodiversity of rolB/C-like natural transgene in the genus vaccinium L. And its application for phylogenetic studies. Int. J. Mol. Sci.24, 6932. 10.3390/ijms24086932
Summary
Keywords
naturally transgenic plants, horizontal gene transfer (HGT), cellular T-DNA (cT-DNA), Agrobacterium, regulatory triggers
Citation
Fernández Ríos D, Benítez Candia N, Quintana SA, Goberna MF, Nara Pereira E, Arrúa AA and Castro Alegría A (2025) Naturally transgenic plants and the need to rethink regulatory triggers in biotechnology. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 13:1600610. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2025.1600610
Received
26 March 2025
Accepted
16 May 2025
Published
30 June 2025
Volume
13 - 2025
Edited by
Monica Garcia-Alonso, Estel Consult Ltd., United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Paul Keese, University of Ghana, Ghana
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Fernández Ríos, Benítez Candia, Quintana, Goberna, Nara Pereira, Arrúa and Castro Alegría.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Danilo Fernández Ríos, dfernandez@facen.una.py; Andrés Castro Alegría, andres.castro@usc.edu.py
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.