Come Together: Vasculature and Public Opinion on GMOs

One use of grafting in research is to gain insight into plant development. Grafting enables researchers to study how different elements of the plant develop, while working on a larger scale that is much easier to visualize than an apical meristem. WOX4 is a gene that has been shown to be necessary for vascular reconnection in grafts specifically regarding the differentiation into cambium and the patterning of vasculature, however the specific patterning of xylem vs. phloem has not yet been elucidated. It was also found that only half of the plant–scion or root doesn’t matter–is needed to have a functioning WOX4 gene for the graft to be successful. The WOX4 pathway has already been uncovered to function as follows. The CLE41 gene codes for TDIF (tracheary differential inhibitory factor) peptides which bind to PXY receptors (phloem intercalated with xylem). This binding induces WOX4 expression which regulates cambium maintenance. I designed an experiment to identify more specifically what each of these genes is responsible for within vascular differentiation. We had stable cle41 mutants, and I worked to genotype two lines of wox4. For each gene, I generated four types of tomato graft combinations: wildtype homografts, mutant homografts, and two types of heterografts with complementary scion-root combinations. Once the grafts healed, I harvested the junction, dehydrated, rehydrated, stained with PI, and dehydrated the sample yet again. This process allowed the PI stain to bind to pectin in the cell wall so the vasculature could be imaged with fluorescent microscopy. To better visualize the xylem separate from the phloem, the grafts were additionally stained with toluidine blue which differentially colors the xylem and phloem. The toluidine blue staining protocol needed to be adapted to match this context and also required troubleshooting to yield the best results in the dissecting microscope.

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have been on the market in the U.S. since the 1990s, however, they are still somewhat controversial. 51% of Americans believe that they are worse for one’s health than non-GMO food products (Funk, 2020). This percentage is surprisingly high considering the National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) consensus report from 2016 concluded that there is no difference in health risks between genetically modified and non-genetically modified foods. Given the results of the NASEM report, I sought to discover how Americans currently perceive the overall health impacts of GMOs and their specific health concerns. I conducted a structured literature search using Web of Science and reviewed studies from Google Scholar and Roper Polls, which yielded no recent in-depth research on the specific health concerns of Americans, although there has been some research in other countries. To get a more holistic sense of how people are feeling about GMOs, I conducted an oral survey at the Ithaca Farmers Market. I interviewed 23 participants, asking them about their opinions of GMOs and any health concerns they may have. The survey indicated that overall, the public has a poor understanding of GMOs. Increased education efforts could be used to improve both knowledge and positive opinions. More extensive research should be conducted both to dive deeper into people’s specific health concerns and to provide further evidence of the safety of GMOs in order to assuage these concerns.

This summer, I worked in both Margaret Frank and Bruce Lewenstein’s labs as part of the CROPPS program. In the Frank lab, I further developed my wet lab skills, learned about grafting, and expanded my knowledge on plant vasculature. I even had the opportunity to lead a grafting workshop for my peers in which I spoke about the history, uses, and science of grafting before demonstrating the process. My experience in the Lewenstein lab was one that was exciting and completely new. I learned how not only is it important for scientific findings to reach the public, it is also extremely important for the public’s concerns and values to direct scientific research. Going through the entire process of getting IRB certified, submitting an IRB proposal, conducting surveys, and performing an inductive content thematic analysis was eye-opening regarding the work of a social scientist. Working in both labs, I grew tremendously as a scientist while becoming more well-rounded.