Abstract:Genetically engineered plants (GEPs) have been cropped on large scale so far in many countries,which plays a great role in creating economic benefits. While the same time, an increasing attention had also been paid for the ecological risks brought about by the release of GEPs.\;It was difficult to predicate the occurrence and extent of long\|term environmental effects when GEPs are introduced into ecosystems. Through genetic engineering, GEPs may potentially create changes that enhance an organism's ability to become aggressive weeds or invasive in natural habitats. They are possible to spread wildly in ecosystems and caused unintended degradation of natural ecosystem. It was reported recently that transgenic oil\|seed rapes change into weed in Canada. Gene flow between GEPs and their wild relatives is also a potential invasive risk. By pollen transfer or other ways, the introgression of transgene into natural related species might occur. As lots of transgene disperse into wild gene pool, which may have a harmful effect on the genetic diversity of wild relatives. The release of GEPs into environments where weedy relatives exist should be carefully assessed.\; Plants engineered to produce proteins with pesticidal properties,such as Bacillus thuringensis (Bt) toxin, may have both direct and indirect effects on populations of nontarget organisms. Laboratory experiments suggest that adverse effects may occur when monarch butterfly larvae ingested Bt corn pollen on host plants. Bt toxin protein has no acute effect on honeybees, transgenic Bt rice pollen has no significant toxin effect on silkworm, but certain concentration cowpea trypsin inhibitor (CpTI) has deleterious effects on honeybees. The influences of GEPs on nontarget insects should not be ignored. GEPs may have indirect impact on populations of species that depend on the pests controlled for survival or reproduction.Population models suggested that more effective control of weed by using herbicide\|tolerant crops could lead to lower food availability for seed specialists. Interactions of natural enemies and insect\|resistant transgenic plants act as antagonism, additive action and synergism in controlling pests. To some degree, transgene protein might transfer from host plants to nontarget pest or from nontarget pests to natural enemies.\; Some GEPs affect soil ecosystem. The Cry1Ab protein can not only release from Bt corn root into rhizosphere soil, but also has acute toxin to tobacco horn\|worm Manduca sexta . Those indicate that GEPs may decline species diversity of soil micro\|organism, in some cases, can cause lower community diversity and productivity above ground.\; insect\|resistant transgenic plants plays a great role in integrated pest management (IPM). However, pests could develop resistance to insect \|resistant transgenic plants, and then decrease the effect and application value of insect \|resistant transgenic plants against pests. High dose expression, refuges, multiple gene and other tactics could delay the evolution of insect resistance. But there is no any strategy can prevent insects to express resistance to insect \|resistant transgenic plants. To delay the resistance of insects to transgenic plants, resistance managing tactics should be devised before insect \|resistant transgenic plants are widely and intensively deployed.\; Under laboratory conditions viruses with new biological characteristics could potentially arise in transgenic viral\|resistant plants through recombination and heteroencapsidation. New viral strains can evolve through recombination between closely related strains, and transference of transgenic sequences can occur. As occurs in other plant viruses, closely related viruses can exchange coat proteins, and coat proteins produced by transgenic virus\|resistant plants encapsulated a related virus that subsequently altered its transmissibility. For these reasons, strategies to reduce the biological risk of recombination and heteoencapsidation in transgenic viral\|resistant plants need to be investigated. \; In

Transgene containment by molecular means--is it possible and cost effective?

The Transfer of Foreign Genes and Its Expression Products in Genetically Modified Crops

Approaches of Transgenes Escape from Transgenic Plants

[Escape of Transgenes and Its Ecological Risks].

The molecular strategy advancement in control of transgene escape from genetically modified plants(GMP)

Environmental biosafety of transgenic plants:research and assessment of transgene escape and its potential ecological impacts

Gene Flow, Risk Assessment and the Environmental Release of Transgenic Plants

Advances on transgene containment technologies]

A Built-in Strategy to Mitigate Transgene Spreading from Genetically Modified Corn.

Analysis of Fitness Effect and Its Application in Assessing Environmental Risk Caused by Transgene Flow

Assessing Environmental Impact of Pollen-Mediated Transgene Flow

Challenges of Transgenic Crops to Ecological Safety and the Countermeasures

Genetically modified crops: success, safety assessment, and public concern

Effect of transgenic crops on biodiversity

Research Progress in Biocontainment of Genetically Modified Organisms

The Ecological Risks of Genetically Engineered Plants

Challenges of Transgenic Crop Commercialization in China

Challenges and Opportunities in Environmental Biosafety Research

A Double Built-In Containment Strategy For Production Of Recombinant Proteins In Transgenic Rice

Molecular Strategies for Addressing Gene Flow Problems and Their Potential Applications in Abiotic Stress Tolerant Transgenic Plants

Genetically modified crops: environmental and human health concerns