Skip to content

What is the difference between GMOs and the plants we changed with special molecules?

4 min read

According to a 2023 study published in Frontiers in Plant Science, regulatory frameworks worldwide are still debating whether newer gene-edited crops should be considered genetically modified organisms (GMOs). This highlights the complex public and scientific confusion, making it crucial to understand the fundamental difference between GMOs and the plants we changed with special molecules.

Quick Summary

This article explains how traditional genetic modification (GMO) involves introducing foreign DNA, while modern gene editing, often described as using 'special molecules' like CRISPR, modifies a plant’s existing genes with greater precision and control.

Key Points

  • Foreign DNA Insertion: Traditional GMOs are defined by the insertion of foreign genetic material from another species (transgenes).

  • Targeted Edits: Modern gene editing, using tools like CRISPR, alters a plant's own DNA precisely, mimicking natural genetic variations.

  • Tool vs. Organism: The 'special molecules' are the molecular tools, such as the Cas9 protein and guide RNA, used for gene editing, not the modified plant itself.

  • Regulation Varies: Regulations for gene-edited plants differ globally; some countries exempt products free of foreign DNA from traditional GMO rules.

  • Enhanced Precision: Gene editing offers much greater speed, efficiency, and accuracy compared to the older, more random methods of creating traditional GMOs.

  • Different Outcomes: Depending on the specific edit performed (SDN-1, 2, or 3), a gene-edited plant may or may not be functionally different from one created through conventional breeding.

In This Article

Understanding Genetic Modification Terminology

At its core, genetic modification refers to altering an organism's genetic material. However, the term has evolved and expanded, leading to confusion. Traditionally, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) were created through a process called transgenesis, which explicitly involves adding foreign DNA. Today, new technologies, specifically modern gene editing tools often called "special molecules," allow for changes that are fundamentally different in both method and outcome. The core distinction lies in whether foreign, or 'transgenic,' DNA is introduced into the organism's genome.

The Creation of Traditional GMOs

Creating a traditional GMO typically involves inserting a gene from a different species to confer a new trait. Common methods include:

  • Agrobacterium-mediated transformation: This technique uses a soil bacterium, Agrobacterium tumefaciens, which naturally transfers a segment of its DNA (T-DNA) to plants. Scientists replace the bacterial genes on the T-DNA with the desired gene for a new trait. The Agrobacterium then delivers this engineered T-DNA into the plant's genome.
  • Biolistic method ('gene gun'): In this physical method, DNA is coated onto tiny gold or tungsten particles and shot into plant cells at high velocity. The plant cells are then regenerated into a whole plant from tissue culture. In both cases, the insertion of the foreign DNA is often random, and multiple insertions can sometimes occur.

The Revolution of Precision Gene Editing

What many refer to as "plants changed with special molecules" are products of modern gene editing technologies, most famously CRISPR/Cas9. Instead of randomly inserting foreign DNA, these tools act like highly precise 'genetic scissors' to modify the plant's own existing DNA. The "special molecules" are the Cas9 protein and a guide RNA (gRNA), which work together to find a specific target in the plant's genome and make a precise cut. The cell’s natural repair mechanisms then fix the break, either by deactivating a gene or by incorporating a small, targeted edit without leaving any foreign DNA behind. This process results in a plant that is genetically identical to one that could have developed through conventional breeding or a natural, random mutation, but the outcome is achieved much faster and more predictably.

Comparison: GMOs vs. Gene-Edited Plants

Feature Traditional GMO Gene-Edited Plant (CRISPR-based)
Methodology Inserts foreign DNA (transgenes) randomly into the plant's genome using a vector or gene gun. Uses molecular tools like CRISPR/Cas9 to make precise, targeted edits to the plant's own DNA sequence.
Foreign DNA Present in the final product. Absent in transgene-free products (SDN-1/2).
Precision Lower precision, with random insertion points that can disrupt other genes. Higher precision, with targeted edits at specific locations.
Regulatory Status Often subject to strict, process-based regulations in many countries. Regulation is varied. Some products (SDN-1/2) are often unregulated like GMOs in the US and other countries, while the EU still regulates them.
Development Time Can be a lengthy process involving multiple generations of breeding and selection. Can be significantly faster, reducing the time from research to new varieties.
Public Perception Has faced significant public concern, largely due to the presence of foreign DNA. Newer technology with complex public understanding, but potentially higher acceptance due to the absence of foreign DNA.

Addressing the Regulatory Ambiguity

One of the most significant points of contention between traditional GMOs and modern gene-edited crops is regulation. The debate centers on whether the process used to create the crop or the final product itself should be regulated. In the United States, the USDA’s product-based approach has allowed many gene-edited crops (specifically SDN-1 and SDN-2, which lack foreign DNA) to be developed outside of the stringent regulatory oversight applied to classic GMOs. For example, a non-browning mushroom created using CRISPR was deregulated in 2015. In contrast, the European Union employs a process-based approach, and has historically regulated all gene-edited plants under the same rules as traditional GMOs, although this position is subject to review. This regulatory mosaic has created a complex landscape for international trade and public acceptance.

Why Precision Matters for Crop Improvement

The high precision of gene editing allows scientists to make changes that mimic natural mutations or improvements from conventional breeding, but in a fraction of the time. This enables breakthroughs that were previously impossible or impractical. For instance, researchers have used CRISPR to create tomatoes with enhanced nutritional value, improve disease resistance in wheat, and develop more climate-resilient crops. The ability to precisely adjust a plant’s native genes opens new possibilities for sustainable agriculture, helping to address global food security challenges more effectively than older, less targeted methods. For example, by precisely editing a plant's own genome, scientists can enhance its natural defenses against pests without introducing bacterial toxins.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

The difference between traditional GMOs and modern gene-edited plants is more nuanced than simply altering a plant's genetics. Traditional GMOs are fundamentally defined by the stable integration of foreign DNA, a process that is less precise and raises distinct regulatory and public concerns. In contrast, plants changed with "special molecules" like CRISPR involve precise, targeted alterations to the plant’s existing genome, which in many cases, do not result in the presence of foreign DNA in the final product. This scientific distinction has profound implications for regulation, public discourse, and the future of agriculture. As these technologies continue to advance, a more informed and scientifically grounded understanding is essential for harnessing their full potential.

An excellent overview of gene editing technology can be found on the MedlinePlus website, which is a service of the U.S. National Library of Medicine, explaining what CRISPR-Cas9 is and its origins.

Frequently Asked Questions

This is a key point of debate. The legal and scientific communities are divided. If the CRISPR process doesn't leave behind any foreign DNA (often called transgene-free editing or SDN-1/2), some countries and scientists don't classify it as a traditional GMO. However, other countries define any biotech process as creating a GMO.

This is a non-technical way of referring to modern gene-edited plants. The 'special molecules' are the components of gene editing systems, such as the Cas9 protein and guide RNA used in CRISPR, which are delivered to the plant cell to make specific changes.

All genetically modified crops undergo rigorous safety assessments by regulatory agencies. Supporters of gene editing argue that because many of these plants lack foreign DNA and the changes are more precise, they present a lower risk profile. However, each modified plant must still be evaluated individually.

High precision, as seen with CRISPR, allows scientists to make targeted, specific changes to a plant's genome, preventing the unintended genetic disruptions that can occur with the random insertion characteristic of older transgenic methods. This makes the outcomes more predictable.

One example is a non-browning mushroom, approved in the US in 2015. Scientists used gene editing to knock out a specific gene responsible for enzymatic browning, resulting in a product that doesn't visibly brown as quickly.

In most jurisdictions, no. Organic standards generally prohibit crops developed using genetic engineering technologies, including modern gene-editing techniques like CRISPR, regardless of whether foreign DNA is present.

The type of gene editing used determines this. While some applications use a DNA repair template that can be considered foreign (SDN-3), many common applications (SDN-1/2) result in a final product that contains no foreign DNA. For these, the gene-editing molecules are only transiently present during the modification process.

These refer to different types of site-directed nuclease (SDN) gene-editing outcomes. SDN-1 introduces a random mutation at a target site. SDN-2 makes a precise change using a small DNA repair template. Both typically result in no foreign DNA. SDN-3 inserts a larger gene or segment and is considered more akin to a traditional GMO.

References

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5

Medical Disclaimer

This content is for informational purposes only and should not replace professional medical advice.