COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF TRANSGENES ON OSMOTIC STRESS IN POTATO By Bader Alsubaie     A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of  Crop and Soil Sciences  Master of Science 2016   ABSTRACT COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF TRANSGENES ON OSMOTIC STRESS IN POTATO By Bader Alsubaie         The potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is considered the fourth most significant food security crop globally. As with other crops, growth of the potato plant is affected by many environmental stresses such as drought, salinity, and intense temperature all of which reduce its productivity. In the case of developing tolerance to abiotic stresses through transgenic approaches, genes such as isopentenyltransferase (IPT), XERICO, and mannose 6-phosphate reductase (M6PR) have been cloned for the purpose of addressing drought tolerance in potato and other crops. In this study, we transformed the three different genes XERICO, M6PR, and IPT into the tetraploid S. tuberosum a cultivar (CV) Désirée, a red-skinned variety with high transformation efficiency and susceptibility to drought stress, to evaluate the response of transgenic lines to drought conditions in both the laboratory and greenhouse. Due to its ability to modify the osmotic potential in a controlled manner, in vitro laboratory experiments were conducted using poly ethylene glycol (PEG) to induce plant water deficit in tissue culture experiments. Based on the height of plant, number of leaves, number of roots, fresh and dry weight, all genetically engineered (GE) lines exhibited hypersensitivity to 4.8 % PEG in in-vitro cultures. When the transgenic (XERICO, M6PR, and IPT) Désirée lines were subjected to severe drought treatments (withholding water for 14 days in the greenhouse experiments) some events recovered after re-watering, whereas the non-transgenic Désirée did not. Also, experiments conducted with detached leaves from transgenic Désirée lines showed lower transpirational water loss than the control non GE counterparts. These results suggest that the overexpression of XERICO, M6PR, and IPT plants can confer improved drought tolerance in cultivated potatoes.iii  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  First of all, I would like to thank my God for honoring me with his grace and mercy, and leading me to what I have achieved. I would like to thank my family for their precious patience and infinite support. I will never forget the continued guidance and help from my advisor Dr. David Douches. Also, I would like thank Daniel Zarka, Joseph Coombs, Norma Carpintero, Kelly Zarka, Alicia Massa, Swathi Nadakuduti, Sylvia Morse, Greg Steere, Matt ZuehlkeDonna Kells, Chen Zhang, Kate McGlew, Felix Enciso-Rodriguez,Michael Hardigan, Maher Alsahlany, Shafiqul Islam, Natalie Kirkwyland, Susan Akinyi Otieno. Also, I would like to thank all my friends who supported me through my journey. Finally, it was a blessing to be a graduate student in one of the best agriculture universities in the world Michigan State University.           iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... vi KEY TO ABBERVIATIONS........vii Chapter 1: Literature Review  ......................................................................................................... 1    History and Importance of Potatoes ............................................................................................. 1    Drought Stress in Potato .............................................................................................................. 2    Breeding for Drought Resistance ................................................................................................. 3    Genetically Engineered Potato ..................................................................................................... 4    Selected Genes for Abiotic Stresses Tolerance ........................................................................... 6  Chapter 2: Evaluation Of Transgenic Potatoes ............................................................................... 9    Research Objectives ..................................................................................................................... 9    Material and Methods ................................................................................................................ 10         Plant Material and Transformation ....................................................................................... 10 Gene Constructs .................................................................................................................... 10 PCR Detection and Expression of Transgenes ..................................................................... 12 In Vitro Osmotic Stress Experiment ..................................................................................... 14         Greenhouse Reduced Watering Experiment ......................................................................... 17 Greenhouse Terminal Drought Experiment .......................................................................... 17 Rate of Leaf Water Loss ....................................................................................................... 20    Results ........................................................................................................................................ 21 Identification of Transgenic Plants ....................................................................................... 21 Identification of Individual Plants Expressing the Transgene .............................................. 22 In Vitro Drought Assessment................................................................................................ 26 Greenhouse Terminal Drought Experiment .......................................................................... 37 Relative Leaf Water Content ................................................................................................ 40 Leaf Water Loss Over Time ................................................................................................. 41 Reduced Water Experiment .................................................................................................. 43    Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 46 In conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 49 Future work ........................................................................................................................... 50 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 51    v  LIST OF TABLES  Table 1: Primer Sequences and expected product size ................................................................. 14 Table 2: PCR and RT PCR results for presence and expression of the transgene. ....................... 23 Table 3: Lines used in the experiments......................................................................................... 24 Table 4: Summary of the plant revival rates after re-watering ..................................................... 39 Table 5: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment. .......................................................... 42    vi  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1: Construct Design ........................................................................................................... 12 Figure 2: Summary of the in vitro PEG procedure ....................................................................... 16 Figure 3: Relative water content experiment procedure ............................................................... 19 Figure 4: Leaf water loss over time experiment procedure .......................................................... 21 Figure 5: PCR from transgenic lines were used in experiments ................................................... 25 Figure 6: RT-PCR from the transgenic lines used in experiments ............................................... 26 Figure 7A: Analysis of height of plants at 15 days ....................................................................... 29 Figure 7B: Analysis of number of leaves at 15 days .................................................................... 30 Figure 7C: Analysis of number of roots at 15 days ...................................................................... 31 Figure 8A: Analysis of plant height at 30 days............................................................................. 32 Figure 8B: Analysis of number of leaves at 30 days .................................................................... 33 Figure 8C: Analysis of root number at 30 days ............................................................................ 34 Figure 8D: Analysis of fresh weight at 30 days ............................................................................ 35 Figure 8E: Analysis of dry weight at 30 days ............................................................................... 36 Figure 9: The phenotypic transition through 14 days drought and re-watering ........................... 38 Figure 10: Relative water content of leaves of transgenic and non-transgenic plants .................. 40 Figure 11: Analysis of tuber number for reduced water experiment ............................................ 44 Figure 12: XERICO Appearance ................................................................................................... 45 Figure 13: Height of transgeneic and non-transgentic plants in reduced water ............................ 46   vii  KEY TO ABBERVIATIONS  ABA  abscisic acid  Bt  Bacillus thuringiensis CBF  C repeat binding factor   CK  cytokinin  CPB  Colorado potato beetle  CV  cultivar  DW  dry weight  EPA  Environmental Protection Agency  FW  fresh weight  GE  genetically engineered  HP  height of plant  IPT  isopentenyltransferase  M6PR  mannose 6-phosphate reductase  NL  number of leaves  NR  number of roots  PCR  polymerase chain reaction PEG  poly ethylene glycol  PLRV  Potato Leaf Roll Virus  PSARK  promoter senescence associated receptor protein kinase PVY  Potato Virus Y  RT-PCR  reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction  viii  RWC  relative water content  TW  turgid weight  USDA  US Department of Agriculture               1  Chapter 1: Literature Review  History and Importance of Potatoes           The cultivated potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) is ranked fourth among the most significant economical food crops following rice, wheat, and maize (Barnaby et al. 2015). Globally, more than a billion people eat potatoes, and total potato production exceeds 300 million metric tons (POTATOBUSINESS, 2016). More than 4,000 native potato varieties can be found with different sizes, shapes, and colors and mostly originated in the Andes (Devaux et al. 2009). In addition, there are more than 90 wild potato species with significant diversity for natural resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses in spite of the fact that some of them are too bitter for consumption (Spooner, 2013).         The potato is a vegetatively propagated plant with an ability to produce 5-20 new tubers per plant that are clones of the mother plant. The potato can also produce flowers and berries that contain up to 100-400 seeds. These true potato seeds can be planted to produce new tubers, but they each have unique genetic combinations from both the maternal and paternal plants.           The cultivated potato belongs to the Solanaceae family, along with tomato, tobacco, and pepper. Potatoes were introduced to Europe and North America (Spooner et al. 2005) from the Andes. Today, potatoes are planted in over 100 countries around the world (International Potato Center, 2014).  Potatoes can grow under harsh conditions that other crops might not tolerate (Lutaladio and Castaldi, 2009). The geographic distribution of the cultivated potato shows that it can be grown in all regions except Antarctica (Rowe and Powelson, 2002).          The potato is an important crop consumed by millions of people on a daily basis (Mullins et al. 2006). In 2013, the total world potato production was 376 million tons and the US ranked fifth, with 2  19 million tons (FAO, 2015). More than half of the total potato production globally is from developing countries (Monneveux et al. 2013). Many developing countries depend on potatoes as a staple food (Lutaladio and Castaldi, 2009), yet grow the crop in poor and undernourished soils. Potatoes are sold in fresh market, and are used as raw material for chip processing. French fry production contributes to an increase in farmer profit that helps to reduce poverty and improve nutrition (Scott et al. 2000). The potato is also an important source of protein, vitamin C, and several forms of vitamin B, carbohydrates, and minerals (Camire et al. 2009; White et al. 2009; Birch et al. 2012).   Drought Stress in Potato          When crops are subjected to abiotic stress, the resulting physiological and biochemical changes can affect the growth and productivity of the plant (Pachauri, 2007). Growers lose billions of dollars yearly because of abiotic stresses on crops (Senaratna et al. 2003). Drought is recognized as the most prominent abiotic stress, reducing the productivity of agricultural crops globally with a negative effect on the economy. The definition of drought is the shortage of water in the root zone, leading to reduced crop productivity (Kramer et al. 1995).           Drought aaverage yield loss of globally important crops (Bray et al. 2000). Drought stress can reduce plant growth, stem height, leaf extension, and movement of stomata (Hsiao, 1973). Water deficit is a serious problem that the potato crop suffers from, due to inconsistent rainfall or poor supplemental irrigation system (Thiele et al. 2010). In the US, summer crops excluding the potato, suffered drought and heat estimated to cause $40-88 billion in losses in 2011 and 2012 (NOAA, 2011, 2012). 3           The potato is susceptible to water deficit, which negatively affects tuber number (Eiasu et al. 2007), tuber size (Schafleitner et al. 2007) and tuber quality (Mackerron et al. 1988). Climate change is expected to affect global potato yield with losses between 18-32% during the first three decades of this century (Hijmans, 2003). Potato is susceptible to water stress because it has a shallow root system compared to other crops (King et al. 2003). However, some potato species, such as Solanum acaule and Solanum demissum  showed high levels of drought tolerance in in vitro and greenhouse (Arvin et al. 2008). Such species are being studied to determine the underlying genes and molecular mechanisms for tolerance, with the intention of engineering these genes into susceptible potato varieties so that they can tolerate drought. Search for genes that confer tolerance to drought will be important to protect crops from the negative effects of climate change and thus improve crop production (Lobell et al. 2011).  Breeding for Drought Resistance          Drought tolerance is a complex trait controlled by many genes (quantitative inheritance pattern). These genes and their expressions are affected by various environmental elements, for example, heat (Blum, 2011). Drought tolerant phenotypes can be rather complex. Drought stress can affect the morphological and physiological traits in plants. In terms of physiological traits, researchers have proven that there is a relationship between different physiological responses of crops, such as high amounts of relative water and potential water, and their resistance functions under drought conditions (Clarke et al. 1982; Ritchie, 1990). Drought tolerance can also be related to morphological responses, such as early maturity, small plant size, and reduced leaf area (Rizza et al. 2004). Therefore, screening for these traits can be difficult for conventional breeding. Also, since many genes control drought, conventional breeding methods can be labor-intensive, expensive, and time consuming, as efforts are 4  required to separate undesirable traits from desirable traits (Nezhadahmadi et al. 2013). For this reason, genetic engineering and molecular-marker strategies are used to increase the efficiency of developing drought-tolerant germplasm (Gosal et al. 2009). Genetically Engineered Potato         With respect to developing crops tolerant to abiotic stresses conventional breeding has only had limited success, due to the quantitative nature (controlled by polygenes) of the traits. Since genetic engineering technology has the ability to transfer specific genes that confer tolerance to abiotic stresses, this method may provide more success. S. tuberosum L was one of the early crop plants that used Agrobacterium mediated transformation technique (An, 1986) for genetic engineering. Tomato was the first GE food crop that became commercially available in the US in 1994 (Kramer et al. 1994). Many scientists use genetic engineering methods to improve the efficiency of breeding for abiotic and biotic stresses tolerance. Many GE crops resistant to abiotic stresses are in the pipeline for commercialization: drought-tolerant maize (Monsanto, 2013), rice (Stein et al. 2010), peanut (Qin et al. 2011) ; salt tolerance cotton ( Liu et al. 2012), alfalfa ( Liu et al. 2011), tobacco (Jha et al. 2011); salt and drought tolerant tomato (Goel et al. 2011). Several cultivars of GE potatoes were commercialized and grown by farmers in the past, but were discontinued (except for the Innate potato released in 2015) due to processing industry acceptance issues, although there were no safety concerns with the products. For example, the Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) potato resistant to the Colorado potato beetle (CPB) was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1995 (EPA, 1999), and sold commercially to US farmers. In addition, two other events combining the CPB resistance with the Potato Leaf Roll Virus (PLRV), and Potato Virus Y (PVY) were also commercialized in 1998. The Amflora potato, a GE potato that produces pure amylopectin starch and developed only for industrial applications (in paper manufacturing and in the textile and adhesives industries) was 5  approved in the European Union market in 2010 (Abdallah, 2010). The Amflora was later discontinued due to lack of public acceptance (Katarzyna, 2013).         Another example of a successful gene being introduced into a cultivated potato variety is the introduction of the late blight resistance gene from the wild species S. bulbocastanum into S. tuberosum. Potato late blight, caused by the fungal pathogen Phytophthora infestans, damaged the potato crop in Ireland and caused the Irish potato famine (Haas et al. 2009). A late blight resistant gene cloned from S. bulbocastanum and introduced into Katahdin, a susceptible cultivar, provided resistance to late blight disease (Song et al. 2003).          In the MSU potato breeding program, genetic engineering technologies are being used to develop tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses as well as for improving quality traits. For example, resistance to insect pests such as CPB (Cooper et al. 2007); tuber moth and CPB (Douches et al. 2002) as well as resistance to the fungal pathogen P. infestans responsible for late blight disease (Kuhl et al. 2007) have already been developed. In addition, tolerance to abiotic stresses such as cold (Nichol, 2011) has also been developed. Furthermore, genetic engineering has been used to improve quality traits through invertase silencing to lower reducing sugars, that produce dark color and bitter tasting in potato chips, with acid invertase (K. Zarka, pers.com.), also gene editing (Butler and Douches, 2016).            Commercialized GE crops have increased since 1994. A number of GE crops are commercially planted globally. For example, GE crops were planted on 179.7 million hectares in 28 countries in 2015 (James, 2015). In the US, several GE crops have been evaluated to be safe for the environment, and are now commercially available. Most of these crops have been approved for human consumption, and animal feed. In 2015, approximately 93% of the cotton, soybean, and corn crops planted in the US were GE varieties (USDA, 2015). As for potato; the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved the Innate potato varieties for commercial planting. These potatoes were genetically engineered to 6  reduce bruising and browning, which lower the production of acrylamide upon fry processing (Waltz, 2015).  Selected Genes for Abiotic Stresses Tolerance          XERICO, mannose 6-phosphate reductase (M6PR), and isopentenyltransferase (IPT) have been identified to produce abiotic stress tolerance. Abscisic acid (ABA) is a plant hormone that plays a significant role in response to stress conditions in plants. Under drought conditions Ko et al. (2006) characterized a RING-H2-type zinc-finger protein, also known as XERICO, that shows an increase in cellular ABA levels. The authors used the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) 35S promoter to drive constitutive expression of the XERICO gene in Arabidopsis, and observed a further increase in cellular ABA, resulting in drought tolerance. Under drought treatment created by not watering the plants for 10 days, CaMV35S XERICO up-regulated the transcription of AtNCED3, a gene that produces a key enzyme in ABA biosynthesis, providing transgenic plants a greater tolerance to drought stress (Ko et al. 2006). Also, fresh weight (FW) measurements indicated that water loss from the leaves of transgenic plants was reduced to about 7.5%, whereas the leaves of non-transgenic plants lost around 15% (Ko et al. 2006). In another study, Zeng et al. (2013) used the XERICO gene from Arabidopsis under the control of CaMV35S promoter in rice.  Detached rice leaves from the XERICO expressing lines showed lower transpirational water loss in comparison to the control plants. Also, transgenic rice lines showed a significant increase in ABA contents under drought and salt stress conditions (Zeng et al. 2013).          Mannose 6-phosphate reductase (M6PR) is a key enzyme involved in mannitol biosynthesis, a sugar alcohol that may help as a compatible solute to counter salt stress in celery (Zhifang and Loescher, 2003). High compatible solute concentrations inhibit loss of water or balance salt accumulation, however, this protection feature can occur at lower concentrations for significant 7  osmotic effects (Zhifang and Loescher, 2003). In this study, the authors used M6PR gene from celery under the control of the CaMV35S promoter in Arabidopsis, a non-mannitol producing plant. Their results showed that all the transgenic Arabidopsis lines contained mannitol throughout the plants. Interestingly, M6PR-transgenic Arabidopsis plants were phenotypically similar in comparison with non-transgenics in the absence of 300Mm NaCl. However, when the plants were subjected to salt treatment in soil irrigated with 300Mm NaCl, mature M6PR-transgenic Arabidopsis showed a high level of salt tolerance, growing, flowering and producing seeds whereas wild type (WT) showed severe salt stress (Zhifang and Loescher, 2003).         It has been found that during drought, there is an increase in leaf senescence that reduces canopy size, yield, and photosynthesis. For example, Rivero et al. (2007) showed that delaying leaf senescence could enhance drought tolerance. Gan and Amasino (1995) showed that leaf senescence can be delayed in transgenic plants by expressing the IPT gene as this gene produces an enzyme that induces the production of cytokinin (CK), inhibiting leaf senescence. Rivero et al. (2007) used a senescence associated receptor protein kinase promoter (PSARK) isolated from bean to express the IPT gene in tobacco, producing drought tolerance by delayed leaf senescence. As expected in transgenic tobacco plants, the expression of the IPT gene induced the synthesis of CK, which in turn resulted in enhanced drought tolerance. Furthermore, under severe drought treatments, these transgenic tobacco plants only partially wilted and did not display drought-induced senescence. Upon re-watering the transgenic plants recovered and showed full turgor in leaves and resumed growth. In addition, transgenic tobacco displayed greater root and shoot biomass and a 160% increase in seed yield, compared to the non-transgenic plants. During drought, the water content of the transgenic plants was only slightly reduced, from 86% - 92%. After re-watering, the water content of the transgenic plants returned to control levels. Transgenic plants showed greater control of reactive 8  oxygen species and enhanced expression of stress-response transcripts. However, nitrogen mobilization was not affected, no developmental changes were seen, and there was no delay in flowering and seed set. Water use efficiency values in the transgenic plants were two to three times higher than those before drought. When provided with only 30% of the amount of water used under control conditions, minimal yield losses were observed in transgenic plants (Rivero et al. 2007).           In addition, Kuppu et al. (2013) used the IPT gene in cotton, under the control of an inducible promoter, SARK. The transgenic cotton showed delayed senescence under water deficit treatment in the greenhouse, and produced more root and shoot biomass compared to the non-transgenic line. Moreover, the IPT plants showed a greater drought tolerance under growth chamber conditions (Kuppu et al. 2013).            The goal of this research was to individually test several different transgenes and determine if they could confer drought/osmotic stress tolerance in potato plants expressing each transgene and thus ree main research objectives in this study. The first was to individually express the three different genes, XERICO, IPT, and M6PR to confer abiotic stress tolerance in the potato cultivar (CV) Désirée, a drought susceptible variety. The second objective was to use reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) to select the events for gene expression. The third was to conduct laboratory and greenhouse experiments to evaluate each event, and to characterize the value of these genes for tolerance to drought and osmotic stress in potato.       9  Chapter 2: Evaluation of Transgenic Potatoes  Research Objectives         The purpose of this study was to individually examine a set of transgenes for their ability to confer drought/osmotic stress tolerance in cultivated potato. The first objective was to transform the potato CV Désirée, using each of the genes a) Arabidopsis XERICO, b) Celery mannose-6-phosphate reductase (M6PR), and c) Agrobacterium isopentenyltransferase (IPT) gene. The first two genes have been shown to confer drought and salt tolerance respectively, when overexpressed in Arabidopsis (Zhifang and Loescher 2003; Ko et al. 2006). Meanwhile, the IPT gene, under the control of water-deficit responsive and maturation specific PSARK, has been shown to result in delayed leaf senescence and extreme drought tolerance in tobacco plants (Rivero et al. 2007), and enhanced drought tolerance in cotton plants (Kuppu et al. 2013).          The second objective was to characterize the transgenic events using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) with gene specific primers to confirm the presence of the transgenes, and RT-PCR to observe the relative transcription of the transgenes in individual plants to identify which plants could be advanced for further studies.          The third objective was to examine the growth characteristics of the GE plants in a water restricted environment, which was created in vitro by modifying the osmotic potential in a controlled manner using polyethylene glycol (PEG) supplemented growth medium (Barra et al. 2013). Additionally, plants were examined after growth in vivo in a greenhouse study using a reduced watering protocol during the life of the plant, and a terminal drought protocol (Rivero et al. 2007). In this study, the effect of the three transgenes on conferring drought tolerance was observed by comparing the transgenic plants with the non-transgenic counterparts of Désirée. 10   Material and Methods Plant Material and Transformation          The potato CV  Désirée, which is highly amenable to transformation, was independently transformed with three vector constructs, each containing one of the osmotic stress genes using a protocol as described by Cearley et al. (1997) (Figure 1). Cuttings for tissue culture were grown in culture tubes in Murashige and Skoog basal medium with vitamins (MS) (PhytoTechnology Laboratories, Overland Park KS); 4.3 g·L-1 MS, 30 g·L-1 sucrose, pH 6.0, 7 g·L-1 agar. The stock cultures were maintained at 25°C, with a 16 h photoperiod. The construct pSPUD98 (Fig. 1A) is a plant transformation vector with a T-DNA, which contains the XERICO gene (a gift from Dr. Kyung-Hwan Han, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI) under the control of CaMV35S promoter. Shoots recovered from transformation experiments were placed on a rooting medium. Shoots that rooted in the selection medium were tested via PCR to confirm the presence of the gene. Positive lines selected for further research were designated either DES.98, 97, or 96 and were maintained in tissue culture then transplanted into pots in the greenhouse for bioassays.   Gene Constructs         The 1.9 kb PSARK IPT fragment was cut from plasmid PARC593 using EcoR1 and inserted into binary vector pBINPLUS. The XERICO gene (610 bp) was synthesized and designed to contain BamHI and XbaI sites and inserted between a CaMV35S promoter and a nopaline synthase terminator in pBINPLUS binary vector. The shoots recovered were designated as DES.98. The construct pSPUD97 (Fig. 1B) containing the gene M6PR (Zhifang and Loescher, 11  2003) a gift from Dr. Wayne Loescher, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, was used to introduce the M6PR gene under the control of a CaMV35SS promoter in pBINPLUS binary vector. Shoots recovered from transformation experiments were designated DES.97 and were treated as described above. The restriction sites were designed by Zhifang and Loescher (2003). The construct pSPUD96 (Fig. 1C) was used to introduce the IPT gene under the control of the inducible SARK promoter (Arcadia Biosciences, Davis CA). Shoots recovered from transformation experiments were designated DES.96 and were treated as described above.           12      PCR Detection and Expression of Transgenes         A single shoot was taken from each explant to eliminate the possibility of duplicate events. DNA from individual plants that had rooted in the kanamycin selective medium was then subjected to PCR, using gene specific primers to confirm the presence of the transgene. Using PCR, 34, 36, and 26, transgenic events were examined to test for the presence of IPT, M6PR, and XERICO genes, respectively. The DNA from each of these plants was isolated using the Qiagen Dneasy Plant Kit according to the manufactuDNA from each sample was mixed with 10 µL of Go Taq® Master Mix 2x (Promega, Madison, WI, USA), and 1 µL each (10µM) of reverse and forward primers for the respective genes (Table 1) in a 20µL reaction. PCR cycling conditions were:  95°C for 3min, 35 cycles of 95°C for 30s, 50°C (XERICO and IPT) or 55°C (M6PR) for 30s, 72°C for 45s and a final extension at 72°C for 5 min. Figure 1: Construct Design   Figure 2Figure 3   Figure 4  Figure 5Figure 6   Figure 7Figure 8   Figure 9  Figure 10 The T-DNA regions of A. pSPUD98, B. pSPUD97 and C. pSPUD96 constructs depicting the positions of the XERICO and M6PR genes containing the constitutive CaMV35S promoter, or the IPT gene containing the inducible PSARK promoter. The nptII gene for kanamycin resistance was used as the selectable marker.  13  PCR products were separated and visualized on a 1% agarose gel stained with 10 mg/µL ethidium  bromide.          Frozen transformed potato leaf tissue stored at -80°C was milled to powder under liquid nitrogen, and RNA was extracted using an RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen, Valencia, CA, USA) according to the remove contaminating genomic DNA, samples were then subjected to a deoxyribonuclease treatment using an Ambion TURBO DNA-free kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA). A Super Script One-Step RT-PCR with Platinum Taq kit (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA, USA) was then used to perform the RT--PCR, 4 µL of RNA and 1 µL of each primer (Table 1) were mixed with 10µL of 2X reaction buffer and 1 µL of SuperScript III RT/ Platinum Taq Mix in a final volume of 20 µL. The RT-PCR cycling conditions were: 50°C for 30 min, 94°C for two min, 30 cycles of 94°C for 15 S, 55°C for 30 S, 72°C for 45 S, and a final extension at 72°C for five min. The RT-PCR products were then separated and visualized as described above for the PCR products. Also, the RNA was run in the gel to demonstrate the quality of samples before doing RT-PCR.         14     In Vitro Osmotic Stress Experiment         Tissue culture grown plants were assessed for their ability to grow on MS medium supplemented with 4.8% PEG (mol. wt. 8000, SIGMA, USA). The pH of the media was adjusted to 5.8 ±, and the media solidified with 5 gL-1 agar (Caisson Labs, Logan UT, USA). To conduct this drought experiment, five IPT, six XERICO, and seven M6PR transgenic events were used, respectively (Table 2). These lines were chosen for the presence of appropriate gene expression, expected phenotypes, and availability. Plant nodal segments of similar age and quality (second and third nodes) were selected from transgenic and control Désirée plants, transferred to 4.8% PEG medium, and grown under standard conditions for tissue culture. Nodal cuttings were also transferred at the same time into regular MS growth medium to use for growth comparisons. The tubes were placed in racks using a completely randomized design (CRD) with five replications. The Table 1: Primer Sequences and expected product size Gene Primer sequence Expected Product Size (bp)                                XERICO Forward -GACAACATCATTTCTACCGACA- 595 Reverse -TAGCTGTACACAACAAACACACTC- M6PR Forward -GGTGTTTGGGAGGTTGATGC-           510 Reverse -GTTACTCCTTTGGTTGCGCTC- IPT Forward -GGTATCATCGCAGCCAAGCA-           476 Reverse -GCTGCGTTAACTTGGGGGAA- 15  plants were maintained at 22°C, with a 16 h photoperiod. Measurements were recorded for number of leaves (NL), number of roots (NR), and height of plants (HP) at 15 days and 30 days. Fresh weight (FW) and dry weight (DW) were also measured at 30 days (Figure 2) (Barra et al. 2013).  Two-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate the effect of the different genes and drought conditions.      16        (A) Explants were placed in standard MS and PEG medium. (B) Number of leaves (NL), number of roots (NR), height of plant (HP) were measured at 15 and 30 days. (C) Fresh weight (FW) measured at 30 days. (D)  Dry weight (DW) measured at 30 days.               Figure 2: Summary of the in vitro PEG procedure  17  Greenhouse Reduced Watering Experiment        Four-week old tissue culture grown transgenic plants, and control Désirée plants were transferred to a greenhouse for in vivo studies. For the experiment, four events from XERICO, M6PR, and IPT were used with four replications for each event (Table 3). The plants were grown in 10.16 cm diameter pots containing Greens Grade soil (Siteone Landscape Supply, Dimondale, MI) at 25±3C, and supplemental light with a 16h light/8h dark cycle. Cheesecloth was used to line the pots to prevent soil loss. During the experiment, plants were fertilized twice a week using Peters Professional 20-20-20 (BFG supply, Kalamazoo, MI). Plants were divided into two representative sets. In the first set, plants were watered until the soil was fully soaked. These plants received full watering twice a week for the entire length of the experiment. The second set of plants were watered with only 30% (restricted water) of the volume of water used for the first set, at the same intervals mentioned above, for the entire length of the experiment. The two sets of plants were arranged in a randomized complete block design. The height of each plant was measured each week and FW above the ground, DW, and the number and size of tubers were measured at the end of the experiment. The plants were allowed to grow for 10 weeks. One-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate the effect of the different genes and drought conditions.  Greenhouse Terminal Drought Experiment         For the greenhouse terminal drought experiment, we used the same type of soil and pots as described above. The tissue culture plants were transferred to the greenhouse as described for the reduced watering experiment. Four different events each were used from XERICO, M6PR, and IPT, with four replications for each line (Table 3). Plants were watered as needed until they were 31 days 18  old, after which water was completely withheld for 14 days. The plants were then re-watered for three days, and were scored as either living or dead. Also, pots were weighed daily to estimate water loss. Leaf water content was also measured at the end of terminal drought experiment at 14 days. Four fresh detached leaves were weighed (FW) from each line, including the controls from the terminal drought experiment. To determine the turgid weight (TW), the same detached leaves were soaked in water contained in Petri dishes for 24h, and then they were weighed. The leaves were dried for 24h using an oven at 100 °C and weighed again to obtain dry weight (DW) (Rivero et al. 2007) (Figure 3). The relative water content (RWC) of the leaves from the terminal drought experiment was determined by using the formula:  RWC = (FW  DW) / (Turgid weight  DW) One-way analysis of variance was used to evaluate the effect of the different genes and drought conditions.        19     (A) The detached fresh leaves were weighed (B) The same leaves were soaked in water for 24h under laboratory conditions and then weighed (C) The leaves were put in the dryer for 24h and then weighed.                Figure 3: Relative water content experiment procedure  Figure 81  Figure 82  Figure 83  Figure 84 20  Rate of Leaf Water Loss        To determine if the expression of the transgenes effect leaf transpiration, the rate of leaf water content loss was measured. Three detached leaves from fully water-expended plants were used from each transgenic line as well as a Désirée control plant from terminal drought and reduced water experiments. Detached leaves were placed in Petri dishes under the same conditions as intact plants, and were weighed immediately, at 30 min, 60 min, two hour, three hour, and four hour time intervals. The percentage of water loss over time was then calculated (Figure 4). JMP statistical software and R were used to analyze all experiments data.                 21      Results Identification of Transgenic Plants         A total of 26 XERICO shoots selected after rooting on kanamycin selection media were identified as positive for containing the transgene. A total of 36 M6PR shoots were selected after rooting on kanamycin, however, only 24 plants were confirmed positive for the presence of the transgene.  A total of 34 IPT shoots were selected after rooting on kanamycin with 33 confirmed positive for the presence of the transgene (Table 2). However, some of the lines were chosen in drought tolerance experiments (Figure 5). Three detached leaves from Désirée and transgenic lines were weighed over different times to identify the water loss from the leaves.                  Figure 96 Leaf water loss over time experiment procedure. Three detached leaves from Désirée and transgenic lines were weighed over different times to identify the water loss from the leaves.   Figure 4: Leaf water loss over time experiment procedure  Figure 128  Figure 129  Figure 130  Figure 131  Figure 132  22  Identification of Individual Plants Expressing the Transgene          A subset of events was subjected to end-point RT-PCR. Ten XERICO plants, 15 M6PR plants, and 9 IPT plants were positive for transgene expression (Table 2) and some of these events were chosen for the presence of appropriate gene expression (Figure 6) and used for bioassays in vitro and in the greenhouse (Table 3).         23  Table 2: PCR and RT PCR results for presence and expression of the transgene.       XERICO PCR  RT-         PCR M6PR PCR  RT-      PCR IPT PCR  RT-PCR DES.98.04 + NO DES.97.01 + +      DES.96.02               + + - DES.98.05 + + DES.97.02 + + DES.96.03 + - DES.98.07 + NO DES.97.03 + + DES.96.04 + + DES.98.08 + + DES.97.04 + + DES.96.05 + - DES.98.09 + NO DES.97.05 + + DES.96.07 + - DES.98.11 + NO DES.97.06 + + DES.96.08 + + DES.98.12 + NO DES.97.07 + + DES.96.09 + - DES.98.13 + - DES.97.08 + - DES.96.10 + + DES.98.18 + + DES.97.09 + + DES.96.11 + NO DES.98.20 + NO DES.97.10 + + DES.96.12 + - DES.98.21 + + DES.97.11 + + DES.96.14 + - DES.98.23 + + DES.97.12 + + DES.96.15 + - DES.98.26 + + DES.97.13 + + DES.96.16 + NO DES.98.27 + + DES.97.14 + NO DES.96.18 + NO DES.98.28 + NO DES.97.15 + NO DES.96.19 + NO DES.98.30 +         + DES.97.16 + + DES.96.20 - - DES.98.31 +           + DES.97.17 - NO DES.96.21 + + DES.98.32 + - DES.97.18 + NO DES.96.22 + + DES.98.34 + - DES.97.19 - NO DES.96.24 + - DES.98.37 + NO DES.97.20 + - DES.96.25 + NO DES.98.38 + + DES.97.21 - NO DES.96.26 + NO DES.98.39 + NO DES.97.22 - NO DES.96.27 + - DES.98.40 + NO DES.97.23 + NO DES.96.28 + - DES.98.41 + NO DES.97.24 - NO DES.96.29 + NO DES.98.42 + NO DES.97.25 + NO DES.96.30 + - DES.98.43 + NO DES.97.26 - NO DES.96.31 + NO    DES.97.27 - NO DES.96.32 +        -    DES.97.28 + + DES.96.33 + NO    DES.97.29 - NO DES.96.34 + +    DES.97.30 + NO DES.96.35 + NO    DES.97.31 - NO DES.96.36 + +    DES.97.32 - NO DES.96.37 + -    DES.97.33 - NO DES.96.38 + NO    DES.97.34 + + DES.96.39 + NO    DES.97.35 + NO DES.96.02 + NO    DES.97.36 - NO    (+) = Presence of gene and expression  (-) = Absence of gene and expression  (NO) = The lines were not tested with RT-PCR.  (+) = Presence of gene and expression  (-) = Absence of gene and expression  (NO) = The lines were not tested with RT-PCR.  (+) = Presence of gene and expression  (-) = Absence of gene and expression  (NO) = The lines were not tested with RT-PCR.  (+) = Presence of gene and expression  24  Table 3: Lines used in the experiments. 1PEG experiments. 2Terminal drought. 3Reduced water. 4Relative water content. 5Leaf water loss over time.         Line PE1 TD2 RW3 RWC4 LWLT5 DES.98.08 X X  X X DES.98.21 X X X X X DES.98.27 X X X X X DES.98.31 X  X  X DES.98.38  X  X  DES.98.23 X  X   DES.96.04 X  X   DES.96.08 X X X X X DES.96.22 X X  X  DES.96.36 X X X X  DES.96.38  X X X  DES.97.01 X X X X X DES.97.12 X X  X X DES.97.13  X  X X DES.97.02 X X  X X DES.97.04 X  X   DES.97.07 X  X   DES.97.11 X     DES.97.34 X  X   DES X X X X X 25                 The presence of XERICO DES.98 (A), M6PR DES.97 (B), and IPT DES.96 (C) genes was visualized by PCR using 100 bp ladder (L). Désirée DES and water used as a negative control for XERICO, M6PR, and IPT . The expected product size for XERICO is 595 bp the XERICO plasmid used as positive control.The product size for M6PR is 510 bp and the M6PR plasmid used as positive control. The IPT product size is 476 bp and the IPT plasmid used as a positive control.   DES = Control  DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO L= Ladder 100 bp    A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  B  B  B  B  B  C  C  C  C  C Figure 5: PCR from transgenic lines were used in experiments  Figure 175  Figure 176  Figure 177  Figure 178  Figure 179  26              In Vitro Drought Assessment          A subset of lines were subjected to a series of drought experiments in order to test the efficiency of IPT, XERICO, and M6PR events. For the in vitro drought assessment five, six and seven IPT, XERICO, and M6PR events were used, respectively. Analysis of measurements taken after 15 days showed significant reduction effect of the line (gene) and medium (non PEG or PEG) The presence of appropriate gene expression of XERICO DES.98 and the RNA (A), M6PR DES.97 and RNA (B), and IPT DES.96 and RNA (C) was visualized by RT-PCR. Water used as a negative control for XERICO, M6PR, and IPT . Also, the RNA for the expected product size for XERICO is 595 bp the XERICO. The product size for M6PR is 510 bp. The IPT product size is 476 bp.            Reverse Transcriptase PCR from the transgenic lines used in experiments.  The presence of appropriate gene expression of XERICO DES.98 and the RNA (A), M6PR DES.97 and RNA (B), and IPT DES.96 and RNA (C) was visualized by RT-PCR. Water used as a negative control for XERICO, M6PR, and IPT . Also, the RNA for the expected product size for XERICO is 595 bp the XERICO. The product size for M6PR is 510 bp. The IPT product size is 476 bp.  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A  A B  B  B  B  B  B  B  B  C  C  C  C  C  C  C  Figure 6: RT-PCR from the transgenic lines used in experiments    Figure 198  Figure 199  Figure 200  Figure 201  Figure 202 27  on HP, NL, and NR. However, there was no significant line (gene) by medium interaction effect on any of the outcome measures (Figure 7 A, B, C). For the measurements taken after 30 days, a significant effect of the line (gene) was observed on HP, NL, NR, and FW, but not on DW. The medium also had a significant reduction in all the measurements. At 30 days, we found the line by medium interaction effect was significant for only the height of plant and number of roots. However, the non PEG medium lines were greater than the PEG medium (Figure 8 A, B, C, D, E). The summary of data on HP, NL, NR, FW, and DW was displayed using box plots. The observations of the plant height at 15 days was similar to the 30 day, plant height was greater in the control medium than the PEG medium. For the PEG medium at 15 days, we found the highest average plant height under the drought condition occurred with the IPT  line DES.96.38 (Figure 7A). For the PEG medium at 30 days, we found the IPT line DES.96.36, the XERICO line DES 98.08, and Désirée to have the highest variability in plant height (Figure 8A).  Of these, the highest average plant height in the drought condition occurred with the IPT line DES.96.36. Interestingly, unlike what we found from the 15 day measurements, the patterns observed in the two treatment conditions were very different, suggesting that time had an effect between the two treatments. As expected, leaf number is greater in the control medium than the PEG medium at both 15 and 30 days. For the PEG medium at 15 days, the highest average leaf number in the drought condition occurred with IPT lines DES.96.38 and DES.96.36 (Figure 7B). For the PEG medium at 30 days, the highest average leaf number occurred with the IPT lines DES.96.38 and DES.96.36 just as it was at 15 days (Figure 8B). The number of roots was found to be greater in the control medium than in the PEG medium at 15 and 30 days. For the PEG medium at 15 days, DES.96.36 had the highest variability and highest values for the number of roots (Figure 7C). For the PEG medium at 30 days, we found that unlike at 15 days, the M6PR lines DES.97.04 and DES.97.34 had the highest variability for number of roots. 28  All other lines except for DES.96.36 were severely affected by the PEG treatment (Figure 8C). Fresh weight was also greater in the control medium than the PEG medium, suggesting a treatment effect. For the PEG medium, DES.96.36 had the highest variability and values for fresh weight (Figure 8D). Similarly, the dry weight was greater in the control medium than the PEG medium, indicating a treatment effect. For the PEG medium, DES.96.36 had the highest variability and highest values for dry weight just as for fresh weight (Figure 8E). In summary, the PEG 4.8 % treatment had a negative effect on the lines. The IPT lines DES.96.36 and DES.96.38 showed good performance in 4.8 % PEG medium, although was a negative effect from the PEG.               29    Lines   Lines   Lines   Lines   Lines   Lines Height of plants (cm)     Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.   Analysis of height of plants at 15 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.   Analysis of height of plants at 15 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.   Analysis of height of plants at 15 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.  Figure 7A: Analysis of height of plants at 15 days  Figure 213A 30                Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines  Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Analysis of number of leaves at 15 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Analysis of number of leaves at 15 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Analysis of number of leaves at 15 days. Désirée = Control Leaf number Figure 7B: Analysis of number of leaves at 15 days  Figure 7B  31                     Root number   Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Figure 7 C. Analysis of number of roots at 15 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Figure 7 C. Analysis of number of roots at 15 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Figure 7 C. Analysis of number of roots at 15 days. Désirée = Control Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines  Figure 7C: Analysis of number of roots at 15 days   Figure 215AFigure 7C  Figure 7C  Figure 216AFigure 7C 32        Height of plants (cm)    Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.  Figure 8 A. Analysis of plant height at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.  Figure 8 A. Analysis of plant height at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.  Figure 8 A. Analysis of plant height at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.  Analysis of plant height at 30 days. Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines  Figure 8A: Analysis of plant height at 30 days  Figure 8A 33       Leaf number Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines   Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.   Figure 8 B. Analysis of number of leaves at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.   Figure 8 B. Analysis of number of leaves at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.   Figure 8 B. Analysis of number of leaves at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.  Figure 8B: Analysis of number of leaves at 30 days  Figure 8B 34           Root number   Lines     Lines     Lines     Lines  Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.   Figure 8 C. Analysis of root number at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.   Figure 8 C. Analysis of root number at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.   Figure 8 C. Analysis of root number at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO. Figure 8C: Analysis of root number at 30 days  Figure 8C 35      Fresh weight (mg)    Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Figure 8 D. Analysis of fresh weight at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Figure 8 D. Analysis of fresh weight at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Figure 8 D. Analysis of fresh weight at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines  Figure 8D: Analysis of fresh weight at 30 days   Lines    Lines    Lines    36     Dry weight (mg)    Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Figure 8 E. Analyzing dry weight at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Figure 8 E. Analyzing dry weight at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO.    Figure 8 E. Analyzing dry weight at 30 days. Désirée = Control DES.96 = IPT Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines    Lines  Figure 8E: Analysis of dry weight at 30 days  Analyzing dry weight at 30 days.     Lines    Lines    Lines    37  Greenhouse Terminal Drought Experiment        To assess the tolerance of transgenic plants to drought stress, the plants were exposed to drought (withholding water for 14 days).  The transgenic plants did not display any morphological alterations in comparison with non-transgenic Désirée when grown before the drought treatment (Figure 9 A).  After one week without water, all plants displayed some stress (Figure 9 B). After two weeks without water, all plants displayed severe stress symptoms, with control plants severely wilted and transgenic plants partially wilted (Figure 9 C).  All plants were then returned to their normal pre-drought watering schedule for three days (Figure 9 D). Désirée did not recover and died. However, some transgenic lines recovered and the leaves looked healthy and resumed their growth, after which foliage was visually scored for revival. Table 4 summarizes the revival rates of transgenic plants. The rate of revival for XERICO lines ranged from 25-75%. The rate of revival for M6PR lines ranged from 75-100%. The rate of revival for the IPT lines ranged from 25-75%.  There was a 0% revival rate for the Désirée control plants. Pots were weighed during the two weeks without water and the results indicated that rate and extent of drying remained the same. One-way analysis of variance was used to analyze the water loss from the pots, and the results showed no significance in the percentage of water lost from pots.      38            (A) XERICO, IPT, and M6PR plants with Désirée control prior to drought treatment with fully healthy growth. (B) XERICO, IPT, and M6PR plants with Désirée control at one-week drought condition exposed some stress. (C) XERICO, IPT, and M6PR plants with Désirée control at two-week drought treatment. (D) Revival of plants following three days re-watering with Désirée as control (no revival).                   Figure 9: The phenotypic transition through 14 days drought and re-watering    Figure 9: The phenotypic transition through 14 days drought and re-watering.   39       1 Revival Rate. 2 Control          Table 4: Summary of the plant revival rates after re-watering XERICO  RR1 (%) M6PR RR (%) IPT  RR (%) Désirée2 RR (%) DES.98.08 50 DES.97.01 75 DES.96.38 25 DES 0 DES.98.27 75 DES.97.13 100 DES.96.08 75   DES.98.38 25 DES.97.02 75 DES.96.36 25   DES.98.21 75 DES.97.12 75 DES.96.22 25   40  Relative Leaf Water Content          Four fresh detached leaves (Table 3) were weighed from each line including Désirée as a control from the terminal drought experiment to determine the water content in the leaves at two weeks withholding water (Figure 10). DES.97.01 had the highest value among the lines (36.9%), whereas DES.98.21 and DES.96.38 had the lowest values for RWC (23%, 21%), showing a significant difference in comparison to the highest value of DES.97.01. The lines DES.97.12, DES, DES.98.27, DES.96.08, DES.97.02, DES.98.08, DES.97.13, DES.96.38, DES.96.36, and DES.96.22 had similar values for RWC (Figure 10).            DES = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO RWC results after two weeks withholding water. Means with the same              Lines  Table 25: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.Lines Mean of RWC (%)  Figure 10: Relative water content of leaves of transgenic and non-transgenic plants   Table 1: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.Lines  Table 2: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 3: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.Lines  41  Leaf Water Loss Over Time         In this experiment, three detached leaves from the control and sub sample of XERICO lines DES.98.31 and DES.98.21 showed less wilting in the reduced water experiment (Figure 11). In addition, subsamples of M6PR lines DES.97.13, DES.97.12, DES.97.02, DES.97.01, and XERICO lines DES.98.08, DES.98.27, and IPT line DES.96.08 displayed a higher revival rate among the lines in the terminal drought experiment that followed by re-watering (Table 3). All leaves were weighed at designated time intervals to identify water loss over time (Figure 4). Results showed significant differences between the lines at different time intervals (Table 5). All M6PR, IPT, and XERICO lines had less water loss over time in comparison to Désirée control. Among these lines, DES.97.12, DES.97. 13, DES.98.08, and DES.96.08 belonging to Group B, showed less water loss over the time interval. However, DES.97.01 and DES.98.21 also belonging to Group B, did not consistent water loss across the time intervals. Group A (DES) is the group that lost the most amount of water, and was consistent over time. Group B, which showed a significant difference in comparison with Group B, lost the least amount of water. Group AB (DES.97.02, DES.98.31, DES.98.31, DES.98.27) had similar results, but did not have significant variances of the percentage of water lost over time (Table 5).        42               DES = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO All transgenic lines had much less water loss in comparison with Désirée. Means with the same letter are not significantly different                  DES = Control DES.96 = IPT DES.97 = M6PR DES.98 = XERICO All transgenic lines had much less water loss in comparison with Désirée. Means with the same letter are not significantly different    Table 5: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 57: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 58: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 59: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 60: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 61: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 62: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 63: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 64: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 65: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  43  Reduced Water Experiment           For the measurements taken for full water, no significant effect of the line was observed for plant height, number of tubers, fresh weight, and dry weight except tuber weight. The F statistic for ANOVA test was significant for the tuber weight, but the Tukey test was not. The Tukey test requires a larger sample size to detect group differences than the overall ANOVA test (Brooks and Johanson, 2011). The second set of plants were watered with 30% (restricted water) of the volume of water used for the first set at the same intervals for the entire length of the experiment. Also, one-way analysis of variance was used for this experiment. Measurements taken on the lines for plant height, fresh weight, and dry weight showed no significant effect of restricted water. However, there was a significant effect on tuber number although significance was not consistent with two-way analysis of variance (Figure 11). DES.97.04 showed the highest value for mean tuber number (6) among the lines whereas DES.96.08 with the lowest mean tuber number (1.25) was significantly different from DES.97.04. Although the mean for the number of tubers for DES.97.07, DES.98.27, DES.96.04, DES.97.01, DES.98.23, DES.96.36, DES.96.38, DES.98.21, DES.97.34, DES.98.31 and DES ranged from 1.3 - 4.7, they were not significantly affected by the restriction of water. Restriction of water did not show any significant differences among the plants, some of transgenic lines showed less stress visually based on morphological traits on leaves in comparison to Désirée (Figure 12) and height between the two treatments (Figure 13).       44               two-way analysis of variance. The transgenic M6PR DES.97.04 had the highest tuber number.                               Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Full water  Full water  Full water  Full water  Full water  Full water  Full water  Full water  Full water Restriction water  water  Restriction water  water  Restriction water  water  Restriction water  water  Restriction water  water  Restriction water  water  Restriction water  Figure 11: Analysis of tuber number for reduced water experiment   Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines  Lines 45           The transgenic XERICO lines DES.98.31 and DES.98.21 showed less stress phenotypically when water was restricted at 30% in comparison with Désirée.                 Figure 12. The transgenic XERICO lines DES.98.31 and DES.98.21 showed less stress phenotypically when water was restricted at 30% in comparison with Désirée.        Figure 12: XERICO Appearance  Table 72: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.Lines  Table 73: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 74: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.Lines  Table 75: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.Lines  Table 76: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment. 46    Discussion          Drought is a serious abiotic stress factor that restricts the productivity of crops with socioeconomic impacts (Salinger et al. 2005). Developing adaptive agricultural systems are important for the changing environment and use of genetic engineering to develop stress tolerance of crops has become an important tool to enhance the breeding process (Zhang et al. 2011). The goal of this study was to compare the effect of osmotic stress responsive genes when expressed in potato CV Désirée. We hypothesized that the three different genes the Arabidopsis XERICO gene, (A) indicates restricted water and (B) indicates fully watered. The transgenic M6PR DES.97.01 showed similar in the height results in A, and B treatments. The transgenic XERICO DES.98.31 line was higher in B in comparison to A although it was not significant. The transgenic IPT DES.96.08 showed similar results for height in A and B treatments. The non-transgenic line Désirée was severely effected in A treatment in comparison to B treatment.                 Figure 217Figure 13. The height of the transgenic and non-transgenic plants in the reduced water  experiment. (A) indicates restricted water and (B) indicates fully watered. The transgenic M6PR DES.97.01 showed similar in the height results in A, and B treatments. The transgenic XERICO DES.98.31 line was higher in B in comparison to A although it was not significant. The transgenic IPT DES.96.08 showed similar results for height in A and B treatments. The non-transgenic line Figure 13: Height of transgenic and non-transgenic plants in reduced water  experiment.   Table 96: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.Lines  Table 97: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  Table 98: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.Lines  Table 99: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.Lines  Table 100: Analysis of leaf water loss over time experiment.  47  the celery mannose-6-phosphate reductase (M6PR) gene, and Agrobacterium isopentenyltransferase (IPT) will improve drought resistance in CV Désirée, a susceptible variety. For in vitro drought assessment experiment, we used 4.8% PEG to induce osmotic stress. Based on the study by Barra et al. (2013) where 149 INIA-Chile potato genotypes were evaluated using PEG with different concentration in the beginning, 4.8 % PEG concentration was able to distinguish the genotype responses to drought such as plant height, leaf and root number, fresh and dry weight. These results classified the genotypes as high, intermediate, low, and very low tolerance to water stress.          However, we found that the 4.8% PEG medium has a significant effect on all the measurements taken, irrespective of the time they were taken. All transgenic lines displayed hypersensitivity to 4.8% PEG and the morphological traits such as NL, NR, HP, FW, and DW were severely effected in comparison to control MS media without PEG.          In the Zeng et al. (2013) study, transgenic XERICO rice had higher revival rates in comparison to non transgenic lines when the plants were exposed to drought by withholding water for 11 days. The revival rate of XERICO rice plants was 49.2% whereas the control non-transgenic lines were only 9.5%. They suggested that the enhanced drought tolerance of transgenic XERICO plants was due to decreased water loss by transpiration. They supported this hypothesis by measuring fresh leaf water loss over different time points as a signal of transpirational water loss. The leaves of the XERICO line plants had much less water loss in comparison to the control. The conclusion of this study was that overexpressing the XERICO gene in transgenic rice plants showed reduced transpirational water loss conferring enhanced drought tolerance in rice by a significant increase in ABA content. Many studies support that ABA is involved in improved drought tolerance by increasing ABA content (Ko et al. 2006) resulting in stomatal closure to inhibit transpirational water loss during drought conditions (Blatt, 2000).  48          The results of Rivero et al. (2007) showed that the WT tobacco plant did not recover from withholding water experiment for 15 days whereas the transgenic IPT plants recovered and leaves showed full turgor and the plants continued their growth after re-watering. Even though the ABA increased the drought tolerance in plants, transgenic IPT plants were not associated with drought tolerance in their experiment. Also, the transgenic IPT plants had higher water content in comparison with WT. The conclusion of this study was that CK content was associated with the drought tolerance in IPT tobacco by delaying leaf senescence.          In our data, we had similar results to the two previous studies in terms of the different revival rates compared to control. We observed different revival rates among M6PR, XERICO and IPT lines. However, the non transgenic Désirée could not recover upon re-watering and died. With the revival of XERICO, IPT, and M6PR potato lines in the terminal drought experiment, the results suggest that overexpression of M6PR, XERICO and IPT confer enhanced drought tolerance in potato.We hypothesized that drought tolerance caused by transgenic plants may have a reduced transpiration rate (Zeng et al. 2013) or the water content in the leaf was higher during the drought period (Rivero et al. 2007). For this reason, we conducted two additional experiments to identify the reason behind the drought tolerance. The first experiment was to determine RWC. The results of RWC from Rivero et al. (2007) showed the WT had reduced water content (60%) compared to IPT transgenic plants (92% to 86%) during the drought period when there was no significant difference in the soil moisture level. In our data, while there were some minor differences in RWC of the lines, the majority of plants showed similar amounts of water loss from leaves during the drought period (Figure 10) as determined from dry pots. So, the genes were not causing the plant leaves to keep the water content higher during the drought period rather they must be providing some other protective components allowing the cells to recover when water becomes available.  49          The second experiment was to measure the leaf water loss over time. The purpose of this experiment was to test whether a decreased transpiration rate might indicate increased water use efficiency so the plant can survive a longer period of drought. Results of a similar study by Zeng et al. (2013) on leaf water loss over time showed that transgenic leaves of XERICO plants had much less water loss in comparison to non-transgenic counterpart. Our data confirmed these results as transgenic lines had less water loss over time in comparison to the non-transgenic Désirée (Table 5). These results suggest that transgenic plants confer improved drought tolerance by decreased transpiration rate in leaves during drought conditions. In a study by Rivero et al. (2007), where transgenic tobacco plants grown under two watering systems, full water (1 liter/day) and restricted water (0.3/day) were tested for four months showed that seed yield and biomass of WT plants were affected by the restricted water conditions showing a reduction of 57% in biomass and 60% seed yield. However, the transgenic plants showed minimal reduction, although not statistically significant in biomass and seed yield (8-14%). In our data, the statistical analysis of results did not show a significant difference between the transgenic lines in restricted water compared to full water system for fresh weight, dry weight, plant height, number of tubers and weight of tubers. However, there was visually significant results for some transgenic lines. Some of the transgenic lines displayed a drought tolerant phenotype. The leaves of these transgenic lines especially XERICO lines showed less stress (Figure 12). Also, some of the transgenic lines showed differences in height between the two treatments, albeit not statically significant (Figure 13).  In conclusion          The goal of this study was to determine if the transgenic lines from M6PR, IPT and XERICO conferred drought resistance to the potato CV Désirée which is susceptible to drought. The results 50  indicate that the three genes can confer drought resistance to the potato CV Désirée. Some of the transgenic lines showed promising results from the series of drought experiments such as the M6PR lines DES.97.12, DES.97.13, DES.97.02, DES.97.01, XERICO lines DES.98.08, DES.98.31, DES.98.27, DES.98.21, and the IPT line DES.96.08. These lines will be used in the future bioassays.  Future work          Some results of the different experiments were promising and hence need to be repeated with a larger number of the plants. For future molecular work, we will screen additional lines that might show high expression. Also, we will re-design the XERICO gene construct by changing the constitutive promoter to an inducible promoter. For the in vitro experiment, we will use different PEG concentration because 4.8 % PEG seems too high for drought treatments on the lines. Also, we will use different time measurements because the growth of plants increased with time. In RWC experiment, we will measure the RWC at different time points before and during the drought treatment to identify the RWC in the plants. It is hard to control the weather in Michigan, but a field trial is essential to test the performance of transgenic plants for drought tolerance. The GE lines that showed promising results in in vitro and in vivo will be evaluated in field trials with irrigation and without irrigation as just the GE potato lines containing the CBF ( C repeat binding factor) gene was treated at the Montcalm Research Center (Nichol et al. 2015).  Finally, for the commercial purposes, we will consider inserting combination of these three genes to provide more durable drought resistance to the potato.    51             REFERENCES            52  REFERENCES  Abdallah, N. A. (2010). Amflora: Great expectation for GM Crops in Europe. GM Crops, 1(3),     109-112.  American Society of Plant Biologists. (2008, June 30). Drought Tolerance In Potatoes. ScienceDaily. Retrieved January 24, 2016 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080628065624.htm  An, G., Watson, B. D., & Chiang, C. C. (1986). Transformation of tobacco, tomato, potato, and Arabidopsis thaliana using a binary Ti vector system. Plant Physiology, 81(1), 301-305.  Camire, M. E., Kubow, S., & Donnelly, D. J. (2009). Potatoes and human health. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 49(10), 823840. http://doi.org/10.1080/10408390903041996  Cattivelli, L., Rizza, F., Badeck, F., Mazzucotelli, E.breeding to genomics, 105, 114. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.07.004  Cearley, J. A., & Bolyard, M. G. (1997). Regeneration ofSolanum tuberosum cv. Katahdin from     leaf expiantsin vitro. American potato journal, 74(2), 125-129.  Clarke, J. M., & Mccaig, T. N. (1982). Evaluation of Techniques for Screening for Drought Resistance.  Clive J (2013) Highlights global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops: 2012. vol 44. ISAAA Brief, ISAAA Ithaca, NY  Cooper, S. G., Douches, D. S., Coombs, J. J., & Grafius, E. J. (2007). Evaluation of natural and engineered resistance mechanisms in potato against Colorado potato beetle in a no-choice field study. Journal of Economic Entomology, 100(2), 573579. http://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493(2007)100[573:eonaer]2.0.co;2  Collective action for market chain innovation in the Andes. Food Policy, 34(1), 3138. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2008.10.007  Douches, D. S., Li, W., Zarka, K., Coombs, J., Pett, W., Grafius, E., & El-Nasr, T. (2002). Development of Bt-cry5 insect---HortScience, 37(7), 11031107.  Eiasu, B. K., Soundy, P., & Hammes, P. S. (2007). Response of potato ( Solarium tuberosum ) tuber yield components to gelpolymer soil amendments and irrigation regimes. New 53  Zealand Journal of Crop and Horticultural Science, 35(1), 2531. http://doi.org/10.1080/01140670709510164  EPA (1999) https://research.cip.cgiar.org/confluence/download/attachments/3443/Q41.pdf  FAO (2011). Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Database. Rome. FAO (2012) World potato production. FAOSTAT, Food and agriculture organizations of the United Nations faostat.fao.org.   FAO (2014) World potato production. FAOSTAT, Food and agriculture organizations of the United Nations faostat.fao.org.   Gan SS, Amasino RM (1995) Science 270:19861988  Goel, D., Singh, A. K., Yadav, V., Babbar, S. B., Murata, N., & Bansal, K. C. (2011).             Transformation of tomato with a bacterial codA gene enhances tolerance to salt and water      stresses. Journal of plant physiology, 168(11), 1286-1294.  Gosal, S. S., Wani, S. H., & Kang, M. S. (2009). Biotechnology and Drought Tolerance. Journal of Crop Improvement, 23(1), 1954. http://doi.org/10.1080/15427520802418251  Nusbaum, C. (2009). Genome sequence and analysis of the Irish potato famine pathogen Phytophthora infestans. Nature, 461(7262), 3938. http://doi.org/10.1038/nature08358 Hijmans, R. (2003). The effect of climate change on global potato production. American Journal of Potato Research, 80(4), 271279. http://doi.org/10.1007/bf02855363 Hsiao, T. C. (1973). Plant Responses to Water Stress. Annual Review of Plant Physiology. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.24.060173.002511 International Potato Center (2014) http://cipotato.org/potato/ James, C. 2015. 20th Anniversary (1996 to 2015) of the Global Commercialization of Biotech Crops and Biotech Crop Highlights in 2015. ISAAA Brief No. 51. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY  Jha, B., Sharma, A., & Mishra, A. (2011). Expression of SbGSTU (tau class glutathione S-transferase) gene isolated from Salicornia brachiata in tobacco for salt tolerance. Molecular Biology Reports, 38(7), 482332. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-010-0625-x  Katarzyna, G  (2013, May 23). In Europe, March Against Monsanto Is Latest Rejection of the GMO Giant. Retrieved from http://www.occupy.com/article/europe-march-against-monsanto-latest-rejection-gmo-giant#sthash.FraSAawP.dpuf  King, B., Stark, J., & Love, S. (2003). Potato production with limited water supplies. Potato Conference, Idaho, 32(1), 5455. http://doi.org/10.1024/0301-1526.32.1.54 54   Ko, J.-H., Yang, S. H., & Han, K.-H. (2006). Upregulation of an Arabidopsis RING-H2 gene, XERICO , confers drought tolerance through increased abscisic acid biosynthesis. The Plant Journal, 47(3), 343355. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02782.x  Kramer, M. G., & Redenbaugh, K. (1994). Commercialization of a tomato with an antisense polygalacturonase gene: The flavr savr tomato story. Euphytica, 79(3), 293297. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00022530  Kramer, P. J., & Boyer, J. S. (1995). Chapter 2 - Functions and Properties of Water. Water Relations of Plants and Soils, 1641. Retrieved from internal-pdf:/Kramer1995_Chapter2_Functions_and_Properties_of_Water.pdf\nhttp://dspace.udel.edu:8080/dspace/handle/19716/2830 Kuhl, J. C., Zarka, K., Coombs, J., Kirk, W. W., & Douches, D. S. (2007). Late Blight Resistance of RB Transgenic Potato Lines. Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science, 132(6), 783789. Retrieved from http://journal.ashspublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/132/6/783 -Deficit Inducible Expression of a Cytokinin Biosynthetic Gene IPT Improves Drought Tolerance in Cotton. PLoS ONE, 8(5). http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0064190  Liu, Y. D., Yin, Z. J., Yu, J. W., Li, J., Wei, H. L., Han, X. L., & Shen, F. F. (2012). Improved salt tolerance and delayed leaf senescence in transgenic cotton expressing the Agrobacterium IPT gene. Biologia Plantarum, 56(2), 237246. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10535-012-0082-6  Liu, Z.-H., Zhang, H.-M., Li, G.-L., Guo, X.-L., Chen, S.-Y., Liu, G.-B., & Zhang, Y.-M. (2011). Enhancement of salt tolerance in alfalfa transformed with the gene encoding for betaine aldehyde dehydrogenase. Euphytica, 178(3), 363372. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-010-0316-7  Lobell, D. B., Schlenker, W., & Costa-Roberts, J. (2011). Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science (New York, N.Y.), 333(6042), 616620. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204531  Lutaladio, N., & Castaldi, L. (2009). Potato: The hidden treasure. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 22(6), 491493. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2009.05.002  Monneveux, P., Ramírez, D. A., & Pino, M. (2013). Drought tolerance in potato ( S . tuberosum Plant Science, 205-206, 7686. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2013.01.011  Mullins, E., Milbourne, D., Petti, C., Doyle-Prestwich, B. M., & Meade, C. (2006). Potato in the age of biotechnology. Trends in Plant Science, 11(5), 25460. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2006.03.002 55   Nezhadahmadi, A., Prodhan, Z. H., & Faruq, G. (2013). Drought tolerance in wheat. TheScientificWorldJournal, 2013, 610721. http://doi.org/10.1155/2013/610721  Nichol, N. L. (2011). http://etd.lib.msu.edu/islandora/object/etd%3A831/datastream/OBJ/view  Nichol, N. L., Zarka, K. A., Coombs, J. J., & Douches, D. S. (2015). Field Assessment of AtCBF1 Transgenic Potato Lines (Solanum tuberosum) for Drought Tolerance. American Journal of Potato Research, 92(2), 243249. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-014-9424-6  NOAA (2011). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce.  NOAA (2012). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report. Washington, DC: United States Department of Commerce.  Pachauri, R. K. (2007). Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working              Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. oChange. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_synthesis_report.htm  expression of an isopentenyltransferase gene (IPT) in peanut significantly improves drought tolerance and increases yield under field conditions. Plant & Cell Physiology, 52(11), 190414. http://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcr125  Ritchie, S. W., Nguyen, H. T., & Scott Holaday, A. (1990). Leaf Water Content and Gas-Exchange Parameters of Two Wheat Genotypes Differing in Drought Resistance. Crop Science, 30(1), 105111.  Rivero, R. M., Kojima, M., Gepstein, A., Sakakibara, H., Mittler, R., Gepstein, S., & Blumwald, E. (2007). Delayed leaf senescence induces extreme drought tolerance in a flowering plant. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(49), 196316. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709453104  Rizza, F., Badeck, F. W., Cattivelli, L., Lidestri, O., Di Fonzo, N., & Stanca, A. M. (2004). Use of a water stress index to identify barley genotypes adapted to rainfed and irrigated conditions. In Crop Science (Vol. 44, pp. 21272137). http://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2004.2127  Rowe, R. C., & Powelson, M. L. (2002). Potato early dying: management challenges in a changing production environment. Plant Disease, 86(11), 11841193.  Schafleitner, R., Gutierrez Rosales, R. O., Gaudin, A., Alvarado Aliaga, C. A., Martinez, G. N., 56  traits in two native Andean potato clones by transcription profiling of field grown plants under water stress. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 45(9), 673690. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2007.06.003  Schmidt, R. (2009, October 29) Amflora facts retrieved http://fundacion-antama.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/2009.10.29.Amflora_Starch_Facts.pdf  Scott, G. J., Rosegrant, M. W., & Ringler, C. (2000). Global projections for root and tuber crops to the year 2020. Food Policy, 25(5), 561597. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0306-9192(99)00087-1  Senaratna, T., Merritt, D., Dixon, K., Bunn, E., Touchell, D., & Sivasithamparam, K. (2003). Benzoic acid may act as the functional group in salicylic acid and derivatives in the induction of multiple stress tolerance in plants. Plant Growth Regulation, 39(1), 7781. http://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021865029762  (2003). Gene RB cloned from Solanum bulbocastanum confers broad spectrum resistance to potato late blight. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(16), 91289133. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1533501100  Spooner, D. M. (1990). The potato: Evolution, biodiversity and genetic resources. J.G. Hawkes. American Potato Journal. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF03044023  Spooner, D. M., McLean, K., Ramsay, G., Waugh, R., & Bryan, G. J. (2005). A single domestication for potato based on multilocus amplified fragment length polymorphism genotyping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102(41), 146949. http://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507400102  Stein, A. J., & Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. (2010). International trade and the global pipeline of new GM crops. Nature Biotechnology, 28(1), 2325. http://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0110-23b  Thiele, G., Theisen, K., Bonierbale, M., & Walker, T. (2010). Targeting the poor and hungry with potato science. Potato Journal, 37(3-4), 7586.  USDA (2015) http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx  Waltz, E. (2015). USDA approves next-generation GM potato. Nature biotechnology, 33(1), 12-13.  White, P. J., Bradshaw, J. E., Dale, M. F. B., Ramsay, G., Hammond, J. P., & Broadley, M. R. (2009). Relationships between yield and mineral concentrations in potato tubers. HortScience, 44(1), 611.  Zeng, D.-E., Hou, P., Xiao, F., & Liu, Y. (2013). Overexpression of Arabidopsis XERICO gene 57  confers enhanced drought and salt stress tolerance in rice (Oryza Sativa L.). Journal of Plant Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 24(1), 5664. http://doi.org/10.1007/s13562-013  Zhifang, G., & Loescher, W. H. (2003). Expression of a celery mannose 6-phosphate reductase in Arabidopsis thaliana enhances salt tolerance and induces biosynthesis of both mannitol and a glucosyl-mannitol dimer. Plant, Cell and Environment, 26(2), 275283. http://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-3040.2003.00958.x