Petition for Determination of Nonregulated Status:

ArcticTM Apple (Malus x domestica)

Events GD743 and GS784

The undersigned submits this petition under 7 CFR Part 340.6 to request that the 

Administrator make a determination that the article should not be regulated under 7 CFR 

part 340.

Submitted by:

___________________________

Neal Carter

President

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc.

PO Box 1533

Summerland, BC V0H 1Z0

Canada

Submitted February 21, 2012

CONTAINS NO CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 2 of 163

Release of Information

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. (OSF) is submitting the information in this petition for review by 

the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS) as part of the regulatory process to consider article deregulation under 7 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 340.6. By submitting this information, OSF does not authorize 

its release to any third party. In the event the USDA should receive a Freedom of Information 

Act request, pursuant to 5 U.S. Code (USC) 552, and 7 CFR Part 1, covering all or some of this 

information, OSF expects that, in advance of release of the document(s), USDA will provide 

OSF with a copy of any and all material proposed to be released and the opportunity to object to 

the release of any information based on appropriate legal grounds, e.g. responsiveness, 

confidentiality and/or competitive concerns. OSF understands that a copy of this information 

may be made available to the public, as part of a public comment period. Except in accordance 

with the foregoing, OSF does not authorize the release, publication or other distribution of this 

information (including online hosting) without OSF’s prior notice and consent.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 3 of 163

Executive Summary

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) has the responsibility, under the Plant Protection Act (7 CFR USC sections 

7701-7772), to prevent the introduction and/or dissemination of plant pests into the United States 

or interstate introduction and/or dissemination. APHIS regulations at 7 CFR 340.6 provide that 

an applicant may petition APHIS to evaluate submitted data to determine that a particular 

regulated article does not present a plant pest risk and therefore should no longer be regulated. If 

APHIS determines that the regulated article does not present a plant pest risk, the petition is 

granted, thereby allowing the deregulated article to be introduced into the marketplace without 

restriction.

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. (OSF) is submitting this request to APHIS for nonregulated status 

of ArcticTM Apple (Malus x domestica

1

) events GD743 and GS784 which are resistant to 

enzymatic browning. The “nonbrowning” phenotype of GD743 and GS784 was developed by 

inserting a polyphenol oxidase (PPO) suppression sequence derived from apple. When apples 

containing the inserted gene are subjected to mechanical damage, such as slicing or bruising, the 

apple flesh does not brown as an untransformed apple does, but rather remains its original color. 

This nonbrowning trait reduces the need for antibrowning agents on cut fruit, and minimizes 

shrinkage caused by harvest and postharvest damage.

Cultivated apple (Malus x domestica) is one of the major temperate fruit-tree crops. OSF is 

developing ArcticTM Apple cultivars that will function as direct replacements for current 

cultivars in situations where the ArcticTM Apple trait would provide an advantage and add value.

ArcticTM Apple events were produced using an Agrobacterium-based plant transformation 

system. The transformation vector, GEN-03, contains a chimeric PPO suppression transgene 

consisting of partial coding sequences of four members of the apple PPO gene family –

consisting of PPO2, GPO3, APO5 and pSR7 – in the sense orientation under control of the 

cauliflower mosaic virus (CAMV35s) promoter and nopaline synthase (NOS) terminator. The 

transgene is designed to simultaneously reduce expression of PPO2, GPO3, APO5 and pSR7 to 

induce a nonbrowning phenotype in apple fruit. The transgene sequences were derived from the 

donor organism apple. Molecular characterization of ArcticTM Apple events showed that GD743 

contains two copies of the transfer DNA (T-DNA), while GS784 arose from the insertion of 

multiple copies of the T-DNA, with no evidence for the inclusion of vector backbone in either 

case.

Phenotypic data and other information presented in this petition demonstrate that it is no more 

likely that the regulated articles will present a plant pest risk than conventional apple for the 

following reasons: 

(i) no biologically meaningful agronomic or phenotypic differences in apple populations 

containing either event GD743 or GS784 were detected over multiple years and 

locations compared to control and conventional apple populations, indicating that 

 

1

See Nomenclature and Biology of Cultivated Apple (OSF, 2011) for synonyms of Malus x domestica.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 4 of 163

there was no increased weediness or competitiveness in apple populations containing 

either of the ArcticTM Apple events;

(ii) apple populations containing either of the transformed events were no more 

susceptible to disease or insect pests than conventional apple populations; 

(iii) the composition and quality of apples derived from the populations containing the 

ArcticTM Apple events were comparable to the composition and quality of apples 

from control and conventional apple cultivars; and

(iv) the likeliness of apple outcrosses due to pollen gene flow is low – as it is in 

conventional orchards – and even if pollen gene flow does occur, the environmental 

impact would be very low, limited to the transgene being expressed in a portion of 

seeds only.

The PPO suppression transgene does not confer plant pest characteristics to apple and as such, 

the transgenic GD743 and GS784 events containing the PPO suppression transgene do not 

represent a plant pest risk.

The use of ArcticTM Apple cultivars can provide benefit by (i) minimizing shrinkage caused by 

harvest and postharvest damage, (ii) reducing or eliminating the need for antibrowning agents on 

cut fruit, and (iii) promoting the inclusion of apple in the fresh-cut fruit market.

Data and information in this request demonstrate that events GD743 and GS784 do not represent 

a unique plant pest risk. Therefore, OSF requests a determination from APHIS that events 

GD743 and GS784, and progeny thereof, no longer be considered regulated articles under 

regulations in 7 CFR part 340. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 5 of 163

Nomenclature

Throughout this petition, subject apples are referred to as “GD743” and “GS784”. The numbers 

“743” and “784” are the original designations of the selected clones. The letter codes were added 

here to identify the parent cultivars Golden Delicious (GD) and Granny Smith (GS).

In accordance with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's (OECD) 

“Guidance for the Designation of a Unique Identifier for Transgenic Plants” (OECD, 2002)

GD743 has been assigned the unique identifier OKA-NBØØ1-8 and GS784 has been assigned 

the unique identifier OKA-NBØØ2-9.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 6 of 163

Certification

The undersigned certifies that, to his best knowledge and belief, this petition includes all 

information and views on which to base a determination, and that it includes all relevant data and 

information known to the petitioners which may be unfavorable to the petition. 

___________________________________

Neal Carter

President

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc.

PO Box 1533

Summerland, BC V0H 1Z0

Canada
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 7 of 163

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RELEASE OF INFORMATION ...............................................................................................................................2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................................3

NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................................................................5

CERTIFICATION.......................................................................................................................................................6

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................................9

LIST OF FIGURES...................................................................................................................................................11

KEY TO ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS....................................................................................................12

1 RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ARCTICTM APPLES ................................................................15

1.1 BASIS FOR REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF NONREGULATED STATUS UNDER 7 CFR PART 340.6....15

1.2 ARCTICTM APPLE EVENTS GD743 AND GS784..........................................................................................15

1.3 BENEFITS OF ARCTICTM APPLE EVENTS GD743 AND GS784 ...................................................................16

1.4 SUBMISSIONS TO OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES...................................................................................16

2 THE APPLE FAMILY......................................................................................................................................17

2.1 APPLE AS A CROP........................................................................................................................................17

2.2 TAXONOMY OF APPLE ................................................................................................................................18

2.3 GENETICS OF APPLE ...................................................................................................................................19

2.4 PROPAGATION AND POLLINATION OF APPLE ............................................................................................21

2.5 WEEDINESS OF APPLE ................................................................................................................................22

2.6 MODES OF GENE ESCAPE IN APPLE ...........................................................................................................22

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSFORMATION SYSTEM.........................................................................25

4 DONOR GENES AND REGULATORY SEQUENCES................................................................................27

4.1 BIOLOGY OF POLYPHENOL OXIDASE (PPO) .............................................................................................27

4.1.1 PPO Evolutionary History...................................................................................................................27

4.1.2 Plant PPOs and Browning...................................................................................................................27

4.1.3 PPO Biochemistry and Physiological Function ..................................................................................29

4.1.4 PPO Molecular Biology.......................................................................................................................31

4.2 GEN-03 VECTOR ........................................................................................................................................34

4.3 PPO SUPPRESSION TRANSGENE.................................................................................................................36

4.4 NPTII SELECTION MARKER .......................................................................................................................36

4.5 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................36

5 GENETIC ANALYSIS AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION.....................................................37

5.1 MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION............................................................................................................37

5.1.1 Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) .....................................................................................................37

5.1.2 Southern Blot Analysis.........................................................................................................................38

5.1.3 Reverse Primer PCR (rpPCR) .............................................................................................................44

5.2 INHERITANCE AND STABILITY OF THE INSERT ..........................................................................................47

5.2.1 Mendelian Inheritance.........................................................................................................................47

5.2.2 Clonal Stability ....................................................................................................................................48

5.3 BASIS FOR RESISTANCE TO ENZYMATIC BROWNING IN GD743 AND GS784 ...........................................50

5.3.1 PPO Enzyme Activity ...........................................................................................................................50

5.3.2 Controlled Bruising of Apple ...............................................................................................................54

5.4 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................59

6 AGRONOMIC EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................61

6.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE FIELD TRIALS..........................................................................................................61

6.1.1 Site Selection........................................................................................................................................61
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 8 of 163

6.1.2 Horticultural Management ..................................................................................................................63

6.1.3 Data Collection....................................................................................................................................63

6.2 AGRONOMIC PERFORMANCE .....................................................................................................................64

6.2.1 Tree Growth Rate ................................................................................................................................66

6.2.2 Flower Cluster Number .......................................................................................................................67

6.2.3 Fruit Number at Harvest Time.............................................................................................................67

6.3 PEST AND DISEASE CHARACTERISTICS......................................................................................................67

6.3.1 Scab .....................................................................................................................................................68

6.3.2 Mildew .................................................................................................................................................69

6.3.3 Fireblight.............................................................................................................................................69

6.3.4 Aphids..................................................................................................................................................71

6.3.5 Mites ....................................................................................................................................................73

6.3.6 Japanese Beetle ...................................................................................................................................73

6.3.7 Codling Moth.......................................................................................................................................73

6.3.8 Tentiform Leaf Miner...........................................................................................................................74

6.3.9 Burr Knot.............................................................................................................................................75

6.3.10 Leaf Spot..............................................................................................................................................75

6.3.11 Russet...................................................................................................................................................75

6.3.12 Campylomma .......................................................................................................................................77

6.3.13 Fruit Rot after Storage.........................................................................................................................77

6.3.14 Pest and Disease Summary..................................................................................................................78

6.4 NUTRITION AND COMPOSITIONAL ANALYSIS ............................................................................................81

6.5 EXPRESSION OF NPTII IN MATURE FRUIT .................................................................................................91

6.6 CONCLUSIONS .............................................................................................................................................92

7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF INTRODUCTION OF THE TRANSFORMED 

CULTIVAR................................................................................................................................................................93

7.1 IMPORTANCE OF APPLE..............................................................................................................................93

7.1.1 Description ..........................................................................................................................................93

7.1.2 Production and Origin.........................................................................................................................93

7.1.3 Apple Cultivars....................................................................................................................................94

7.1.4 Apple Uses...........................................................................................................................................95

7.1.5 Apple Nutrition ....................................................................................................................................95

7.2 CURRENT METHODS FOR INHIBITING BROWNING IN APPLE....................................................................96

7.3 IMPACT OF ENZYMATIC BROWNING IN FRESH AND PROCESS APPLE PRODUCTS....................................97

7.4 EXPECTED ECONOMIC IMPACT OF ARCTICTM APPLE...............................................................................98

7.4.1 US Apple Production Environment......................................................................................................98

7.4.2 New Cultivars and Marketing Dynamics.............................................................................................99

7.4.3 Market Impact of ArcticTM Apples.....................................................................................................101

7.5 GENE FLOW...............................................................................................................................................102

7.5.1 Potential recipients of transgenes from cultivated apple...................................................................102

7.5.2 Routes of gene flow in addition to bee pollination.............................................................................103

7.6 STEWARDSHIP OF ARCTICTM APPLE ........................................................................................................103

8 ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF INTRODUCTION..............................................................................105

9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................106

APPENDIX 1. PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF GD743 AND GS784 .............112

APPENDIX 2. FIELD MAPS .................................................................................................................................118

APPENDIX 3. PEST AND DISEASE DATA – FIELD REPORTS....................................................................141
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 9 of 163

List of Tables

Table 1: List of Known Apple PPO Genes..................................................................................................................32

Table 2: Overview of the Apple PPO Gene Family ....................................................................................................33

Table 3: Homology of PPO2, GPO3, APO5 and pSR7 ...............................................................................................34

Table 4: Micro-Homology of PPO2, GPO3, APO5 and pSR7 ....................................................................................34

Table 5: Components of the T-DNA Used to Develop GD743 and GS784 ................................................................35

Table 6: Primers for PCR Screening GEN-03 Transformed Tissue ............................................................................38

Table 7: Primers Used to Prepare the Hybridization Probes .......................................................................................40

Table 8: Primer Sequences for Reverse Primer PCR (rpPCR) ....................................................................................45

Table 9: Primer Pairs for the Detection of Tandem or Inverted Repeats.....................................................................45

Table 10: Primers for Determining Mendelian Inheritance .........................................................................................47

Table 11: Mendelian Inheritance .................................................................................................................................48

Table 12: Detection of the nptII gene in Apple Leaf Tissue by PCR ..........................................................................49

Table 13: Detection of NptII Protein in Apple Leaf Tissue by ELISA .......................................................................50

Table 14: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Tissue Culture Leaves .....................................................................51

Table 15: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Greenhouse Leaves..........................................................................52

Table 16: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Field Leaves ....................................................................................52

Table 17: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Immature Fruit.................................................................................53

Table 18: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Mature Fruit.....................................................................................54

Table 19: Controlled Bruising of GD743 and GS784 (18oC) - 2005...........................................................................57

Table 20: Controlled Bruising of GD743 and GS784 (18oC) - 2006...........................................................................58

Table 21: Controlled Bruising of GD743 and GS784 (2oC)........................................................................................59

Table 22: Washington State Field Trial Notifications and Permits .............................................................................61

Table 23: New York State Field Trial Notifications and Permits................................................................................61

Table 24: Agronomic Performance - New York..........................................................................................................65

Table 25: Agronomic Performance - Washington .......................................................................................................65

Table 26: Record of Fireblight Incidences in OSF's Washington Field Trial..............................................................71

Table 27: Effect of Cultivar or ArcticTM Apple Trait on Pest and Disease Resistance................................................80

Table 28: Apple Fruit Compositional Analysis - New York .......................................................................................82

Table 29: Apple Fruit Compositional Analysis - Washington.....................................................................................83

Table 30: Moisture% in GD743 and GS784................................................................................................................84

Table 31: Protein% in GD743 and GS784...................................................................................................................85

Table 32: Carbohydrate% in GD743 and GS784 ........................................................................................................85

Table 33: Calories per 100g in GD743 and GS784 .....................................................................................................86

Table 34: Fiber% in GD743 and GS784......................................................................................................................86

Table 35: Sugar% in GD743 and GS784.....................................................................................................................87

Table 36: Potassium mg per 100 g in GD743 and GS784 ...........................................................................................87

Table 37: ORAC in GD743 and GS784 ......................................................................................................................89

Table 38: Total Phenolics in GD743 and GS784.........................................................................................................89

Table 39: Vitamin C in GD743 and GS784.................................................................................................................90

Table 40: Presence of NptII Protein in Leaves of GD743 and GS784 (ELISA) .........................................................91

Table 41: Presence of NptII Protein in Mature Fruit of GD743 and GS784 (ELISA).................................................92

Table 42: Top Ten Apple Producers (2008) ................................................................................................................94

Table 43: Nutritional Composition of Apple, Raw with Skin (NDB09003) ...............................................................96

Table 44: Past 10 Years Annual Apple Production vs. Average Farmgate Prices Received .......................................98

Table 45: USA Apple Production, By Top 10 States (000 boxes)...............................................................................99

Table 46: USA Apple Production, By Top 15 Cultivars (000 boxes) .......................................................................100

Table 47: Washington Nursery Tree Sales (Number of Trees Sold) .........................................................................100

Table 48: Target Market Penetration (1 box = 42 pounds)........................................................................................102

Table 49: Map of the Washington Field Trial – 2003 Block.....................................................................................118

Table 50: Map of the New York Field Trial – 2005 Block........................................................................................124

Table 51: Map of the Washington Field Trial - 2004 Block......................................................................................127

Table 52: Map of the Washington Field Trial - 2008 Block......................................................................................134

Table 53: Field Report - Powdery Mildew - WA2008 - April 19, 2010....................................................................141

Table 54: Field Report - Powdery Mildew - NY2005 - July 21, 2008 ......................................................................142
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 10 of 163

Table 55: Field Report - Powdery Mildew - WA2008 - August 16, 2010.................................................................143

Table 56: Field Report - Fireblight............................................................................................................................144

Table 57: Field Report - Aphids - NY2005 - November 19, 2009 ............................................................................145

Table 58: Field Report - Green Apple Aphid - WA2004 - August 9, 2010...............................................................146

Table 59: Field Report - Green Apple Aphid - WA2004 - August 16, 2010.............................................................147

Table 60: Field Report - Woolly Aphids - WA2004 - July 12, 2010.........................................................................148

Table 61: Field Report - Japanese Beetle - NY2005 - July 21, 2008.........................................................................149

Table 62: Field Report - Japanese Beetle - NY2005 - July 21, 2010.........................................................................150

Table 63: Field Report - Tentiform Leaf Miner - WA2004 - August 23, 2005 .........................................................151

Table 64: Field Report - Burr Knot - NY2005 - August 24, 2006.............................................................................152

Table 65: Field Report - Leaf Spot - NY2005 - August 24, 2006 .............................................................................153

Table 66: Field Report - Russet - NY 2005 - November 19, 2009 ............................................................................154

Table 67: Field Report - Russet - WA2004 - June 21, 2010......................................................................................155

Table 68: Field Report - Russet - WA2008 - June 21, 2010......................................................................................156

Table 69: Field Report - Russet - NY2005 - July 21, 2010 .......................................................................................157

Table 70: Field Report - Campylomma - WA2004 - May 24, 2010..........................................................................158

Table 71: Field Report - Campylomma - WA2008 - May 24, 2010..........................................................................159

Table 72: Field Report - 2008 Fruit Rot After Storage - NY2005 - June 30, 2009 ...................................................160

Table 73: Field Report - 2009 Fruit Rot After Storage - NY2005 - December 30, 2010 ..........................................162
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 11 of 163

List of Figures

Figure 1: Steps in the Development of GD743 and GS784. ........................................................................................26

Figure 2: Map of the GEN-03 Vector..........................................................................................................................35

Figure 3: Location of the PCR Primers on the GEN-03 Vector ..................................................................................38

Figure 4: Relative Location of Probes and Restriction Enzymes on the GEN-03 Vector ...........................................40

Figure 5: Southern Blot - Transgene Probe .................................................................................................................42

Figure 6: Southern Blot - Backbone Probe..................................................................................................................43

Figure 7: Potential T-DNA Insertion Structures and Primer Locations.......................................................................46

Figure 8: The Konica Minolta CR-300 Chroma Meter................................................................................................55

Figure 9: Agronomic Performance Overview..............................................................................................................66

Figure 10: Pest and Disease Monitoring (Washington 2010)......................................................................................68

Figure 11: Micrografting ArcticTM Apple Shoot to M9 Rootstocks ........................................................................112

Figure 12: Trial Block - Washington.........................................................................................................................113

Figure 13: Whole Apple Images of GD743 and GS784 ............................................................................................114

Figure 14: Bruise Response in GD743 and GS784 ...................................................................................................115

Figure 15: Apple Slices of GD743 and GD Control..................................................................................................116

Figure 16: Apple Juice Made From GD743 and GS784............................................................................................117
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 12 of 163

Key to Abbreviation and Acronyms

APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

BCA bicinchoninic acid

bp nucleotide base pairs

CAMV35s Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35s

cDNA complementary DNA 

CFIA Canadian Food Inspection Agency

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (Australia)

CTAB cetyltrimethylammonium bromide

Cu copper

DMSO dimethylsulfoxide

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

dNTP deoxynucleotide triphosphate

dsRNA double stranded RNA

E. coli Escherichia coli

EDTA ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid

ELISA Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay

EST expressed sequence tag

FB fireblight

FDA Food and Drug Administration

g gram

GAA Green Apple Aphid

GAP Good Agricultural Practices

GD Golden Delicious

GD743 ArcticTM Apple event Golden Delicious 743

GS Granny Smith

GS784 ArcticTM Apple event Granny Smith 784

GUS beta-glucuronidase

HCl hydrochloric acid

IPM Integrated Pest Management

JB Japanese beetle
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 13 of 163

Key to Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.)

kD kilodalton

LB left border

M mean

MgCl2 magnesium chloride

mg milligram

ml milliliter

mM millimolar

mRNA messenger RNA

N number of units in a population

n number of units in a sample

NaCl sodium chloride

NF a non-patented strain of Fuji

ng nanogram

nptII neomycin phosphotransferase II gene

NptII neomycin phosphotransferase II protein

NOS nopaline synthase

ORAC oxygen radical absorbance capacity

OSF Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc.

P probability

PCR polymerase chain reaction

PG a patented strain of Gala

PM Powdery Mildew

PPO polyphenol oxidase

RB right border

RNA ribonucleic acids

S standard deviation

SDS sodium dodecyl sulfate

siRNA small interfering RNA

SOFA Statistics Open For All

SSII Superscript II

T-DNA transfer DNA
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 14 of 163

Key to Abbreviations and Acronyms (cont.)

TLM tentiform leafminer

USA United States of America

USC United States Code 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

UTR untranslated region
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 15 of 163

1 RATIONALE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ARCTICTM APPLES

1.1 Basis for Request for Determination of Nonregulated Status under 7 CFR Part 340.6

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the US Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) has the responsibility, under the Plant Protection Act (7 USC Sections 7701-7772) and 

the Plant Quarantine Act (7 USC Sections 151-167) to prevent the introduction and 

dissemination of plant pests into and within the United States. APHIS regulations at 7 CFR 340.6 

provide that an applicant may petition APHIS to evaluate submitted data to determine that a 

particular regulated article does not represent a plant pest risk and should no longer be regulated. 

If APHIS determines that the regulated article does not present a plant pest risk, the petition is 

granted, thereby allowing unrestricted introduction of the article.

1.2 ArcticTM Apple Events GD743 and GS784

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. (OSF) has developed ArcticTM Apple events GD743 and GS784 

that are resistant to enzymatic browning. These events were developed using Agrobacteriummediated transformation to stably incorporate into the apple genome a chimeric polyphenol 

oxidase (PPO) suppression transgene derived from apple. The transgene is designed to 

simultaneously suppress expression of four members of the apple PPO gene family.

Browning discoloration of apple flesh due to damage – such as from cuts, bruises and cell death 

that cause disruption of cell membranes – is caused by an enzymatic reaction catalyzed by PPO. 

The brown pigment is a polymer formed from the nonenzymatic condensation of quinones, with 

lesser amounts of amino acids and proteins, into lignin-like compounds. The quinones are 

synthesized from diphenols in the reaction catalyzed by PPO (Whitaker and Lee, 1995b). Most 

PPOs also have monophenolase activity, and convert monophenols to diphenols (Mar - Sojo et 

al., 1998). 

Normally in apple, PPO is located in the plastid, physically separated from the phenolic 

substrates in the vacuole. When cells are damaged, loss of compartmentalization occurs and PPO 

comes into contact with its substrate. In events GD743 and GS784, little to no PPO enzyme is 

present, so cell disruption does not lead to browning.

Browning also reduces apple quality by causing detrimental flavor and nutritional changes 

(Eskin, 1990) that limit apple’s fresh-market, fresh-cut and processing applications. Brown 

bruises are a significant cause of reduced grade for fresh-market apples for growers and of lost 

value for retailers. Enzymatic browning also limits the use of apple in fresh-cut produce products 

and is a significant problem limiting the widespread introduction and viability of prepared apple 

slices. Browning is also a major consideration in the manufacture of juice and dehydrated apple 

products.

ArcticTM Apple events will be used as direct replacements for their untransformed conventional 

counterparts in situations where the nonbrowning trait is considered desirable. They will also be 

used in conventional breeding efforts to produce new apple cultivars that are resistant to 

enzymatic browning. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 16 of 163

A series of photographs in Appendix 1 help to document the development and characterization of 

GD743 and GS784.

1.3 Benefits of ArcticTM Apple Events GD743 and GS784

ArcticTM Apple events GD743 and GS784 will offer growers, packers, processors, wholesalers, 

retailers, foodservice and consumers nonbrowning variants of many of the popular apple 

cultivars they have become accustom to purchasing. 

Key benefits of the ArcticTM Apple cultivars will include:

 reduced shrinkage caused by finger bruising and scuff marks,

 reduced need for antibrowning agents on fresh sliced and dehydrated apple products,

 new uses of apples in high-quality, prepared-produce items, and

 promotion of consumption of this healthy snack food.

1.4 Submissions to Other Regulatory Agencies

GD743 and GS784 are within the scope of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) 

policy statement concerning regulation of products derived from new plant cultivars, including 

those developed through biotechnology. That statement, which was published in the Federal 

Register on May 19, 1992 (57 FR 22984), clarified the FDA’s interpretation of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act. In compliance with that policy, OSF submitted to the FDA a food and 

feed safety and nutritional assessment for events GD743 and GS784 on May 30, 2011. 

Furthermore, regulatory submissions for product approvals were made to Health Canada and the 

Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) on December 7, 2011.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 17 of 163

2 THE APPLE FAMILY

A companion document entitled “Biology of Cultivated Apple” (OSF, 2011), submitted to the 

United States Department of Agriculture by Okanagan Specialty Fruits, provides an extensive 

review of the apple family. The following sections provide a summary of that content, including 

information on apple’s origin, use, biology, taxonomy, genetics, related species and history.

2.1 Apple as a Crop

Apple cultivars are used for fresh fruit, fresh-cut products and processing into juice, pie filling, 

sauce, alcoholic cider, juice concentrate, fruit leather, dehydrated fruit bars and other products 

(Downing, 1989). Byproducts of manufacturing, such as pomace left over from juice production, 

may be fed to livestock, wild animals or used as a food ingredient in, for example, baked goods, 

for extraction of ester flavors, etc. Hobbyists in cold areas grow minor cultivars, selected for 

hardiness, many of which may have crab apple in their background (Ferree and Warrington, 

2003). Several Malus crab apple species and crab apple hybrids are used as ornamental and 

amenity trees, and as specialized pollinator cultivars interplanted in commercial apple orchards 

(Mayerd et al., 1989). 

Fresh apples are the primary apple product consumed in the United States. Processed apples

account for less than 50 percent of the U.S. crop on average, with some variation in production 

location and from year to year (Outlook, 2007). Apples compete with processed snack foods and 

confectionaries, as well as other fruits and fresh vegetables. The apple is notable for its 

nutritional qualities. It is a natural snack food with low fat content, sugar content of 11-16 

percent, is a good source of potassium, soluble fiber including pectin and other complex 

carbohydrates, phenol and flavonoid antioxidants (Vinson et al., 2001). Children and infants 

consume a disproportionate amount of fresh and processed products of apple (Dennison, 1996).

Cultivated apple is the world’s most important temperate fruit crop. Countries with significant 

apple production are: China, Europe, USA, India, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Japan, Chile, New 

Zealand, Canada, Australia, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil (O'Rourke, 1994). Per capita 

consumption in the USA and Canada is in the order of 16 pounds of fresh apples and 29 pounds 

of processed apple products per year (O'Rourke, 2010). The farm-gate value of apples in the 

USA is about $1.6-2.0 billion (Perez and Pollack, 2008).

Cultivated apple trees are grown in orchards throughout temperate regions of the world 

(Westwood, 1993). Fruit cultivars with desirable quality and production characteristics are 

propagated by grafting a scion onto a rootstock, since apple does not root easily from cuttings 

(Rom and Carlson, 1987). Rootstock cultivars, also usually Malus x domestica, are propagated in 

layer beds and affect the scion cultivar by inducing traits such as dwarf growth habit, precocity, 

resistance to root diseases and cold temperatures, or have other characteristics useful for efficient 

apple production (Jackson, 2005). Seedlings of hardy cultivars such as cv. Wealthy and crab 

apples are also sometimes used as rootstock. Modern orchards are planted at a density of 200-

2000 trees per acre, and trees are seldom higher than 15 feet tall at maturity. Production averages 

about 15 tons per acre, but can vary considerably depending on orchard age, management 

practices and weather. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 18 of 163

Climatic areas with a hardiness zone rating of 5a (McKenney et al., 2001) or warmer, but also 

cool enough to result in 1200 or more hours of chilling, are most suitable for commercial apple 

production. Production is centered in, but is not exclusive to, areas with low to moderate rainfall, 

in order to promote good fruit size and color as well as to avoid diseases such as apple scab and 

canker that are problematic in damper climates. Orchard trees are usually replaced after about 20 

years as new and improved cultivars become available or land use changes. Specimen apple and 

pear trees growing in favorable locations can be very long lived, probably as long as 400 years 

old (Wikipedia(1), 2011). 

Apple trees in commercial plantings reach maturity at an age of 4-5 years. Flowering in the early 

spring produces white or pink flowers about 1 inch in diameter that develop on fruiting spurs in 

groups of six flowers. Cultivated apple often develops a biennial bearing habit, tending to 

produce abundant flowers in one year but fewer in the next; this is a significant production 

hindrance that can be managed by thinning fruit soon after bloom. Fruits can be uniformly red, 

green or yellow, or bicolored such as striped or blushed red on yellow or green background 

(Wikipedia(2), 2011). The most desirable weight of commercial apples ranges from 6-10 ounces 

per piece. Apples are picked between mid-August and November in northern temperate zones, 

and some cultivars can be stored for up to a year. There are about 11 significant commercial 

apple cultivars in international trade, with many of these grown in all major production areas. 

Widely grown international cultivars are: Golden Delicious, Red Delicious, Granny Smith, Gala, 

Fuji and Jonagold. Minor international cultivars include: McIntosh, Cox’s Orange, Braeburn, 

Mutsu and Pink Lady. Many additional apple cultivars are sold into regional or niche markets 

(O'Rourke, 1994).

Apple is a labor intensive, highly managed crop, requiring about 200 hours of labor per acre per 

year. The major crop management operations are: fruit harvesting, tree pruning, fruit thinning, 

irrigation, plant nutrition, growth regulation, and pest and disease control. While varying 

considerably, mature commercial orchards generate gross sales of $4,000 to $10,000 per acre per 

year (Gallardo et al., 2010). Apple scab and powdery mildew are the major fungal diseases; 

Fireblight is the major bacterial disease; codling moth and leaf rollers the key insect pests in 

most production areas, while aphids, mites, and other pests are of concern in most areas. Virus 

diseases can also infect apple, with most viruses spread during propagation through use of 

contaminated grafting wood (WSU, 2010). However, virus diseases have become a limited 

concern to apple growers more recently because of the success of certified budwood schemes 

that distribute virus-free wood for propagation. Apple can also be infected by a number of 

quarantinable diseases, and certification standards are in place for import and export of fruit, 

propagating wood and trees with trading partners.

2.2 Taxonomy of Apple

The cultivated apple is a member of Rosaceae, the rose family, which is made up in general of 

herbs, shrubs or trees that are deciduous or evergreen and often thorny. Rosaceae consists of 

about 100 genera with more than 2,000 species distributed throughout the world; it is most 

common in temperate regions and is sometimes divided into tribes or subfamilies based on fruit 

characteristics (Rehder, 1958). Rosaceae species of agronomic importance include: apple, pear, 

quince, peach, cherry, apricot, plum, strawberry, raspberry and blackberry. Species of 

ornamental importance include: crab apple, pyrocantha, spirea, mountain ash and rose. The 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 19 of 163

genus Malus, to which cultivated apple and crab apple belong, includes about 25 species 

worldwide. The center of diversity of cultivated apple is central Asia, but native or naturalized 

Malus occur in central Europe and a number of Malus species are native to temperate Asia and 

western China (Way et al., 1990). 

The following Malus species have been identified as native or naturalized in the United States

(Little, 1979):

 Malus angustifolia (southern crab apple) is found on the coastal plain from Maryland to 

northwest Florida and west to Louisiana and southern Illinois; 

 Malus coronaria (sweet crab apple) is found from central New York to northern Georgia and 

eastern Kansas; 

 Malus fusca (Oregon crab apple) is found along the Pacific coast from southern Alaska to 

northern California; 

 Malus ioensis (prairie crab apple) is found from southeastern Minnesota to central Texas;

 Malus platycarpa, thought to be a hybrid between cultivated apple and native species of crab 

apple, has been recorded from southern Illinois east to Delaware and south to North Carolina 

(McVaugn, 1943); 

 Malus x domestica (apple) escaped from cultivation and naturalized locally from southern 

Nova Scotia to Ontario, Maine, eastern Washington and northern Idaho; 

 Malus x soulardii (Soulard crab), a hybrid of ioensis x domestica is found from southern 

Minnesota to eastern Texas. 

Malus baccata (Siberian crab apple) and Malus prunifolia (pear leaf apple), both introduced 

from Asia, have escaped from cultivation in the northeastern United States but apparently are not 

naturalized (Little, 1979). Malus is described as “a taxonomically difficult genus with numerous 

intergrading variations and hybrids for which many scientific names have been given” (Little, 

1979).

2.3 Genetics of Apple

Rudimentary breeding efforts, or selection and propagation of exceptional chance seedlings, in 

Canada and the USA have resulted in cultivars such as McIntosh, Delicious and Golden 

Delicious. The National Apple Register of the United Kingdom describes over 8,000 historical 

and modern named cultivars (Smith, 1971). 

Government-sponsored breeding programs became well established in the 20th century, mostly as 

a component of government research programs, and resulted in the introduction of cultivars with 

improved fruit quality, storage and production characteristics, as well as improved rootstock 

cultivars (Janick and Moore, 1996). Many significant introductions of apple cultivars are clonal 

improvements originating from spontaneous mutants occurring in trees in commercial orchards. 

Over 180 clones of Delicious cv. originating in this way have been named and introduced
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 20 of 163

(Higgins, 2005) (Wikipedia(3), 2011). Clonal improvements of the cultivars McIntosh, Gala, 

Fuji, Pink Lady and Braeburn are also commercially important. Some important apple cultivars 

such as McIntosh, Red Delicious and Golden Delicious originated as chance seedlings a century 

or more ago; most have been improved through clonal selection of naturally occurring mutations.

Few private breeding programs have been established because of the long period from 

hybridization to commercial establishment of a new cultivar. In addition, a new apple cultivar 

faces the challenge of being recognized as a distinctive and individual consumer product at the 

retail level, where it must compete for shelf space with other recognizable apple cultivars –

unlike, for example, sweet cherry or onions, for which one cultivar is not easily distinguished 

from another.

A few breeding programs experimented with induced mutations for clonal improvement, but this 

approach is now out of favor because of associated disadvantages such as reversion to the 

original type due to chimeras (Van Harten, 1998).

There is less scientific basis for the breeding of apples than for agronomic crops because it is 

difficult to describe, for example, heritability of traits due to the long reproductive cycle of apple

– normally five years or so. Rather, the approach has been to create an inventory of a number of 

high-quality breeding selections with different characteristics and ripening times, that can then 

be drawn on as market opportunities arise and interest by growers is sufficient to support their

testing and market introduction. 

The primary quality characteristics noted by apple breeders are: 

 Taste, consisting of: texture that must be crisp and juicy, sugar acid balance that must be 

pleasant and rich to give ‘body’ to the taste, and a distinctive aroma that is pleasant and in 

many ways defines the cultivar.

 Appearance must be bright and attractive, usually red stripes around the fruit on a yellow 

or light-colored background rather than a green one. Individual apples should be 

consistent in color to facilitate high pack-outs and uniform retail displays; shape should be

smooth and uniform, not irregular; size should be consistently larger than 2-1/2 inches in 

diameter.

 Good storage characteristics that allow good quality fruit to be sold for most of the year, 

and pleasant taste after the apple begins to soften. 

 Tree growth habit and derived production characteristics are also important. These 

components are: vigorous growth with favorable partitioning of that growth (carbon 

accumulation) into flowers/fruit to give high yield; meeting thresholds for resistance to 

pests and diseases; and ripening time matched to grower requirements. Since it is difficult 

to combine excellent examples of all of these traits into a single hybrid, breeders often 

look for excellence in several important traits, such as taste and growth habit, and set 

minimum acceptable threshold values for the remaining ones
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 21 of 163

Most commercially grown apple cultivars are diploid with a chromosome number of 34 (n =17);

a few are triploid (Darlington and Wylie, 1955). Natural or induced mutations of many cultivars, 

especially red-skinned ones, have been selected by horticulturalists and are commercially 

important. The most common characteristics of these are enhanced fruit color, altered tree 

growth habit and earlier fruit maturity time. The genetic differences between the strain and its 

parent are usually small, and have not been described even with molecular genetic techniques. 

Darlington (Darlington and Wylie, 1955) list the chromosome number of cultivated native and 

naturalized Malus as follows: baccata, 34; fusca, 34 ioensis, 34; prunifolia, 34 and 51; 

angustifolia, 34 and 68; coronaria, 51 and 68.

2.4 Propagation and Pollination of Apple

Apple is propagated by grafting a scion bud to a rootstock, which consists of a rootball and a 

short stem. Most trees are produced in specialized fruit tree nurseries. Nursery companies have 

access to favorable growing locations, to specialized technology, to certified propagating wood 

of the most popular cultivars, and to information useful to growers to help with planting 

decisions. Some growers produce their own nursery trees. The sequence of operations in apple 

propagation is: rootstock liners are planted in a nursery in the spring; they are budded in August; 

the stock is cut back to the bud the following spring; the scion bud develops into a nursery tree in

the following growing season. Nursery trees are dug up in the fall, graded and stored; then 

distributed to growers for planting the following spring. Flowering occurs in year 2 following 

planting, with full fruit production in years 4 or 5 (OVTFA, 1993). 

Only 2-10 percent of flowers of cultivated apple develop to mature fruit; the others fail because 

of lack of pollination, competition between developing fruits, or cultural practices to remove 

fruit to promote size and quality of harvested fruit. Nearly all apple cultivars require crosspollination for consistent cropping, with about 2-5 percent of the orchard area devoted to 

pollinizer cultivars, either another fruit cultivar or a specialized crab-apple pollinizer cultivar. 

Genes conferring incompatibility have been described and are sufficient in number that the 

diversity between cultivars results in nearly all cultivars being cross-compatible. Some cultivars 

are at least partially self-fertile due to an environmentally-induced breakdown of the 

incompatibility system when flowers age or temperatures are high (Warmund, 1996).

Insects carry out apple pollination, primarily domesticated or wild honeybees or other insect 

pollinators such as bumble bees, osmia bees and other species (Dupree et al., 1987). The period 

of flowering during which viable pollen is produced by an apple plant varies depending on 

weather conditions from about 7-30 days. Anthers open sequentially, making fresh pollen 

available for a week or so; some flowers on the tree open before others. Wind pollination is 

inconsequential for apple; and emasculated flowers seldom, if ever, set fruit even though flowers 

on nearby branches produce abundant pollen. Rootstock cultivars seldom flower, since 

rootstock-derived shoots that may develop are removed to prevent competition with the scion.

Pollen fertility of most apple cultivars is close to 100 percent, but is reduced in some cultivars 

such as McIntosh by unknown factors and in others, such as Jonagold, by its triploidy. Apple 

flowers have up to 25 ovules but more commonly 10-15, depending on the cultivar, some of 

which fail to develop into seeds. Cultivars vary in average seed number per fruit from 3-12, with 

pollination conditions influencing this average. A small percentage of fruit may develop by 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 22 of 163

parthenocarpy (the natural or artificially induced production of fruit without fertilization of 

ovules) (Pauwels et al., 1998). Seeds require conditioning by stratification at an optimum 

temperature of about 40° Fahrenheit for several months to germinate (Bradford and Nonogaki, 

2007). Seedling trees have a juvenile growth phase of 5-10 years before producing flowers and 

characteristically have lanky shoot growth and thorny spurs, adaptations for growing in 

communal thickets.

2.5 Weediness of Apple

While cultivated apple is not regarded as a weedy species, it has been reported to be a 

successional species in abandoned pasture but not abandoned cultivated field (Stover and Mark, 

1998). Animals, such as bears, can carry fruit containing seed away from cultivated areas, and 

occasionally escaped trees establish in previously undisturbed habitat. Such cultivated apple-tree 

seedlings can be persistent; the species has escaped cultivation and naturalized in southern 

Canada, in the eastern USA, and from British Columbia south to California (Little, 1979). 

Four species of crab apples within the section Chloromeles are native to North America. One, 

Pacific Crab (Malus fusca), occurs on the west coast in British Columbia; three species that are 

similar to each other and closely related to Malus fusca occur in the east (Hosie, 1979). The 

introduced ornamental species Malus baccata and Malus prunifolia, originating in Asia, have 

escaped from cultivation in the northeastern USA but are not naturalized (Little, 1979).

Ornamental crab apple is grown in gardens and as a street or specimen tree (Draper and 

Chatfield, 1996). 

Research using molecular techniques found no introgression of cultivated apple genes to native 

Malus species of North America (Dickson et al., 1991). Hybrids between cultivated apple and 

crab apple are expected to be easily recognized because fruit of the hybrid is intermediate 

between the parents, and fruit size of the domestic apple and crab is distinctly different; with 

fruit size of domestic apple large, crab apples small, and hybrids intermediate. Cultivated apple 

can be artificially cross-pollinated to produce hybrids with many if not all crab apple species, but 

the fertility and ecological fitness of such possible hybrids hasn’t been well described. A large,

mature cultivated apple tree can produce in the order of 2,000 fruits per year, potentially yielding 

10,000 seeds; it may live for 50 years or longer, theoretically producing 500,000 seeds in its 

lifetime. For a naturalized apple tree population to be at equilibrium, each individual apple tree 

need reproduce just one other plant to replace itself. This suggests that the probability of an 

individual apple seed developing into a mature tree is small when compared to annual plants that 

produce fewer seeds per plant and require a replacement plant each year to maintain a stable 

population. Volunteer plants originating from seed in apple orchards are very rare due to the 

perennial nature of this tree crop and the associated orchard management practices, such as 

herbicide treatment of the tree row and mowing of the alley between rows.

2.6 Modes of Gene Escape in Apple

In considering the potential environmental impact of an unconfined release of genetically 

modified apple, it is important to understand the possible development of hybrids through 

interspecific and intergeneric crosses with the crop and related species. The development of 

hybrids could result in the introgression of the novel traits into these related species, resulting in: 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 23 of 163

 the related species becoming more weedy; and/or

 introduction of a novel trait with the potential for ecosystem disruption into the related 

species. 

Interspecifically, for a trait to become incorporated into a species genome, recurrent 

backcrossing of plants of that species by the hybrid intermediaries, as well as survival and 

fertility of the resulting offspring, is necessary. 

Several crab apple species are native to North America (see Section 2.5 above) and hybridization 

between cultivated apples and native and/or introduced crab apple species of the group 

Chloromeles is possible. Domesticated apple has been grown in North America for several 

centuries, allowing time for hybrids between cultivated apple and native or introduced Malus 

species to naturalize should they occur frequently and successfully compete. Hybrids involving 

cultivated apple have been reported and are expected to be recognizable by their intermediate 

fruit characteristics. Plants of these hybrids malus x platycarpa (platycarpa is sometimes united 

taxonomically with coronaria), malus x soulardii and malus x ioensis appear to be local and not 

very common (Little, 1979). 

Native crab apples such as Malus fusca and others tend to grow in thickets, and it is unclear if 

local populations are maintained primarily through seed or by vegetative regeneration of shoots 

from roots in a manner similar to aspen. If vegetative regeneration from roots predominates then 

the importance of seed propagation is proportionately diminished.

Bee-mitigated cross-pollination is thought to be an important consideration for gene escape. Bee 

colonies are moved to orchards to facilitate pollination, by transferring pollen from cultivated 

apple or crab apple pollinizer trees to receptor trees with incidental pollen transfer in the opposite 

direction. Effective transfer of pollen from orchards to native crab apple flowers depends on 

synchronous flowering of the two species, and would require close proximity. Pollination 

efficiency decreases rapidly as the distance between the pollen source and the receptor tree 

increases (Wertheim, 1991); the frequency of transfer is also influenced by the size and 

proximity of competing sources of pollen. Commercial growers have traditionally planted about 

2-5 percent of orchard trees as pollinizer cultivars, and arranged them so pollinating bees need 

travel only 50 feet or less to reach receptor trees (Winson, 1991). Thus, the vast majority of 

cross-pollination of apple in commercial orchards is between receptive flowers and immediately 

adjacent pollen sources. Further, when pollinating, individual bees are usually loyal to the 

location and species and/or cultivar from which they are collecting nectar or pollen. Loyalty to 

species can be monitored in the field by examination of pollen pellets from individual bees for 

uniform color and appearance. It is uncommon to observe hybrid pellets, indicating that monospecific pollen pellets are most common.

Intergeneric hybridization is unlikely; Hybrids with Pyrus or Sorbus have not been documented,

although grafts of these intergeneric combinations may survive for a while.

Gene escape can also occur due to seed movement (Dennis et al., 2007). Apples are eaten by 

animals and seed can be distributed by them. Examples of animals that could contribute to 

escape in this way are bears, mice and squirrels. Apples are often discarded by travelers on 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 24 of 163

roadways, or in compost piles. Seeds distributed in this way can result in seedling trees. Apples 

float and can be carried by water streams or currents, resulting in germination and escape.

Extracted apple seeds sink in water. However, M. domestica typically occurs in commercial 

orchard plantings, and as fruit trees in gardens or pastures. It is not common to find wild seedling 

trees; therefore, gene escape is not thought to be a widespread problem. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 25 of 163

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE TRANSFORMATION SYSTEM 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation was carried out using kanamycin selection 

(De Bondt et al., 1994). The plant transformation vector GEN-03 used to generate GD743 and 

GS784 is a binary vector based on pBINPLUS (van Engelen et al., 1995), a derivative of BIN19 

(Bevan, 1984). The disarmed Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain EHA105 has been previously 

described (Hood et al., 1993). The recipients for transformation were virus-free cultures of the 

apple cultivars Golden Delicious (GD) and Granny Smith (GS).

Leaves of three-week-old apple tissue culture plantlets were excised and cut into segments 

perpendicular to the mid-rib; they were then inoculated with Agrobacterium tumefaciens

EHA105 carrying the GEN-03 vector at a density of 3 x 108cells/ml for 5-10 minutes. Leaf

segments were blotted on filter paper to remove excess bacterial cells, and then placed onto cocultivation medium with the adaxial surfaces in contact with the medium for four days (all spent 

in the dark). Infected leaf segments were washed and placed onto regeneration medium 

containing 6 μg/ml kanamycin with the adaxial surfaces in contact for four weeks (2 weeks dark, 

2 weeks light). Leaf segments were transferred to a regeneration medium containing 50 μg /ml 

kanamycin for four weeks. Green shoots, considered to be transformed, were transferred to 

proliferation medium with 50 μg /ml kanamycin for four weeks. Surviving shoots were 

transferred to fresh proliferation medium. Shoots regenerating on 50 μg /ml kanamycin were 

selected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using primers specific to the transgene or selection 

marker. Shoots identified to be transgenic by PCR were measured for total PPO activity, after 2-

3 successive subcultures. Any shoot that was PCR-positive for the transgene and selection 

marker and significantly suppressed for PPO activity (defined as more than 80 percent 

suppressed) was micrografted to M9 rootstock in preparation for field testing (Lane et al., 2003).

The steps involved in the development of GD743 and GS784 are shown ( Figure 1).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 26 of 163

Figure 1: Steps in the Development of GD743 and GS784.

Design and construction of GEN-03

Transformation of GEN-03 into 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens EHA105

Transformation of apple leaf explants of Golden 

Delicious or Granny Smith by Agrobacterium 

tumefaciens EHA105 containing GEN-03

Selection of transformants i.e. tissue containing the NptII 

selection marker on medium containing kanamycin

Regeneration of apple plantlets from 

NptII-resistant tissue

Identification of transgenic, low PPO apple 

events GD743 and GS784

Micrografting of events GD743 and GS784 to 

M9 rootstocks in preparation for field testing
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 27 of 163

4 DONOR GENES AND REGULATORY SEQUENCES

4.1 Biology of Polyphenol Oxidase (PPO)

4.1.1 PPO Evolutionary History

PPO is found in higher plants, although some have only trace amounts; it is not present in 

conifers, Ginkgo, mosses or green algae (Mayer, 1987) (Sherman et al., 1991). Enzymes similar 

in structure and function to plant PPOs are found in other phyla and kingdoms, notably 

tyrosinases that cause a strong browning reaction in mushrooms (Jolivet et al., 1998), melaninforming enzymes in animals, and haemocyanins in crabs, lobsters and their relatives. PPO is also 

present in some fungi and bacteria. True albino mutants do not have functional PPO enzyme. 

The similarity of PPO and related enzymes from 23 species was compared in a review

considering these characteristics: gene structure; primary, secondary and tertiary protein 

structure; domain structure; copper-binding sites; and maturation mechanism and activation 

mechanism (van Gelder et al., 1997).

PPO is held in inactive form in healthy plant cells and the browning reaction proceeds only when 

the phenolic substrate, concentrated in the cell vacuole, and the activated enzyme come together 

after cell membranes are ruptured. The lack of introns in PPO genes described to date suggests 

that PPO evolved as a chloroplast gene which subsequently migrated to the nucleus, becoming a 

nuclear gene. The protein is synthesized, usually in young cells of developing tissues, and then

transported to the lumen membrane in the chloroplast where it can remain stabilized for several 

months.

4.1.2 Plant PPOs and Browning

The PPO protein

Plant PPO proteins are made up of about 510 amino acids and are monomers with a weight of 

about 40 kilodalton (kD), but the protein is translated as a larger protein of about 66-71 kD. The 

N-terminal 5' end has a transit protein of approximately 9-11 kD and the C- terminal 3' end, a 

weight of about 15 kD. The transit peptides of PPO isozymes differ within an individual species. 

There is a conserved region in the amino terminal part of PPO transit proteins of 22 amino acids 

in a hydrophobic domain, which is preceded by two arginine residues. These same amino acids 

are present in all plant PPOs examined, and this sequence is characteristic of lumen-targeted 

proteins. The total transit protein is rich in hydroxy amino acids characteristic of transit proteins 

targeted to the chloroplast. The C terminal portion is cleaved once the protein is within the 

chloroplast and is thought to be involved with activating the protein in some way, possibly by 

directing the binding of copper, and this prevents PPO activity in the cytoplasm during transit to 

the chloroplast. Sommer (Sommer et al., 1994) reported the details of importation and processing 

of PPO. A typical example of PPO protein processing is grape PPO (Dry and Robinson, 1994),

where a 1990 base pair cDNA was found to code for a 67kD protein consisting of a 10.6 kD

chloroplast transit peptide, a 40.5 kD catalytic unit and a 16.2 kD C terminal extension. 

An unusual feature of PPO proteins is their requirement for two copper molecules. Two copperbinding sites are highly conserved in PPO proteins from a diversity of species. The Cu A binding 

site is more conserved than the Cu B site. The two sites are separated by about 110 amino acids. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 28 of 163

Both have histidine residues which are absolutely conserved in all PPOs and in related enzymes 

from many different species. The A site consists of 19 amino acids and the B site consists of 

usually around 50, but up to 64, amino acids.

Apple browning caused by PPO

Browning of apple flesh and juice reduces its quality, and reducing or eliminating browning in 

processed fruit has been studied extensively. Several phenolics serve as PPO substrate in apple 

tissue, with chlorogenic acid usually the principal one. Apple cultivars differ in their polyphenol 

content and in browning reaction (Murata et al., 1995a) (Murata et al., 1995b). Apple PPO has 

also been shown to be associated with plastids in young fruit, but the enzyme begins to degrade 

and is partially solubilized in mature fruit (Murata et al., 1997). Other phenolics present in apple 

cortex are also substrates in the reaction, with 4-methyl catechol and (-) epicatechin being 

important contributors to browning because of their involvement in synergistically promoting the 

oxidation of other phenolics (Bajaj et al., 1997). Chlorogenic and neochlorogenic acids, (+) 

catechin, (-) epicatechin and rutin are the major phenolic substrates of PPO in apricot (Radi et 

al., 1997). In pear, similar substrates have been used with purified PPO to show that peroxidase 

can contribute to brown color with quinones (derived from the PPO reaction) when quinones are 

used as substrate (Richard-Forget and Gauillard, 1997). 

Reactions other than those catalysed by PPO can also cause browning. The Maillard reaction is 

perhaps the best known, but its products can also inhibit PPO (Tan and Harris, 1995). 

Nonspecific oxidation of phenolics results in browning, while formation of other brown 

polymers and heating that can produce caramelized sugars can also contribute. Enhanced 

browning is desirable in products such as tea, olives, pepper, cocoa and coffee, and the use of 

molecular biology technology to enhance PPO activity and promote brown colour development 

has been suggested as an approach for improving these crops. Breeders have produced cultivars 

and breeding lines with reduced PPO in crops such as potato and wheat amongst others, and 

mutations have resulted in clones with reduced browning in, for example, grape (Rathjen and 

Robinson, 1992).

Inhibiting PPO and reducing browning

A large body of literature reporting on browning caused by PPO, and its inhibition and control 

by conventional nongenetic means, has accumulated from many years of work on this subject.

PPO enzyme activity and the amount of browning may be limited by low levels of phenolic 

substrate in several fruits including apple (Coseteng and Lee, 1987), but the effect depends on 

the cultivar with the amount of browning correlated with PPO activity in some cultivars and with 

phenolic levels in others. Metalothionein, proteins which can specifically bind metals, can in 

some cases regulate enzymes by influencing metal concentration (Robinson et al., 1993). Cu 

deficiency induced by adding Cu-binding metalothionein protein to the reaction mixture inhibits 

PPO (Goetghebeur and Kermasha, 1996), since PPO is inactive without two bound Cu ions. The 

level of Cu in soils can determine the PPO activity of plants growing in it (Wang and Chen, 

1997). Thiols derived from cysteine (Friedman and Bautista, 1995) and some phenolics such as 

cinamic acid, 2,4-dihydrobenzoic acid, p-coumaric acid (Bajaj et al., 1997) (Janovitz-Klapp et 

al., 1990) are a few of the compounds known to inhibit PPO to a greater or lesser degree. Low 

oxygen atmospheres and low temperature can reduce the amount or rate of the browning reaction 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 29 of 163

in lettuce (Heimdal et al., 1995) and other produce and fruit since the PPO catalyses the 

oxidation of phenols. Some of the treatments reported to control or reduce browning include: 

ascorbate, glutathione and citrate (Jiang and Fu, 1998); and sulfites, suboptimal pH and highpressure carbon dioxide (Chen et al., 1992); natural products (Buta et al., 1999); and 10 percent

solution of honey (Oszmianski and Lee, 1990). For broader perspective on inhibition of 

browning, see: (Friedman and Bautista, 1991) (Iyengar and McEvily, 1992) (Whitaker and Lee, 

1995a) (McEvily et al., 1992) (Weemaes et al., 1998) (Martinez and Whitaker, 1995).

4.1.3 PPO Biochemistry and Physiological Function

Analysis of PPO activity

PPO protein has been isolated, the protein characterized, the reaction conditions optimized and 

the kinetics described from numerous species including apple (Ridgway and Tucker, 1999)

(Murata et al., 1992) and stone fruit (Prunus) species (Fraignier et al., 1995). A characteristic 

assay of PPO activity, as used in OSF’s lab, begins with grinding samples in 0.1 M phosphate 

buffer, pH 6.1, containing 2 percent polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) to bind cell phenolics and 2

percent Triton X 100 to solubilize the enzyme, followed by centrifugation at 14,000 rpm. The 

activity is then assayed using added phenols such as catechol or 4-methyl catechol in 50 mM 

phosphate buffer as substrate. Many but not all PPOs are activated by sodium dodecyl sulfate 

(SDS). pH, SDS, substrate type and concentration and enzyme concentration should be 

optimized for each species studied. We found that added Cu (2 mM) increased PPO activity;

perhaps a reflection of the Cu status of the source plant. The browning reaction of wheat grains 

has been examined using bioassays, with substrate in buffer added to the plant sample (Kruger et 

al., 1994). These quick tests were found to correlate well with measured activities of extracted 

enzyme and the browning reaction of wheat noodle samples. The technique was useful for 

screening large numbers of breeding selections.

PPO synthesis and its stability in plant tissues

PPO is very stable, resisting proteolytic activity (Mari et al., 1998). PPO is synthesized in young 

developing tissue with little if any PPO mRNA detected in intact mature tissues, yet mature 

tissues have high PPO activity (Murata et al., 1997) (Kadioglu and Yavru, 1998). At different 

stages of development, apple fruits differ in the intensity of the browning reaction and have 

different levels of enzyme activity, with PPO uniformly distributed in immature fruit but 

localized near the core in mature apples and becoming partially solubilized and denatured as 

apples ripen (Murata et al., 1997). Wound-induced synthesis of PPO mRNA has been described 

in apple (Boss et al., 1995); this protein may be contributing to the browning of cut fruit.

Northern blots, a technique used to identify mRNAs in tissue samples, have been used to follow 

the time course of PPO synthesis in apricot (Chevalier et al., 1999) and tomato (Thipyapong et 

al., 1997). Little or no PPO mRNA was detected in mature apricot and tomato fruit, with most of 

the synthesis occurring in young fruitlets collected from flowering time to 10 weeks after 

flowering. In apricot (Chevalier et al., 1999), the gene was highly expressed in young green fruit 

but was turned off early in the ripening process. This indicates that the turnover of PPO is very 

low and that the enzyme is unusually stable, since activity remains in apples and other fruits at 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 30 of 163

the end of the growing season even though little if any synthesis of significant new enzyme

occurs in the mature fruit.

Wound-induced PPO

An exception to the common pattern of PPO synthesis in young developing tissue is woundinduced gene expression and activity reported after wounding in apple (Boss et al., 1995),

tomato (Thipyapong and Steffens, 1997) and litchi (Jiang and Fu, 1998). Synthesis likely occurs 

in metabolically competent cells close to the site of injury. The PPO isozymes induced by 

wounding of apple by cutting the flesh into cubes were also found in younger, undamaged fruit 

flesh. 

PPO in defense response

PPO is not an essential enzyme since it is absent from some plant species, and potato clones with 

very low PPO activity have been produced using gene-silencing techniques without causing 

apparent harm to the plants (Bachem et al., 1994). The functional role of PPO in plants is not 

completely understood, but a role in plant defense is indicated in some species. Systemic 

induction of PPO gene expression by injury was reported in tomato, where PPO synthesis 

occurred in young leaves after mature leaves were injured; it also occurred after infection by 

fungal and bacterial pathogens (Thipyapong and Steffens, 1997). In the same study, agents such 

as jasmonates, salicylic acid and ethylene – known to be involved in plant defense reactions –

were shown to induce a gene promoter. Jasmonic acid methyl ester treatment also stimulated 

PPO activity in rice (Wu and Pan, 1997). The location of induction was different depending on 

the inducing agent. 

In a study to investigate the possible role of PPO in insect herbivore defense, a survey of 18 plant 

species in five genera showed that PPO was induced by jasmonates in only three species (tomato, 

tobacco and poplar) (Constabel and Ryan, 1998). Tomato was unique among the plant species 

surveyed and had both high steady state PPO activity in leaf tissue and was strongly induced by 

both wounding and methyl jasmonates. Most species had low constitutive PPO levels and the 

enzyme was not induced by methyl jasmonates. Although it is possible that other signals might 

be involved in the induction of PPO in these latter species, this suggests that PPO may not play a 

major role in herbivore defense in these species. No Rosaceous species were tested in this study.

Tomato plants with modified PPO expression (suppressed PPO or over expressed PPO) were 

used to directly examine the role of PPO in defense response (Thipyapong et al., 2004; 

Thipyapong et al., 2007). Tomato plants that over expressed PPO were more resistant to 

Pseudomonas syringae and to several insects pests of tomato, including common cutworm 

(Spodoptera litura), cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa armigera) and beet army worm (Spodoptera 

exigua), while antisense PPO-suppressed tomato showed greater susceptibility. In similar studies 

in transgenic poplar, over expression of PPO has produced mixed results. Over expression of 

PPO caused decreased growth rates in caterpillars in some instances, but the effect was both 

species and growth stage specific (Barbehenn et al., 2007) (Wang and Constabel, 2004). 

Transgenic apple, modified in PPO expression, has not been assessed for changes in resistance or 

susceptibility to pests and diseases outside of the data provided in this petition.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 31 of 163

In a survey of scab-resistant apple cultivars it was shown that steady state levels of both PPO and 

phenolics antioxidants varied widely amongst the cultivars tested (Kolodziejczyk et al., 2010). 

The steady state level of PPO is not correlated with scab resistance indicating that other factors 

are the primary determinant of resistance. Similar lack of correlation is found for apple fireblight 

when steady state PPO levels (Kolodziejczyk et al., 2010) are compared to mean blight score

(Korba et al., 2008) or lesion length (Sobiczewski et al., 2006). Browning potential was not 

correlated with resistance to apple fruit decay caused by Penicillium expansum (Valentines et al., 

2005). Rather, less fruit decay is found in fruit with higher lignin content. These results suggest 

that peroxidase, through its involvement in lignification, was a factor in resistance of apple fruit 

to P. expansum.

PPO involvement with insect feeding

High PPO activity combined with phenolics in the trichomes of some Solanaceous plants results 

in entrapment of insects, by the polymers resulting from the PPO reaction when the insects 

damage the trichomes with their stylettes during feeding. PPO and phenolics added to reared 

insects’ diets were shown to be antinutritional due to the reduced availability of amino acids, as 

well as other nutrients that became unavailable because they became trapped in the lignin-like 

polymer (Duffey and Felton, 1991); a dose gradient of PPO levels in potato genotypes has been 

shown to correlate with suitability for Colorado potato beetle growth and development 

(Castanera et al., 1996). On the other hand, Urbanska (Urbanska et al., 1998) reported that some 

insects have PPO in their saliva. The proposed beneficial function of this insect PPO was to 

convert detrimental phenolic compounds to more benign forms, thus enhancing nutritional value 

to the insect.

4.1.4 PPO Molecular Biology

PPO gene families

In many plant species, PPO is a multi-gene family with characteristic isozymes predominant in 

different organs or tissues. Tomato has a highly conserved seven-member gene family, with PPO 

expression largely confined to early stages of tissue development and expression patterns of 

isozymes related to the tissue type (Thipyapong and Steffens, 1997). Potato PPOs also occur in a 

multi-gene family, with gene expression and enzyme activity levels varying with tissue location 

and time of development (Thygesen et al., 1995). Grape was found to have a single gene which 

was expressed in young developing leaves, root and berries, but with little gene expression in 

mature tissues (Dry and Robinson, 1994). Tobacco has 10 PPO genes and bean has five (Cary et 

al., 1992). Four genes or gene fragments have been cloned from apple, although more may 

remain undiscovered (Boss et al., 1995). A full-length cDNA clone was isolated from sugarcane 

(Bucheli et al., 1996).

Within a species, small groups or pairs of similar PPO isozymes can occur. These are found 

together as the dominant isozyme in tissues such as leaves, tubers or flowers. The grouping of 

similar PPOs may be due to the polyploid nature of many of the plant species studied. Homology 

(biological similarity) of PPO genes at the nucleotide level within a species is usually 70 percent

or more. Homology between genes of different species is usually less, about 50 percent, but can 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 32 of 163

be high between related species such as tomato and potato where homologies are 80 to 95

percent. Broad bean and apple, exceptionally, are related at 71.3 percent similarity.

Apple PPO genes

Various research groups, including OSF, have made an effort to clone and sequence members of 

the apple PPO gene family. The PPO sequences known to OSF are summarized (Table 1). The

apple PPO gene sequences were sorted into four groups (PPO2, GPO3, APO5, pSR7) and the 

groups were named using the name first assigned to each sequence (Table 2). The members 

within a given PPO group are either the same gene, or are closely related enough at the

nucleotide sequence level that they are expected to be equivalent from a gene silencing point of 

view. Complete or nearly complete sequences for PPO2, GPO3, APO5 and pSR7 are available. 

The sequences and sources of the four PPO gene sequences are also described in the Patent 

application “Genetically modified reduced-browning fruit-producing plants and produced fruit 

thereof, and method of obtaining such” (Armstrong and Lane, 2009).

Table 1: List of Known Apple PPO Genes

PPO Gene Sequence1Source Genbank Accession Sequence

pSR7 Robinson (WO9302195) A27661 Partial

pSR8 Robinson (WO9302195) A27663 Partial

APO3 (5’ APO3 sequence.) Boss (personal communication) Partial

APO9 (5’ APO9 sequence.) Boss (personal communication) Partial

APO3 (3’ APO3 sequence.) Boss (personal communication) Partial

APO9 (3’ APO3 sequence.) Boss (personal communication) Partial

GPO3 Boss (personal communication) Partial

AP14 OSF Partial

APO5 (Boss et al., 1995) L29450 Complete

PPO3 (Haruta et al., 1998) D87669 Complete

PPO7 (Depicker et al., 1982) D87670 Complete

PPO2 (Kim et al., 2001) AF380300 Complete

PPOJ OSF Partial

GPO3 HortResearch Complete

pSR7 HortResearch, OSF A27661 Complete

1 Many PPO sequences, partial and complete, have been identified. To develop a more complete picture of the PPO 

gene family, OSF used PCR with degenerate PPO primers to screen apple for novel PPO gene sequences 

identifying: GPO3, APO5 and AP14 in genomic DNA; GPO3, APO5, PPO2 and PPOJ in apple fruit and apple leaf 

cDNA; and GPO3 and pSR7 immature apple fruit cDNA library (Eugentech). HortResearch (now Plant & Food 

Research) found PPO2, GPO3, APO5 and pSR7 in their apple EST library (personal communication).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 33 of 163

Table 2: Overview of the Apple PPO Gene Family

Group Members1

PPO2 PPO2, PPOJ, pSR8

GPO3 GPO3, AP142, APO9, APO3

APO5 APO5, PPO3, PPO7

pSR7 pSR7

1 Apple PPO gene sequences were sorted into four groups and the groups were named for the PPO sequence type.

The members of a group are either the same gene, or are expected to be equivalent from an antisense point of view.

2 AP14 is a pseudogene that is highly related to GPO3.

Suppression of the apple PPO gene family

A pivotal review (Sharp, 2001) suggested that for a transgene to induce silencing of a related but 

not identical target gene, the two segments must share regions of “identical and uninterrupted 

sequences of significant length” in the order of 30-35 base pair at a minimum. Since double 

stranded RNA (dsRNA) is processed to 21-23 nucleotide segments, Sharp suggests that a single 

basepair mismatch between the small interfering RNA (siRNA) and target RNA dramatically 

reduces gene targeting and silencing. 

Pairwise alignment of PPO2, GPO3, APO5, and pSR7 with ClustalW (Thompson et al., 1994)

showed and overall homology between these sequences of 61 to 75 percent (Table 3) and is 

generally lower (˂70 percent) than might be expected for PPO sequences within a species. The 

low overall homology between the apple PPO sequences prompted a closer examination of the 

relatedness of the PPO genes. The four apple PPO sequences were compared pairwise, within a 

sliding 22 base-pair window for regions of 100 percent homology (Table 4). This pairwise 

analysis demonstrated that GPO3 and APO5, having an overall sequence similarity of 75 

percent, have several regions of identical and uninterrupted length. Other gene pairs share 

virtually no 22-base pair (bp) regions of 100 percent homology required for gene suppression. In 

short, other than APO5 and GPO3, the nucleic acid sequences of the apple PPO genes are 

sufficiently different that it was determined that that all four would need to be suppressed to 

induce a PPO-suppressed nonbrowning phenotype.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 34 of 163

Table 3: Homology of PPO2, GPO3, APO5 and pSR7

Percent Identity1

PPO2 GPO3 APO5 pSR7

PPO2 100 61 63 66

GPO3 100 75 62

APO5 100 65

pSR7 100

1

PPO genes PPO2, GPO3, APO5 and pSR7 were aligned using ClustalW (Thompson et al., 1994). The pairwise 

similarly score (percent identity) is reported.

Table 4: Micro-Homology of PPO2, GPO3, APO5 and pSR7

Number of regions of 22 bp homology1

PPO2 GPO3 APO5 pSR7

PPO2 100 0 0 0

GPO3 100 25 1

APO5 100 0

pSR7 100

1 The four PPO apple sequences were compared pair-wise, within a sliding (conservative) 22 base-pair 

window for regions of 100 % homology.

4.2 GEN-03 Vector

Events GD743 and GS784 were developed through Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of 

apple leaf tissue using the binary vector GEN-03 (Figure 2). GEN-03 is based on the binary 

vector pBINPLUS (van Engelen et al., 1995). Vector pBINPLUS is based on the widely used 

binary vector BIN19 (Bevan, 1984). The complete sequence of BIN19 (U09365) is available at 

Genbank (Benson et al., 2005). The GEN-03 vector contains a region of DNA (T-DNA) which 

consists of the PPO suppression transgene and NptII selection marker flanked by Agrobacterium 

tumefaciens T-DNA borders. This region (6287 bp) was transferred into the apple genome by 

Agrobacterium tumefaciens during the transformation process. The portion of the plasmid 

transferred to the plant genome begins near the right border (RB), extends through the PGAS 

transgene and NptII selection marker, and ends near the left border (LB).

The components of the T-DNA used to develop GD743 and GS784 are provided (Table 5). The 

sequences of the components of the T-DNA used to develop GD743 and GS784 are available.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 35 of 163

Figure 2: Map of the GEN-03 Vector

Table 5: Components of the T-DNA Used to Develop GD743 and GS784

Genetic 

Element Size (Kb) Function, Source, Reference

LB 0.15 A left border sequence derived from Agrobacterium tumefaciens pTiT37 (Depicker et 

al., 1982)

PNOS 0.31 A nopaline synthase promoter from Agrobacterium tumefaciens that directs transcription 

of the NptII selection marker (Bevan et al., 1983b)

nptII 0.98 Neomycin phosphotransferase type II from Tn5 (Rothstein et al., 1981) providing 

resistance to kanamycin

TNOS 0.26 A 3’ UTR from the nopaline synthase gene involved in transcription termination and 

polyadenylation (Depicker et al., 1982) (Bevan et al., 1983a)

PCAMV35s 0.65

The duplicated-enhancer cauliflower mosaic virus promoter with untranslated leader 

sequence from alfalfa mosaic virus RNA4 (Datla et al., 1993) that directs transcription 

of the PGAS transgene

PGAS 1.81 A sense suppression transgene designed to suppress four members of the apple PPO 

gene family

TNOS 0.26

A 3’ UTR from the nopaline synthase gene involved in transcription termination and 

polyadenylation (Depicker et al., 1982) (Bevan et al., 1983a)

RB 0.14 A right border sequence derived from Agrobacterium tumefaciens pTIT37 (Depicker et 

al., 1982)

GEN-03

15280 bp

NptII

PPO2

GPO3

APO5

pSR7

LB NptIII

RB

PCAMV35s

Pnos

oriV

Tnos

Tnos
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 36 of 163

4.3 PPO Suppression Transgene

The PPO suppression transgene (PGAS) consists of 394, 457, 457 and 453 bp regions of apple 

PPO genes (PPO2, GPO3, APO5, pSR7, respectively), placed in the sense orientation under 

control of the cauliflower mosaic virus 35s promoter (PCAMV35s) and nopaline synthase terminator 

(TNOS). The use of a constitutive promoter such as the PCAMV35s is indicated here, as PPO is 

expressed both in early fruit development and in response to wounding. The transgene is 

designed to reduce overall expression of the entire apple PPO gene family, and to induce a 

reduced browning or nonbrowning phenotype in apple. The transgene was cloned into 

pBINPLUS to create the plant transformation vector GEN-03. The transgene was constructed 

using standard recombinant molecular biology techniques (Maniatis et al., 1982) and was 

confirmed by DNA sequencing.

4.4 NptII Selection Marker

In addition to the PPO suppression transgene, the nptII gene from the E. coli Transposon Tn5 has 

been introduced into apple to be used as a selectable marker, under control of the nopaline 

synthase promoter (PNOS) and terminator (TNOS). This gene encodes for the enzyme neomycin 

phosphotransferase (NptII), which confers resistance to kanamycin in plants (Fraley et al., 1986).

NptII is an enzyme that inactivates the antibiotic kanamycin thereby allowing cells containing 

this gene to grow on medium containing kanamycin. The nptII gene is devoid of inherent plant 

pest characteristics (Fuchs et al., 1993). Previously, APHIS has determined that the presence of 

the nptII gene will have no significant environmental impacts (APHIS 05-294-02r). As part of a 

study of clonal stability of the ArcticTM Apple transgene, it was shown that the nptII gene, as 

expressed by PNOS, did not result in detectable amounts of the NptII protein accumulating in 

mature fruit of GD743 and GS784 (See Section 6.5, Table 41).

4.5 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be made concerning the selection of donor genes and regulatory 

elements combined in the GEN-03 vector used in the development of GD743 and GS784 events:

(a) PPO, responsible for apple browning, is encoded by a diverse, multi-gene family whose 

members are expressed both in early fruit development and in response to wounding;

(b) suppression of PPO, which is expected to lead to a nonbrowning phenotype, requires the 

use of a chimeric suppression transgene containing chosen sequences from the PPO gene 

family, all under control of a constitutive promoter element;

(c) the native function of PPO may be related to disease or insect defense, but the 

relationship in apple is weak and unconfirmed; and

(d) suppression of PPO is not expected to affect apple under cultivated conditions.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 37 of 163

5 GENETIC ANALYSIS AND MOLECULAR CHARACTERIZATION

5.1 Molecular Characterization

The intent of OSF’s genetic modification was to insert the T-DNA from the vector GEN-03, 

including the PPO suppression transgene and NptII selection marker into the genome of apple. 

Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used to do the initial screening of kanamycin-resistant 

shoots arising from GEN-03 transformation. Southern analysis was used to confirm that a 

complete copy of the PPO suppression transgene was inserted in the apple genome, as well as, 

estimate copy number and show the absence of vector backbone. Reverse primer PCR (rpPCR) 

was used to show that multiple insertions detected in GS784 did not arise as the result of tandem 

or inverted repeat structures.

5.1.1 Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)

Initial PCR screening of kanamycin-resistant shoots arising from transformation of apple 

cultivars GD and GS with the GEN-03 vector was completed using primers specific for selected 

regions along the T-DNA insert (Table 6, Figure 3). One primer pair was specific for the NptII 

selection marker. Amplification of a 483 bp fragment from apple genomic DNA of both GD743 

and GS784 with nptII-specific primers is evidence that nptII is present and the tissue is 

transgenic (data not shown). A second set of primers was specific for the 3’ end of the PPO 

suppression transgene. The forward primer was within the pSR7 segment of the PPO suppression 

transgene and the reverse primer was within NOS terminator. These primers amplify across the 

synthetic pSR7:NOS junction that is unique to the GEN-03 insert. Amplification of a 556 bp 

fragment from apple genomic DNA of both GD743 and GS784 using these primers is evidence 

that 3’ end of the transgene is present and the tissue is transgenic (data not shown).

Method for PCR Screening GEN-03 Transformants

Genomic DNA was extracted from tissue culture leaf material using a modified CTAB extraction 

method (Lodhi et al., 1994). PCR was done in a 25 μl reaction containing 1 x PCR buffer, 1.5 

mM MgCl2, 200 μM each dNTP, 0.5 μM forward primer, 0.5 μM reverse primer, 0.625 U Taq 

DNA polymerase, and 10 ng DNA. PCR reactions were overlayed with mineral oil and cycled: 

30 x 94oC for 1 min, 55oC for 1 min, 72oC for 1 min, followed by 1 x 72oC for 10 min. DNA 

loading buffer (5 μl) was added to each reaction and 10 μl of each reaction was run on 1% TAEagarose for 1.5 hours at 80V. Gels were stained with ethidium bromide, rinsed and 

photographed. Events that carry either the selection marker or the PPO suppression transgene 

were considered to be transgenic.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 38 of 163

Table 6: Primers for PCR Screening GEN-03 Transformed Tissue

Target Primer Name Primer Sequence Product (bp)

nptII

NptII-F GAACAAGATGGATTGCACGCAG

483

NptII-R CTGATGCTCTTCGTCCAGATCA

3’ Transgene

pSR7-F (A81) AAGCTTTTCCTTTCCACCGCATGT

556

NOSTERM TATGATAATCATCGCAAGAC

Figure 3: Location of the PCR Primers on the GEN-03 Vector

5.1.2 Southern Blot Analysis

Southern blot analysis is described in detail below, including the preparation of transgene and 

vector backbone-specific hybridization probes, relative location of the restriction sites and 

hybridization probes and hybridization blot results. Southern blot analysis was completed by 

LofStrand Laboratories (Gaithersburg, MD) from samples supplied by OSF.

Genomic DNA Extraction

Genomic DNA used for the molecular characterization of events GD743 and GS784 was 

extracted from apple leaf tissue using the DNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen) according to the 

manufacturer's protocol.

GEN-03 (PCR Simple)

15280 bp

NptII

PPO2

GPO3

APO5

pSR7

NptIII

L B

RB

NOSTERM

pSR7-F (A81)

NptII-F

NptII-R

PCAMV35s

Pnos

oriV

Tnos

Tnos
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 39 of 163

Southern Blot Analysis (Transgene Probe)

Ten micrograms of GS control and GD control genomic DNA were cut for 48 hours with 15 units 

of XbaI per microgram of DNA. Also 10 μg of GD743 and GS784 were cut for 48 hours with 15 

units of XbaI per μg of DNA.

In a separate reaction 10 μg of GD743 and GS784 genomic DNA were cut for 48 hours with 4.8 

units of AvrII per μg of DNA.

In a third set of digests, 10 μg of GD743 and GS784 genomic DNA were cut for 48 hours in a 

double digest using five units per μg of AscII and PacI.

In separate 48 hour reactions, 0.2 ng of each of GEN-03 plasmid DNA were cut with XbaI, or 

AvrII, or AscI and PacI. 

All digested DNAs were run on a 300 ml, 0.65% TBE agarose gel along with Invitrogen 1Kb+ 

marker at 50 V for 18 hours.

The gel was stained with ethidium bromide and photographed. The gel was then treated with 

0.25 M HCl for 20 minutes. The gel was treated with 0.5 M NaOH + 1.5 M NaCl two times for 

thirty minutes each followed by treatment with 0.5 M tris, pH 8.0 + 1.5 M NaCl two times thirty 

minutes each.

Transfer to a nylon membrane Nytran Supercharge (Whatman) was conducted per protocol 

using a TurboBlotter and 10X SSC, overnight. The membrane was UV linked and air dried.

The filter was prehybridized using 6X SSC, 5X Denhardt’s solution, and 0.5% SDS at 68°C for 4 

hours. The filter was hybridized using a random primed 300 base pair PCR amplified and gel 

purified Transgene Probe. A specific activity of greater than 1 x 10e9 dpm/μg for the probe was 

achieved. The probe concentration was 3.5x10e6 dpm/ml in the HYBE buffer (same as the 

prehybridization buffer). The hybridization was carried out at 68°C for 24 hours.

The filter was washed in 2X SSC + 0.1% SDS at 68°C with five buffer changes over a period of 

two hours. The filter was autoradiographed for 48 hours and 24 hours with an intensifier screen 

at -80°C.

Southern Blot Analysis (Backbone Probe)

The filter (which was previously probed with the Transgene Probe) was stripped using 0.1% SDS 

at 95°C for 20 minutes followed by an overnight wash in 0.05X SSC + 0.1% SDS at 70°C. The 

filter was checked and found to be at background levels using a survey meter. The filter was prehybridized using 6X SSC, 5X Denhardt’s solution, and 0.5% SDS at 68°C for 4 hours. The filter 

was hybridized using a random primed 228 base pair PCR amplified and gel purified Backbone 

Probe. A specific activity of greater than 1 x 10e9 dpm/μg in the HYBE buffer (same as the prehybridization buffer) was achieved. The hybridization was carried out at 68°C for 48 hours.

The filter was washed in 2X SSC + 0.1% SDS at 68°C with five buffer changes over a period of 

90 minutes. The filter was autoradiographed for two days with intensifier screen at -80°C.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 40 of 163

Hybridization Probes

Probes were prepared by PCR using transgene and vector backbone specific primers (Table 7).

Transgene and backbone probe sequences were used to search the Genbank nucleotide

collection (Malus x domestica). No similarities were found, suggesting that the hybridization 

probes had no known native targets in apple. The relative location of the restriction enzyme and 

probes used are shown (Figure 4).

Table 7: Primers Used to Prepare the Hybridization Probes

Probe Target Probe Size (bp) Primer Name Primer Sequence (5’ to 3’)

Transgene 300 Transgene F TTGATGTGATGGTCCGATCT

Transgene R GTGCGTCATCCCTTACGTC

Backbone 228 Backbone F CGGCTCCGTCGATACTATGT

Backbone R GCAGCGGTATTTTTCGATCA

Figure 4: Relative Location of Probes and Restriction Enzymes on the GEN-03 Vector

GEN-03 (Southern)

15280 bp

NptII

PPO2

GPO3

APO5

pSR7

Transgene Probe

Backbone Probe

NptIII

L B

RB

PCAMV35s

Pnos

oriV

Tnos

Tnos

Asc I (12341)

Avr II (14078)

Pac I (13)

XbaI (12372)
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 41 of 163

Insert Integrity and Copy Number

Genomic DNA from GD743 and GS784 was digested with AscI and PacI to generate a 2.95 kb 

fragment that would hybridize with the Transgene Probe. A known amount of GEN-03 (0.2 ng) 

was also digested with AscI and PacI. Both the GD743 and GS784 had the predicted 2.95 kb 

fragment consistent with insertion of a complete copy of the PPO suppression portion of the 

insert. The intensity of the 2.95 kb band for GD743 represented 1 or 2 copies, while the intensity 

of the 2.95 kb band in the GS784 is several fold higher consistent with multiple copies of the 

insert in GS784 (see Figure 5: Southern Blot - Transgene Probe).

Genomic DNA of GD743 and GS784 was also digested with either AvrII or XbaI to generate one 

fragment that would contain part of the GEN-03 transgene (approximately 4.56 kb for AvrII and 

3.24 kb for XbaI) and a fragment of the plant genome the size of which would depend upon 

where the T-DNA had integrated. The DNA from each of the transformed plants exhibited at 

least one unique fragment. No signal was detected in the control GD or GS DNA (XbaI).

GD743 revealed two bands (AvrII) or one band (XbaI) of the correct size. These results are 

consistent with one or two copies of the GEN-03 T-DNA in GD743.

GS784 revealed one band (AvrII) or three to five bands (XbaI) of the correct size. Of the three 

bands present in the XbaI digest, three are of similar intensity (4000, 4300, 6500) and two are 

approximately half that intensity (5300, 10000); these latter two possibly represent a partial 

digest. The sum intensity of these five bands would approximately equal that of the GS784 x 

AscI/PacI digest. Taken together with the results of the AscI/PacI digest, this indicates a copy 

number of about four in GS784.

To explain why the copy number in GS784 is under-represented in the AvrII digest, we examined 

the frequency of restriction sites for AvrII and XbaI in a number of apple BAC clones 

(GU295057 and FN832235). It was found that the frequency of AvrII sites was lower than XbaI 

in both cases. Thus, the genomic AvrII sites associated with the additional copies of the T-DNA 

in GS784 may be sufficiently distance to the insertion site that the associated restriction fragment 

would not be resolved.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 42 of 163

Figure 5: Southern Blot - Transgene Probe

Southern blot analysis of GD743 and GS784 and respective control cultivars GD and GS. A known amount of the 

plant transformation vector GEN-03 was also resolved on the same gel. The 2.95 kb AscI-PacI fragment detected in 

the GEN-03 vector and in the GD743 and GS784 represents the internal AscI-PacI fragment of the PPO suppression 

transgene. The >13,000 bp AvrII and XbaI fragments detected in the GEN-03 represents the entire plant 

transformation vector. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 43 of 163

Figure 6: Southern Blot - Backbone Probe

Southern blot analysis of transgenic GD743 and GS784 and respective control cultivars GD and GS. The plant 

transformation vector GEN-03 was also resolved on the same gel. The 12 kb AscI-PacI fragment detected in the 

GEN-03 vector represents the entire plant transformation vector (less the PPO suppression transgene). The >13,000 

bp AvrII and XbaI fragments detected in the GEN-03 vector represents the entire plant transformation vector (show 

that the probe functions). No bands were detected in any of the restriction enzyme digests of GD743 or GS784 

indicating that backbone is not present in either.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 44 of 163

Absence of Vector Backbone

To determine the presence or absence of vector backbone, the Southern blot (previously 

hybridized to the Transgene Probe) was stripped and re-probed with a Backbone Probe (see 

Figure 6: Southern Blot - Backbone Probe).

The 12 kb AscI-PacI fragment detected in the GEN-03 vector represents the entire plant 

transformation vector (less the PPO suppression transgene). The >13,000 bp AvrII and XbaI 

fragments detected in the GEN-03 vector represents the entire plant transformation vector. No 

bands were detected in any of the restriction enzyme digests of GD743 or GS784 indicating that 

backbone is not present in either.

5.1.3 Reverse Primer PCR (rpPCR)

In a study of transgenic aspen it was determined that 1 in 4 transgenic lines assessed contained 

some form of T-DNA repeat (Kumar and Fladung, 2000). To determine if the multiple transgene 

inserts detected in GS784 were associated with transgene repeat structures, genomic DNA of 

GS784 was subjected to PCR with primers specifically designed to detect the presence of tandem 

or inverted repeats. The PCR method, primer sequences, and primer location upon a theoretical 

tandem transgene repeat structure are described in detail below.

A PCR technique known as reverse primer PCR (rpPCR) was used to probe the structure of the 

T-DNA insertion in GS784 (Kumar and Fladung, 2000). This method uses primer pairs in which 

the primers are oriented in the opposite direction so that amplification cannot occur if only a 

single insertion is present. However, if the transgene is inserted in the form of tandem or 

inverted repeats, amplification products are possible.

The sequences of the PCR primers (Table 8), their orientation in a theoretical tandem or 

inverted insertion structures (Figure 7) and the amplification products expected (Table 9) are 

shown. The size of the amplification products provided reflects integration products with precise

border junctions. Repeat structures are often accompanied by filler DNA (Kumar and Fladung, 

2000) which would increase the size of the amplification product.

Primer pair 4/6 is used as a PCR positive control (Figure 7). Primer 4 and primer 6 are oriented 

towards each other and would be expected to produce a PCR product in the presence of a single 

GEN-03 T-DNA insertion. The primer 4 / primer 6 pair produced a PCR product of expected size 

(1517 bp) in all genomic DNA samples of GD743 and GS784 tested.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 45 of 163

Table 8: Primer Sequences for Reverse Primer PCR (rpPCR)

Primer Name Sequence Target Region (bp) Direction

Primer 1 CCAAACGTAAAACGGCTTGT Pnos (307) 

Primer 2 TTTCCCCGTCAAGCTCTAAA Region between RB-Tnos (356) 

Primer 3 TTCGCAAGACCCTTCCTCTA PCAMV35s (650) 

Primer 4 TCTCATGCTGGAGTTCTTCG nptII (984) 

Primer 5 GTAGCCGGATCAAGCGTATG nptII (984) 

Primer 6 CAGATCGGACCATCACATCA PCAMV35s (650) 

Table 9: Primer Pairs for the Detection of Tandem or Inverted Repeats

Left Primer Right Primer Fragment Size (bp)1 Structure2

Primer 1 Primer 2 735 Tandem Insertion

Primer 1 Primer 3 3294 Tandem Insertion

Primer 2 Primer 5 1368 Tandem Insertion

Primer 3 Primer 5 3927 Tandem Insertion

Primer 2 Primer 6 3436 Tandem Insertion

Primer 1 n/a 1054 Inverted Repeat – LB Together

Primer 5 n/a 2320 Inverted Repeat – LB Together

Primer 2 n/a 416 Inverted Repeat – RB Together

Primer 3 n/a 5534 Inverted Repeat – RB Together

1 Approximate fragment size, depending on the precision of RB and LB excision and the presence of filler 

sequence between the RB and LB repeat. 

2

Potential insertion structures are shown in Figure 7.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 46 of 163

LB = Left Border; RB = Right Border; LB (25) = Left Border 25 base pair repeat; RB (25) = Right Border 25 base pair repeat.

Figure 7: Potential T-DNA Insertion Structures and Primer Locations

GEN-03 T-DNA - Single Insertion

6287 bp

NptII PPO2 GPO3 APO5 pSR7

Prmer 4 -->

<-- Primer 6

PCAMV35s

Pnos RB

LB (25) RB (25)

LB

GEN-03 T-DNA - Tandem

12574 bp

<-- Primer 2 <-- Primer 3

Primer 5 -->

Primer 6 -->

Primer 1 -->

PCAMV35s PCAMV35s

Pnos

Pnos

RB

RB (25)

LB (25)

LB

LB (25)

RB

LB

RB (25)

GEN-03 T-DNA - Inverted (RB T ogether)

12574 bp

<-- Primer 2 <-- Primer 3

Primer 2 -->

Primer 3 -->

PCAMV35s PCAMV35s

Pnos Pnos

LB

LB (25)

RB

RB (25)

RB

LB (25) RB (25)

LB

GEN-03 T -DNA - Inverted (LB T ogether)

12574 bp

Primer 5 -->

Primer 1 --> <-- Primer 1

PCAMV35s <-- Primer 5 PCAMV35s

Pnos Pnos

RB

RB (25)

LB (25)

LB LB

LB (25)

RB

RB (25)
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 47 of 163

Screening for the presence of tandem insertions (Primer Pairs: 1/2, 1/3, 2/5, 3/5, 2/6), inverted 

repeats - LB together (Single Primer 1 or Primer 5) and inverted repeats - RB together (Single 

primer 2 or Primer 3) was completed. No PCR products were detected using any of the selected 

primer pairs indicating that multiple insertions at a single site, in the form of simple tandem or 

inverted repeats, had not occurred in the GS784 event. 

This information is consistent with each of the four copies of the transgene being inserted at a 

different location in the genome in GS784.

5.2 Inheritance and Stability of the Insert

5.2.1 Mendelian Inheritance

In the New York field trial, trees are covered with insect-proof netting. Thus for fruit production, 

hand pollination is required. Trees of GD743 and GS784 and their respective controls are handpollinated with a non-transgenic pollen (apple cultivar, Idared) each year and apple fruit was 

harvested at maturity. For each event and control, a total of 100 seeds were collected. Fifty seeds 

from each event were subjected to genomic DNA extraction and PCR testing using primers 

specific for nptII or PPO suppression transgene (Table 10). The other fifty seeds were stratified 

to induce germination. Shoots were grown out to produce enough material for testing by NptII 

ELISA. Once the seeds had germinated, shoots were collected, individually packaged in 

ZiplocTM bags and shipped overnight to Agdia (Elkhart, IN) for NptII ELISA (PathoScreen kit 

for neomycin phosphotransferase II, Catalog number: PSP 7300) testing. 

Table 10: Primers for Determining Mendelian Inheritance

Target Primer Name Primer Sequence Product (bp)

nptII

NptII-F GAACAAGATGGATTGCACGCAG

483

NptII-R CTGATGCTCTTCGTCCAGATCA

5’ Transgene

Transgene Forward CGCACAATCCCACTATCCTT

229

Transgene Reverse GCGTCCCAGTTCCAGAAG

Method for PCR Screening GD743 x Idared and GS784 x Idared Seeds

Seeds (with seed coat removed) were frozen in liquid nitrogen and then ground individually in 

1.5 ml microfuge tubes with a plastic pestle. Genomic DNA was extracted using the DNeasy 

Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Samples were eluted in a 

final volume of 200 μl. PCR was done in a 25 μl reaction containing 1 x PCR buffer, 1 mM 

MgCl2, 200 μM each dNTP, 0.4 μM forward primer. 0.4 μM reverse primer, 2 U Taq DNA 

polymerase, and 10 ng DNA. PCR reactions were cycled: 35 x 94oC for 1 min, 55oC for 1 min, 

72oC for 2.5 min, followed by 1 x 72oC for 7 min. DNA loading buffer (1.6 μl) was added to 8 μl 

of the PCR reaction and 8 μl of this was run on 1% TBE-agarose for 50 minutes at 70V. Gels 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 48 of 163

were stained with ethidium bromide, rinsed and photographed. Seeds that carry either the 

selection marker or the PPO suppression transgene were considered to be transgenic.

In apple seeds, the seed coat is maternal and there was some concern that this would lead to false 

positive arising from PCR of seed material, even though considerable effort was made to remove 

the seed coat prior to genomic DNA extraction. This is why some of the seeds were germinated 

and sent for ELISA screening. 

The results and statistical analysis is provided in Table 11. If the GD743 was expressing NptII 

from two unlinked insertion sites then the expected segregation for the cross should be 3:1 (NptII 

Positive to NptII Negative). If the GS784 was expressing NptII from four unlinked insertion sites

then the expected segregation for the cross should be 15:1 (NptII Positive to NptII Negative).

Table 11: Mendelian Inheritance

Cross Total Seeds NptII Positive (PCR) Segregation Chi square P

1

GD743 x Idared 50 41 3:1 1.3 P > 0.2

GS784 x Idared 50 47 15:1 0.005 P > 0.95

Cross Total Seeds NptII Positive (ELISA) Segregation Chi square P

1

GD743 x Idared 50 42 3:1 2.2 P > 0.1

GS784 x Idared 33231 15:1 0.002 P > 0.95

1 The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value (P) is 

not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. In this case, P > 0.05 indicates that the portion of total seeds that 

are NptII positive is statistically consistent with the segregation ratio.

2 There were 50 seeds of GS784 that were to be screened by NptII ELISA. Rodent damage resulted in the loss of 

several GS784 shoots, while they were being sprouted, leaving only 33 seeds to be screened by NptII ELISA

5.2.2 Clonal Stability

Given apples are vegetatively propagated, the stability of any new apple clone is very important. 

The growers, packers, processors and retailers will expect the tree and fruit to remain stable from 

year to year, as well as from graft to graft over multiple generations. The clonal stability of 

events GD743 and GS784 has been assessed through a number of experiments, as well as seven 

years of field observation.

Apple Leaf Samples

Apple leaf samples were harvested from trees of GD743, GS784 and their respective controls 

from both field trials. Each sample is a pooled leaf sample (several leaves) from one tree, 

comprising approximately 5 grams of leaf tissue per sample. Leaves were picked into ZiplocTM

bags and sent to Agdia (Elkhart, IN) for testing. Samples were tested for NptII (ELISA) and 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 49 of 163

subjected to genomic DNA extraction. Genomic DNA was then subject to PCR using primers 

specific for NptII. 

Genomic DNA Extraction and PCR

Genomic DNA was isolated from apple leaf tissue by Agdia (Elkhart, IN) using a DNeasy Plant 

Mini Kit (Qiagen). PCR was done at OSF (Saskatoon) on genomic DNA isolated by Agdia. PCR 

was done using Taq Polymerase (Invitrogen) and NptII-specific primers. PCR was done in a 25 

μl reaction containing 1 x PCR buffer, 1 mM MgCl2, 200 μM each dNTP, 0.4 μM forward 

primer. 0.4 μM reverse primer, 2 U Taq DNA polymerase, and 10 ng DNA. PCR reactions were 

cycled: 35 x 94oC for 1 min, 55oC for 1 min, 72oC for 2.5 min, followed by 1 x 72oC for 7 min. 

DNA loading buffer (1.6 μl) was added to 8 μl of the PCR reaction and 8 μl of this was run on 

1% TBE-agarose for 50 minutes at 70V. Gels were stained with ethidium bromide, rinsed and 

photographed. Seeds that carry the nptII were considered to be transgenic.

PCR was used to show that nptII was present in leaf tissue of all samples of GD743 and GS784 

trees and absent from the respective GD and GS Control trees (Table 12). Similarly, NptII 

ELISA confirmed the presence of NptII protein in all leaf samples of GD743 and GS784 and 

absence from the respective GD and GS control trees (Table 13). Based on these results we can 

conclude that transgene insertion in both GD743 and GS784 is stable in vegetatively propagated 

trees.

Table 12: Detection of the nptII gene in Apple Leaf Tissue by PCR

Group Trees Tested1nptII Positive (PCR)2

ArcticTM Apple GD743 14 14

GD Control 4 0

ArcticTM Apple GS784 14 14

GS Control 4 0

1 For GD743 and GS784 there were 9 trees from the WA trial and 5 trees from the NY trial tested. For GD and GS 

there were 2 trees tested from the WA and NY field trials.

2

PCR was done by OSF (Saskatoon) on apple leaf DNA samples extracted by Agdia (Elkhart, IN) with primers 

specific for nptII (NptII-F GAACAAGATGGATTGCACGCAG / NptII-R CCTGGATCTGGTTCAGTGC).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 50 of 163

Table 13: Detection of NptII Protein in Apple Leaf Tissue by ELISA

Group Trees Tested1 NptII Positive (ELISA)

2

ArcticTM Apple GD743 14 14

GD Control 4 0

ArcticTM Apple GS784 14 133

GS Control 4 0

1 For GD743 and GS784 there were 9 trees from the WA trial and 5 trees from the NY trial tested. For GD and GS 

there were 2 trees tested from the WA and NY field trials

2 NptII ELISA results are classified as Negative (< 0.5), Questionable (0.5 to < 1.0), Elevated (1.0 to < 5.0) or 

Positive (≥ 5.0) by Agdia. OSF has considered samples identified as Elevated or Positive to be NptII Positive by 

ELISA.

3 One sample of GS784 from Washington State had NptII levels slightly greater than control but was considered to 

be questionable by Agdia.

5.3 Basis for Resistance to Enzymatic Browning in GD743 and GS784

The intended consequence of insertion of the PPO suppression transgene into apple was to 

suppress expression of the PPO gene family. Reduced gene expression should lead to lower total 

PPO activity, resulting in a nonbrowning phenotype. To confirm this result, we compared the 

total PPO activity (see Section 5.3.1), and bruise response (Section 5.3.2) in GD743 and GS784 

relative to their untransformed control cultivars Golden Delicious (GD) and Granny Smith (GS). 

5.3.1 PPO Enzyme Activity

In apple, browning is related to polyphenol content or polyphenol oxidase activity, depending on 

the cultivar (Coseteng and Lee, 1987). In events GD743 and GS784, in which the amount of 

polyphenol oxidase has been specifically limited through suppression of the PPO gene family, 

bruising will be related to PPO activity only. Therefore, to further validate success of the 

transformation of GD743 and GS784, various apple tissues were subjected to PPO activity 

assessment. PPO specific activity experimental results from tissue culture leaves, greenhouse 

leaves, field leaves, immature fruit and mature fruit can be found in the following subsections. 

Method for Measuring PPO Activity in Apple

PPO activity was measured using a modification of the method of Broothaerts (Broothaerts et 

al., 2000) in which the assay portion of the procedure was adapted to a microtitre plate. In the 

modification, leaf tissue, whole immature fruit or mature fruit skin were ground in a mortar and 

pestle under liquid nitrogen. Samples of ground tissue (50 mg) were extracted in 1 ml of 

extraction buffer (0.1 M sodium phosphate, 2% Triton X-100, 1 % PVPP, pH 6.0). After 

centrifugation, extracts of leaf or mature fruit skin were diluted 5 times, and extracts of 

immature fruit skin were diluted 50 times. PPO activity is measured using 4-methyl catechol as 

substrate and protein content was measured using bicinchoninic acid (BCA) (Thermo Scientific 

Pierce). PPO activity was reported as specific activity (U/mg protein), in an assay scaled down 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 51 of 163

proportionally to fit into a microtitre plate format. The Unit Definition of enzyme activity is 1 U 

= 0.001 A400 / min.

Tissue Culture Leaves

Leaves from early shoot cultures of Golden Delicious or Granny Smith transformed with the 

GEN-03 vector were collected from each plantlet. Leaf tissue was snap frozen in liquid nitrogen 

and stored at -80oC until processing.

PPO screening of transformed events went on from October 30, 2002 until December 28, 2004. 

Event GD743 was first identified as PPO suppressed on December 20, 2003 and GS784 was first 

identified as PPO suppressed on March 5, 2003. The tissue culture Events of GD743 and GS784 

were tested for PPO Activity on 2 successive subcultures. This work was part of a larger 

screening effort that tested 176 different GEN-03 transgenic events of four different cultivars and 

resulted in the identification of 16 – 20 highly PPO suppressed events.

PPO activity was reduced 77% in GD743 and 87% in GS784 relative to their respective controls 

(Table 14). Statistical analysis of results was not performed.

Table 14: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Tissue Culture Leaves

Event Mean SpActivity1n

2 PPO Suppression3

GD743 593 2 77 %

GD 2561 6

GS784 289 2 87 %

GS 2166 4

1 SpActivity = Specific Activity of PPO.

2

n = number of pooled tissue culture leaf samples per event.

3

PPO Suppression = ((Mean SpActivity of Control – Mean SpActivity of Event) / Mean SpActivity of Control)*100

Greenhouse Leaves

Transgenic, PPO suppressed events GD743 and GS784 were grafted onto M9 rootstocks and 

grown under greenhouse conditions. Leaves of greenhouse plants were collected, snap frozen in 

liquid nitrogen and stored at -80oC until processing. Since apple trees are clonally propagated, 

only a subset of the plants propagated were tested. PPO Screening of greenhouse plants occurred 

between May 20, 2003 and January 8, 2004.

PPO activity was reduced 93% (GD743 and GS784) relative to control levels (Table 15). 

Statistical analysis of results was not performed.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 52 of 163

Table 15: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Greenhouse Leaves

Event Mean SpActivity1n

2 PPO Suppression3

GD743 150 6 93 %

GD 2248 10

GS784 338 3 93 %

GS 4978 2

1 SpActivity = Specific Activity of PPO.

2

n = number of pooled greenhouse leaf samples per event. In the greenhouse, generally, only one pooled leaf sample 

was taken from each tree. Therefore, the number of samples approximately equals the number of trees sampled.

3

PPO Suppression = ((Mean SpActivity of Control – Mean SpActivity of Event) / Mean SpActivity of Control)*100

Field Leaves

Transgenic, PPO Suppressed events GD743 and GS784 were grafted onto M9 rootstocks and 

grown under greenhouse conditions before being sent to field trials. Mature leaves of field-grown 

plants were collected from the Washington field trial in the fall of 2005 (September 24, 2005), 

snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80oC until processing. Since apples are clonally 

propagated, only a subset of the plants that went to the field was tested.

Field plants of events GD743 and GS784 showed a marked reduction of PPO activity in both 

GD743 (82%) and GS784 (76%), relative to their respective control GD and GS cultivars (Table 

16). The reduction of PPO activity in field leaves was not as dramatic as previously reported in 

greenhouse leaves (93%). However, this appeared to be due to a decrease in the reported value 

for PPO activity in leaves from field-grown control GD and GD. The absolute level of PPO 

activity in field-grown, greenhouse-grown and tissue culture leaf tissue was similar for GD743 

and GS784.

Table 16: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Field Leaves

Event Mean SpActivity1S n

2 PPO Suppression3

GD743 207 104 14 82 %

GD 1165 390 6

GS784 315 95 10 76 %

GS 1297 245 8

1 SpActivity = Specific Activity of PPO.

2

n = number of pooled field leaf samples per event. In the field, generally, two pooled leaf samples were taken from 

each tree. Therefore, the number of samples approximately equals twice the number of trees sampled.

3

PPO Suppression = ((Mean SpActivity of Control – Mean SpActivity of Event) / Mean SpActivity of Control)*100
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 53 of 163

Independent sample t-tests of average PPO specific activity in GD743 versus GD Control and 

GS784 versus GS Control were performed using SOFA Statistics v0.9.22 (Paton-Simpson, 

2010). The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the 

actual alpha value (P) is not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a 

significant effect for the ArcticTM Apple trait, t(18) = -8.78, p = 0.0, with GD743 having lower 

PPO specific activity than GD. Similarly, there was a significant effect for the ArcticTM Apple 

trait, t(16) = -11.71, p = 0.0, with GS784 having lower PPO specific activity than GS.

Immature Fruit

Immature fruit, approximately 10 mm in length, was harvested from the Washington field trial in 

the spring of 2005 (June 10, 2005). A small amount of fruit was available from GD743, GD and 

GS (but not GS784). Fruit of GS784 was limited due to poor fruit set after a spring frost; 

therefore, it was not possible to determine PPO activity or PPO suppression in GS784 immature 

fruit (GS784 fruit that was available in 2005 was reserved for Controlled Bruising analysis). 

Since PPO is produced in early fruit development, immature fruit of field grown GEN-03 plants 

and their respective control were collected, snap frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at -80oC 

until processing. 

PPO activity was reduced 94% in GD743 relative to its control (Table 17).

Table 17: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Immature Fruit

Event Mean SpActivity1S n PPO Suppression2

GD743 4519 3703 4 94 %

GD 75160 43329 8

GS784 - - - Not determined

GS 68171 26351 11

1 SpActivity = Specific Activity of PPO.

2 PPO Suppression = ((Mean SpActivity of Control – Mean SpActivity of Event) / Mean SpActivity of Control)*100

Independent sample t-tests of average PPO Specific Activity in ArcticTM Apple GD743 versus 

GD Control was performed using SOFA Statistics v0.9.22 (Paton-Simpson, 2010). The nominal 

alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value 

(P) is not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant effect for the 

ArcticTM Apple trait, t(10) = -3.18, p = 0.01, with GD743 having lower PPO specific activity 

than GD.

Mature Fruit

Mature apple fruit were harvested from five trees of GD743 and GS784, and their respective 

controls. Fruit was harvested from the Washington field trial (WA2003) in 2007, when the trees 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 54 of 163

were in their fifth growing year. Two apples were harvested from each tree. Apples were stored 

at 4oC until processing. 

PPO activity was reduced 91% in GD743 and 90% in GS784 relative to their respective controls 

(Table 18).

Table 18: PPO Activity in GD743 and GS784 - Mature Fruit

Event Mean SpActivity1S n PPO Suppression2

GD743 294 173 10 91 %

GD 3176 1235 10

GS784 520 259 10 90 %

GS 5390 2341 10

1 SpActivity = Specific Activity of PPO.

2 PPO Suppression = ((Mean SpActivity of Control – Mean SpActivity of Event) / Mean SpActivity of Control)*100

Independent sample t-tests of average PPO Specific Activity in ArcticTM Apple GD743 versus 

GD Control and ArcticTM Apple GS784 versus GS Control were performed using SOFA 

Statistics v0.9.22 (Paton-Simpson, 2010). The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect 

is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value (P) is not greater than the nominal alpha 

criterion level. There was a significant effect for the ArcticTM Apple trait, t(18) = -7.31, p = 0.0, 

with GD743 having lower PPO specific activity than GD. Similarly, there was a significant 

effect for the ArcticTM Apple trait, t(18) = -6.54, p = 0.0, with GS784 having lower PPO specific 

activity than GS.

Notably, it is observed that specific activity of PPO was considerably higher in immature fruit 

tissue than in mature fruit tissue. This is consistent with the fact that PPO is produced in 

immature fruit and is then dispersed throughout the apple (diluted) as the apple grows in size. 

5.3.2 Controlled Bruising of Apple

The ultimate goal and predicted outcome of genetic modification in the GD743 and GS784 

events, is to develop an apple cultivar that would not brown when bruised or cut. Therefore, to 

further validate the success of the transformation, mature apples were harvested and subjected to 

controlled bruising.

Mature fruit was harvested from the Washington state field trial. Fruit was sampled in 2005 and 

2006, when trees were in their third and fourth growing year. The bruise response to controlled 

mechanical damage was measured as described in detail below. Briefly, the unpeeled apple is 

subjected to a controlled impact. After allowing a specified amount of time to pass to permit for 

bruises and their resultant color changes to develop, the apples are peeled and the color of the 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 55 of 163

apple flesh is compared on and off the bruise location. Bruising is reported as change in 

Lightness (ΔL*) or Color (ΔE*).

Controlled bruising experimental data, analysis and results are presented below.

Method for Measuring Bruising Response in Apples

A special bruising apparatus was designed to deliver a controlled bruise to the apple with 

minimal destruction to the tissue. Apples are bruised in a consistent manner using the 

improvised Impact Device. Bruise response is reported as Change in Lightness (ΔL*), or Total 

Change in Color (ΔE*) between the bruised and non-bruised tissue as measured using a Minolta 

Chroma Meter.

The Impact Device

The Impact Device consists of the Impact Device itself, plus a shallow container of glass beads 

into which the apple is set, prior to being bruised. The Impact Device consists of a wooden block 

with a rounded impact surface that can be dropped from a consistent and adjustable height. A 

bruise, as delivered by the Impact Device could, alternatively, be produced by dropping a 

marble or steel ball down a tube, of a specific length, which is placed on the surface of the apple. 

A shallow dish full of glass beads, into which the apple is placed, provides a cushion to prevent 

damage to the underside of the apple during impact to the top side of the apple. 

The Minolta Color Meter

A Konica Minolta CR-300 Chroma Meter with DP-301 Data Processor was used to measure 

flesh color (Figure 8).

Figure 8: The Konica Minolta CR-300 Chroma Meter
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 56 of 163

Procedure

Apples are removed from storage and allowed to come to room temperature for 2 hours. 

Positions of the bruises are marked with a felt pen on the apple skin. Each apple is bruised 5 

times and allowed to sit at room temperature for 3 hours for the bruise to form. The apples are 

peeled over the bruised areas (careful not to remove the pen marking or to go too deep with the 

peeling). Each peeled area is measured on the non-bruised area adjacent to the bruise (trt 1) 

and directly on the bruised area (trt 2). Bruising, or Change in Lightness (ΔL*) and Total 

Change in Color (ΔE*) are calculated as: 

L*  L*

trt2 L*trt1

a*  a *

trt2 a *trt1

b*  b*

trt2 b*trt1

2 2 2 E*  (L*)  (a*)  (b*)

2005 Results

Apple fruit samples were harvested from trees of GD743 and GS784, and their respective GD 

and GS control trees, at maturity, from the Washington field trial. For each transgenic event and 

control, three (3) trees were sampled. Due to limited fruit, only one (1) apple was selected from 

each tree. Apples were stored at 2oC prior to testing.

Each apple was bruised in a controlled manner and the bruising /browning reaction was assessed, 

as follows: The apples are brought to room temperature and left to sit for 2 hours at room 

temperature (18oC). Each apple is labeled, marked and bruised 5 times, in 5 different locations 

around the mid-section. The apples are left to sit for 3 hours at room temperature to allow bruise 

development. An apple peeler is used to expose an area that is larger than the bruised area. The 

peeled area is measured using a colorimeter 'off' and 'on' the bruise, which represents the 'trt2' 

and 'trt1' treatments.

The measured variable is lightness (L*) described in the CIE 1976 (L*, a*, b*) color space, 

where L* = 0 yields black and L* = 100 indicated diffuse white. A negative change in lightness 

(negative ΔL*), indicates a darkening of the apple tissue.

The average ΔL* for GD (-11.65) and GS (-9.08) control apples produced visible brown bruising 

of the apple flesh. Conversely, the average ΔL* for GD743 (-1.37) and GS784 (-1.04) did not 

produce visible bruising of the apple flesh (Table 19).

where:

L* = Lightness

a* = Position between red/magenta and green

b* = Position between yellow and blue

L* a* b* are defined in greater detail below.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 57 of 163

Table 19: Controlled Bruising of GD743 and GS784 (18oC) - 2005

Event ΔL* S n temp1

GD743 -1.37 1.02 15 18

GD -11.65 3.16 15 18

GS784 -1.04 0.78 15 18

GS -9.08 2.79 15 18

1 Bruising done while apple flesh temperature was 18oC (room temperature).

Independent samples t-test of average ΔL* for GD743 versus GD Control and GS784 versus GS 

Control were performed using SOFA Statistics v0.9.22 (Paton-Simpson, 2010). The nominal 

alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value 

(P) is not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant effect for the 

ArcticTM Apple trait, t(28) = 11.97, p = 0.0, with GD743 having lower ΔL* than GD. Similarly, 

there was a significant effect for the ArcticTM Apple trait, t(28) = 10.76, p = 0.0, with GS784 

having lower ΔL* than GS.

2006 Results

Apple fruit samples were harvested from trees of GD743 and GS784, and their respective GD 

and GS control trees, at maturity from the Washington field trial. For each transgenic event and 

control, five (5) trees were sampled. Apples were stored at 2oC prior to testing.

Each apple was bruised in a controlled manner and the bruising /browning reaction was assessed, 

as follows: The apples are brought to room temperature and left to sit for 2 hours (18

oC) or 

bruised straight out of cold storage (2oC). Two (2) apples were randomly selected from each tree 

for each temperature. Each apple is labeled, marked and bruised 5 times, in 5 different locations 

on the mid-section of the apple. The apples are left to sit for 3 hours at room temperature to 

allow bruise development. An apple peeler is used to expose an area that is larger than the 

bruised area. The peeled area is measured using a colorimeter 'off' and 'on' the bruise.

The measured variables are lightness (L* = 0 yields black and L* = 100 indicated diffuse white), 

its position between red/magenta and green (a*, negative value indicate green while positive 

values indicate magenta), and its position between yellow and blue (b*, negative values indicate 

blue and positive values indicate yellow) as described in the CIE 1976 (L*, a*, b*) color space. 

The reported variable is change in color (ΔE*), calculated from the measured variables. The 

change in color (ΔE*) is a positive number and represents the difference (distance) between two 

colors. A larger ΔE* represents a larger color difference.

For Golden Delicious, change in color (ΔE*) associated with bruising is caused by a darkening of 

the tissue (negative ΔL*), shift from green to magenta (positive Δa*), and deepening of the 

yellow color (positive Δb*). For Granny Smith, change in color (ΔE*) associated with bruising is 

caused by a darkening of the tissue (negative ΔL*), shift from green to magenta (positive Δa*), 

but no shift in blue / yellow color. The change in color (ΔE*) is a positive number.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 58 of 163

Independent samples t-test of average ΔE* for GD743 versus GD Control and GS784 versus GS 

Control were performed using SOFA Statistics v0.9.22 (Paton-Simpson, 2010). The nominal 

alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value 

(P) is not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level.

Bruising at 18oC

The average ΔE* for GD (13.43) and GS (18.26) control apples produced visible brown bruising 

of the apple flesh. Conversely, the average ΔE* for GD743 (2.41) and GS784 (4.11) did not 

produced visible bruising of the apple flesh (Table 20).

Table 20: Controlled Bruising of GD743 and GS784 (18oC) - 2006

EventID ΔE* S n temp1

GD743 2.41 1.18 50 18

GD 13.43 5.66 50 18

GS784 4.11 1.90 50 18

GS 18.26 3.08 50 18

1 Bruising done while apple flesh temperature was 18oC (room temperature).

There was a significant effect for the ArcticTM Apple trait, t(98) = -13.49, p = 0.0, with GD743 

having lower ΔE* than GD. Similarly, there was a significant effect for the ArcticTM Apple trait, 

t(98) = -27.96, p = 0.0, with GS784 having lower ΔE* than GS.

Bruising at 2oC

The average ΔE* for GD (13.56) and GS (12.01) control apples produced visible brown bruising 

of the apple flesh. Conversely, the average ΔE* for GD743 (2.39) and GS784 (3.18) did not 

produced visible bruising of the apple flesh (Table 21).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 59 of 163

Table 21: Controlled Bruising of GD743 and GS784 (2oC)

EventID ΔE* S n Temp1

GD743 2.39 1.09 50 2

GD 13.56 3.40 50 2

GS784 3.18 2.67 50 2

GS 12.01 6.65 50 2

1 Bruising done while apple flesh temperature was 2oC.

There was a significant effect for the ArcticTM Apple trait, t(98) = -22.11, p = 0.0, with GD743 

having lower ΔE* than GD. Similarly, there was a significant effect for the ArcticTM Apple trait, 

t(98) = -8.71, p = 0.0, with GS784 having lower ΔE* than GS.

Images and Other Data

Both GD743 and GS784 events showed markedly reduced browning response relative to their 

untransformed parent cultivars, further demonstrating success of the genetic transformation and 

that a nonbrowning phenotype had in fact resulted. Indeed, bruises yielding ΔE* values of less 

than 2-4 were invisible to the naked eye. Images of the bruise response are included in the 

photographic record provided in Appendix 1 (Figure 14).

Other forms of mechanical damage, such as slicing or juicing, have consistently yielded the same 

dramatic nonbrowning phenotype for GD743 and GS784 (Appendix 1, Figure 15 and Figure 16). 

Also, in an independent study of events GS784 and others, Cornell University scientists 

established a clear relationship between the nonbruising phenotype and total PPO activity. High 

PPO activity and high browning was observed in bruised tissue of conventional apples studied, 

contrasted with almost no PPO activity and no changes of color in the transformed apples (data 

not shown). 

5.4 Conclusions

The following conclusions can be made concerning genotypic and phenotypic changes made to 

create the events GD743 and GS784, demonstrating that OSF has successfully developed a 

nonbrowning apple:

(a) PCR confirms the presence of both the 3’ end of the PPO suppression transgene and the 

NptII selection marker.

(b) Southern blot analysis confirms the presence of an intact copy of the PPO suppression 

portion of the insert in both GD743 and GS784. Southern data, combined with Mendelian 

Inheritance data indicates that GD743 arises from two unlinked insertions, while GS784 

arises from four unlinked insertions. Southern blots also confirm that there is no evidence 

for inclusion of a complete copy of the vector backbone in either GD743 or GS784;
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 60 of 163

(c) Reverse Primer PCR confirms that the multiple copies of the insert in GS784 do not arise 

from tandem or inverted repeat structure, suggesting instead that GS784 has four copies 

of the insert at four independent locations; 

(d) PPO activity is reduced by more than 75 percent in field leaves and more than 90 percent 

in greenhouse leaves and mature fruit of both GD743 and GS784 events; and

(e) Suppression of PPO is sufficient to induce a nonbrowning apple phenotype.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 61 of 163

6 AGRONOMIC EVALUATION

6.1 Description of Field Trials

6.1.1 Site Selection

OSF has two field trial sites in the USA, covered by USDA APHIS Notifications and Permits 

detailed in Table 22 and Table 23. These trials are located in New York and Washington states, 

and represent conditions found in the two largest apple-growing areas in the country. The field 

trials also encompass two distinct agronomic zones, with the principal apple growing area of 

Washington State being a dry, arid to semi-arid region with low insect and very low fungal 

pressure, and New York being a much wetter and humid region with higher insect and disease 

pressure.

Table 22: Washington State Field Trial Notifications and Permits

Notification or Permit No. Effective Date Date Expires Reporting Status

03-073-07n April 13, 2003 Dec. 31, 2006 Annual report submitted

04-097-02n May 6, 2004 Dec. 31, 2007 Annual report submitted

06-087-10n May 1, 2006 May 1, 2007 Annual report submitted

06-087-09n May 1, 2006 May 1, 2007 Annual report submitted

07-086-111n April 27, 2007 April 27, 2008 Annual report submitted, extended by ePermit

07-086-110n April 27, 2007 April 27, 2008 Annual report submitted, extended by ePermit

07-086-106n May 30, 2007 May 30, 2008 Annual report submitted, extended by ePermit

07-086-107n May 31, 2007 May 31, 2008 Annual report submitted, extended by ePermit

07-348-101r April 1, 2008 March 31, 2011 Annual report submitted

11-056-102r April 1, 2011 April 1, 2014 New in 2011

Table 23: New York State Field Trial Notifications and Permits

Notification or Permit No. Date Issued Date Expires Reporting Status

05-046-14n March 24, 2005 March 24, 2009 Annual report submitted, extended by ePermit

07-355-101r April 1, 2008 April 1,2011 Annual report submitted

11-067-105r March 31, 2011 March 31, 2014 New in 2011

The Washington trial is located in the dry Pacific Northwest agronomic zone 5, which is 

characterized by 700-1,000 growth degree days (base 50oF) per year, silty clay loam soils over 

40 inches deep and annual rainfall ranging from 10-14 inches (Douglas et al., 1990). The New 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 62 of 163

York field trial is located in the New York Central Plains agronomic region, which is strongly 

influenced by Lake Ontario providing 1000-1250 growing degree days (base 50oF) and 100-200 

frost free days from late April to early October (Dethier and Vittum, 1967). Annual rainfall 

averages approximately 35 inches, with 14-20 inches of rain during the growing season. Soils are 

shallow with low water-holding capacity, largely derived from glacial activity. Mean maximum 

temperatures in July range from 80-86° F, and mean minimum temperatures of 5-14° F occur in 

January (Fick, 1995).

The first Washington field trial relevant to this petition was planted in 2003 (WA2003) (See 

Appendix 2, Table 49: Map of the Washington Field Trial – 2003 Block). It consisted of 220 

trees planted in a single row approximately 528 feet long. Trees were on commercially-popular 

Malling 9 rootstocks and were planted as in a commercial orchard, with tree spacing 24 inches 

apart. This 0.14 acre row contained trees representing 14 different GEN-03 transgenic events of 

the apple cultivars GD, and GS, plus untransformed controls. OSF events GD743 and GS784 

covered in this petition are dispersed within this row. In the spring of 2005, trees were flagged in 

the WA2003 block. These included 3 GD743 (743-8, 743-8, 743-14), 3 GD (1000-1, 1000-2, 

1000-9), 3 GS784 (784-3 784-4, 784-5), and 3 GS (1001-1, 1001-4, 1001-17). Throughout the 

period that the WA2003 trial was active, trees were removed for a variety of reasons (rodent 

damage, winter kill), including 743-8, 1001-17, 784-4, 1000-2, and 1000-1.No new trees were 

added to the block. The entire WA2003 block was removed at the end of the 2007 growing 

season to make way for a new more homogenous demonstration block containing only selected 

GEN-03 events plus controls (renamed WA2008).

The Washington field trial relevant to this petition was planted in 2004 (WA2004) (See 

Appendix 2, Table 51: Map of the Washington Field Trial - 2004 Block). It consists of 242 trees 

planted in a single row approximately 580 feet long. Trees are on commercially-popular Malling 

9 rootstocks and are planted as in a commercial orchard, with tree spacing 24 inches apart. This 

0.16 acre row contains trees representing 28 different GEN-03 transgenic events of the apple 

cultivars GD, GS, Fuji and Gala plus untransformed controls. OSF events GD743 and GS784 

covered in this petition are dispersed within this row. In the spring of 2005, 3 trees of selected 

GEN-03 events represented in the row, plus 3 trees of each control cultivar were randomly 

chosen and flagged for data collection. In the spring of 2008, a new and expanded subset of trees 

was flagged, which included 4 trees of selected GEN-03 events, plus 4 trees of each control. For 

some events, insufficient numbers of trees were available, so fewer than 4 trees were chosen. 

Throughout the period that the WA2004 trial was active, considering the GD743, GD, GS784 

and GS trees that are subject of this petition, one control tree (1001-37) died due to rodent 

damage and was removed. No new trees were added to the block.

An expansion of the Washington field trial was planted in 2008 (WA2008) (see Appendix 2, 

Table 52: Map of the Washington Field Trial - 2008 Block). It consists of 146 trees planted in a 

single row approximately 300 feet long, placed within an existing trial block of unrelated trees. 

Trees are on commercially-popular Malling 9 rootstocks and are planted as in a commercial 

orchard, with tree spacing 24 inches apart. This 0.10 acre row contains trees representing 4 

different GEN-03 transgenic events of the apple cultivars GD and GS plus untransformed 

controls. OSF events GD743 and GS784 covered in this petition are planted in blocks within this 

row. In the spring of 2009, 10 trees of each GEN-03 event represented in the row, plus 10 trees 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 63 of 163

of each control cultivar were chosen and flagged for data collection. Only one tree (1001-128) 

has been removed from this block. No new trees have been added.

The New York field trial was planted in 2005 (NY2005) and consists of 119 trees covering an 

area of 0.15 acres, made up of two rows 15 feet apart and trees rows 225 feet long with trees 

placed at 4 feet on center. The trees are also on Malling 9 rootstock. In this trial, there are a total 

of five GD743 trees and six GS784 trees located randomly in the two rows (see Appendix 2, 

Table 50: Map of the New York Field Trial – 2005 Block). The trial also contains five GD and 

six GS control trees. The balance of the trial consists of control trees and other events

6.1.2 Horticultural Management

OSF operates these field trials with the assistance of local collaborators who provide the day-today onsite horticulture management. OSF staff visit the trials on a regular basis to ensure 

management and regulatory integrity. 

It is essential to manage apple field trials in a manner consistent with commercial apple 

cultivation methods, adhering to integrated pest management (IPM) and Good Agricultural 

Practices (GAP) approaches. By assuring this type of management, the data collected from the 

trials is both reproducible and can be extrapolated with confidence to a commercial setting. OSF 

field trial Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) include, but are not limited to: soil preparation 

and testing, tree planting, tree fertility, pest management, disease management, irrigation 

scheduling, crop load management (i.e., pruning and thinning), insect monitoring and data 

collection, crop spraying and reporting, harvest, postharvest fertility, rodent and wildlife control, 

and disposal of transgenic trees.

A commercial apple orchard is a highly-managed agricultural production environment. This is 

particularly the case in modern high-density orchards (which average more than 1,000 trees/acre) 

using dwarf rootstock. Careful monitoring of tree vigor, insect pressure and disease allows for 

timely optimization of tree growth, production and yield. For this reason, little pest and disease 

pressure is tolerated or observed in commercial apple orchards.

6.1.3 Data Collection

In Washington state, OSF engaged an independent horticultural consultant and IPM specialist to 

monitor the trial, place insect pheromone traps for that region’s leading insect pests – codling 

moth (Cydia pomonella), oblique-banded leafroller (Choristoneura rosaceana) and Pandemis 

moth (aka barred fruit-tree tortrix, Pandemis cerasana) – and collect relevant field data. This 

consultant visited the trial approximately every 10 days to do a general inspection of tree vigor, 

insect and disease pressure and trap counts. These visits began in April and ended in late 

October. Regulatory compliance data was collected from flagged trees of events GD743 and 

GS784, as well as controls and other trees of interest. The data collected represented the 

dominant insect and disease problems found in a commercial orchard and, although not 

exhaustive, are representative of how these transgenic trees compare to controls in a commercial 

setting. 

In 2010 we changed the process for monitoring the WA field trial. Up until that time, we had 

been using an adjacent block of Pink Lady as an early indicator to forewarn us of pest and/ or 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 64 of 163

disease problems. Beginning in the early spring of 2010 we began using a control block of trees 

within the trial to monitor for pest problems (See Appendix 2, Table 51: Map of the Washington 

Field Trial - 2004 Block, Positions 76 – 92). Within this block is a representative sample of 

GD/GD743 and GS/GS784 trees. The control block was monitored on a weekly basis by the field 

manager. If pests or diseases were present in the control block, then data was collected from 

tagged trees from within the WA2004 (Appendix 2, Table 51) and WA2008 (see Appendix 2, 

Table 52: Map of the Washington Field Trial - 2008 Block) trial blocks.

In New York state, OSF’s collaborator provided the independent horticultural support and data 

collection service similar to those engaged in at the Washington trial. This collaborator has 

considerable experience in running tree fruit field trials and is capable of handling this task. The 

data collected from this trial was consistent with the Washington trial; however, data was also 

collected regarding damage due to Japanese beetle (Popillia japonica), a new pest that is specific 

to this area. 

6.2 Agronomic Performance

Agronomic performance data described in this section is consolidated in Table 24 and Table 25

for the New York and Washington state field trials. Given many of the trees planted were 

preceded by year-round tissue culture and greenhouse activities, the trees planted in these trials 

were a wide range of sizes. At planting, tree height ranged from 20 to72” and tree caliper ranged 

from 1⁄4” to 3⁄4”. Getting trees established outdoors was always a priority as they perform better in 

this environment. Planting trees in this manner likely increased the variability within the 

agronomic data being collected. Figure 9 illustrates how this variability tended to work itself out 

over time and how all trees, once they filled their space (height and volume-wise), had 

performance consistent with the controls.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 65 of 163

Table 24: Agronomic Performance - New York

Sample Description Tree Height (cm) TCA2(cm2) Flower Clusters Fruit Number at Harvest

Event Leaf Average S n Average S n Average S n Average S n

GD743 3rd 177 22 5 265 63 5 25 18 5 16 4 5

GD 3rd 186 24 5 328 52 5 4 3 5 10 11 5

GS784 3rd 178 23 6 289 98 6 6 3 6 3 2 6

GS 3rd 197 11 6 354 75 6 46 38 6 9 9 6

GD743 4th 232 28 5 512 103 5 13 12 5 10 8 5

GD 4th 225 26 5 706 105 5 25 8 5 26 10 5

GS784 4th 235 22 6 663 161 6 28 14 6 24 11 6

GS 4th 242 14 6 685 90 6 39 15 6 27 9 6

1 Results are a compilation of data from 2007 and 2008 from Rows 101 and 102 planted in 2005 (NY2005).

2 TCA = trunk cross-sectional area.

Table 25: Agronomic Performance - Washington

Sample Description Tree Height (cm)5 TCA2(cm2) Flower Clusters5 Fruit Number at Harvest

Event Leaf Average S n Average S n Average S n Average S n

GD743 3rd 58 12 3 14 7 3

GD 3rd 40 1 2

3

27 8 3

GS784 3rd 59 16 3 16 2 3

GS 3rd 41 3 3 18 10 3

GD743 4th 87 9 4

4

14 7 4

GD 4th 72 1 2 1 1 2

GS784 4th 82 23 4 14 9 4

GS 4th 71 14 4 24 10 4

1 Results are a compilation of data from 2005 and 2006 from Row 14 planted in 2003 (WA 2003).

2 TCA = trunk cross-sectional area.

3

In 2005, one GD control tree was removed after fruit harvest and before fall measurement of trunk cross-sectional area (TCA) .

4

In 2006, additional trees were added to the dataset.

5 Data not collected.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 66 of 163

Figure 9: Agronomic Performance Overview

This figure pictorially represents the establishment of the WA2004 field block. Year round micrografting to produce 

trees, followed by greenhouse and screenhouse activities resulted in a high variability in size of trees that were 

planted in the spring of 2004. This figure also shows the approximate range of flower clusters, mature fruit and tree 

(trunk) cross sectional area that would be found in the years following planting. This is true in subsequent years of 

planting in Washington, as well. Numbers for flower clusters, mature fruit and tree cross sectional area is different in 

New York, where tree spacing is greater (4 feet).

6.2.1 Tree Growth Rate

To determine the relative size and growth rate of events GD743 and GS784 compared to the 

controls, growth components were measured, including tree height and trunk cross-sectional area 

(TCA), at the end of every season of the trial. TCA is recognized by the American Society for

Horticultural Science as a descriptor of tree size in young trees that have not yet been pruned to 

control size; TCA is correlated with height and tree volume. 

Data from the end of the third and forth growing season was judged to be the most appropriate 

illustrator of size, as this is before trees have been top pruned to manage height. We did not 

observe any differences in tree height or TCA between GD743 and GS784 events and their 

corresponding controls.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 67 of 163

6.2.2 Flower Cluster Number

More prolific flowering in younger trees is usually regarded as a favorable trait in apples. Study 

of this trait allows us to measure the precocity of the GD743 and GS784 events compared to 

their untransformed controls. The number of flower clusters per tree was counted in each season 

of the trial to give some indication of this component of yield. 

SF evaluated the average flower cluster number of the events vs. controls in the New York state 

trial in trees in their third and fourth growing seasons. We did not observe any differences in this 

agronomic trait between GD743 and GS784 events and their corresponding controls.

6.2.3 Fruit Number at Harvest Time

Fruit number is an important component of yield, as a low fruit number might indicate a degree 

of sterility, or lack of precocity. 

OSF’s measurements of fruit number shows the average fruit number of the events vs. controls in 

both the Washington State and New York state trials in the third and fourth year of the trials. We 

did not observe any differences in this agronomic trait between GD743 and GS784 events and 

their corresponding controls.

6.3 Pest and Disease Characteristics

OSF evaluated how GD743 and GS784 events performed in the field with respect to control 

fruit. Pest and disease characteristics were monitored, and data was collected that would help to 

analyze if these events were less, equal or more susceptible to pest and diseases than control 

fruit. As described in section 6.1, OSF engaged a horticulturalist to monitor both field trials and 

to report incidents of pest and disease and the related data associated with these incidents. Figure 

10 illustrates typical field trial monitoring over the growing season. From this we can see tree 

growth stage, degree day accumulation, monitoring frequency, incident reporting and field 

interventions over the April through October growing season. Appendix 3 provides data specific 

to relevant pest and disease incidents as these occurred in the two field trials over the multiple 

years of evaluation. These appendices track incidents by pest and summarize the data collected, 

provide an incident summary and the interpretation and statistics on this data used to establish if 

there was a significant variance between the GD743 and GS784 events and the control cultivars.

Pest and disease data referred to in Section 6.3 can be found in Appendix 3.

Statistical calculations used the Chi-Square test of independence. Yates’ correction for continuity 

is employed where the frequency is less than 5 in at least one of the cells. The nominal alpha 

criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value (P) is 

not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 68 of 163

Figure 10: Pest and Disease Monitoring (Washington 2010)

This figure is a pictorial overview of the pest and disease monitoring at the Washington field trial for the 2010 

growing season. The figure is described in more detail in Section 6.3 Pest and Disease Characteristics.

6.3.1 Scab (Venturia inaequalis)

This fungal disease infects both apple fruit and leaves. It is a serious pest of concern to 

commercial apple growers particularly in wet and humid areas, less so in drier areas such as 

Washington State. 

This disease was monitored in both the Washington and New York field trials in each year of the 

trials. No incidences of this disease were detected in GD743, GS784 or controls, nor were any 

infection sites observed. This result was probably the consequence of a normal commercial scab 

spray-control program. Controlled inoculations without chemical control were not carried out.

Typically, apple cultivars that are sensitive to Powdery Mildew, such as Golden Delicious and 

Granny Smith are sprayed with fungicide every two weeks. As a consequence, scab is controlled 

on these cultivars. Consistent with this, very few instances of scab have been reported from 

either field trial.

In 2006, scab lesions in the fruit were reported in the NY field trial, but there were very few trees 

or fruit affected. None of the trees were the subject of this petition. In NY there were no other 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 69 of 163

reported instances of scab between 2007 and 2011. The WA field trial has never reported an 

instance of scab.

6.3.2 Mildew (Podosphara leucotricha)

This fungal disease primarily infects apple leaves around blossom time; it can also infect fruit, 

which results in russeting of the skin that is apparent by harvest time. Powdery Mildew (PM) is a 

common disease of concern to commercial growers in both humid and drier growing areas.

Appendix 3 (Table 53, Table 54 and Table 55) summarize PM incidents in both field trials.

The Washington Field trial site reported incidences of PM almost every year from 2004 to 2010. 

Representative data is presented from the WA2008 field block from the spring (Table 53) and 

fall (Table 55) of 2010. Data is reported as mildew infested shoots in 10 shoots of each tree 

monitored. The New York field trial reported only a single incidence of PM in 2008 (Table 54). 

PM was very light affecting only GS events. In New York, PM infection was assessed according 

to a rating scale where 1 < 10%, 2 = 10 – 50%, and 3 > 50%. The percentages refer to the percent 

(%) of shoot tips colonized by PM. Since the rate of infection was similar (<10%) in the PM 

infected trees, the number of trees infected is reported.

In the spring of 2010, PM was present in the WA2008 block (Table 53). PM appeared to be 

cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) 

(7.5%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (3.5%). However, Chi-square test revealed that the 

percentage of PM affected shoots did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=400) =3.08, 

P>0.05). PM infection was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square 

test revealed that the percentage of PM infected shoots did not significantly differ between 

GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=200) =0.65, P>0.3). Similarly, Chi-square test (Yates) revealed that the 

percentage of PM infected shoots did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, 

N=200) =0.59, P>0.03).

In the fall of 2010, PM was present in the WA2008 block (Table 55). PM did not appear to be 

cultivar specific. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of PM affected shoots did not 

significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=400) =0.23, P>0.5). PM infection was not influenced by 

incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of PM 

infected shoots did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=200) =2.61, 

P>0.1). Similarly, Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of PM infected shoots did not 

significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=200) =3.03, P>0.05).

In the summer of 2008, PM was present in the NY field trial block (Table 54). PM was very light 

affecting only GS events. However, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of PM 

affected shoots did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=22) =0.37, P>0.5). PM infection 

was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Both GD743 and GD were 

similarly unaffected by PM. Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 

PM infected trees did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0.6, P>0.3).

6.3.3 Fireblight (Erwinia amylovora)

Fireblight (FB) is a contagious disease which affects apples, pears, and other members of the 

Rosaceae family. FB is of concern in all apple growing regions of North America, because under 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 70 of 163

optimal conditions, it can destroy entire orchards in a single growing season.

FB and FB management has been reviewed extensively. In brief, Erwinia amylovora can 

overwinter only in the blight strikes (cankers) from the previous season. Most of the bacteria in 

these cankers will die, but a portion of them may reactivate around blossom time allowing the 

infection to spread to other parts of the orchard. If the temperature is warm (greater than 70oF) 

cankers will ooze bacteria to their surface. From here, bacteria are spread by insects that feed on 

the ooze followed by the nectar of apple. If the weather remains warm, bacterial growth will 

continue and can be spread by water into the flower’s nectary. If successful at attacking the 

fruitlet, the bacteria will travel through the phloem of the plant into sensitive tissue (tender parts 

of the plant), killing nearby host tree structures. Symptoms of fireblight will be easily visible 5 –

14 days after infection (Smith, 2010).

With respect to a PPO inhibited apple and the concern that a FB infected tree might be less 

visible, our Washington field manager stated the following:

“We see first, limp leaves that are olive color (not the right color of green). These will ooze, and 

then start to crook (wilt). They will continue to wilt, then dry, (look as if touched by an acetylene 

torch), and the fruit will pygmy up (shrivel).” (Field Manager – Washington Field Trial)

Symptoms of FB are distinct and clearly visible and have been detected in both PPO inhibited 

GEN-03 trees, and their respective control trees.

OSF monitored for FB at both trial sites. In Washington there were 12 trees from the WA2003 

and WA2004 block affected by FB (Table 26). Two of these were in trees of GD743, while a 

further six were in trees of related, PPO-suppressed, GEN-03 x GD events (702, 703, 705, and 

707). In addition to the two GD743 trees affected by FB, OSF offers these trees to augment the 

fireblight dataset. These latter events were established as moderately (702, 703) or highly (705, 

707) PPO-suppressed.

There were no incidences of FB reported for the New York trial.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 71 of 163

Table 26: Record of Fireblight Incidences in OSF's Washington Field Trial

Plant 

Name1 Vector Name Cultivar Rootstock Year Planted Fireblight Date

743-19 GEN-03 GD M9 2003 FB Hits Detected May 30, 2005

1000-1 Control GD M9 2003 FB Hits Detected May 30, 2005

707-7 GEN-03 GD M9 2003 Shoot Tip Infection (ooze) July 1, 2006

743-41 GEN-03 GD M9 2003 FB (Tree Removed) September 25, 2007

705-24 GEN-03 GD M9 2003 FB (Tree Removed) September 25, 2007

705-42 GEN-03 GD M9 2003 FB (Tree Removed) September 25, 2007

1003-3 Control PG M9 2004 FB Hits Detected May 30, 2005

707-17 GEN-03 GD M9 2004 FB Hits Detected June 11, 2006

872-13 GEN-03 NF M9 2004 FB (Tree Removed) September 25, 2007

707-17 GEN-03 GD M9 2004 FB (Tree Removed) September 25, 2007

702-35 GEN-03 GD M9 2004 FB (Tree Removed) September 25, 2007

1000-33 Control GD M9 2004 FB (Tree Removed) September 25, 2007

703-48 GEN-03 GD M9 2004 FB (Tree Removed) September 25, 2007

1 Notably, in addition to GD743 and GS784, there are other GEN-03 events in the Washington field trial are referred to in this 

petition in the context of fireblight susceptibility. The additional events are GD702, GD703, GD705, and GD707. These events 

were established as moderately (702, 703) or highly (705, 707) PPO-suppressed and yield low-browning or non-browning fruit, 

respectively.

FB was detected in 2005, 2006 and 2007 in trees from the WA2003 and WA2004 field blocks 

(Table 56). FB was detected in at a higher rate in Golden Delicious (GD702, GD703, GD705, 

GD707, GD743 and GD) (4% of trees) than in Granny Smith (GS784 and GS) (0% of trees) 

However, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of FB affected trees did not

significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=327) =1.61, P>0.2). FB was not influenced by 

incorporation of the GEN-03. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of FB affected 

trees did not significantly differ between the PPO suppressed GEN-03 events (GD702, GD703, 

GD705, GD707 and GD743) and the non-transgenic control cultivar GD (X2(1, N=258) =0.34 

P>0.5). Both GS784 and GS were similarly unaffected by fireblight.

6.3.4 Aphids: Green Apple Aphid (Aphis pomi), Woolly Apple Aphid (Eriosoma lanigerum),

Rosy Apple Aphid (Dysaphis plantaginea)

Aphids are sucking insects that feed on tender new growth; they are a concern in commercial 

orchards from time to time, and are a noteworthy pest in fruit tree nurseries. Appendix 3 (Table 

57, Table 58, Table 59 and Table 60) provide details with respect to aphid incidents.

The Washington Field trial site reported incidences of aphids, Green Apple Aphid (GAA) or 

Woolly Aphid, most every year from 2004 to 2010. Representative data is presented from the 

WA2004 field block for GAA (Table 58 and Table 59) and Woolly Aphid (Table 60) in 2010. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 72 of 163

Data is reported as the number of aphid infested shoots in 10 upper portion of tree, rapidly

growing shoots collected from each tree. 

The New York field trial has reported only a single incidence of aphids in 2009 (Table 57). 

Aphid infection was assessed according to a rating scale where 1 < 10%, 2 = 10 – 50%, and 3 > 

50%. The percentages refer to the percent (%) of shoot tips colonized by aphids. Aphid infection 

was rated at > 50% in 21/22 trees assessed (ArcticTM Apple and Controls). Therefore, the number 

of trees infected is reported.

Woolly Aphid was identified in the WA2004 field trial block in 2010 (Table 60). The 

populations were relatively low. Woolly Aphid appeared to be cultivar specific with a higher rate 

of incidence in Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (11.3%) than in Granny Smith (GS + GS784)

(1.4%). Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Woolly Aphid affected shoots 

significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, N=150) =4.32, P<0.05). Woolly aphid infection was not 

influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the 

percentage of Woolly Aphid infected shoots did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD

(X2(1, N=80) =0, P>0.95). Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 

Woolly Aphid infected shoots did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=70) 

=0.02, P>0.8).

Green Apple Aphid (GAA) was reported on August 9, 2010 (Table 58) and again on August 16, 

2010 (Table 59). GAA infected primarily the WA2004 block.

On August 9, GAA appeared to be cultivar specific with a higher rate of GAA incidence in 

Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (22.5%) than in Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (14.3%) (Table 

58). However, Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of GAA affected shoots did not 

significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=150) =2.14, P>0.1). GAA infection was not influenced 

by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of GAA 

infected shoots did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=80) =0.62, P>0.3). 

Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of GAA infected shoots did not 

significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=70) =0.70, P>0.3).

On August 16, 2010, GAA was not cultivar specific with a similar rate of GAA incidence in 

Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (6.3%) and Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (4.3%) (Table 59).

Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of GAA affected shoots did not significantly 

differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=150) =0.03, P>0.8). GAA infection was not influenced by 

incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 

GAA infected shoots did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=80) =0, 

P>0.95). Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of GAA infected shoots 

did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=70) =0.88, P>0.3).

Aphids were present throughout the NY field trial in the fall of 2009 (Table 57). Aphid infection 

was rated at > 50% in 21/22 trees assessed (ArcticTM Apple and Control). Since the rate of 

infection was similar (>50%) in the infected trees, the number of trees infected was compared.

Since the rate of GAA infection was 100% in all cultivars (GD743, GD, GS784 and GS) it is 

indicated that GAA infection was not influenced by cultivar or PPO suppression.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 73 of 163

6.3.5 Mites: McDaniel Spider Mite (Tetranychus McDanieli), Two-spotted Spider Mite 

(Tetranychus urtica), Apple Rust Mite (Aculus schlechtendal)

Mites can sometimes be a significant pest of apples, more commonly in dry regions than wet 

ones. Infestations are often the result of pesticides disrupting the balance between the pest mites 

and their predators.

OSF monitored mite infestation at both trial sites. Only a single mite incident was recorded and 

this was in the NY trial in fall 2009. No trees among the events or controls covered by this 

petition were involved. No differences in the incidence of this arachnid were detected between 

GD743 and GS784 events and controls, and few mites were apparent. This result was probably 

the consequence of normal commercial chemical-control measures. Controlled challenges 

without chemical control were not carried out.

6.3.6 Japanese Beetle (Popillia japonica)

This newly-emerging apple insect pest was monitored in the New York State field trial but not in 

Washington State. The New York field trial site reported incidences of Japanese Beetle (JB) in 

2008 and 2010 (See Appendix 3, Table 61 and Table 62). JB monitoring involves an inspection 

of each leaf looking for the presence of Japanese Beetles and Leaf Skeletonization (LS). LS is 

assessed as 1 = light (1-5%), 2 = moderate (6-10%) and 3 = severe (>10%). The rate of infection 

was similar (light) in the infected trees (data not shown). Therefore, the number of trees infected 

is reported.

In 2008, JB was not cultivar specific with a similar level of incidence in Golden Delicious (GD + 

GD743) (30%) and Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (25%) (Table 61). Chi-square (Yates) test 

revealed that the percentage of JB affected trees did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, 

N=22) =0.05, P>0.8). JB was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chisquare test revealed that the percentage of JB infected trees did not significantly differ between 

GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=10) =0, P>0.95). Similarly, Chi-square test revealed that the 

percentage of JB infected trees did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) 

=0, P>0.95).

In 2010, JB appeared to be cultivar specific with lower level of incidence in Golden Delicious 

(GD + GD743) (0%) than in Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (17%) (Table 62). However, Chisquare (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of JB affected trees did not significantly differ by 

cultivar (X2(1, N=22) =0.37, P>0.5). JB was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. JB was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Both GD743 and 

GD were similarly unaffected by JB. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of JB infected 

trees did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0.6, P>0.3).

6.3.7 Codling Moth (Lapeyresia pomonella)

This lepidopteron fruit worm is a key insect pest of apple and can attain very high infestation 

rates, especially in dry areas such as the Washington state trial region. 

The Washington trial pest monitoring protocol included pheromone traps to monitor emergence 

and populations. In addition, fruit was examined for damage caused by the insect’s burrowing. In 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 74 of 163

each year of the Washington field trial, codling moth was persistent throughout the growing 

season, with trap counts high enough to invoke control applications. Despite this, few incidences 

of codling moth were reported. These rarely involved trees of GS784, and never involved trees 

of GD743. These incidences are summarized below.

In the fall of 2007, the WA2004 block reported low level codling moth damage. Trees of 

GD743, GS784 or their respective controls were not involved. At the same time, the WA2003 

block field trial also reported low level codling moth damage. There was a single sting reported 

on GS784-3 (GS784, tree # 3), and none on any of the corresponding GS control trees.

In the fall of 2008, the WA2004 block reported low level codling moth damage. Included in the 

report were a single sting on GS784-60, and three stings on a GS control tree (1001-15). Codling 

moth was not detected in the WA2003 block.

In the fall of 2011, WA2004 low level of codling moth damage, not involving trees of GD743, 

GS784 or their respective controls. No codling moth damage was detected in WA2008.

No differences in the incidence of this insect were detected between GD743 and GS784 events 

and controls, and few fruit entry points were apparent. This result was probably the consequence 

of normal commercial chemical-control measures. Controlled challenges without chemical 

control were not carried out.

In New York, there was no evidence of codling moth damage in the 2010 – 2011 growing 

season, despite the continual presence of codling moth in New York (Scaffolds, 2011). Codling 

moth damage was not seen in previous years either. Normal protectant schedule kept the codling 

moth at bay, and therefore there was no unusual susceptibility observed.

6.3.8 Tentiform Leaf Miner (Phyllonorycter blancardella)

Introduced from Europe, this insect pest is now found in most of the Midwestern and 

northwestern USA and eastern Canada. The larvae mine between the layers of leaves, thereby 

reducing the photosynthetic area. Heavy infestations may affect fruit sizing, and may result in 

reduced vegetative growth and/or premature fruit drop which can affect winter hardiness. 

OSF monitored for Tentiform Leaf Miner (TLM) each year. The Washington field trial site 

reported a single incidence of Tentiform Leaf Miner in 2005 (see Appendix 3, Table 63). Data is 

reported as TLM infected leaves in 25 leaves.

TLM was not cultivar specific. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of TLM affected 

trees did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=250) =0.70, P>0.3). TLM was not 

uniformly influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed 

that the percentage of TLM infected leaves did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD

(X2(1, N=100) =0.03, P>=0.8). Conversely, Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of 

infected leaves significantly differed between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=150) =5.33, P<0.05), 

with a higher incidence of TLM in GS784 (21%) than in GS (8%).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 75 of 163

6.3.9 Burr Knot

Apple “Burr Knot” occurs where adventitious roots are trying to develop. A few apple varieties 

appear particularly prone to the development of the burr knots, as do some rootstocks such as 

MM111. No one knows exactly what causes it although it has been associated with woolly aphid 

feeding injury. There is no control (Turner, 2005). Burr Knot was identified throughout the NY 

field trial in 2006 (see Appendix 3, Table 64). The presence (+) or absence (-) of Burr Knot is 

assessed. The number of Burr Knot affected trees is reported.

Burr Knot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (70%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (25%). However, Chi-square 

(Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Burr Knot affected trees did not significantly differ 

by cultivar (X2(1, N=22) =2.83, P>0.05). Burr Knot was not influenced by incorporation of the 

GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Burr Knot affected 

trees did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=10) =1.91, P>0.1). Similarly, 

Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Burr Knot affected trees did not 

significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0, P>0.95).

In the WA field trial, Burr Knot was considered a normal condition, not associated with disease, 

and it therefore was not reported. Burr Knot occurs when the rootstock is planted a little high, 

and is most often associated with rootstocks that are sensitive to the condition, such as Malling 9 

(M9) and Malling 26 (M26) (OMAFRA, 2011). 

6.3.10 Leaf Spot

Leaf Spot was identified throughout the NY field trial in 2006 (See Appendix 3, Table 65). Data 

is reported as trees affected (+) or not affected (-) with Leaf Spot. The incidences of Leaf Spot 

never resulted in severe symptoms and were difficult to accurately diagnose. The majority are 

probably due to Alternaria mali infections, although a small proportion may be due to black rot 

(Botryosphaeria obtusa) infections (Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990).

Leaf Spot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (100%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (17%). Chi-square (Yates) 

test revealed that the percentage of Leaf Spot affected trees significantly differed by cultivar 

(X2(1, N=22) =12.10, P˂0.001). Leaf Spot was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. Both GD743 and GD were similarly affected by Leaf Spot (100% in both). Similarly, 

Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Leaf Spot affected trees did not 

significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0.60, P>0.3).

Leaf Spot due to fungal infection was not observed in the WA field trial. Leaf Spot, as described 

at our WA field trial is not associated with fungal infection, but is generally associated with 

aphid damage, or as a result of herbicide drift. In WA, Leaf Spot is not considered a condition of 

importance.

6.3.11 Russet

Russeting on apples is a particular type of skin, slightly rough, usually with a greenish-brown to 

yellowish-brown color. The amount of russeting can be affected by various factors including, 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 76 of 163

weather, disease or pest damage and agrochemical applications (e.g., insecticides, fungicides and 

growth regulators). Most fruit russetting is the consequence of injury to rapidly dividing 

epidermal cells early in fruit development (Teviotdale et al., 1997).

The monitoring and reporting of russet is different in the New York and Washington field trials. 

In New York, russet is assessed while the apples are still on the trees. Therefore, the number of 

russet-affected trees is reported for NY. In Washington, russet is assessed after the fruit is 

harvested. Russet is assessed on a fruit by fruit basis. Therefore, the number of russet-affected 

fruit is reported in WA.

In NY in 2009, russet appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in 

Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (80%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (8%) (Table 66). 

Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees significantly differed 

by cultivar (X2(1, N=22) =8.81, P<0.01). Russet was not influenced by incorporation of the 

GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees 

did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=10) =0.63, P>0.3). Similarly, Chisquare (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees did not significantly differ 

between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0, P>0.95).

In the WA2004 block in 2010, russet appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of 

incidence in Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (91%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (23%) 

(Table 67). Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit significantly 

differed by cultivar (X2(1, N=150) = 72.37, P<0.001). Russet was not uniformly influenced by 

incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 

russet affected fruit significantly differed between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=80) =5.64, P<0.05)

with a higher incidence of russet in GD (100%) than GD743 (82.5%) fruit. Conversely, Chisquare test revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit did not significantly differ 

between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=70) =1.14, P>0.2).

In the WA2008 block in 2010, russet appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of 

incidence in Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (86%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (20%) 

(Table 68). Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit significantly 

differed by cultivar (X2(1, N=323) =139.3, P<0.001). Russet was not influenced by incorporation 

of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit did 

not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=197) =0.10, P>0.7). Similarly, Chisquare test revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit did not significantly differ 

between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=126) =3.05, P>0.05).

In NY in 2010, russet appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in 

Golden Delicious (GD + GD7443) (70%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (8%) (Table 69). 

Chi-square test (with Yates correction) revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees 

significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, N=22) =6.50, P˂0.05). Russet was not influenced by 

incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 

russet affected trees did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=10) =0, 

P>0.95). Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees 

did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0, P>0.95).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 77 of 163

6.3.12 Campylomma (Mullein Bug) Campylomma verbasci (Meyer)

Campylomma was identified in the WA field trial in 2010 (see Appendix 3, Table 70 and Table 

71). Data is reported as Campylomma affected fruit in 10 fruit.

Within the WA2004 tested fruit, Campylomma appears to be cultivar specific with a higher 

overall rate of incidence in Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (16%) than Granny Smith (GS + 

GS784) (4%) (Table 70). Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Campylomma 

affected fruit significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, N=150) =4.42, P<0.05). Campylomma Bug 

was not uniformly influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test 

revealed that the percentage of Campylomma Bug affected fruit differed significantly between 

GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=80) =5.88, P˂0.05) with a higher incidence of Campylomma in GD 

(38%) than GD743 (5%). Conversely, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 

Campylomma Bug affected fruit did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, 

N=70) =2.10, P>0.1), although there was a higher incidence of Campylomma in GS (10%) than 

GS784 (0%).

Within the WA2008 tested fruit, Campylomma was not cultivar specific (Table 71). Chi-square 

(Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Campylomma affected fruit did not significantly 

differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=400) =3.24, P>0.05). Campylomma Bug was not influenced by

incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 

Campylomma Bug affected fruit did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, 

N=200) =3.28, P>0.05). Both GS784 and GS were similarly unaffected by Campylomma.

Campylomma Bug was not detected in the NY field trial.

6.3.13 Fruit Rot after Storage

Fruit rot after storage was monitored in 2008 NY fruit and in 2009 NY fruit (see Appendix 3, 

Table 72 and Table 73). Fruit rot after storage was reported as the number of fruit showing tan or 

black rot and the total number of fruit examined. Black rot is caused by Botryosphaeria obtuse. 

Tan rot is probably mostly caused by Colletotrichum spp. However, we didn’t culture from any 

of these fruits, so we can’t be 100% certain what caused each rot.

In 2008, Tan Rot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (20%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (2%) (Table 72). Chi-square 

test revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, 

N=469) =46.19, P<0.001). Tan Rot was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit did not 

significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=156) =0.13, P>0.7). Similarly, Chi-square 

(Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit did not significantly differ 

between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=313) =3.44, P>0.05).

In 2008, Black Rot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in 

Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (9%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (1%) (Table 72). Chisquare (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Black Rot affected fruit significantly differed 

by cultivar (X2(1, N=469) =19.50, P˂0.001). Black Rot was not uniformly influenced by 

incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 78 of 163

Tan Rot affected fruit differed significantly between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=156) =7.51, 

P˂0.01) with higher incidence of Black Rot in GD (15%) than in GD743 (1%). Conversely, Chisquare (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Black Rot affected fruit did not significantly 

differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=313) =0.35, P>0.5).

In 2009, Tan Rot did not appear to be cultivar specific with a similar rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (3%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (3%) (Table 73). Chi-square 

test revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit did not significantly differ by cultivar 

(X2(1, N=372) =0.04, P>0.8). Tan Rot was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit did not 

significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=176) =0.17, P>0.5). Similarly, Chi-square 

(Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit did not significantly differ 

between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=196) =3.35, P>0.05).

In 2009, Black Rot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (2.3%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (0%) (Table 73). However, 

Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Black Rot affected fruit did not 

significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=372) =2.62, P>0.1). Black Rot was not influenced by 

incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 

Black Rot affected fruit did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=176) 

=0.26, P>0.5). Both GS784 and GS were similarly unaffected by Black Rot in 2009 fruit after 

storage.

6.3.14 Pest and Disease Summary

In a commercial apple orchard there is constant pressure from codling moth and scab. However, 

there is a also zero tolerance for the damage caused by these pests and diseases and so they are 

highly managed. As a consequence, there are very few incidences of codling moth and scab 

reported from either field trial. Notably, management of codling moth and scab at both field trial 

locations was consistent with normal commercial production of Golden Delicious and Granny 

Smith cultivars. Normal management procedures were sufficient to prevent these pests and 

diseases in GD743 and GS784 and no additional control measures were required. This indicates 

that GS743 and GS784 are not significantly more susceptible to codling moth or scab, under 

conditions of a managed orchard.

Some pests and diseases, including aphids and powdery mildew, tend to be endemic. Damage 

caused by these organisms is tolerable, at a low level. Controls are routinely applied, but these 

pests and diseases may persist. In the Washington state field trial, aphids and powdery mildew 

were reported in almost every year of the trial. A few datasets are reported here as examples, and 

these datasets show clearly that there is no enhanced susceptibility to aphids or mildew 

associated with the ArcticTM Apple trait.

Other pests, diseases and affections of apple, such as Campylomma, Japanese Beatle, Tentiform 

leaf miner, Fireblight, burr knot, leaf spot and russet occur sporadically when the field conditions 

are right.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 79 of 163

A summary of effects identified following from Chi Square statistical analysis of pest and 

disease data is summarized in Table 27.

Golden Delicious is well known for its tendency to russet. Data collected from our Washington 

and New York field trials is consistent with the known cultivar sensitivity of Golden Delicious to 

russet, relative to the russet resistant Granny Smith. Additionally, Golden Delicious has been 

shown to be more sensitive than Granny Smith to other pests and diseases, including 

Campylomma (Cockfield and Beers, 2004). In 2010, the WA2004 field trial reported 

significantly more Campylomma in Golden Delicious than in Granny Smith. In that same year, 

the WA2008 field block also recorded more Campylomma in GD, although the effect was not 

significant. These observations show that the field trials are capable of identifying known 

cultivar-specific issues.

If PPO were involved in pest and disease resistance, through a role in the hypersensitivity 

response, then one might expect a systematic increase in the sensitivity of PPO suppressed 

GD743 and GS784 to a wide variety of agents. In fact, we do not observe such a change in 

phenotype in our field observation of GD743 and GS784. Indeed, there are only four instances in 

which a statistically significant difference was detected between the ArcticTM Apple cultivar and 

its respective control and in three of these cases (black rot, Campylomma and russet) there was a 

lower rate of incidence of the particular pest / disease in the GD743 event than in GD. 

There was only one case in which we found an increased susceptibility to pest or disease in an 

ArcticTM Apple cultivar. In 2005, there was an increased incidence of Tentiform Leaf Miner 

(TLM) in GS784 compared to GS. The same effect was not seen in GD743 versus GD, which 

suggests there is no systematic increase in susceptibility to TLM associated with the ArcticTM

Apple trait. There could perhaps be a trait x cultivar effect specifically increasing TLM 

susceptibility in Granny Smith. However, the Washington field trial blocks have been observed 

for the presence of TLM each year since planting with relatively little TLM detected GD743m 

GS784 or their respective controls. TLM has been of little consequence.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 80 of 163

Table 27: Effect of Cultivar or ArcticTM Apple Trait on Pest and Disease Resistance

Bacterial Disease

Disease1 Test 

Block Date Table

Cultivar ArcticTM Apple Trait

Effect 

Present

Type of 

Effect2

Effect 

Present

Type of 

Effect

FB

WA2003

WA2004

All Years Table 56 No No

Fungal Disease

Disease1 Test 

Block Date Table

Cultivar ArcticTM Apple Trait

Effect 

Present

Type of 

Effect2

Effect 

Present

Type of 

Effect

PM

WA2008 April 19. 2010 Table 53 No No

WA2008 August 16, 2010 Table 55 No No

NY2005 July 21, 2008 Table 54 No No

Leaf Spot NY2005 August 24, 2006 Table 65 Yes GD > GS No

Tan Rot

NY2005 June 30, 2009 Table 72 Yes GD > GS No

NY2005 December 30, 

2010 Table 73 No No

Black Rot

NY2005 June 30, 2009 Table 72 Yes GD > GS Yes GD > GD743

NY2005 December 30, 

2010 Table 73 No No

Insect Pest

Pest Test 

Block Date Table

Cultivar ArcticTM Apple Trait

Effect 

Present

Type of 

Effect2

Effect 

Present

Type of 

Effect

Aphids NY2005 November 19. 

2009 Table 57 No No

GAA WA2004 August 9, 2010 Table 58 No No

GAA WA2004 August 16, 2010 Table 59 No No

Woolly 

Aphids WA2004 July 12, 2010 Table 60 Yes GD > GS No

JB NY2005 July 21, 2008 Table 61 No No

JB NY2005 July 21, 2010 Table 62 No No

Campylomma WA2004 May 24, 2010 Table 70 Yes GD > GS Yes GD > GD743

Campylomma WA2008 May 24, 2010 Table 71 No No

TLM WA2004 August 23, 2005 Table 63 No Yes GS784 > GS

Other Conditions

Condition Test 

Block Date Table

Cultivar ArcticTM Apple Trait

Effect 

Present

Type of 

Effect2

Effect 

Present

Type of 

Effect

Burr Knot NY2005 August 26, 2006 Table 64 No No

Russet NY2005 November 19, 

2009 Table 66 Yes GD > GS No

Russet WA2004 June 21, 2010 Table 67 Yes GD > GS Yes GD > GD743

Russet WA2008 June 21, 2010 Table 68 Yes GD > GS No

Russet NY2005 July 21, 2010 Table 69 Yes GD > GS No

1

FB = Fire Blight; TLM = Tentiform Leaf Miner; PM = Powdery Mildew; GAA = Green Apple Aphid; JB = Japanese Beatle

2 Type of Effect - Where the incidence of the named pest or disease is higher in GD than in GS.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 81 of 163

6.4 Nutrition and Compositional Analysis

The main nutrients in apple are sugar, dietary fiber, potassium, phenolic antioxidants and, to a 

lesser extent, vitamin C. To establish that the new cultivars are nutritionally equivalent to their 

parent cultivars, apples from events GD743 and GS784 and the control Golden Delicious (GD) 

and Granny Smith (GS) were subjected to nutritional and proximate analysis, and measured for 

total phenolic and water-soluble oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC). The results of this 

study were also compared to the published data for apple (NDB09003) provided by the USDA.

The USDA nutrient values for apples, raw with skin (NDB09003) are based on data for Red 

Delicious, Golden Delicious, Gala, Granny Smith, and Fuji cultivars of apple. These are the five 

most popular apple cultivars in the US, representing almost 70% of US production (Table 46). 

Data is compiled from a variety of sources (USDA, 2009). It is not possible from the data 

provided, to determine the specific growing region the apples are from, or any specifics 

regarding the individual apple samples or the contribution of the different apple cultivars to the 

final values provided by the USDA. It is obvious however, that only a limited number of apple 

samples are included in the final numbers provided. As such, this data provides an approximation 

of nutrient composition that might be expected in the most commonly consumed apple cultivars 

grown under a variety of conditions.

Mature fruit was harvested in the fall of 2009 from the Washington and New York field trials. 

For each event (GD743 and GS784) and control (GD and GS), fruit was harvested from 3 trees 

in Washington and 3 trees in New York (n = 6). Golden Delicious apples were harvested 

approximately one month prior to Granny Smith in both Washington and New York, and were 

stored at 2oC. Immediately after the Granny Smith harvest, all apples were sampled and sent for 

proximate and phenolic analysis. Composite samples were created by combining one-quarter 

slices from four apples from one tree, providing, in total, one whole apple equivalent. Samples 

were cut, cored and placed in a ZiplocTM bag. The samples were packed in a cooler on wet ice 

and sent overnight to Exova for the proximate analysis and Brunswick Laboratories for the 

ORAC and total phenolics analysis. One sample of GD743 from New York was discarded 

because the sample was mislabeled.

Results of the composite analysis of fruit from New York (Table 28) and Washington (Table 29) 

are presented. A detailed discussion of the data for proximates and phenolic antioxidants follows.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 82 of 163

Table 28: Apple Fruit Compositional Analysis - New York

Description Units GD743 GD GS784 GS

Apple (NDB09003)

Average Min Max

Fat % ND ND ND ND 0.17 0.05 0.31

Protein % 0.35 0.23 0.40 0.33 0.26 0.17 0.57

Moisture % 81.85 82.60 83.47 83.10 85.56 82.4 87.5

Ash % 0.20 0.23 0.20 0.23 0.19 0.07 0.48

Carbohydrates % 17.60 16.93 15.93 16.33 13.81

Calories cal / 100 g 72 69 65 67 52

Sugar Profile % 12.85 11.14 10.67 10.27 10.39 8.77 12.0

Dietary Fiber % 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.8 2.4 1.4 3.5

Potassium mg / 100 g 90 89 96 105 107 88 136

Vitamin C mg / 100 g 14.1 ND 9.7 ND 4.6 4 5.5

ORAC μmol TE/100g 3000 567 3133 967 3056 1661 4811

Phenolics mg GAE/100g 209 70 241 103 262 165 396

Number of Composite Samples = n = 2 n = 3 n = 3 n = 3

ND = None Detected (Method Reporting Limit: Fat = 0.1%)

Proximate analysis was completed by Exova (Portland, OR) per AOAC, AACC, APHA/AWWA, ASTM, BAM, 

PAM, USDA, EPA or other testing procedures as deemed applicable. Proximates for NDB09003: USDA National 

Nutrient Database for Standard Reference – Release 22 (USDA, 2009), Prepared by Nutrient Data Laboratory, 

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center (BHNRC), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA)

ORAC and total phenolics was completed by Brunswick Laboratories (Norton, MA). The acceptable precision is 

<15% relative standard deviation. The ORAC is expressed as micromole Trolox equivalency (μmol TE). The 

phenolic result is expressed as milligram gallic acid equivalency. Antioxidant capacity and phenolics for 

NDB09033: Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) of Selected Foods 2007, Prepared by Nutrient Data 

Laboratory, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center (BHNRC), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 83 of 163

Table 29: Apple Fruit Compositional Analysis - Washington

Description Units GD743 GD GS784 GS

Apple (NDB09003)

Average Min Max

Fat % ND ND ND ND 0.17 0.05 0.31

Protein % 0.20 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.26 0.17 0.57

Moisture % 84.17 84.30 85.07 85.10 85.56 82.4 87.5

Ash % 0.30 0.30 0.30 0.37 0.19 0.07 0.48

Carbohydrates % 15.33 15.10 14.33 14.23 13.81

Calories cal / 100 g 62 62 58 58 52

Sugar Profile % 10.90 11.50 8.53 9.45 10.39 8.77 12.0

Dietary Fiber % 2.2 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.4 1.4 3.5

Potassium mg / 100 g 97 96 111 110 107 88 136

Vitamin C mg / 100 g 2.6 1.4 2.5 1.4 4.6 4 5.5

ORAC μmol TE/100g 1700 757 1800 667 3056 1661 4811

Phenolics mg GAE/100g 155 80 147 78 262 165 396

Number of Composite Samples = n = 3 n = 3 n = 3 n = 3

ND = None Detected (Method Reporting Limit: Fat = 0.1%)

Proximate analysis was completed by Exova (Portland, OR) per AOAC, AACC, APHA/AWWA, ASTM, BAM, 

PAM, USDA, EPA or other testing procedures as deemed applicable. Proximates for NDB09003: USDA National 

Nutrient Database for Standard Reference – Release 22 (USDA, 2009), Prepared by Nutrient Data Laboratory, 

Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center (BHNRC), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA)

ORAC and total phenolics was completed by Brunswick Laboratories (Norton, MA). The acceptable precision is 

<15% relative standard deviation. The ORAC is expressed as micromole Trolox equivalency (μmol TE). The 

phenolic result is expressed as milligram gallic acid equivalency. Antioxidant capacity and phenolics for 

NDB09033: Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) of Selected Foods 2007, Prepared by Nutrient Data 

Laboratory, Beltsville Human Nutrition Research Center (BHNRC), Agricultural Research Service (ARS), U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Proximate Data

This section discusses proximate data which includes fat, protein, moisture, carbohydrates, 

calories, sugar, fiber and potassium. Proximate data for GD743, GD, GS784 and GS from both 

the NY and WA field trials falls within the range of, or closely approximates the published data 

for apple, raw with skin (NDB09003) provided by the USDA.

Statistical analysis reveals that there are significant effects of both cultivar and field trial for 

proximate data including protein, moisture, carbohydrate, calorie, sugar and fiber content of the 

apples. Granny Smith had higher water (Table 30), protein (Table 31) and fiber (Table 34)

content, and correspondingly lower carbohydrate (Table 32), calorie (Table 33), and sugar (Table 

35) content than Golden Delicious. Apples grown in Washington had higher moisture content 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 84 of 163

(Table 30), and correspondingly lower protein (Table 31), carbohydrate (Table 32), calories 

(Table 33), sugar (Table 35), and fiber (Table 34) content than apples grown in New York. 

Granny Smith apples had significantly more potassium than Golden Delicious (Table 36).

With respect to proximates, there was no effect of the ArcticTM Apple trait on the composition of 

the apples. For both Washington and New York apples, statistical analysis found no significant 

differences in proximate between events GD743 or GS784 and their respective controls.

Table 30: Moisture% in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

Moisture%

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 82.6 83.1 82.9

WA 84.3 85.1 84.7

Mean 83.5 84.1 83.8

GEN-03

NY 81.9 83.5 82.7

WA 84.2 85.1 84.7

Mean 83.1 84.3 83.7

Column Mean 83.3 84.2 83.7

Three-way ANOVA of average Moisture% was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and Gentleman, 2010). 

The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value (P) is 

not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant main effect for trial, F(1,23) = 33.84, P = 

0.000, with the average moisture content being significantly higher for WA (M = 84.7, S = 0.9) than NY (M = 82.8, 

S = 0.7). There was a significant main effect for cultivar, F(1,23) = 8.49, P = 0.011, with the average moisture 

content being significantly higher for GS (M = 84.2, S = 1.2) than GD (M = 83.4, S = 1.2). The main effect of vector 

was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.10, P = 0.75.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 85 of 163

Table 31: Protein% in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

Protein%

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 0.23 0.33 0.28

WA 0.30 0.30 0.30

Mean 0.27 0.32 0.29

GEN-03

NY 0.35 0.40 0.38

WA 0.20 0.30 0.25

Mean 0.28 0.35 0.31

Column Mean 0.27 0.33 0.30

Three-way ANOVA of average Protein% was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and Gentleman, 2010). 

The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value (P) is 

not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant main effect for trial, F(1,23) = 6.14, P = 

0.026, with the average protein content being significantly higher for NY (M = 0.33, S = 0.08) than WA (M = 0.28, S

= 0.06). There was a significant main effect for cultivar, F(1,23) = 10.20, P = 0.006, with the average protein content 

being significantly higher for GS (M = 0.33, S = 0.05) than GD (M = 0.26, S = 0.08). The main effect of vector was 

not significant, F(1,23) = 0.62, P = 0.44. 

Table 32: Carbohydrate% in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

Carbohydrate%

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 16.9 16.3 16.6

WA 15.1 14.2 14.7

Mean 16.0 15.3 15.6

GEN-03

NY 17.6 15.9 16.8

WA 15.3 14.3 14.8

Mean 16.5 15.1 15.8

Column Mean 16.2 15.2 15.7

Three-way ANOVA of average Carbohydrate% was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and Gentleman, 

2010). The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value 

(P) is not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant main effect for trial, F(1,23) = 

32.66, P = 0.000, with the average carbohydrate content being significantly higher for NY (M = 16.6, S = 0.8) than 

WA (M = 14.8, S = 0.9). There was a significant main effect for cultivar, F(1,23) = 9.28, P = 0.008, with the average 

carbohydrate content being significantly higher for GD (M = 16.1, S = 1.2) than GS (M = 15.2, S = 1.2). The main 

effect of vector was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.13, P = 0.72.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 86 of 163

Table 33: Calories per 100g in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

Calories per 100g

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 68.7 67.0 67.9

WA 61.7 58.0 59.9

Mean 65.2 62.5 63.9

GEN-03

NY 71.5 65.3 68.4

WA 62.0 58.3 60.2

Mean 66.8 61.8 64.3

Column Mean 66.0 62.2 64.1

Three-way ANOVA of average Calories per 100g was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and Gentleman, 

2010). The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value 

(P) is not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant main effect for trial, F(1,23) = 

33.91, P = 0.000, with the average calorie content being significantly higher for NY (M = 67.8, S = 3.0) than WA (M

= 60.0, S = 3.8). There was a significant main effect for cultivar, F(1,23) = 7.38, P = 0.016, with the average calorie 

content being significantly higher for GD (M = 65.5, S = 4.9) than GS (M = 62.2, S = 5.2). The main effect of vector 

was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.06, P = 0.81.

Table 34: Fiber% in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

Fiber%

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 2.6 2.8 2.7

WA 2.4 2.5 2.5

Mean 2.5 2.7 2.6

GEN-03

NY 2.4 2.9 2.7

WA 2.2 2.7 2.4

Mean 2.3 2.8 2.5

Column Mean 2.4 2.7 2.6

Three-way ANOVA of average Fiber% was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and Gentleman, 2010). The 

nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value (P) is not 

greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant main effect for trial, F(1,23) = 6.50, P = 

0.022, with the average fiber content being significantly higher for NY (M = 2.7, S = 0.3) than WA (M = 2.4, S = 

0.3). There was a significant main effect for cultivar, F(1,23) = 8.86, P = 0.009, with the average fiber content being 

significantly higher for GS (M = 2.7, S = 0.3) than GD (M = 2.4, S = 0.3). The main effect of vector was not 

significant, F(1,23) = 0.05, P = 0.83.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 87 of 163

Table 35: Sugar% in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

Sugar%

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 11.1 10.3 10.7

WA 11.5 9.5 10.5

Mean 11.3 9.9 10.6

GEN-03

NY 12.9 10.7 11.8

WA 10.9 8.5 9.7

Mean 11.9 9.6 10.7

Column Mean 11.6 9.7 10.7

Three-way ANOVA of average Sugar% was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and Gentleman, 2010). The 

nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value (P) is not 

greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant main effect for trial, F(1,23) = 4.86, P = 

0.044, with the average sugar content being significantly higher for NY (M = 11.1, S = 1.2) than WA (M = 10.1, S = 

1.6). There was a significant main effect for cultivar, F(1,23) = 16.24, P = 0.001, with the average sugar content 

being significantly higher for GD (M = 11.5, S = 1.2) than GS (M = 9.7, S = 1.2). The main effect of vector was not 

significant, F(1,23) = 0.05, P = 0.83.

Table 36: Potassium mg per 100 g in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

Potassium mg per 100 g

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 88.7 105.3 97.0

WA 96.0 109.7 102.9

Mean 92.4 107.5 99.9

GEN-03

NY 90.0 95.7 92.9

WA 97.0 111.0 104.0

Mean 93.5 103.4 98.4

Column Mean 92.9 105.4 99.2

Three-way ANOVA of average Potassium mg per 100g was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and 

Gentleman, 2010). The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual 

alpha value (P) is not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. The main effect for trial was not significant, 

F(1,23) = 2.05, P = 0.173. There was a significant main effect for cultivar, F(1,23) = 5.03, P = 0.041, with the 

average potassium content being significantly higher for GS (M = 105, S = 13) than GD (M = 93, S = 11). The main 

effect of vector was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.09, P = 0.77.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 88 of 163

Vitamin C, ORAC, Total Phenolics

This section discusses vitamin C and phenolic antioxidant content of the apples. Vitamin C and 

phenolic antioxidant content of ArcticTM Apple events GD743 andGS784 from both the NY and 

WA field trials falls within the range for apple, raw with skin (NDB09003) provided by the 

USDA. Conversely, vitamin C and phenolic antioxidant content of the control cultivars GD and 

GS from both the NY and WA field trials falls well below the published norms for apple.

Statistical analysis reveals that there are significant effects of field trial and vector and an 

interaction of field trial and vector for ORAC, total phenolics and vitamin C. ArcticTM Apple 

events GD743 and GS784 had significantly higher ORAC (Table 37), total phenolics (Table 38)

and vitamin C (Table 39) than the control cultivars GD and GS. This effect was more

pronounced in the NY field trial location.

ORAC, total phenolic and vitamin C levels in events GD743 and GS784 fell within, or very 

close to, the published range for apple (NDB09003). This indicates that ArcticTM Apple cultivars 

GD743 and GS784 are, in all aspects (proximates, phenolics antioxidants and vitamin C), 

nutritionally equivalent to the published norms for apple. By contrast, it is the GD and GS 

control values that fell well below the minimum values established for apple. The differences 

were more extreme for the New York samples, where the ORAC values were only 19 percent 

(GD) and 31 percent (GS) of GD743 and GS784, respectively.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 89 of 163

Table 37: ORAC in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

ORAC (μmol TE/100g)

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 567 967 767

WA 767 667 717

Mean 667 817 742

GEN-03

NY 3000 3133 3067

WA 1700 1800 1750

Mean 2350 2467 2408

Column Mean 1509 1642 1575

Three-way ANOVA of average ORAC was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and Gentleman, 2010). The 

nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value (P) is not 

greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant main effect for trial, F(1,23) = 17.81, P = 

0.001, with the average ORAC being significantly higher for NY (M = 1818, S = 1258) than WA (M = 1233, S = 

596). The main effect for cultivar was not significant, F(1,23) = 3.06, P = 0.100. There was a significant main effect 

for vector, F(1,23) = 138.59, P = 0.000, with the average ORAC being significantly higher for GEN-03 (M = 2355, 

S = 749) than Control (M = 742, S = 326). The interaction effect of trial and vector was significant, F(1,23) = 20.20, 

P = 0.000, indicating that effect of cultivar was greater in NY.

Table 38: Total Phenolics in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

Total Phenolics (mg GAE / 100 g)

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 70 103 87

WA 80 78 79

Mean 75 90 83

GEN-03

NY 209 241 225

WA 155 147 151

Mean 182 194 188

Column Mean 128 142 135

Three-way ANOVA of average Total Phenolics was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and Gentleman, 

2010). The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value 

(P) is not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant main effect for trial, F(1,23) = 6.48, 

P = 0.022, with the average phenolic content being significantly higher for NY (M = 151, S = 86) than WA (M = 

115, S = 40). The main effect for cultivar was not significant, F(1,23) = 1.92, P = 0.186. There was a significant 

main effect for vector, F(1,23) = 54.11, P = 0.000, with the average phenolic content being significantly higher for 

GEN-03 (M = 186, S = 53) than Control (M = 83, S = 29). The interaction effect of trial and vector was significant, 

F(1,23) = 5.44, P = 0.034, indicating that effect of cultivar was greater in NY.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 90 of 163

Table 39: Vitamin C in GD743 and GS784

Vector Trial

Vitamin C (mg / 100 g)

Golden Delicious Granny Smith Row Mean

Control

NY 0.0 0.0 0.0

WA 1.4 1.4 1.4

Mean 0.7 0.7 0.7

GEN-03

NY 14.1 9.7 11.9

WA 2.6 2.5 2.5

Mean 8.3 6.1 7.2

Column Mean 4.5 3.4 4.0

Three-way ANOVA of average Vitamin C was calculated using R Statistics v2.11.1 (Ihaka and Gentleman, 2010). 

The nominal alpha criterion level is = 0.05. An effect is considered to be significant if the actual alpha value (P) is 

not greater than the nominal alpha criterion level. There was a significant main effect for trial, F(1,23) = 43.18, P = 

0.000, with the average vitamin C content being significantly higher for NY (M = 5.21, S = 6.33) than WA (M = 

1.97, S = 0.71). The main effect for cultivar was not significant, F(1,23) = 0.71, P = 0.412. There was a significant 

main effect for vector, F(1,23) = 150.98, P = 0.000, with the average vitamin C content being significantly higher 

for GEN-03 (M = 6.58, S = 5.11) than Control (M = 0.71, S = 0.81). The interaction effect of trial and vector was 

significant, F(1,23) = 113.66, P = 0.000, indicating that effect of cultivar was greater in NY.

In trying to understand why ORAC, total phenolics and vitamin C were lower in the control fruit 

the following rational is presented. The fruit tested was harvested, samples prepared and then 

shipped to the lab for testing. This protocol likely varied from the USDA methodology 

(NDB09003); given that fruit samples were cut put in ZiplocTM bags and put on ice, leaving the 

fruit flesh exposed for as long as 24 hours prior to testing. This resulted in some PPO-driven fruit 

browning within the control fruit. Given that phenols and vitamin C are substrates for the 

browning reaction they were partially consumed during the 24 hour transit period and prior to 

testing. Since GD743 and GS784 have very low levels of PPO this reaction did not take place 

and these substrates were conserved and available when tested.

PPO is involved in the degradation of vitamin C, catalyzing the reversible conversion of reduced 

ascorbic acid (RAA) to dehydroascorbic acid (DHA). Subsequently, DHA is irreversibly 

converted to diketogulonic acid (DGA) (Erdman and Klein, 1982). According to Brunswick 

Laboratories, the Vitamin C assay detects vitamin C only in its reduced form (RAA). RAA is a 

substrate for PPO, so presence of PPO would result in the conversion of RAA to DHA. Since 

DHA and RAA have the same activity, what is reported as loss of vitamin C in control GD and 

GS, may in fact only be conversion of RAA to DHA and not true loss of vitamin C activity.

Evidence provided here is consistent with the concept that ArcticTM Apple cultivars GS743 and 

GS784 are nutritionally equivalent with their parent cultivars, prior to slicing. While after slicing, 

GD743 and GS784 retain their original phenolic content, whereas GD and GS suffer the loss of 

phenolic compounds, and possibly vitamin C, through the action of PPO.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 91 of 163

6.5 Expression of NptII in Mature Fruit

As stated in Section 4.4, the GEN-03 vector used to generate Events GD743 and GS784 contains 

the nptII gene as a selectable marker. As such, an NptII-specific ELISA was used to measure the 

accumulation of NptII protein in leaf and mature fruit samples. This work was done as part of a 

study of clonal stability of the GEN-03 transgene.

Apple leaf and fruit samples were collected from trees of events GD743 and GS784, and their 

respective control trees from each field trial. Each sample is a composite from one tree. Samples 

were collected, packed on ice and tested for NptII (ELISA) within 24 to 48 hours.

In leaf, expression levels for the NptII enzyme were found to range from 2.6 to 8.4 ng/g fresh 

tissue in GD743 with an average of 5.0 ng/g and to range from 0.7 to 8.4 ng/g fresh tissue in 

GS784 with an average of 3.8 ng/g (Table 40).

In fruit, expression levels for the NptII enzyme were found to range from 0.0 to 0.4 ng/g fresh 

tissue in GD743 with an average of 0.1 ng/g and to range from 0.0 to 0.5 ng/g fresh tissue in 

GS784 with an average of 0.1 ng/g (Table 41). The NptII protein expressed in mature fruit of 

GD743 and GS784 fall within the range of the controls. Stated another way, the nptII gene under 

control of the nopaline synthase promoter (PNOS), does not result in accumulation of detectable 

amounts of NptII protein in mature apple fruit.

Table 40: Presence of NptII Protein in Leaves of GD743 and GS784 (ELISA)

Group NptII2S n

ArcticTM Apple GD743 5.0 1.9 14

GD Control 0.0 0.1 4

ArcticTM Apple GS784 3.8 2.4 14

GS Control 0.1 0.1 4

1 Apple leaf samples were tested for the presence of NptII by Agdia (Elkhart, IN) in two batches on August 26, 2010 

and August 30, 2010. Tissue samples were sampled, weighed, and tested in duplicate for the presence of NptII.

2 NptII = Amount of NptII protein present expressed as ng NptII / g fresh weight. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 92 of 163

Table 41: Presence of NptII Protein in Mature Fruit of GD743 and GS784 (ELISA)

Group NptII (ng/mg)2S n

ArcticTM Apple GD743 0.1 0.1 14

GD Control 0.1 0.1 4

ArcticTM Apple GS784 0.1 0.1 15

GS Control 0.1 0.1 4

1 Apple fruit samples were tested for the presence of NptII by Agdia (Elkhart, IN) in three batches on September 28, 

2010, October 22, 2010 and November 2, 2010. Tissue samples were sampled, weighed, and tested in duplicate for 

the presence of NptII.

2 NptII = Amount of NptII protein present expressed as ng NptII / g fresh weight.

6.6 Conclusions

The following statements support the conclusion that events GD743 and GS784 are equivalent to 

their parent cultivars in cultivation and do not pose a plant pest risk:

(a) Field trials, maintained and observed by independent horticultural consultants, have been 

established that represent the two major apple growing areas in the USA;

(b) Primary components of agronomic performance, including tree height, trunk crosssection area, flower cluster number and fruit yield show that GD743 and GS784 are 

equivalent to their parent cultivars. The trees planted initially varied considerably given 

they came from the greenhouse and ranged in age, but once planted they settled down and 

behaved as expected; 

(c) In a commercial orchard setting, based on extensive monitoring and a multitude of pest 

and disease incidents, GD743 and GS784 events were not systematically more or less 

susceptible to plant pests and disease;

(d) GD743 and GS784 events are nutritionally equivalent to the published norms for apple 

and may have improved phenolic compound stability; 

(e) GD743 and GS784 events did not demonstrate any level of increased weediness that the 

control trees. However, in a highly managed orchard block with excellent weed control, 

weediness is difficult to assess:

(f) GD743 and GS784 events are stable both from year-to-year and after multiple years of 

grafting; and

(g) Mature fruit of GD743 and GS784 does not contain detectable levels of NptII protein.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 93 of 163

7 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF INTRODUCTION OF THE 

TRANSFORMED CULTIVAR

7.1 Importance of Apple

7.1.1 Description

Apple is the pomaceous fruit of the apple tree, species Malus x domestica, in the rose family,

Rosaceae. It is one of the most widely-cultivated tree fruit in temperate growing areas 

worldwide. The tree is small and deciduous, reaching 9-20 feet tall, with a broad, often densely 

twiggy crown. The leaves are alternately arranged simple ovals 1-4 inches long and 0.75-2 

inches broad, having a petiole with an acute tip, serrated margin and a slightly downy underside. 

Blossoms are produced in spring simultaneously with budding of the leaves. The flowers are 

white with a pink tinge that gradually fades, are five petaled, and 1 inch in diameter. The fruit 

matures in autumn, and is typically 2-3.5 inches in diameter. The center of the fruit contains five 

carpels arranged in a five-point star, each carpel containing 1-3 seeds. 

7.1.2 Production and Origin

The apple tree originated in Central Asia, where its wild ancestor is still found today. There are 

more than 8,000 known cultivars of apples resulting in a range of desired characteristics (Smith, 

1971). Cultivars vary in yield and ultimate tree size, even when grown on the same rootstock. 

At least 69 million tons of apples were harvested worldwide in 2008, with a farm-gate value of 

about $11 billion. China produced about 35 percent of this total. The United States is the world’s 

second-leading producer, with more than 7.5 percent of the world production. Poland, Iran, 

Turkey, Italy, and India are also among the leading apple producers (Table 42).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 94 of 163

Table 42: Top Ten Apple Producers (2008)

Country Production (Tonnes)

People's Republic of China 29,851,163

United States 4,358,710

Poland 2,830,870

Iran 2,718,775

Turkey 2,504,490

Italy 2,208,227

India 1,985,000

France 1,940,200

Russia 1,467,000

Chile 1,370,000

World 69,819,324

Source: Based on FAOSTAT, accessed April 2011

7.1.3 Apple Cultivars

Different cultivars are available for temperate and subtropical climates. Most of these cultivars 

are bred for eating fresh, though some are cultivated specifically for cooking or producing cider. 

Cider apple cultivars are typically too tart and astringent to eat fresh, but they give the beverage a 

rich flavor that fresh-market varieties cannot.

Commercially-popular fresh market apple cultivars are crisp, juicy, not too soft, a varying blend 

of tartness and sweetness and not too heavy skinned. Other desired qualities in modern 

commercial apple breeding are a colorful skin, absence of russeting, ease of shipping, lengthy 

storageability, high yields, disease resistance, good shape, long stems and a consistent popular 

flavor. Modern apples are generally sweeter than older cultivars, as popular tastes in apples have 

varied over time. Most North Americans and Europeans favor sweet, subacid apples, but tart 

apples have a strong minority following. Extremely sweet apples with barely any acid flavor are 

popular in most parts of Asia and India. 

Old cultivars are often poorly shaped, russeted, and have a variety of textures and colors. Some

consumers find them to have better flavor than modern cultivators, but they may have other 

problems which make them commercially unviable, such as low yields, high susceptibility to 

disease, or poor storage and transport qualities. A few old cultivars are still commercially 

produced on a large scale, and many others have been kept alive by home gardeners and farmers 

who sell directly to local markets. 

Although only approximately 15 varieties make up the majority of commercial production 

worldwide, many unusual and locally important cultivars with their own unique taste and 

appearance exist. In the United Kingdom, old cultivars such as Cox's Orange Pippin and 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 95 of 163

Egremont Russet are still commercially important, even though by modern standards they are 

low yielding and disease prone. 

7.1.4 Apple Uses

Apples can be utilized in many ways, including fresh, canned or juiced. They are pressed to 

produce both single-strength fresh apple juice as well as apple juice concentrate. The juice can be 

used to make sweet (nonalcoholic) apple cider, or fermented to make hard (alcoholic) cider and 

cider vinegar. Through distillation various alcoholic beverages are produced such as applejack 

and Calvados. Apple wine can also be made. Pectin is also produced.

Apples are an important ingredient in many desserts, such as apple pie, apple crumble, apple 

crisp and apple cake. They are often eaten baked or stewed; dehydrated/dried apples can be eaten 

as such or used in various applications, or can be reconstituted (soaked in water, alcohol or some 

other liquid) for later use. Puréed apples are generally known as apple sauce. Apples are also 

made into apple butter and apple jelly. 

Fresh-cut apple slices are gaining popularity as a healthy snack food. Sliced or bruised apples 

turn brown due to the conversion of natural phenolic substances into melanin. Different cultivars 

differ in their propensity to brown after slicing. Sliced fruit can be treated with various 

antioxidant treatments (dips) to prevent this effect (see Section 7.2 for more details). 

7.1.5 Apple Nutrition

The proverb “An apple a day keeps the doctor away,” addressing the health effects of the fruit 

dates from 19th century Wales (Philips, 1866). Recent research suggests that apples may 

promote better health and help maintain a healthy weight. For example, apple consumption may 

reduce the risk of cancers, including of the colon, prostate and lung. 

Compared to many other fruits and vegetables, apples contain relatively low amounts of Vitamin 

C, but are a rich source of other antioxidant compounds (Boyer and Liu, 1994). Apples are an 

excellent source of dietary fiber, which helps regulate bowel movements and may reduce the risk 

of colon cancer, help prevent heart disease and promote weight loss. Apples are also cholesterolfree, and their high fiber content helps control high cholesterol levels by preventing cholesterol 

absorption, and are nutrient dense for their low calorie content like most fruits and vegetables

(Sharma, 2005). There is in vitro evidence that phenolic compounds in apples may be cancerprotective and demonstrate antioxidant activity (Lee et al., 2004). The predominant phenolic 

phytochemicals in apples are quercetin, epicatechin and procyanidin B2 (Lee et al., 2003). 

Apple juice concentrate has been found in animal studies involving mice to increase production 

of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, providing a potential mechanism for preventing decline in 

cognitive performance that accompanies dietary and genetic deficiencies of aging. Other studies 

have shown consuming apple juice may alleviate oxidative damage and cognitive decline in mice

(Chan et al., 2006). 

The common nutritional composition of apple is as presented in Table 43.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 96 of 163

Table 43: Nutritional Composition of Apple, Raw with Skin (NDB09003)

Energy 50 kcal 220 kJ

Nutrient Units Value per 100 g (3.5 oz.)

Carbohydrates g 13.81

- Sugars g 10.39

- Dietary Fiber g 2.4

Fat g 0.17

Protein g 0.26

Vitamin A equivalents μg 3

Thiamine (Vitamin B1) mg 0.017

Riboflavin (Vitamin B2) mg 0.026

Niacin (Vitamin B3) mg 0.091

Pantothenic Acid (Vitamin B5) mg 0.061

Vitamin B6 mg 0.041

Folate (Vitamin B9) μg 3

Vitamin C mg 4.6

Calcium mg 6

Iron mg 0.12

Magnesium mg 5

Phosphorous mg 11

Potassium mg 107

Zinc mg 0.04

Source: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference – Release 22 (USDA, 2009)

7.2 Current Methods for Inhibiting Browning in Apple

Various approaches to control vegetable and fruit browning have been documented and resulted 

in mixed success, due to a variety of reasons, including cost and amount of handling. For a 

general review of strategies for reducing fruit browning, see e.g., (Friedman and Bautista, 1991), 

(Iyengar and McEvily, 1992), (McEvily et al., 1992), (Whitaker and Lee, 1995a), (Sapers, 1993), 

(Weemaes et al., 1998), (Martinez and Whitaker, 1995) and (Brushett and Lacasse, 2006). 

U.S. patents 5,939,117 (Chen et al., 1999) and U.S. 5,925,395 (Chen, 1999) describe an 

antibrowning/antioxidant dip treatment. Fresh-cut apple slices which have been treated with an 

antibrowning/antioxidant dip are described as having reduced browning. However, the offflavoring and high cost of the antibrowning/antioxidant dip solution has limited their commercial 

success. Furthermore, antioxidant dip solutions do not effectively address secondary browning 

that result from slicing knife injury and skin deformation prior to cutting or other secondary 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 97 of 163

browning reactions which can cause a thin brown line under the skin of the apple slice or other 

market detracting results.

Other approaches to control browning have been described, including but not limited to:

cultivation in low oxygen atmosphere and low temperature (Heimdal et al., 1995); treatment 

with calcium ascorbate, glutathione, cysteine and citrate (Jiang and Fu, 1998); treatment with 

sulfites and suboptimal pH and high-pressure carbon dioxide (Chen et al., 1992); treatment of 

fresh-cut apple slices with natural products (Buta et al., 1999); and a treatment with a 10 percent

solution of honey (Oszmianski and Lee, 1990).

Murata (Murata et al., 2000) (Murata et al., 2001) reports that by suppressing a single PPO gene 

homologous to the apple PPO gene APO5, they obtained apple shoots and callus of reduced PPO 

activity which exhibit low browning potential in vitro. However, these references do not disclose 

a reduced browning fruit-producing plant or reduced-browning apple, nor whether suppression of 

a single PPO gene homologous to APO5 would be sufficient to obtain such a reduced-browning 

fruit-producing plant or reduced-browning apple. At OSF, an antisense APO5 transgene was not 

sufficient to reduce total PPO activity (OSF unpublished results).

7.3 Impact of Enzymatic Browning in Fresh and Processed Apple Products

Browning of apples and other fruit from damage that disrupts cell membranes – such as cuts, 

bruises, slicing, juicing or cell death, – is believed to be caused by enzymatic reaction catalyzed 

by PPO. The resulting brown pigment is a polymer formed from the nonenzymatic condensation 

of quinones, with lesser amounts of amino acids and proteins, into lignin-like compounds. The 

quinones are synthesized from diphenols in an enzymatic reaction catalyzed by PPO (Whitaker 

and Lee, 1995a). Most PPOs also have monophenolase activity, converting monophenols to 

diphenols (Mar - Sojo et al., 1998).

The cause of browning has been understood for some time, yet the solution to reducing browning 

remains an on-going problem for industry, resulting in significant market loss. Browning reduces 

the quality of fresh-cut fruit and its resulting products by causing detrimental flavor and 

nutritional changes (Eskin, 1990). With the explosive growth of the fresh-cut produce sector, it 

has become increasingly evident that, for instance, browning limits the widespread introduction 

and use of apple and other fruits in commercial fresh-cut produce products such as prepared 

apple slices. Browning is also a major consideration in the manufacture of juice. Browning 

renders apple juice unsuitable for some blending applications because it colors the blended 

product in an unacceptable way, limiting its market potential. 

Brown bruises in fresh-market apples – such as those caused incidentally during harvest and 

packing – are a significant cause of reduced grade for growers, resulting in revenue losses for 

producers as well as their retail and institutional processor customers (such as restaurants, 

hospitals, etc.). All segments of the fresh-market supply chain have been forced to accept these 

losses, or try to minimize them by implementing improved handling practices or otherwise 

compensate for them.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 98 of 163

7.4 Expected Economic Impact of ArcticTM Apple

7.4.1 USA Apple Production Environment

As of 2008 the USA had approximately 450,000 acres of apple trees planted and produced 225 

million boxes of fresh fruit (4.75 million tons). Table 44 illustrates apple production and average 

selling prices from 1997-2006; this period is dominated by large production and price variations 

from year to year, with higher price returns during low-volume years. Apples are commercially 

produced in more than 20 U.S. states; Washington state dominates production (58 percent), 

followed by New York and Michigan. Table 45 summarizes apple production in the top 10 states 

over the period 2002 to 2007.

Table 44: Past 10 Years Annual Apple Production vs. Average Farmgate Prices Received

Year Production (000 boxes) All Sales (cents/lb)

1997 245,805 15.4

1998 277,295 12.2

1999 253,112 15.0

2000 251,993 12.8

2001 224,357 15.8

2002 202,950 18.9

2003 209,360 20.9

2004 248,586 13.5

2005 231,069 17.4

2006 236,469 22.4

Source: USDA ERS Fruit & Tree Nut Outlook 2008
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 99 of 163

Table 45: USA Apple Production, By Top 10 States (000 boxes)

State 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Washington 121,429 108,333 146,429 135,714 134,524 128,571

New York 16,190 25,476 30,476 24,881 29,762 30,714

Michigan 12,381 21,190 17,381 18,095 20,238 18,810

Pennsylvania 8,810 10,524 9,643 11,905 11,190 10,833

California 11,190 10,714 8,452 8,452 8,452 8,095

Virginia 5,952 6,429 7,143 5,952 5,238 4,762

Oregon 4,810 3,167 3,881 3,452 3,571 3,452

West Virginia 2,262 2,071 1,929 2,071 2,143 1,905

Illinois 1,024 1,250 1,345 1,167 1,250 238

North Carolina 3,810 3,214 3,690 3,095 4,119 1,190

US Totals 202,950 209,360 248,586 231,069 236,469 221,064

Source: USDA 2008

7.4.2 New Cultivars and Marketing Dynamics

The U.S. apple industry is currently undergoing dramatic changes. Downward price pressure 

from export markets, consolidation of produce wholesale and retail markets, advent of “Big 

Box” grocery stores and changing consumer demands have led to significant acreage being 

planted or removed and replanted. This has led producers to introduce apple cultivars having 

stronger market demand, better returns and offering niche market opportunities.

Table 46 presents the top 15 apple cultivars and their production 2002-2007. These new 

cultivars, or clonal improvements of existing cultivars, are being planted in new, higher-density 

orchard management and production systems that deliver higher yields and better fruit quality. 

These systems also lend themselves to more efficient use of mechanization, reducing labor costs. 

The U.S. apple nursery tree business has seen an increase in demand, as can be seen by nursery 

tree sales in Washington state 2004-2008 (Table 47). Extrapolating these figures, it can be 

estimated that over 7 million nursery trees were sold in the U.S. market in 2008. Given favorable 

economic returns, it is expected this trend will continue and will drive the revitalization of this 

important industry.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 100 of 163

Table 46: USA Apple Production, By Top 15 Cultivars (000 boxes)

Cultivar 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Red Delicious 63,232 58,350 69,578 64,968 61,101 53,692

Gala 18,810 20,634 25,807 23,975 28,904 28,519

Golden Delicious 27,766 26,317 31,810 30,014 28,283 24,635

Granny Smith 19,265 18,101 21,884 20,531 22,314 23,021

Fuji 20,357 15,332 22,570 21,000 20,218 18,164

McIntosh 7,866 11,057 12,019 9,913 10,065 10,136

Rome 7,979 10,183 10,463 9,822 8,428 7,082

Empire 2,820 4,498 4,965 4,281 6,553 6,473

Braeburn 3,056 2,955 5,337 4,945 4,330 5,024

Idared 3,225 5,165 4,964 4,677 4,838 4,670

York 3,724 4,186 4,096 4,395 4,090 3,857

Cripps Pink 1,448 1,969 3,602 3,342 2,915 3,322

Cameo 1,005 1,303 2,236 2,071 1,969 1,682

Jonagold 1,388 1,347 1,860 1,723 1,601 1,588

Totals 202,950 209,360 248,586 231,069 236,469 221,064

Source: USDA 2008

Table 47: Washington Nursery Tree Sales (Number of Trees Sold)

Top Cultivars 2004 2006 2008

Red Fuji 225,990 490,210 567,840

Gala (various) 767,250 579,040 524,160

Honey Crisp 292,950 500.080 513,240

Early Fuji 111,600 223,720 218,400

Granny Smith 172,980 210,560 262,080

Golden Delicious 312,480 161,210 69,160

Cripps Pink 97,650 85,540 101,920

Other 809,100 1,039,640 1,384,200

Total 2,790,000 3,290,000 3,640,000

Source: TreeTop Inc. 2008 Apple and Pear Production and Planting Trends in Washington State
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 101 of 163

7.4.3 Market Impact of ArcticTM Apples

It is anticipated that the ArcticTM apple events covered under this petition, including

nonbrowning apple cultivars ArcticTM Golden and ArcticTM Granny Smith apples, will be 

considered a success in the market place if they:

 are widely used in fresh-cut apple slice processing and the product finds retail and 

institutional sales success;

 are sold fresh at the retail level, stimulating a demand for apples and competing successfully 

on price and value with current apple cultivars;

 are able to benefit apple growers through lower cullage rates and better prices;

 are able to offer fruit packers the benefit of fewer scuff marks and a more efficient packing 

regime; and

 are embraced by the foodservice industry and ArcticTM Apples are widely used in a broad

range of new and existing products.

The target market during the initial sales period (Year 1-3) of ArcticTM Apples is the fresh-cut 

processor and foodservice businesses, with a limited number of fresh-cut apples going to retail.

There are sufficient prospects in this market segment to establish the product and work through 

the various consumer issues that may arise given this is a genetically modified (GM) food. It is 

anticipated that during the initial sales period, culls and low-grade ArcticTM fruit will go to juice.

During Years 3-5, ArcticTM Apple production will ramp up and the product will achieve 

mainstream success in selected niche markets. There will still not be enough fruit to distribute

these apples into all regions; distribution will be targeted to regions where retailers have shown 

the most interest and consumers are ready to embrace the product. Point-of-sale literature, instore demonstrations, and brand labeling will be used to ensure all buyers are aware of the 

nonbrowning trait benefit and the fact that this represents a new generation of products.

From Year 6 on, we see ArcticTM Apples replacing regular apples at the retail level.

Nonbrowning ArcticTM Golden Delicious and Granny Smith would have their own displays, sell 

for a price premium and take market share away from traditional products. Furthermore, 

ArcticTM Apples used in fresh-cut processing would become the fresh-market industry standard,

now able to meet the high product specifications used in snack foods and specialty products at 

both existing and new retail outlets.

The market penetration target for OSF’s ArcticTM Apples is forecast as outlined in Table 48. 

Given the nature of the product, the current consumer attitude about GM crops in general and the 

fact that ArcticTM apples have few, if any, comparables in the food business, this table outlines a 

“best guess” estimate for market penetration. Box totals have been calculated according to 

industry norms for bins of fruit per acre and packed boxes per bin.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 102 of 163

Table 48: Target Market Penetration (1 box = 42 pounds)

Region1 Units YR1 YR2 YR3 YR4 YR5 YR6 YR7 YR8 YR9 YR10 Totals

PNW Acres 10 50 100 200 300 500 600 700 800 900 4,160

Boxes 800 5,920 21,600 61,600 140,800 280,000 494,400 793,600 1,180,800 2,979,520

GLR Acres 5 25 50 100 200 250 300 350 400 400 2,080

Boxes 400 2,960 10,800 30,800 74,400 149,600 267,200 428,800 622,400 1,587,360

NER Acres 5 25 50 100 200 250 300 350 400 400 2,080

Boxes 400 2,960 10,800 30,800 74,400 149,600 267,200 428,800 622,400 1,587,360

CDN Acres 10 20 50 100 200 250 300 350 1,280

Boxes - - 800 3,520 11,840 32,000 74,400 149,600 267,200 539,360

Total Acres 20 110 220 450 800 1,200 1,450 1,700 1,950 2,100 9,600

Boxes - 1,600 12,640 46,720 135,040 321,600 653,600 1,178,400 1,918,400 2,854,400 6,693,600

Source: OSF’s ArcticTM Apple Marketing Report

Regions: PNW=Pacific Northwest Region, GLR = Great Lake Region, NER = Northeast Region, CDN = Canada

OSF has estimated at total planted area of slightly less than 10,000 acres or about 2 percent of 

total U.S. apple plantings over the first 10 years. This estimate includes additional ArcticTM 

Apple cultivars not included under this petition but anticipated over this 10-year period. The 

estimated total planted area for the 2 events covered by this petition is 4,000 acres over 10 years. 

As additional cultivars are released, this total may increase somewhat; however, it is not 

anticipated that ArcticTM Apples will ever achieve the large market share enjoyed by GM field 

crops (i.e., corn and soybean). We anticipate that apples, being a perennial crop of 20 or more 

years before replanting, will have a much slower adoption and introduction curve than annual 

crops.

Utilizing market penetration data found in Table 48 and based on an average return of $20 per 

box, the economic impact of ArcticTM Apple cultivars will approximate $120 million in the first 

10 years. 

7.5 Gene Flow

7.5.1 Potential recipients of transgenes from cultivated apple

An experimental data set has been developed describing pollen gene flow as a result of bee 

pollination in apple, using a model predicting gene flow when donor and recipient block vary in 

size, shape and orientation. The model was developed by monitoring the beta-glucuronidase 

(GUS) reporter transgene in an isolated test block, and collecting seeds from transects up to 200

meter from the row of donor plants.

Empirical results show that the majority of bee-carried pollen travels less than 100 feet. The 

model derived from the empirical data set may be useful for predicting out-crossing rates of 

transgenic orchards with nearby conventional orchards and the commercial cultivars they 

contain. The model will also be useful to help define isolation distances and contamination rates 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 103 of 163

at different locations in neighbouring orchards so that conditions imposed on cultivation of 

transgenic cultivars can be prescribed. Further details on the data set, experimental design, 

discussion and conclusions are available in two papers concerning gene flow in apple (Tyson et 

al., 2010) (Tyson et al., 2011). 

In addition to being pollinated by other cultivars, apple can also be pollinated by crab apple (and 

vice versa); indeed, a number of cultivars of crab apple are routinely used as the pollinizers in 

commercial apple orchards. Of the 25 or so species of crab apple known worldwide, five are 

native to North America and two imported species have become naturalized after escaping from 

cultivation.

Hybrids between apple and native crabs have been noted growing in uncultivated areas, but have 

not become widespread nor weedy despite growing in proximity since apple was introduced by 

pioneers to America 300 or so years ago. Apple is thought to cross with the native crabs of the 

Malus section Chloromeles when they are grown together. Many of the crab species native to 

eastern and central Asia have been imported into the USA; they are used either as ornamentals 

themselves or as breeding parents for new ornamental cultivars. 

The chromosome number of these crab species is often unknown. Even if cross-pollination 

between apple and crab species occurs and is followed by seed set, progeny developing from the 

seed may be aneuploid because crabs differ in chromosome number; this would result in poorlygrowing and likely sterile progeny, or deficiencies of other kinds. Some are known to be 

apomictic (that is, capable of asexual reproduction), but may still produce viable pollen. Neither 

escaped, nor naturalized plants of these Asian origin species nor their hybrids with apple have 

been documented, though they may occur as persistent plants in some unknown locations.

7.5.2 Routes of gene flow in addition to bee pollination

Apples are commonly discarded along travel routes and the seeds from this fruit can germinate 

and develop into a tree. This would manifest itself mostly as persistent trees that do not spread, 

although naturalized populations have been documented (Little, 1979). They also can germinate 

in rubbish and compost piles. Apples float, so they can be distributed via in waterways. Several 

mammal species eat apples and hence could carry away the seeds notably bears, mice and 

squirrels. Birds feed on the fruit but aren’t thought to carry away seed. The risk of gene outflow 

from these uncommon and low frequency events is considered low, demonstrated by the low 

number of persistent apple trees.

7.6 Stewardship of ArcticTM Apple Gene Flow

Particulars specific to ArcticTM Apples will contribute to the ability to monitor and control 

ArcticTM Apple gene flow. 

Similar to most new apple cultivars being released, ArcticTM Apple cultivars will be royaltybearing. For this reason the propagation, planting area, cultivation, packing and selling of these 

cultivars and their trees will be carefully monitored and tracked. Furthermore, it is OSF’s intent 

to license these cultivars to a very limited number of integrated producer/packer/sellers, to create 

a managed marketing environment. It is our intent that ArcticTM Apple trees will not be available 

for widespread commercial distribution, nor for backyard and small-scale plantings. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 104 of 163

Furthermore, the use of ArcticTM Apple cultivars in commercial breeding programs will be 

limited, and any resulting cultivars of commercial merit will be managed in a similar manner as 

their ArcticTM parent.

All ArcticTM Apple cultivars will be sold under the ArcticTM brand name, which along with the 

logo has been trademarked. This brand name will be utilized in a range of venues – including 

point-of-sale literature, price look-up code stickers on the apples and all forms of retail 

packaging – to identify ArcticTM fruit. The ArcticTM name will be used to inform buyers, as well 

as to allow traceability of the product. 

The apple industry has the advantage over the field crop industry in the fact that cultivars are 

already segregated and packed in lots. It is OSF’s intent that traceability will be maintained of all 

ArcticTM Apple cultivars from field to retail and foodservice outlet. Further, ArcticTM Apples can 

be identified at all steps along the value chain, through a simple bioassay or a PCR test, as well 

as by DNA fingerprinting.

The risk of trait out-crossing and pollen gene flow is well recognized. However, literature and 

our own research shows that this risk is low and can be readily managed. ArcticTM Apple 

growers will be provided with stewardship guidelines as part of their licensing requirements, and 

these will be monitored for compliance by OSF. Two key stewardship obligations will include: 

1) hives used for pollination will not be transferred to another apple block upon completion, they 

will be used on field crops (i.e., alfalfa) or fed for a suitable period of time before re-entering an 

apple orchard; and 2) suitable isolation distances between ArcticTM Apple blocks and 

conventional blocks will be maintained. Isolation distances from organic apple blocks will likely 

be greater. Other ways to mitigate pollen gene flow (i.e. border rows) will be discussed and 

adopted as required. 

One must remember that if out-crossing does take place, only the seeds will carry some 

component of the transgene; the apple cortex and the maternal tissue it contains would remain 

non-transgenic. Further, in a commercial setting, it is very uncommon for a seed to develop into 

a viable, commercially harvested apple tree. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 105 of 163

8 ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF INTRODUCTION

Apples are propagated vegetatively by grafting, therefore the silenced PPO ArcticTM Apple 

cultivars are clonal improvements of well-established, commercially proven cultivars. Field 

testing to date indicates that growth and fruiting is very similar to the parent cultivar, except that

the silenced PPO gene results in a nonbrowning phenotype. Consequences that may result from 

the introduction of the cultivar follow:

1) Increased consumption of apples, particularly apples and fresh-cut apple slices. This is 

regarded as primarily a positive consequence, though consumer reaction may be adverse 

should the public react negatively to the method of origin of the new clones and avoid 

apples in general – reducing consumption nationally or through reduced international 

trade. Given OSF’s commitment for transparency and labelling this adverse reaction is 

considered unlikely.

2) Adverse environmental consequences are not anticipated because the new clones should 

not hybridize, persist nor naturalize more than has occurred historically with their 

conventional brethren. Further, it can be argued that the silenced PPO gene is likely a 

hindrance rather than benefit to wild trees, as such a trait would have previously become 

established through natural mutation if were a beneficial trait. Therefore, the PPO gene 

could be considered a benefit to apple outside of the commercial setting.

3) An adverse agro-ecological consequence is the potential for contamination of seeds in 

conventional or organic apple crops with the PPO transgene as a result of pollination flow 

from transgenic trees. However, only the seed would be transgenic, not the maternal 

tissue in the apple cortex. Cortex tissue, the portion of the apple that is eaten, would 

remain nontransgenic.

4) The amount of transgene-containing seed that might develop in neighboring orchards 

depends on a number of factors, including coincidence of bloom time so that flowers are 

receptive at the time when pollen is available, the distance between the orchards, and the 

presence or absence of buffer rows. Another important influencing factor is competition 

from conventional pollen that any transgenic pollen might encounter to effectively 

pollinate in a conventional orchard. The larger the conventional block, the greater the 

likelihood that a flower will be pollinated first by the overwhelming predominance of 

conventional pollen present. However, trap plant experiments – by which plants are 

arranged so that seeds can develop only from transgenic pollen because no competing 

pollen is available to them – have demonstrated bees can transport pollen for distances of 

more than a mile. However, this situation is very rare in a commercial orchard setting 

because of the competition from nearby conventional pollen.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 106 of 163

9 REFERENCES

Armstrong JD, Lane WD. 2009. Genetically modified reduced-browning fruit-producing plant and produced fruit 

therof, and method of obtaining such. US Patent Application Number 12/919,735 

Bachem CWB, Speckmann GJ, van der Linde PCG, Verheggen FTM, Hunt MD, Steffens JC, Zabeau M. 1994. 

Antisense expression of polyphenol oxidase genes inhibits enzymatic browning in potato tubers. Nature 

Biotechnology 12:1101 - 1105.

Bajaj KL, Biez-de-Bethencourt CA, Junquera B, Gonzales san Jose ML. 1997. In vitro enzymic oxidation of apple 

polyphenols. Journal of Food Science and Technology 34:30.

Barbehenn RV, Jones CP, Yip L, Tran L, Constabel CP. 2007. Limited impact of elevated levels of polyphenol 

oxidase on tree-feeding caterpillars: assessing individual plant defenses with transgenic poplar. Oecologia 

154:129-140.

Benson DA, Karsch-Mizrachi I, Lipman DJ, Ostell J, Wheeler DL. 2005. GenBank. Nucleic Acids Research:D34-

D38.

Bevan M. 1984. Binary Agrobacterium vectors for plant transformation. Nucleic Acids Research 12:8711-8721.

Bevan M, Barnes WM, Chilton MD. 1983a. Structure and transcription of the nopaline synthase gene region of TDNA. Nucleic Acids Research 11:369-385.

Bevan MW, Flavell RB, Chilton MD. 1983b. A chimaeric antibiotic resistance gene as a selectable marker for plant 

cell transformation. Biotechnology 24:4.

Boss PK, Gardner RC, Janssen BJ, Ross GS. 1995. An apple polyphenol oxidase cDNA is up-regulated in wounded 

tissues. Plant Molecular Biology 27:429-433.

Boyer J, Liu RH. 1994. Apple phytochemicals and their health benefits. Nutrition Journal 3.

Bradford KJ, Nonogaki H. 2007. Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination, First Edition ed: WileyBrackwell. 392 p.

Broothaerts W, McPherson J, Li B, Randall E, Lane WD, Wiersma PA. 2000. Fast apple (Malus x domestica) and 

tobacco (Nicotiana tobacum) leaf polyphenol oxidase activity assay for screening transgenic plants. Journal 

of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48:5924-5928.

Brushett L, Lacasse S. 2006. Regional market analysis for fresh-cut apple slices. Deerfield, Massachusetts: 

Cooperative Development Institute.

Bucheli CS, Dry IB, Robinson SP. 1996. Isolation of a full-length cDNA encoding polyphenol oxidase from 

sugarcane, a C4 grass. Plant Molecular Biology 31:1233-1238.

Buta JG, Moline HE, Spaulding DW, Wang CY. 1999. Extending storage life of fresh-cut apples using natural 

products and their derivatives. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 47:1-6.

Cary JW, Lax AR, Flurkey WH. 1992. Cloning and characterization of cDNAs coding for Vicia faba polyphenol 

oxidase. Plant Molecular Biology 20:245-253.

Castanera P, Steffens JC, Tingey WM. 1996. Biological performance of Colorado potato beetle larvae on potato 

geneotypes with differing levels of polyphenol oxidase. Journal of Chemical Ecology 22:91-101.

Chan A, Graves V, Shea TB. 2006. Apple juice concentrate maintains acetylcholine levels following dietary 

compromise. Journal of Alzheimers Disease 9:287-291.

Chen C. 1999. Methods for preserving vegetables. US Patent 5,925,395.

Chen C, Trezza TA, Wong DWS, Camirand WM, Pavlath AE. 1999. Methods for preserving fresh fruit and produce 

thereof. US Patent 5,939,117.

Chen JS, Balaban MO, Wei CI, Marshall MR, Hsu WY. 1992. Inactivation of polyphenol oxidase by high-pressure 

carbon dioxide. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 40:2345-2349.

Chevalier T, de Rigal D, Mbeguie-A-Mbeguie D, Gauillard F, Richard-Forget F, Fils-Lycaon BR. 1999. Molecular 

cloning and characterization of apricot fruit polyphenol oxidase. Plant Physiology 119:1261-1270.

Cockfield SD, Beers EH. 2004. Susceptibility of Gala and other cultivars to damage by Campylomma verbasci. 

Proceedings of the 78th Annual Western Orchard Pest & Disease Management Conference.

Constabel CP, Ryan CA. 1998. A survey of wound- and methyl jasmonate-induced leaf polyphenol oxidase in crop 

plants. Phytochemistry 47:507-511.

Coseteng MY, Lee CY. 1987. Changes in apple polyphenol oxidases and polyphenol concentrations in relation to 

degree of browning. Journal of Food Science 52:985-989.

Darlington CD, Wylie AP. 1955. Chromosome Atlas of Flowering Plants, 2nd ed. London: George Allen & Unwin 

Ltd.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 107 of 163

Datla RSS, Bekkaoui F, Hammerlindl JK, Pilate G, Dunstan DI, Crosby WL. 1993. Improved high-level constitutive 

foreign gene expression in plants using an AMV RNA4 untranslated leader sequence. Plant Science 

94:139-149.

De Bondt A, Eggermont K, Druart P, De Vil M, Goderis L, Vanderleyden J, Broekaert WF. 1994. Agrobacteriummediated transformation of apple (Malus doemstica Borkh.): an assessment of factors affecting gene 

transfer efficiency during early transformation steps. Plant Cell Reports 13:587-593.

Dennis AJ, Green RJ, Schupp EW, Wescott DA. 2007. Seed Dispersal: Theory and Application in a Changing 

World, First Edition ed: CABI Publishing.

Dennison BA. 1996. Fruit juice consumption by infants and children: a review. Journal of the American College of 

Nutrition 15:4S - 11S.

Depicker A, Stachel S, Dhaese P, Zambryski P, Goodman HM. 1982. Nopaline synthase: transcript mapping and 

DNA sequence. Journal of Molecular and Applied Genetics 1:561-573.

Dethier BE, Vittum MT. 1967. Growing Degree Days in New York State. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University 

Agricultural Experiment Station, New York State College of Agriculture.

Dickson EE, Kresovich S, Weeden NF. 1991. Isozymesin North America Malus (Rosaceae): hybridization and 

species differentiation. Systematic Botany 16:13.

Douglas CL, Wysocki DJ, Zuzel JF, Rickman RW, Klepper BL. 1990. Agronomic Zones for the Pacific Northwest. 

A Pacific Northwest Extension Publication PNW 354.

Downing DL. 1989. Processed Apple Products: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 448 p.

Draper E, Chatfield C. 1996. Selection, Care, and Use of the Ornamental Crabapple (HYG-1029-96). Columbus, 

OH: Ohio State University. 7 p.

Dry IB, Robinson SP. 1994. Molecular cloning and characterisation of grape berry polyphenol oxidase. Plant 

Molecular Biology 26:495-502.

Duffey SS, Felton G. 1991. Enzymatic antinutrient defences of the tomato plant against insects. In: Hedin P, editor. 

Naturally Occurring Pest Bioregulators. Washington, DC: American Chemical Society. p 166-197.

Dupree C, Scott D, Winston ML. 1987. Wild bee pollinator diversity and abundance in orchard and uncultivated 

habitats in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. The Canadian Entomologist 119:735 - 745.

Erdman JW, Klein BP. 1982. Harvesting, Processing, and Cooking Influences on Vitamin C in Foods. In: Seib PA, 

Tolbert BM, editors. Ascorbic Acid: Chemistry, Metabolism, and Uses. Washington, D. C.: American 

Chemical Society.

Eskin M. 1990. Biochemistry of food spoilage: enzymatic browning. In: Eskin M, editor. Biochemistry of Foods, 

Second Edition ed: Academic Press. p 401-403.

Ferree DC, Warrington IJ. 2003. Apples: Botany, Production and Uses, First Edition ed: CABI. 672 p.

Fick WH. 1995. Eastern gagagrass tolerance to four preemergent herbicides. Proceedings of the North Central Weed 

Control Conference 50:113 - 114.

Fraignier M-P, Marques L, Fleuriet A, Macheix J-J. 1995. Biochemical and immunochemical characteristics of 

polyphenol oxidases from different fruits of Prunus. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 43:2375-

2380.

Fraley RT, Rogers SG, Horsch RB, Gelvin SB. 1986. Genetic transformation in higher plants. Critical Reviews in 

Plant Sceinces 4:1 - 46.

Friedman M, Bautista FF. 1991. Inhibition of polyphenol oxidase by thiols in the absence and presence of potato 

tissue suspensions. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 43.

Friedman M, Bautista FF. 1995. Inhibition of polyphenol oxidase by thiols in the absence and presence of potato 

tissue suspensions. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 43:69-76.

Fuchs RL, Ream JE, Hammond BG, Naylor MW, Leimgruber RM, Berberich SA. 1993. Safety assessment of the 

neomycin phosphotransferase II (NPTII) protein. Biotechnology (N Y) 11:1543-1547.

Gallardo RK, Taylor M, Hinman H. 2010. 2009 Cost Estimates of Establishing and Producing Gala Apples in 

Washington. Washington State University Extension Fatsheet FS005E.

Goetghebeur M, Kermasha S. 1996. Inhibition of polyphenol oxidase by copper-metalothionen from Aspergillus 

niger. Phytochemistry 42:935-940.

Haruta M, Murata M, Hiraide A, Kadokura H, Yamasaki M, Sakuta M, Shimizu S, Homma S. 1998. Cloning 

genomic DNA encoding apple polyphenol oxidase and comparison of the gene product in Escherichia coli 

and in apple. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 62:358-362.

Heimdal H, Kuhn BF, Poll L, Larsen LM. 1995. Biochemical changes and sensory quality of shredded and MApackaged iceberg lettuce. Journal of Food Science 60:1265-1276.

Higgins A. 2005. Why the Red Delicious No Longer Is. In: Washington Post.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 108 of 163

Hood EE, Gelvin SB, Melchers LS, Hoekema A. 1993. New Agrobacterium helper plasmids for gene transfer to 

plants. Transgenic Research 2:208-218.

Hosie RC. 1979. Native trees of Canada. Don Mills, Ontario: Fitzheury and Whiteside.

Ihaka R, Gentleman R. 2010. R Statistics (Version 2.11.1) [Computer Software] R Foundation for Statistical 

Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved August 30, 2010. Available from http://www.r-project.org.

Iyengar R, McEvily AJ. 1992. Anti-browning agent: alternatives to the use of sulfites in food. Trends in Food 

Science and Technology 3:60-64.

Jackson JE. 2005. Biology of Apples and Pears: Cambridge University Press. 500 p.

Janick RJ, Moore JN. 1996. Fruit Breeding: Tree and Tropical Fruits: John Wiley and Sons. 632 p.

Janovitz-Klapp AH, Richard FC, Goupy PM, Nicholas JJ. 1990. Inhibition studies on apple polyphenol oxidase. 

Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 38:926-931.

Jiang Y, Fu J. 1998. Inhibition of polyphenol oxidase and the browning control of litchi fruit by glutathione and 

citric acid. Food Chemistry 62:49-52.

Jolivet S, Arpin N, Wichers HJ, Pellon G. 1998. Agaricus bisporus browning: a review. Mycological Research 

12:25.

Jones AL, Aldwinckle HS. 1990. Compendium of apple and pear diseases. St Paul, Minneapolis: The American 

Phytopathological Society.

Kadioglu A, Yavru L. 1998. Changes in the chemical content and polyphenol oxidase activity during development 

and ripening of cherry laurel fruits. Phyton (Horn) 37:11.

Kim JY, Seo YS, Kim JE, Sung S-K, Song KJ, An G, Kim W, T. 2001. Two polyphenol oxidases are differentially 

expressed during vegetative and reproductive development and in response to wounding in the Fuji apple. 

Plant Science 161:1145-1152.

Kolodziejczyk K, Milala J, Sokjka M, Kosmala M, Markowski J. 2010. Polyphenol oxidase activity in selected 

apple cultivars. Journal of Fruit and Ornamental Plant Research 18:51 - 61.

Korba J, Sillerova J, Kudela V. 2008. Resistance of apple varieties and selection to Erwinia amylovora in the Czech 

Republic. Plant Protection Science 44:91 - 96.

Kruger JE, Hatcher DW, DePauw R. 1994. A whole seed assay for polyphenol oxidase in Canadian prairie spring 

wheats and its usefulness as a measure of noodle darkening. Cereal Chemistry 71:324-326.

Kumar S, Fladung M. 2000. Transgene repeats in aspen: molecular characterization suggests simultaneous 

integration of independent T-DNAs into receptive hotspots in the host genome. Molecular and General 

Genetics 264:20-28.

Lane WD, Bhagwat B, Armstrong JD, Wahlgren S. 2003. Apple micrografting protocol to establish transgenic 

clones on field ready rootstock. HortTechnology 13:641-646.

Lee KW, Kim YJ, Kim D-O, Lee HJ, Lee CY. 2003. Major phenolics in apple and their contribution to the total 

antioxidant capacity. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 51:6516-6520.

Lee KW, Lee SJ, Kang NJ, Lee CY, Lee HJ. 2004. Effects of phenolics in Empire apples on hydrogen peroxideinduced inhibition of gap-junctional intercellular communication. Biofactors 21:5.

Little ELJ. 1979. Malus. In: Check List of United States Trees (Native and Naturalized). Washington, DC: Forest 

Service, USDA. p 167-170.

Lodhi MA, Ye G-N, Weeden NF, Reisch BI. 1994. A simple and efficient method for DNA extraction from 

grapevine cultivars, Vitis species and Ampelopsis. Plant Molecular Biology Reporter 12:8.

Maniatis T, Fritsch EF, Sambrook J. 1982. Molecular Cloning: A Reference Manual.

Mar - Sojo M, Nunez - Delicado E, Garca - Carmona F, Snchez - Ferrer A. 1998. Monophenolase activity of latent 

banana pulp polyphenol oxidase. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 46:4931-4936.

Mari S, Marques L, Breton F, Karamanos Y, Macheix J-J. 1998. Unfolding and refolding of active apple polyphenol 

oxidase. Phytochemistry 49:1213-1217.

Martinez MV, Whitaker JR. 1995. The biochemistry and control of enzymatic browning. Trends in Food Science & 

Technology 6:195-200.

Mayer AM. 1987. Polyphenol oxidases in plants - recent progress. Phytochemistry 26:11-20.

Mayerd F, Johansen CA, Lunden JD. 1989. Honey bee foraging behavior on ornamental crabapple pollenizers and 

commercial apple cultivars. HortScience 24:510 - 512.

McEvily AJ, Iyengar R, Otwell WS. 1992. Inhibition of enzymatic browning in foods and beverages. Critical 

Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 32:253-273.

McKenney DW, Kesteven JL, Hutchinson MF, Venier LA. 2001. Canada's plant hardiness zones revisited using 

modern climate interpolation tecniques. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81:13.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 109 of 163

McVaugn R. 1943. The status of some anomalous native crabapples in the eastern Ubited States. Bulletin of the 

Torrey Botanical Club 70:12.

Murata M, Haruta M, Murai N, Tanikawa N, Nishimura M, Homma S, Itoh Y. 2000. Transgenic apple (Malus x 

domestica) shoot showing low browning potential. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 48:5243-

5248.

Murata M, Kurokami C, Homma S. 1992. Purification and some properties of chlorogenic acid oxidase from apple 

(Malus pumila). Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry 56:1705 - 1710.

Murata M, Nishimura M, Murai N, Haruta M, Homma S, Itoh Y. 2001. A transgenic apple callus showing reduced 

polyphenol oxidase activity and lower browning potential. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry 

65:383-388.

Murata M, Noda I, Homma S. 1995a. Enzymatic browning of apples on the market: relationship between browning, 

polyphenol content, and polyphenol oxidase. Japanese Society for Food and Science Technology 42:7.

Murata M, Tsurutani M, Hagiwara S, Homma S. 1997. Subcellular location of polyphenol oxidase in apples. 

Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry 61:1495-1499.

Murata M, Tsurutani M, Tomita M, Homma S, Kaneko K. 1995b. Relationship between apple ripening and 

browning: changes in polyphenol content and polyphenol oxidase. Journal of Agricultural and Food 

Chemistry 43:1115-1121.

O'Rourke AD. 1994. The World Apple Market, First Edition ed: CRC Press.

O'Rourke AD. 2010. World Apple Review - 2010 Edition: Belrose Inc.

OECD. 2002. OECD Guidance for the Designation of a Unique Identifier for Transgenic Plants 

ENV/JM/MONO(2002)/7. In: Series on Harmonization of Regulatory Oversight in Biotechnology No. 23 

OMAFRA. 2011. Apple Rootstocks. In: http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-007.htm#m26, 

accessed 111003.

OSF. 2011. Biology of Cultivated Apple. In. Submitted as a companion document to USDA Petition 10-161-01p by 

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc..

Oszmianski J, Lee CY. 1990. Inhibition of polyphenol oxidase activity and browning by honey. Journal of 

Agricultural and Food Chemistry 38:1892-1895.

Outlook. 2007. In: US Apple: Apple Crop Outlook and Marketing Conference. Chicago, IL.

OVTFA. 1993. Tree Fruit Home Nurseries: A Growers Manual: Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. 47 p.

Paton-Simpson G. 2010. SOFA Statistics (Version 0.9.22) [Computer Software] Paton-Simpson & Associates Ltd, 

Aukland, New Zealand. Retrieved August 16, 2010. Available from http://www.sofastatistics.com.

Pauwels E, Eyssen R, Keulemens J. 1998. Parthenocarpy and Apple Breeding. ISHS Acta Horticulturae: Eucarpia 

Symposium on Fruit Breeding and Genetics 484.

Perez A, Pollack S. 2008. Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook. In: USDA-ERS.

Philips JP. 1866. A Pembrokeshire Proverb. Notes and Queries.

Radi M, Mahrouz M, Jaouad A, Tacchini M, Aubert S, Hugues M, Amiot MJ. 1997. Phenolic composition, 

browning susceptibility, and carotenoid content of several apricot cultivars at maturity. HortScience 32:5.

Rathjen AH, Robinson SP. 1992. Aberrant processing of polyphenol oxidase in a variegated grapevine mutant. Plant 

Physiology 99:1619-1625.

Rehder A. 1958. Malus. In: Manual of cultivated trees and shrubs hardy in North America: MacMillan. p 389-399.

Richard-Forget FC, Gauillard FA. 1997. Oxidation of chlorogenic acid, catechins and 4-methycatechol in model 

solutions by combnations of pear (Pyrus communis cv. Williams) polyphenol oxidase and peroxidase: a

possible involvement of peroxidase in enzymatic browning. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 

45:2472-2476.

Ridgway TJ, Tucker GA. 1999. Procedure for partial purification of apple leaf polyphenol oxidase suitable for 

commercial application. Enzyme and Microbial Technology 24:225-231.

Robinson NJ, Tommey AM, Kuske C, Jackson PJ. 1993. Plant metalothionein. Biochemistry Journal 195:10.

Rom RC, Carlson RF. 1987. Rootstocks for Fruit Crops. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Rothstein SJ, Jorgensen RA, Yin JC, Yong-di Z, Johnson RC, Reznikoff WS. 1981. Genetic organization of Tn5. 

Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 45 Pt 1:99-105.

Sapers GM. 1993. Browning of foods: control by sulfites, antioxidants, and other means. Food Technology (USA) 

47:10.

Scaffolds. 2011. 2011 Fruit Arthropod Pest Review. In: Angello A, Kain D, editors. Scaffolds Fruit Journal: Update 

on Pest Management and Crop Development. Geneva, NY: Cornell University - NYS Agricultural 

Experiment Station (Geneva).

Sharma R. 2005. Improve your Health with Apple, Guava, Mango: Diamond Pocket Books Ltd.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 110 of 163

Sharp PA. 2001. RNA interference -- 2001. Genes & Development 15:485-490.

Sherman TD, Vaughn KC, Duke SO. 1991. A limited survey of the phylogenetic distibution of polyphenol oxidases. 

Phytochemistry 30:2449-2506.

Smith MW. 1971. National Apple Register of the United Kingdon. London: William Clowes and Sons.

Smith TJ. 2010. Fire Blight Management in the Pacific Northwest USA. In: http://county.wsu.edu/chelandouglas/agriculture/treefruit/Pages/Fire_Blight.aspx, accessed 110915.

Sobiczewski P, Zurawicz E, Berczynski S, Lewandowski M. 2006. Fire blight susceptibility of new apple cultivars 

and clones from Poland. Acta Horticulturae (ISHS) 704:551-553.

Sommer A, Ne'eman E, Steffens JC, Mayer AM, Harel E. 1994. Import, targeting, and processing of a plant 

polyphenol oxidase. Plant Physiol 105:1301-1311.

Stover ME, Mark PL. 1998. Successional vegatation in cultivated and pasture land in Tomkins County, New York. 

Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 125:15.

Tan BK, Harris ND. 1995. Maillard reeaction products inhibit apple polyphenoloxidase. Food Chemistry 53:267-

273.

Teviotdale BL, Viveros M, Grant JA. 1997. Apple russetting influenced by more than copper sprays. California 

Agriculture 51:11 - 14.

Thipyapong P, Hunt MD, Steffens JC. 2004. Antisense downregulation of polyphenol oxidase results in enhanced 

disease susceptibility. Planta 220:105-117.

Thipyapong P, Joel DM, Steffens JC. 1997. Differential Expression and Turnover of the Tomato Polyphenol 

Oxidase Gene Family during Vegetative and Reproductive Development. Plant Physiol 113:707-718.

Thipyapong P, Steffens JC. 1997. Tomato polyphenol oxidase (Differential response of the polyphenol oxidase F 

promoter to injuries and wound signals). Plant Physiology 115:409-418.

Thipyapong P, Stout MJ, Attajarusit J. 2007. Functional analysis of polyphenol oxidases by antisense/sense 

technology. Molecules 12:1569-1595.

Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ. 1994. CLUSTALW: improving the sensistivity of progressive multiple 

sequence alignment through sequence weuighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix 

choice. Nucleic Acids Research 22:4673-4680.

Thygesen PW, Dry IB, Robinson SP. 1995. Polyphenol oxidase in potato (A multigene family that exhibits 

differential expression patterns). Plant Physiology 109:525-531.

Turner S. 2005. Burr Knot. In: http://www.ces.ncsu.edu/chatham/ag/SustAg/burrknot.html, accessed 110901.

Tyson R, Wilson JB, Lane WD. 2010. A mechanistic model to predict transgenic seed contamination in beepollinated crops validated in an apple orchard. Ecological Modelling 222:2084-2092.

Tyson R, Wilson JB, Lane WD. 2011. Beyond diffusion: Modelling local and long-distance dispersal for organisms 

exhibiting intensive and extensive search modes. Theoretical Popluation Biology 79:70-81.

Urbanska A, Tjallingii WF, Dixon AFG, Leszcynski B. 1998. Phenol oxidizing enzymes in the grain aphid’s saliva. 

Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 86:197-203.

USDA. 2009. Composition of Foods Raw, Processed, Prepared. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard 

Reference Release 22.

Valentines MC, Viliplana R, torres RA, Usall J, Larrigaudiere C. 2005. Specific roles of enzymatic browning and 

lignification in apple disease resistance. Postharvest Biology and Technology 36:227 - 234.

van Engelen FA, Molthoff JW, Conner AJ, Nap JP, Pereira A, Stiekema WJ. 1995. pBINPLUS: an improved plant 

transformation vector based on pBIN19. Transgenic Research 4:288-290.

van Gelder CWG, Flurkey WH, Wichers HJ. 1997. Sequence and structural features of plant and fungal tyrosinases. 

Phytochemistry 45:1309-1323.

Van Harten AM. 1998. Mutation Breeding: Theory and Practical Applications: Cambridge University Press. 353 p.

Vinson JA, Su X, Zubik L, Bose P. 2001. Phenol antioxidant quantity and quality in foods: fruits. Journal of 

Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49:5315-5321.

Wang J, Constabel CP. 2004. Polyphenol oxidase overexpression in transgenic Populus enhances resistance to 

herbivory by forest tent caterpillar (Malacosoma disstria). Planta 220:87-96.

Wang Z, Chen Y. 1997. Alleviation of copper toxicity to maize by phosporous fertilizer in purple soil. Pedosphere 

3:8.

Warmund MR. 1996. Pollinating Fruit Crops: University Extension, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Way RD, Aldwinckle HS, Lamb RC, Rejman A, Sansavini S, Shen T, Watkins R, Westwood MN, Yoshida Y. 1990. 

Genetics resources of temperate fruit crops. In: Moore JN, Ballington JR, editors. Acta Horticulturae. p 1.

Weemaes CA, Ludikhuyze LR, Van den Broeck I, Hendrickx ME. 1998. Kinetics of combined pressure-temperature 

inactivation of avocado polyphenoloxidase. Biotechnology and Bioengineering 60:292-300.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 111 of 163

Wertheim SJ. 1991. Malus cv. Baskatong as an indicator of pollen spread in intensive apple orchards. Journal of 

Horticultural Science 66:8.

Westwood MN. 1993. Temperate Zone Pomology. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.

Whitaker JR, Lee CY. 1995a. Recent advances in chemistry of enymatc browning: an overview. In: Lee CY, 

Whitaker JR, editors. Enzymatic Browning and its Prevention: American Chemical Society. p 2-7.

Whitaker JR, Lee CY. 1995b. Recent advances in chemistry of enzymatic browning: An overview. In: American 

Chemical Society.

Wikipedia(1). 2011. Endicott Pear Tree. In: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endicott_Pear, accessed 110901.

Wikipedia(2). 2011. List of Apple Cultivars. In: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_cultivars, accessed 110901.

Wikipedia(3). 2011. Red Delicious. In: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_delicious, accessed 110901.

Winson ML. 1991. The Biology of the Honey Bee: Harvard University Press. 294 p.

WSU. 2010. 2010 Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Washington (EB0419). In. Pullman, WA: Extension 

Publishing and Printing.

Wu W, Pan RC. 1997. Effect of Ja-Me on carbohydrate contents and activities of phenylalanine ammonia-lyase and 

polyphenol oxidase in leaves of rice seedlings. Plant Physiology Communications 33:3.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 112 of 163

Appendix 1: Photographic Record of the Development of GD743 and GS784

Figure 11: Micrografting ArcticTM Apple Shoot to M9 Rootstocks

These images were taken during the micrografting process. Tissue culture shoots of transgenic, PPO suppressed 

events are collected by our tissue culture technicians and grafted directly onto established rootstock in our 

greenhouse. The rate of grafting success can be >90% depending on the time of year. Within about 3 months, this 

process can generate a whip tree that is ready for transfer to the screenhouse to condition it for the field.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 113 of 163

 2004

 2007

Figure 12: Trial Block - Washington

These images were taken at the Washington Field trial. They show the planting of the GEN-03 trees that was done in 

2004 and how the tree appeared in 2007 (4th leaf). This row contains GD743 and GS784, as well as many other nonbrowning events arising from the GEN-03 transformations, plus controls.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 114 of 163

GD743 

GS784 

Figure 13: Whole Apple Images of GD743 and GS784

These images were taken as part of a marketing package produced in 2008. They show apple fruit that is typical of 

the GD743 and GS784. 
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 115 of 163

GD743 GD 

GS784 GS 

Figure 14: Bruise Response in GD743 and GS784

These images were taken during controlled bruising tests. GD743 and GS784 plus untransformed controls were 

subjected to impact bruising designed to mimic scrabble bruising that might be incurred during packing line 

handling. The bruises are allowed to develop for 2 hours and then the apples are peeled to reveal the flesh color 

changes. The intersection of the black lines on the apple show where the bruise was made. Note that for GD732 and 

GS784, no bruising is visible.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 116 of 163

GD743 GD

Figure 15: Apple Slices of GD743 and GD Control

These images were taken during apple slice tests. The apples were sliced, washed and stored in 5oC storage for 3 

weeks in ZipLocTM bags, prior to photographing.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 117 of 163

GD743 GD

GS784 GS

Figure 16: Apple Juice Made From GD743 and GS784

The following images were taken during apple juice tests. The apples were sliced, cored and juiced (with skin). The 

resulting apple juice was left overnight at room temperature for color development. Notably, full color development 

occurred in the untransformed parents within minutes of juicing.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 118 of 163

Appendix 2: Field Maps

Table 49: Map of the Washington Field Trial – 2003 Block

Washington (2003 Block)2

Flagged Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

Yes WA - 14 1 784-5 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 2 801-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 3 784-3 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 4 801-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 5 801-45 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 6 705-21 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 7 743-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

Yes WA - 14 8 1001-17 Control GS Control 2003 Other

Yes WA - 14 9 784-4 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 10 705-25 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 11 743-14 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 12 743-23 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 13 743-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 14 705-31 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 15 705-37 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 16 784-2 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 17 801-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 18 709-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 19 784-6 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 20 801-44 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 21 705-22 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 22 707-14 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 23 743-16 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 24 743-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 25 743-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 26 1001-12 Control GS Control 2003 Other

Yes WA - 14 27 705-32 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 28 801-26 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 29 801-39 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 30 1001-1 Control GS Control 2003

Yes WA - 14 31 773-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 32 773-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 33 773-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 34 705-30 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 35 743-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 36 707-13 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 119 of 163

Washington (2003 Block)2

Flagged Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 37 705-40 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 38 705-34 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 39 707-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 40 784-13 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 41 784-14 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 42 1001-4 Control GS Control 2003

WA - 14 43 801-46 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 44 705-20 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 45 1001-6 Control GS Control 2003

WA - 14 46 801-47 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 47 743-41 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 FB

WA - 14 48 705-24 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 FB

WA - 14 49 784-9 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 50 1001-5 Control GS Control 2003

WA - 14 51 743-19 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 52 707-23 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 53 784-7 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 54 1001-10 Control GS Control 2003

WA - 14 55 1001-3 Control GS Control 2003

WA - 14 56 801-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 57 743-12 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 58 743-15 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 59 705-43 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 60 705-29 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 61 707-24 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 62 707-16 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 63 705-41 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 64 707-22 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 65 801-35 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 66 801-41 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 67 1000-25 Control GD Control 2003

WA - 14 68 801-37 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 69 784-12 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 70 705-23 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 71 743-21 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 72 707-18 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 73 707-15 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 74 707-19 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 75 801-42 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 120 of 163

Washington (2003 Block)2

Flagged Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 76 801-38 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 77 743-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 78 801-33 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 79 773-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 80 773-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 81 1001-2 Control GS Control 2003

WA - 14 82 1001-9 Control GS Control 2003

WA - 14 83 792-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 84 709-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 85 709-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 86 773-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 87 773-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 88 773-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 89 709-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 90 773-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 91 709-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 92 792-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 93 792-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 94 709-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 95 705-38 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 96 1001-11 Control GS Control 2003

WA - 14 97 705-35 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 98 705-36 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 99 801-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 100 707-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 101 707-26 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 102 705-28 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 103 784-10 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 104 707-12 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 105 707-27 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 106 743-43 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 107 705-42 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 FB

WA - 14 108 801-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 109 743-20 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 110 784-16 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 111 703-15 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 112 743-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 113 801-27 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 114 1000-2 Control GD Control 2003 Other
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 121 of 163

Washington (2003 Block)2

Flagged Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

Yes WA - 14 115 1000-1 Control GD Control 2003 Other

WA - 14 116 707-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 117 1000-9 Control GD Control 2003

WA - 14 118 743-45 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 119 707-30 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 120 705-44 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 121 707-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 122 703-13 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 123 705-45 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 124 703-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 125 703-17 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 126 743-44 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 127 705-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 128 707-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 129 703-18 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 130 705-18 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 131 784-17 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 132 801-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 133 703-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 134 703-16 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 135 703-12 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 136 703-14 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 137 705-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 138 705-47 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 139 703-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 140 705-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 141 801-28 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 142 792-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 143 703-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 144 703-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 145 784-15 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 146 703-19 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 147 792-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 148 784-18 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 149 792-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 150 792-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 151 792-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 152 792-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 153 784-19 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003 Other
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 122 of 163

Washington (2003 Block)2

Flagged Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 154 705-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 155 707-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 156 707-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 157 707-31 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 158 784-8 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 159 707-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 160 705-19 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 161 743-13 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 162 743-17 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 163 743-18 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 164 784-11 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 165 743-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 166 702-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 167 707-29 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 168 705-46 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 169 702-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 170 703-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 171 707-32 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 172 746-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 173 703-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 174 705-12 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 175 702-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 176 746-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

Yes WA - 14 177 702-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

Yes WA - 14 178 739-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

Yes WA - 14 179 752-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 180 752-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

Yes WA - 14 181 745-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

Yes WA - 14 182 739-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

Yes WA - 14 183 745-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 184 705-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 185 707-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 186 703-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 187 702-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

Yes WA - 14 188 703-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 189 702-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 190 702-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 191 703-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 192 1000-4 Control GD Control 2003
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 123 of 163

Washington (2003 Block)2

Flagged Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 193 739-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 194 1000-3 Control GD Control 2003

Yes WA - 14 195 739-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 196 1000-6 Control GD Control 2003 Other

WA - 14 197 705-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 198 1000-7 Control GD Control 2003

WA - 14 199 1000-5 Control GD Control 2003

WA - 14 200 1000-8 Control GD Control 2003

WA - 14 201 703-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 202 739-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 203 743-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 204 705-15 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 205 743-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 206 702-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 207 705-13 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 208 705-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 209 705-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 210 705-17 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 211 705-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003 Other

WA - 14 212 705-16 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 213 707-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 214 784-1 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 215 707-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 216 705-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 217 705-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 218 705-14 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 219 743-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

WA - 14 220 801-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2003

1

FB: Removed due to fireblight on September 25, 2007; Other: Trees are removed during the growing season for a variety of 

reasons, mostly commonly transplant mortality, rodent or mechanical damage. The trees noted here as ‘other’ were removed at the 

end of 2006 or beginning of the 2007 field season

2 The WA2003 Block was removed at the end of the 2007 growing season to make way for the WA2008 demonstration block.

3 The plant name is a unique identifier for each tree, where the number preceding the dash is the transgenic event name and the

number following the dash is the tree number (event name 1000 = GD control; event name 1001 = GS control).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 124 of 163

Table 50: Map of the New York Field Trial – 2005 Block

New York (2005 Block)

Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted

NY - 101 1 1001-49 Control GS Control 2005

NY - 101 2 703-65 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 3 707-68 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 4 831-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 5 707-60 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 6 707-67 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 7 846-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 8 773-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 9 1001-46 Control GS Control 2005

NY - 101 10 705-94 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 11 784-35 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 12 773-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 13 1000-37 Control GD Control 2005

NY - 101 14 714-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 15 831-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 16 845-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 17 702-43 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 18 634-1 GEN-02 GS PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 19 703-56 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 20 707-41 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 21 1002-8 Control NF Control 2005

NY - 101 22 1000-36 Control GD Control 2005

NY - 101 23 1003-2 Control PG Control 2005

NY - 101 24 426-1 GEN-02 NF PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 25 702-44 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 26 872-2 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 27 872-4 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 28 1001-39 Control GS Control 2005

NY - 101 29 845-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 30 427-1 GEN-02 NF PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 31 273-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 32 811-24 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 33 784-30 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 34 294-2 GEN-02 NF PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 35 872-1 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 36 331-2 GEN-02 GS PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 37 1001-44 Control GS Control 2005

NY - 101 38 1001-31 Control GS Control 2005

NY - 101 39 743-85 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 40 811-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 125 of 163

New York (2005 Block)

Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted

NY - 101 41 845-15 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 42 255-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 43 707-64 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 44 846-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 45 702-45 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 46 846-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 47 846-12 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 48 801-34 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 49 784-56 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 50 249-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 51 1000-34 Control GD Control 2005

NY - 101 52 1002-6 Control NF Control 2005

NY - 101 53 520-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 54 1003-10 Control PG Control 2005

NY - 101 55 705-91 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 56 846-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 57 811-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 58 784-52 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 59 590-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 101 60 1003-13 Control PG Control 2005

NY - 102 1 523-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 2 703-58 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 3 743-881 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 4 294-1 GEN-02 NF PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 5 615-3 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 6 260-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 7 260-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 8 348-4 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 9 255-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 10 784-76 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 11 605-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 12 348-5 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 13 426-2 GEN-02 NF PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 14 590-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 15 1003-12 Control PG Control 2005

NY - 102 16 714-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 17 520-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 18 846-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 19 743-87 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 20 811-21 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 21 743-67 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 126 of 163

New York (2005 Block)

Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted

NY - 102 22 534-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 23 617-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 24 705-90 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 25 331-1 GEN-02 GS PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 26 845-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 27 831-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 28 702-27 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 29 784-34 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 30 831-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 31 703-31 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 32 1001-42 Control GS Control 2005

NY - 102 33 554-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 34 801-36 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 35 831-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 36 801-25 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 37 615-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 38 604-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 39 1000-38 Control GD Control 2005

NY - 102 40 705-85 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 41 534-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 42 705-95 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 43 466-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 44 743-30 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 45 613-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 46 604-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 47 249-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 48 523-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 49 1000-39 Control GD Control 2005

NY - 102 50 702-41 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 51 601-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 52 427-2 GEN-02 NF PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 53 246-1 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 54 605-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 55 601-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 56 811-19 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 57 273-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 58 743-63 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2005

NY - 102 59 554-2 GEN-02 GD PPO Suppression 2005

1 This tree (743-88) was removed prior to the 2006 field season.

2 The plant name is a unique identifier for each tree, where the number preceding the dash is the transgenic event name and the

number following the dash is the tree number (event name 1000 = GD control; event name 1001 = GS control).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 127 of 163

Table 51: Map of the Washington Field Trial - 2004 Block

Washington (2004 Block)2, 4

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

Yes WA - 15 1 703-22 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA - 15 2 784-29 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 15 3 743-35 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA - 15 4 703-57 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 15 5 784-26 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 15 6 784-40 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 7 784-44 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 8 703-60 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

WA-15 9 1001-34 Control GS Control 2004 Other

WA-15 10 705-83 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 11 705-62 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 12 707-62 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 13 705-78 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 14 842-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 15 784-42 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 16 784-45 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 17

1

705-59 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 18 831-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 19 784-31 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 20 1000-42 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 21 784-33 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 22 811-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 23 784-50 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004 Other

WA-15 24 845-12 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 25 784-38 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 26 743-55 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 27 743-64 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 28 743-59 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 29 811-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 30 872-9 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 31 743-31 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 32 1003-9 Control PG Control 2004 Other

WA-15 33 842-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 34 872-5 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 35 845-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 36 880-2 GEN-03 PG PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 37 879-3 GEN-03 PG PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 38 702-46 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 128 of 163

Washington (2004 Block)2, 4

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

Yes WA-15 39 1003-7 Control PG Control 2004

Yes WA-15 40 872-8 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 41 885-1 GEN-03 PG PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 42 1003-8 Control PG Control 2004 Other

WA-15 43 842-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 44 846-17 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 45 879-1 GEN-03 PG PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 46 831-14 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 47 1002-5 Control NF Control 2004

WA-15 48 831-12 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 49 872-13 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2004 FB

WA-15 50 784-28 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 51 846-15 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 52 705-61 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 53 743-68 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 54 705-79 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 55 784-66 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 56 842-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 57 784-65 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 58 931-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 59 743-52 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 60 831-13 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 61 1003-3 Control PG Control 2004

Yes WA-15 62 846-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 63 845-14 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 64 872-10 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 65 872-7 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 66 784-61 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 67 1003-5 Control PG Control 2004

WA-15 68 784-46 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 69 885-2 GEN-03 PG PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 70 1003-11 Control PG Control 2004

WA-15 71 1001-30 Control GS Control 2004

Yes WA-15 72 846-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 73 784-60 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 74 872-12 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 75 1001-29 Control GS Control 2004

WA-15 76 872-11 GEN-03 NF PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 77 845-13 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 129 of 163

Washington (2004 Block)2, 4

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA-15 78 831-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 79 1002-7 Control NF Control 2004

Yes WA-15 80 1003-6 Control PG Control 2004

Yes WA-15 81 880-1 GEN-03 PG PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 82 784-23 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 83 784-21 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 84 846-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 85 784-22 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 86 703-52 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 87 743-46 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 88 743-65 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 89 707-58 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 90 743-62 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 91 1000-15 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 92 702-42 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 93 784-41 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 94 743-60 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 95 1001-35 Control GS Control 2004

WA-15 96 743-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 97 1001-36 Control GS Control 2004 Other

WA-15 98 1001-37 Control GS Control 2004 Other

WA-15 99 702-47 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

WA-15 100 707-61 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

WA-15 101 743-40 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 102 811-17 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 103 784-48 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 104 703-54 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 105 811-18 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 106 703-55 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 107 1001-33 Control GS Control 2004

WA-15 108 703-45 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 109 811-16 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 110 1001-38 Control GS Control 2004

Yes WA-15 111 758-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 112 714-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 113 811-25 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 114 743-26 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 115 743-33 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 116 707-25 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 130 of 163

Washington (2004 Block)2, 4

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

Yes WA-15 117 1000-11 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 118 707-33 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 119 703-26 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 120 784-49 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 121 1000-13 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 122 703-23 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 123 728-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 124 702-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 125 1000-14 Control GD Control 2004

Yes WA-15 126 752-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 127 705-39 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 128 707-17 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 FB

WA-15 129 705-54 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 130 743-34 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 131 705-26 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 132 743-37 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 133 1001-20 Control GS Control 2004

Yes WA-15 134 801-48 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 135 784-20 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 136 1001-13 Control GS Control 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 137 702-13 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 138 1000-12 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 139 743-48 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 140 707-21 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 141 705-50 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 142 705-52 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 143 1001-18 Control GS Control 2004

Yes WA-15 144 707-38 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 145 702-14 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 146 707-34 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 147 784-25 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 148 1001-15 Control GS Control 2004

WA-15 149 707-57 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

WA-15 150 707-39 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 151 707-47 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 152 703-21 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 153 773-12 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 154 743-36 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 155 705-70 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 131 of 163

Washington (2004 Block)2, 4

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

Yes WA-15 156 703-20 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA-15 157 801-43 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 158 707-37 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

WA-15 159 743-58 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 160 743-42 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 161 743-22 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

WA-15 162 709-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 163 1000-26 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 164 703-44 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 165 743-25 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 166 1000-27 Control GD Control 2004

Yes WA-15 167 811-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 168 702-20 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 169 705-64 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 170 702-21 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 171 1000-30 Control GD Control 2004 Other

Yes WA-15 172 702-18 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 173 702-22 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 174 702-23 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 175 811-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 176 709-16 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 177 702-24 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 178 811-4 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 179 1000-28 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 180 702-19 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 181 743-57 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 182 811-14 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 183 811-3 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 184 707-44 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 185 811-15 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 186 811-12 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 187 1001-7 Control GS Control 2004

WA-15 188 811-13 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 189 703-32 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 190 705-57 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 191 703-30 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 192 709-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 193 703-49 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 194 702-35 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 FB
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 132 of 163

Washington (2004 Block)2, 4

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA-15 195 702-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 196 703-35 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 197 709-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 198 703-50 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 199 1001-14 Control GS Control 2004

WA-15 200 743-47 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 201 705-73 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 202 748-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 203 707-36 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 204 763-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 205 784-36 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 206 705-27 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 207 801-10 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 208 1000-21 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 209 703-27 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 210 743-49 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 211 1000-24 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 212 705-71 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 213 702-33 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 214 801-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 215 1000-33 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 216 705-72 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 FB

WA-15 217 704-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 218 702-30 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 219 801-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 220 707-53 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 221 1000-22 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 222 702-26 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 223 707-51 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 224 705-56 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 225 719-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 226 753-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 227 705-67 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 228 703-46 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 229 1000-19 Control GD Control 2004

WA-15 230 743-54 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 231 703-48 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004 FB

WA-15 232 730-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 233 702-28 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 133 of 163

Washington (2004 Block)2, 4

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name3 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA-15 234 707-55 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 235 707-50 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 236 702-29 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 237 811-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 238 707-20 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 239 743-51 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 240 743-56 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 241 709-11 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA-15 242 743-53 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

1

FB: Removed due to fireblight on September 25, 2007; Other: Trees are removed during the growing season for a variety of 

reasons, mostly commonly transplant mortality, rodent or mechanical damage. Trees noted here as ‘other’ were removed during 

the 2009 field season.

2 Trees in Washington – 15, Positions 76 – 92 are the Control Block of trees for Pest and Disease monitoring (See Section 6.1.3). 

These trees are monitored on a weekly basis. If pest or disease is detected within this Control Block it triggers the collection of 

pest and disease data from all flagged trees in the Washington trial (WA2004, WA2008).

3 The plant name is a unique identifier for each tree, where the number preceding the dash is the transgenic event name and the 

number following the dash is the tree number (event name 1000 = GD control; event name 1001 = GS control).

4 Removed: Block of trees removed from position 179 to 244.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 134 of 163

Table 52: Map of the Washington Field Trial - 2008 Block

Washington (2008 Block)

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 2 801-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 3 142-93-1 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 4 OSF.FJ.1-21 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 5 GS 18-2-2 OBI-04 GS PPO Suppression 2008 Other

WA - 14 6 OSF.FJ.1-1 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 7 OSF.FJ.1-4 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 8 OSF.FJ.1-27 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 9 OSF.FJ.1-3 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 10 GS 18-2-1 OBI-04 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 11 165-22-2 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 12 OSF.FJ.1-2 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 13 165-22-5 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 14 OSF.FJ.1-28 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 15 OSF.FJ.1-14 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 16 OSF.FJ.2-3 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 17 OSF.PG.3-2 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 18 OSF.FJ.1-15 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 19 OSF.FJ.1-13 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 20 OSF.FJ.1-19 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 21 OSF.FJ.1-18 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 22 OSF.FJ.1-29 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 23 No Tree

WA - 14 24 OSF.FJ.1-20 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 25 OSF.PG.3-1 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 26 OSF.FJ.2-1 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 27 OSF.FJ.1-30 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 28 OSF.FJ.1-16 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 29 OSF.FJ.2-4 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 30 OSF.FJ.1-25 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 31 OSF.FJ.1-8 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 32 OSF.FJ.1-26 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 33 OSF.FJ.1-22 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 34 OSF.FJ.1-17 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 35 OSF.FJ.1-10 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 36 OSF.FJ.1-11 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 37 OSF.FJ.1-7 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 38 142-93-2 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 39 No Tree

WA - 14 40 801-26 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 41 801-39 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 135 of 163

Washington (2008 Block)

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 42 OSF.FJ.1-2 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 43 OSF.PG.3-4 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 44 OSF.FJ.1-9 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 45 OSF.FJ.1-6 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 46 OSF.FJ.1-23 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 47 OSF.FJ.1-5 OSF-01 NF PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 48 OSF.PG.3-3 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 49 GS 18-2-4 OBI-04 GS PPO Suppression 2008 Other

WA - 14 50 142-93-3 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 51 GS 18-2-3 OBI-04 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 52 No Tree

WA - 14 53 142-93-4 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 54 No Tree

WA - 14 55 707-73 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 56 707-74 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 57 707-75 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 58 707-76 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 59 No Tree

WA - 14 60 707-77 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 61 707-78 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 62 707-79 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 63 801-47 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 64 707-80 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 65 707-81 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 66 707-82 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 67 707-83 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 68 707-84 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 69 707-85 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 70 707-86 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 71 707-87 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 72 707-89 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 73 707-88 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 74 707-90 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 75 707-91 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 76 707-92 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 77 707-93 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 78 707-94 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 79 707-95 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 80 707-96 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 81 707-98 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 82 707-97 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 136 of 163

Washington (2008 Block)

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 83 705-98 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 84 705-99 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 85 705-100 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 86 705-101 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 87 705-102 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 88 705-103 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 89 705-104 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 90 801-35 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 91 801-41 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 92 705-105 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 93 705-106 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 94 705-107 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 95 705-108 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 96 705-109 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 97 705-110 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 98 705-111 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 99 705-112 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 100 705-113 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 101 705-114 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 102 705-115 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 103 No Tree

WA - 14 104 801-38 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 105 No Tree

WA - 14 106 801-33 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 107 No Tree

WA - 14 108 705-116 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 109 No Tree

WA - 14 110 705-117 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 111 792-1 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 112 705-118 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 113 705-119 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 114 705-120 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 115 705-121 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 116 705-122 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 117 784-116 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 118 784-117 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 119 784-118 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 120 784-119 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 121 784-120 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 122 784-121 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 123 792-2 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 137 of 163

Washington (2008 Block)

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

Yes WA - 14 124 784-122 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 125 784-123 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 126 784-124 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 127 784-125 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 128 784-126 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 129 784-127 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 130 784-128 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 131 784-129 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 132 784-130 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 133 No Tree

WA - 14 134 784-131 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 135 784-132 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 136 784-133 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 137 784-134 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 138 784-135 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 139 784-136 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 140 784-137 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 141 784-138 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 142 784-139 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 143 784-140 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 144 784-142 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 145 784-143 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 146 784-144 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 147 743-104 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 148 743-107 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 149 743-108 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 150 743-109 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 151 743-110 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 152 743-111 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 153 743-112 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 154 743-113 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 155 743-114 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

Yes WA - 14 156 743-115 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 157 743-116 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 158 743-117 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 159 743-118 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 160 743-119 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 161 743-120 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 162 743-122 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 163 743-123 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 164 743-124 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 138 of 163

Washington (2008 Block)

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 165 743-125 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 166 743-126 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 167 743-127 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 168 743-128 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 169 743-129 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 170 743-130 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 171 743-106 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA - 14 172 1001-114 Control GS Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 173 1001-115 Control GS Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 174 1001-116 Control GS Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 175 1001-117 Control GS Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 176 1001-119 Control GS Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 177 1001-120 Control GS Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 178 1001-122 Control GS Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 179 1001-123 Control GS Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 180 1001-124 Control GS Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 181 1001-126 Control GS Control 2008

WA - 14 182 1001-128 Control GS Control 2008 Other

WA - 14 183 1001-130 Control GS Control 2008

WA - 14 184 1001-132 Control GS Control 2008

WA - 14 185 1001-133 Control GS Control 2008

WA - 14 186 1001-134 Control GS Control 2008

WA - 14 187 1001-135 Control GS Control 2008

WA - 14 188 1001-137 Control GS Control 2008

WA - 14 189 1001-138 Control GS Control 2008

WA - 14 190 1001-122 Control GS Control 2004

WA - 14 191 1000-106 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 192 1000-118 Control GD Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 193 1000-167 Control GD Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 194 1000-168 Control GD Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 195 1000-169 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 196 792-6 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA - 14 197 1000-170 Control GD Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 198 1000-171 Control GD Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 199 1000-172 Control GD Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 200 1000-173 Control GD Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 201 1000-174 Control GD Control 2008

Yes WA - 14 202 1000-175 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 203 792-5 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

Yes WA - 14 204 1000-176 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 205 792-8 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 139 of 163

Washington (2008 Block)

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 206 792-7 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 207 1000-177 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 208 792-9 GEN-03 GD PPO Suppression 2004

WA - 14 209 1000-178 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 210 1000-179 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 211 1000-180 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 212 1000-181 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 213 1000-182 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 214 1000-183 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 215 1000-184 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 216 1000-185 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 217 1000-186 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 218 1000-187 Control GD Control 2008

WA - 14 219 281-11-1 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 220 277-55-1 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 221 277-19-4 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 222 277-19-3 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 223 281-11-8 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 224 277-19-1 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 225 277-19-7 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 226 277-19-2 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 227 GD Control-5 Control GD Control 2009

WA - 14 228 277-55-6 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 229 277-94-5 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 230 277-19-6 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 231 277-94-7 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 232 277-55-4 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 233 277-19-8 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 234 277-19-5 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 235 222-1-6 OSF-01 GS PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 236 221-7-1 OSF-01 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 237 277-55-8 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 238 283-1-2 OSF-02 GD PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 239 281-11-9 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009 Cold

WA - 14 240 277-55-5 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 241 GS Control-2 Control GS Control 2009 Cold

WA - 14 242 277-130-2 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 243 277-94-6 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 244 277-101-1 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 245 277-69-3 OSF-02 PG PPO Suppression 2009

WA - 14 246 No Tree
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 140 of 163

Washington (2008 Block)

Flagged Trial - Row Position Plant Name2 Vector Cultivar Vector Purpose Year Planted Removed1

WA - 14 247 No Tree

WA - 14 248 No Tree

WA - 14 249 No Tree

WA - 14 250 No Tree

WA - 14 250 739-9 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

WA - 14 251 739-2 GEN-03 GS PPO Suppression 2008

1 Cold: Removed throughout the 2011 growing season due to damage caused by extreme cold. Other: Trees are 

removed during the growing season for a variety of reasons, mostly commonly transplant mortality, rodent or 

mechanical damage. Trees noted here as ‘other’ were removed at the beginning of the 2011 field season.

2 The plant name is a unique identifier for each tree, where the number preceding the dash is the transgenic event 

name and the number following the dash is the tree number (event name 1000 = GD control; event name 1001 = 

GS control).
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 141 of 163

Appendix 3: Pest and Disease Data – Field Reports

Table 53: Field Report - Powdery Mildew - WA2008 - April 19, 2010

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2008) Date of Incident: April 19, 2010

Pest / Disease: Powdery Mildew (PM)

Data Collected: The control block of trees was inspected for the incidence of Powdery Mildew (PM) by a top to 

bottom visual scan of each tree. A PM incident would be defined as a single or multiple spore 

lesions on the leaf surface. If a PM incident was discovered it triggered the inspection of all of 

the flagged trees within the Washington field trial. Ten actively growing shoots from each tree 

were inspected for the incidence of PM. If single or multiple lesions were detected the shoot 

was counted as infected. Total = number of shoots.

Incident 

Summary:

PM appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden Delicious 

(GD + GD743) (7.5%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (3.5%). However, Chi-square test 

revealed that the percentage of PM affected shoots did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, 

N=400) =3.08, P>0.05). PM infection was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of PM infected shoots did not 

significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=200) =0.65, P>0.3). Similarly, Chisquare test revealed that the percentage of PM infected shoots did not significantly differ 

between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=200) = 0.59, P>0.3).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 15 185 200

GS + GS784 7 193 200

Total 22 378 400

Chi Square = 3.08 P > 0.05

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 9 91 100

GD Control 6 94 100

Total 15 185 200

Chi Square = 0.65 P > 0.3

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 5 95 100

GS Control 2 98 100

Total 7 193 200

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.59 P > 0.3

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 142 of 163

Table 54: Field Report - Powdery Mildew - NY2005 - July 21, 2008

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: July 21, 2008

Pest / Disease: Powdery Mildew (PM)

Data Collected: PM infection was assayed according to a rating scale where 1 < 10%, 2 = 10 – 50%, and 3 >

50%. The percentages refer to the percent (%) of shoot tips colonized by PM (data not shown).

Since the rate of infection was similar (<10%) in the PM infected trees, the number of trees 

infected is reported here. Total = number of trees.

Incident 

Summary:

PM was very light affecting only GS events. However, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the 

percentage of PM affected trees did not differ significantly cultivar (X2(1, N=22) =0.37, P>0.5).

PM infection was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Both GD743 and 

GD were similarly unaffected by PM. Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the 

percentage of PM infected trees did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, 

N=12) =0.6, P>0.3).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 0 10 10

GS + GS784 2 10 12

Total 2 20 22

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.37 P > 0.5

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 0 5 5

GD Control 0 5 5

Total 0 10 10

Chi Square = P not calculated

df =

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 1 5 6

GS Control 1 5 6

Total 2 10 12

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.6 P > 0.3

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 143 of 163

Table 55: Field Report - Powdery Mildew - WA2008 - August 16, 2010

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2008) Date of Incident: August 16, 2010

Pest / Disease: Powdery Mildew (PM)

Data Collected: The control block of trees was inspected for the incidence of Powdery Mildew (PM) by a top to 

bottom visual scan of each tree. A PM incident would be defined as a single or multiple spore 

lesions on the leaf surface. If a PM incident was discovered it triggered the inspection of all of 

the flagged trees within the Washington field trial. Ten actively growing shoots from each tree 

were inspected for the incidence of PM. If single or multiple lesions were detected the shoot 

was counted as infected. Total = number of shoots.

Incident 

Summary:

PM does not appear to be cultivar specific with the rate of PM incidence in Golden Delicious 

(GD + GD743) (11.7%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (13.6%) being very similar. Chisquare test revealed that the percentage of PM affected shoots did not significantly differ by 

cultivar (X2(1, N=400) =0.23, P>0.5). PM infection was not influenced by incorporation of the 

GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of PM infected shoots did not 

significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=200) =2.61, P>0.1). Similarly, Chisquare test revealed that the percentage of PM infected shoots did not significantly differ 

between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=200) =3.03, P>0.05).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 21 179 200

GS + GS784 24 176 200

Total 45 355 400

Chi Square = 0.23 P > 0.5

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 7 93 100

GD Control 14 86 100

Total 21 179 200

Chi Square = 2.61 P > 0.1

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 8 92 100

GS Control 16 84 100

Total 24 176 200

Chi Square = 3.03 P > 0.05

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 144 of 163

Table 56: Field Report - Fireblight

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2003, 2004, 2008) Date of Incident: 2005, 2006, 2007

Pest / Disease: Fireblight (FB)

Data Collected: Field blocks WA2003, WA2004 and WA2008 have been routinely checked for the presence of 

FB. The presence (+) or absence (-) of Fireblight is assessed. The number of FB affected trees 

is reported here. In response to the detection of FB, trees may be pruned to remove infected 

wood (dormant pruning) or the tree itself may be removed. A common practice is to remove the 

fireblight affected tree plus one tree on either side to prevent spread of the disease. The removal 

of these additional trees is not reported in this data set as they are not confirmed as FB affected.

Total = number of trees.

Incident 

Summary:

FB was detected in at a higher rate in Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (4% of trees) than in 

Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (0% of trees). However, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the 

percentage of FB affected trees did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=327) =1.61, 

P>0.2). FB was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03. Chi-square (Yates) test 

revealed that the percentage of FB affected trees did not significantly differ between GEN-03 

events (GD702, GD703, GD705, GD707 and GD743) and the untransformed control GD (X2(1, 

N=258) =0.34 P>0.5). Both GS874 and GS were similarly unaffected by FB. FB has never been 

detected in the WA2008 block.

By Cultivar

Event Name1Infected Not Infected Total2

GD + GD743 (plus) 10 248 258

GS + GS784 0 69 69

Total 10 317 327

Chi Square (Yates) = 1.61 P > 0.2

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 (plus) 8 225 233

GD Control 2 23 25

Total 10 248 258

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.34 P > 0.5

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 0 44 44

GS Control 0 25 25

Total 0 69 69

Chi Square = P not calculated

df =

1 GD743 (plus) = GD743 plus additional PPO suppressed GEN-03 events GD702, GD703, GD705, and GD707.

2 FB was only ever detected in the WA20003 and WA2004. The FB affected trees reported here and summarized in 

Table 26 are all from the WA2003 and WA2004 blocks. Therefore the totals reported are for the total number of 

trees for the selected Event Name in the WA2003 and WA2004 blocks.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 145 of 163

Table 57: Field Report - Aphids - NY2005 - November 19, 2009

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: November 19, 2009

Pest / Disease: Aphids

Data Collected: Aphids are assayed as 1 < 10%, 2 = 10 – 50%, 3 > 50% (data not shown). The percentages refer 

to the percent of shoot tips colonized by aphids. Aphid infection was rated at > 50% in 21/22

trees assessed (ArcticTM Apple and Control). Therefore, the number of trees infected is reported 

here. Total = number of trees.

Incident 

Summary:

Aphids were present throughout the NY field trial in the Fall of 2009. The rate of aphid 

infection did not appear to be influenced by affected by cultivar or PPO suppression.

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 10 0 10

GS + GS784 12 0 12

Total 22 0 22

Chi Square = P not calculated

df =

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 5 0 5

GD Control 5 0 5

Total 10 0 10

Chi Square = P not calculated

df =

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 6 0 6

GS Control 6 0 6

Total 12 0 12

Chi Square = P not calculated

df =
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 146 of 163

Table 58: Field Report - Green Apple Aphid - WA2004 - August 9, 2010

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2004) Date of Incident: August 9, 2010

Pest / Disease: Green Apple Aphid (GAA)

Data Collected: The control block of trees was inspected for the presence of any live Green Apple Aphid 

(GAA) on actively growing shoots by a top to bottom visual scan of each tree. If GAA were

present in the control trees it triggered inspection of all the flagged trees within the Washington 

field trial. Ten actively growing shoots per tree were observed for the presence of GAA. If a 

shoot had one or more GAA present it was counted as infected. Total = number of shoots.

Incident 

Summary:

GAA appeared to be cultivar specific with a higher rate of GAA incidence in Golden Delicious 

(GD + GD743) (22.5%) than in Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (14.3%). However, Chi-square 

test revealed that the percentage of GAA affected shoots did not significantly differ by cultivar 

(X2(1, N=150) =2.14, P>0.1). GAA infection was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN03 transgene. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of GAA infected shoots did not 

significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=80) =0.62, P>0.3). Similarly, Chi-square 

(Yates) test revealed that the percentage of GAA infected shoots did not significantly differ 

between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=70) =0.70, P>0.3).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 19 61 80

GS + GS784 10 60 70

Total 29 121 150

Chi Square = 2.14 P > 0.1

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 11 29 40

GD Control 8 32 40

Total 19 61 80

Chi Square = 0.62 P > 0.3

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 4 36 40

GS Control 6 24 30

Total 10 60 70

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.70 P > 0.3

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 147 of 163

Table 59: Field Report - Green Apple Aphid - WA2004 - August 16, 2010

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2004) Date of Incident: August 16, 2010

Pest / Disease: Green Apple Aphid (GAA)

Data Collected: The control block of trees was inspected for the presence of any live Green Apple Aphid 

(GAA) on actively growing shoots by a top to bottom visual scan of each tree. If GAA were

present in the control trees it triggered inspection of all the flagged trees within the Washington 

field trial. Ten actively growing shoots per tree were observed for the presence of GAA. If a 

shoot had one or more GAA present it was counted as infected. Total = number of shoots.

Incident 

Summary:

GAA was not cultivar specific with a similar rate of GAA incidence in Golden Delicious (GD + 

GD743) (6.3%) and Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (4.3%). Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that 

the percentage of GAA affected shoots did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=150) 

=0.03, P>0.8). GAA infection was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. 

Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of GAA infected shoots did not 

significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=80) =0, P>0.95). Similarly, Chi-square 

(Yates) test revealed that the percentage of GAA infected shoots did not significantly differ 

between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=70) =0.88, P>0.3).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 5 75 80

GS + GS784 3 67 70

Total 8 142 150

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.03 P > 0.8

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 2 38 40

GD Control 3 37 40

Total 5 75 80

Chi Square (Yates) = 0 P > 0.95

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 3 37 40

GS Control 0 30 30

Total 3 67 70

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.88 P > 0.3

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 148 of 163

Table 60: Field Report - Woolly Aphids - WA2004 - July 12, 2010

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2004) Date of Incident: July 12, 2010

Pest / Disease: Woolly Aphids

Data Collected: The control block of trees was inspected for the presence of any live Woolly Aphids on actively 

growing shoots by a top to bottom visual scan of each tree. If Woolly Aphids were present in 

the control trees it triggered inspection of all the flagged trees within the Washington field trial. 

Ten actively growing shoots per tree were observed for the presence of Woolly Aphids. If a 

shoot had one or more Woolly Aphids present it was counted as infected. Total = number of 

shoots.

Incident 

Summary:

Woolly Aphid appears to be cultivar specific with a higher rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (11.3%) than in Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (1.4%). Chi-square 

(Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Woolly Aphid affected shoots differed significantly

by cultivar (X2(1, N=150) =4.32, P<0.05). Woolly Aphid infection was not influenced by 

incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of 

Woolly Aphids infected shoots did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, 

N=80) =0, P>0.95). Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Woolly 

Aphid infected shoots did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=70) =0.02, 

P>0.8).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 9 71 80

GS + GS784 1 69 70

Total 10 140 150

Chi Square (Yates) = 4.32 P < 0.05

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 5 35 40

GD Control 4 36 40

Total 9 71 80

Chi Square (Yates) = 0 P > 0.95

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 0 30 30

GS Control 1 39 40

Total 1 69 70

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.02 P > 0.8

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 149 of 163

Table 61: Field Report - Japanese Beetle - NY2005 - July 21, 2008

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: July 21, 2008

Pest / Disease: Japanese Beetle (JB)

Data Collected: Japanese Beetle infection is assessed as 1 = light, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe, where:

Scale Number of Japanese Beetles % LS

1 1 – 5 1 – 5 %

2 6 – 10 6 – 10 %

3 > 10 > 10 %

LS = Leaf Skeletonization

The rate of infection was similar (light) in the infected trees. Therefore, the number of trees 

infected is reported. Total = number of trees.

Incident 

Summary:

JB was not cultivar specific with a similar level of incidence in Golden Delicious (GD + 

GD743) (30%) and Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (25%). Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that 

the percentage of JB affected trees did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=22) =0.05, 

P>0.8). JB was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square test 

revealed that the percentage of JB infected trees did not significantly differ between GD743 and 

GD (X2(1, N=10) =0, P>0.95). Similarly, Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of JB 

infected trees did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0, P>0.95).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 3 7 10

GS + GS784 3 9 12

Total 6 16 22

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.05 P > 0.8

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 1 4 5

GD Control 2 3 5

Total 3 7 10

Chi Square (Yates) = 0 P > 0.95

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 1 5 6

GS Control 2 4 6

Total 3 9 12

Chi Square (Yates) = 0 P > 0.95

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 150 of 163

Table 62: Field Report - Japanese Beetle - NY2005 - July 21, 2010

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: July 21, 2010

Pest / Disease: Japanese Beetle

Data Collected: Japanese Beetle infection is assessed as 1 = light, 2 = moderate, 3 = severe, where:

Scale Number of Japanese Beetles % LS

1 1 – 5 1 – 5 %

2 6 – 10 6 – 10 %

3 > 10 > 10 %

LS = Leaf Skeletonization

The rate of infection was similar (light) in the infected trees. Therefore, the number of trees 

infected is reported. Total = number of trees.

Incident 

Summary:

JB appeared to be cultivar specific with lower level of incidence in Golden Delicious (GD + 

GD743) (0%) than in Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (17%). However, Chi-square (Yates) test 

revealed that the percentage of JB affected trees did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, 

N=22) =0.37, P>0.5). JB was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. JB was 

not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Both GD743 and GD were similarly 

unaffected by JB. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of JB infected trees did not 

significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0.6, P>0.3).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 0 10 10

GS + GS784 2 10 12

Total 2 20 22

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.37 P > 0.5

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 0 5 5

GD Control 0 5 5

Total 0 10 10

Chi Square = P not calculated

df =

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 1 5 6

GS Control 1 5 6

Total 2 10 12

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.6 P > 0.3

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 151 of 163

Table 63: Field Report - Tentiform Leaf Miner - WA2004 - August 23, 2005

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2004) Date of Incident: August 23, 2005

Pest / Disease: Tentiform Leaf Miner (TLM)

Data Collected: The control block of trees was inspected for the presence of Tentiform Leaf Miner (TLM) by a 

top to bottom visual scan of each tree. If a TLM egg or mine was discovered it triggered a full 

inspection of all the flagged1trees in the Washington field trial. An inspection would consist of 

a random 25 leaf sample per tree. Each leaf would be viewed under a hand lens for the presence 

or absence of TLM. Any leaf that had one or more TLM present would be counted as infected.

Total = number of leaves.

Incident 

Summary:

TLM was not cultivar specific. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of TLM affected 

trees did not significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=250) =0.70, P>0.3). TLM was not 

uniformly influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test 

revealed that the percentage of TLM infected leaves did not significantly differ between GD743 

and GD (X2(1, N=100) =0.03, P>0.8). Conversely, for GS, Chi-square test revealed that the 

percentage of infected leaves differed significantly between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=150) 

=5.33, P<0.05), with a higher incidence of TLM in GS784 (21%) than in GS (8%).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 11 89 100

GS + GS784 22 128 150

Total 33 217 250

Chi Square = 0.70 P > 0.3

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 8 67 75

GD Control 3 22 25

Total 11 89 100

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.03 P > 0.8

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 16 59 75

GS Control 6 69 75

Total 22 128 150

Chi Square = 5.33 P ˂ 0.05

df = 1

1 Trees tagged in 2005 were limited to: GD743 (3 trees), GD (1 tree), GS784 (3 trees) and GS (3 trees). WA 2004 

trees were reflagged in 2007 to provide a larger dataset or future data collections.
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 152 of 163

Table 64: Field Report - Burr Knot - NY2005 - August 24, 2006

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: August 24, 2006

Pest / Disease: Burr Knot

Data Collected: The presence (+) or absence (-) of Burr Knot is assayed. The number of Burr Knot affected 

trees is reported here. Total = number of trees.

Incident 

Summary:

Burr Knot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (70%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (25%). However, Chisquare (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Burr Knot affected trees did not significantly 

differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=22) =2.83, P>0.05). Burr Knot was not influenced by incorporation 

of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Burr Knot 

affected trees did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=10) =1.91, P>0.1).

Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Burr Knot affected trees did 

not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0, P>0.95).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 7 3 10

GS + GS784 3 9 12

Total 10 12 22

Chi Square (Yates) = 2.83 P > 0.05

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 2 3 5

GD Control 5 0 5

Total 7 3 10

Chi Square (Yates) = 1.91 P > 0.1

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 1 5 6

GS Control 2 4 6

Total 3 9 12

Chi Square (Yates) = 0 P > 0.95

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 153 of 163

Table 65: Field Report - Leaf Spot - NY2005 - August 24, 2006

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: August 24, 2006

Pest / Disease: Leaf Spot

Data Collected: The presence (+) or absence (-) of Leaf Spot is assessed. The number of Leaf Spot affected 

trees is reported here. Total = number of trees.

Incident 

Summary:

Leaf Spot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (100%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (17%). Chi-square test 

revealed that the percentage of Leaf Spot affected trees significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, 

N=22) =12.10, P<0.001). Leaf Spot was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. Both GD743 and GD were similarly affected by Leaf Spot (100% in both). 

Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Leaf Spot affected trees did 

not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0.60, P>0.3).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 10 0 10

GS + GS784 2 10 12

Total 12 10 22

Chi Square (Yates) = 12.10 P ˂ 0.001

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 5 0 5

GD Control 5 0 5

Total 10 0 10

Chi Square = P not calculated

df =

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 1 5 6

GS Control 1 5 6

Total 2 10 12

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.60 P > 0.3

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 154 of 163

Table 66: Field Report - Russet - NY 2005 - November 19, 2009

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: November 19, 2009

Pest / Disease: Russet

Data Collected: When russet is assayed at the NY field trial, it is done so on a tree by tree basis. The percentage 

of fruit on each tree affected by russet is observed and the tree is assigned a rating with 1 < 

10%, 2 = 10 – 50%, and 3 > 50%. The %’s refer to the % of total fruits with russet. The level of 

russet present on each tree was generally similar. Therefore, the number of russet-affected trees 

is reported here. Total = number of trees.

Incident 

Summary:

Russet appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (80%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (8%). Chi-square (Yates) 

test revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, 

N=22) =8.81, P<0.01). Russet was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. 

Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees did not significantly 

differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=10) =0.63, P>0.3). Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test 

revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees did not significantly differ between GS784 

and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0, P>0.95).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD7443 8 2 10

GS + GS784 1 11 12

Total 9 13 22

Chi Square (Yates) = 8.81 P ˂ 0.01

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 4 1 5

GD Control 4 1 5

Total 8 2 10

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.63 P > 0.3

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 0 6 6

GS Control 1 5 6

Total 1 11 12

Chi Square (Yates) = 0 P > 0.95

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 155 of 163

Table 67: Field Report - Russet - WA2004 - June 21, 2010

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2004) Date of Incident: June 21, 2010

Pest / Disease: Russet

Data Collected: Russet has appeared on the fruit as it has started to size. Damage occurred sometime between 

bloom and first cover. Sampled ten pieces of fruit between the second and fourth wire along the

main trunk. If no fruit is present along the trunk fruit on the first available scaffold limb is 

checked. Each apple is handled and rotated 360 degrees in order to visualize any fruit russeting. 

On the GEN-03 (2008) Grannies all fruit was sample due to poor set. The number of fruit 

sampled is reported. Total = number of fruit.

Incident 

Summary:

Russet appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (91%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (23%). Chi-square test 

revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, 

N=150) =72.4, P<0.001). Russet was not uniformly influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit differed 

significantly between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=80) =5.64, P<0.05) with a higher incidence of 

russet in GD (100%) than GD743 (82.5%) fruit. Conversely, Chi-square test revealed that the 

percentage of russet affected fruit did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, 

N=70) =1.14, P>0.2).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 73 7 80

GS + GS784 16 54 70

Total 89 61 150

Chi Square = 72.37 P < 0.001

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 33 7 40

GD Control 40 0 40

Total 73 7 80

Chi Square (Yates)= 5.64 P < 0.05

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 11 29 40

GS Control 5 25 30

Total 16 54 70

Chi Square = 1.14 P > 0.2

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 156 of 163

Table 68: Field Report - Russet - WA2008 - June 21, 2010

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2008) Date of Incident: June 21, 2010

Pest / Disease: Russet

Data Collected: Russet has appeared on the fruit as it has started to size. Damage occurred sometime between 

bloom and first cover. Sampled ten pieces of fruit between the second and fourth wire along the 

main trunk. If no fruit is present along the trunk fruit on the first available scaffold limb is 

checked. Each apple is handled and rotated 360 degrees in order to visualize any fruit russeting. 

On the GEN-03 (2008) Grannies all fruit was sampled due to poor set. The number of fruit 

sampled is reported. Total = number of fruit.

Incident 

Summary:

Russet appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (86%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (20%). Chi-square test 

revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, 

N=323) =139.3, P<0.001). Russet was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit did not 

significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=197) =0.10 P>0.7). Similarly, Chi-square 

test revealed that the percentage of russet affected fruit did not significantly differ between 

GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=126) =3.05, P>0.05).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 169 28 197

GS + GS784 25 101 126

Total 194 129 323

Chi Square = 139.3 P < 0.001

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 85 15 100

GD Control 84 13 97

Total 169 28 197

Chi Square = 0.10 P > 0.7

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 8 52 60

GS Control 17 49 66

Total 25 101 126

Chi Square = 3.05 P > 0.05

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 157 of 163

Table 69: Field Report - Russet - NY2005 - July 21, 2010

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: July 21, 2010

Pest / Disease: Russet

Data Collected: When russet is assayed at the NY field trial, it is done so on a tree by tree basis. The percentage 

of fruit on each tree affected by russet is observed and the tree is assigned a rating with1 < 10%, 

2 = 10 – 50%, and 3 > 50%. The %’s refer to the % of total fruits with russet. The level of 

russet present on each tree was generally similar. Therefore, the number of russet-affected trees 

is reported here. Total = number of trees.

Incident 

Summary:

Russet appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (70%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (8%). Chi-square (Yates) 

test revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, 

N=22) =6.50, P<0.05). Russet was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. 

Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees did not significantly 

differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=10) =0, P>0.95). Similarly, Chi-square (Yates) test 

revealed that the percentage of russet affected trees did not significantly differ between GS784 

and GS (X2(1, N=12) =0, P>0.95).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 7 3 10

GS + GS784 1 11 12

Total 8 14 22

Chi Square (Yates) = 6.50 P ˂ 0.05

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 4 1 5

GD Control 3 2 5

Total 7 3 10

Chi Square (Yates) = 0 P > 0.95

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 0 6 6

GS Control 1 5 6

Total 1 11 12

Chi Square (Yates) = 0 P > 0.95

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 158 of 163

Table 70: Field Report - Campylomma - WA2004 - May 24, 2010

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2004) Date of Incident: May 24, 2010

Pest / Disease: Campylomma Bug

Data Collected: The control block of trees was inspected for the incidence of Campylomma stings by a top to 

bottom visual scan. If Campylomma damage was present, an inspection of all the flagged trees 

within the Washington field trial was triggered. Ten pieces of fruit from each tree were selected 

between the second and fourth wires. Sampling started with the fruit on the leader, working 

upward from the second to the fourth wire. If no fruit was available on the leader the first fruit 

on a scaffold limb was selected. Fruit was taken from the east side of the tree in order for the 

sun to be at the back of the individual inspector. Each apple was held and rotated 360 degrees to 

look for defects. Any apple that had one or more Campylomma stings was counted as infected. 

Total = number of fruit.

Incident 

Summary:

Campylomma Bug appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in 

Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (16%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (4%). Chi-square 

(Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Campylomma Bug affected fruit significantly 

differed by cultivar (X2(1, N=150) =4.42, P<0.05). Campylomma Bug was not uniformly 

influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the 

percentage of Campylomma Bug affected fruit differed significantly between GD743 and GD

(X2(1, N=80) =5.88, P<0.05) with a higher incidence of Campylomma in GD (38%) than 

GD743 (5%). Conversely, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Campylomma 

Bug affected fruit did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=70) =2.10, 

P>0.1), although there was a higher incidence of Campylomma in GS (10%) than GS784 (0%).

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 13 67 80

GS + GS784 3 67 70

Total 16 134 150

Chi Square (Yates) = 4.42 P < 0.05

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 2 38 40

GD Control 11 29 40

Total 13 67 80

Chi Square (Yates) = 5.88 P < 0.05

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 0 40 40

GS Control 3 27 30

Total 3 67 70

Chi Square (Yates) = 2.10 P > 0.1

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 159 of 163

Table 71: Field Report - Campylomma - WA2008 - May 24, 2010

Field Trial: Washington GEN-03 (2008) Date of Incident: May 24, 2010

Pest / Disease: Campylomma Bug

Data Collected: The control block of trees was inspected for the incidence of Campylomma stings by a top to 

bottom visual scan. If Campylomma damage was present, an inspection of all the flagged trees 

within the Washington field trial was triggered. Ten pieces of fruit from each tree were selected 

between the second and fourth wires. Sampling started with the fruit on the leader, working 

upward from the second to the fourth wire. If no fruit was available on the leader the first fruit 

on a scaffold limb was selected. Fruit was taken from the east side of the tree in order for the 

sun to be at the back of the individual inspector. Each apple was held and rotated 360 degrees to 

look for defects. Any apple that had one or more Campylomma stings it was counted as 

infected. Total = number of fruit.

Incident 

Summary:

Campylomma Bug appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in 

Golden Delicious (GD + GD743) (2.5%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (0%). However, 

Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Campylomma Bug affected fruit did not 

significantly differ by cultivar (X2(1, N=400) =3.24, P>0.05). Campylomma Bug was not 

influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the 

percentage of Campylomma Bug affected fruit did not significantly differ between GD743 and 

GD (X2(1, N=200) =3.28, P>0.05). Both GS784 and GS were similarly unaffected by 

Campylomma.

By Cultivar

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 5 195 200

GS + GS784 0 200 200

Total 5 395 400

Chi Square (Yates) = 3.24 P > 0.05

df = 1

Golden Delicious

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 5 95 100

GD Control 0 100 100

Total 5 195 200

Chi Square (Yates) = 3.28 P > 0.05

df = 1

Granny Smith

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 0 100 100

GS Control 0 100 100

Total 0 200 200

Chi Square = P not calculated

df =
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 160 of 163

Table 72: Field Report - 2008 Fruit Rot After Storage - NY2005 - June 30, 2009

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: June 30, 2009

Pest / Disease: 2008 Fruit Rot (After Storage)

Data 

Collected:

Fruit Rot after storage was reported as the number of fruit showing tan or black rot and the total 

number of fruit examined. Black rot is caused by Botryosphaeria obtuse. Tan rot is probably 

mostly caused by Colletotrichum spp. However, we didn’t culture from any of these fruits, so we 

can’t be 100% certain what caused each rot. Total = number of fruit.

Incident 

Summary:

Tan Rot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden Delicious 

(GD + GD743) (20%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (2%). Chi-square test revealed that the 

percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, N=469) =46.19, 

P<0.001). Tan Rot was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square test 

revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit did not significantly differ between GD743 

and GD (X2(1, N=156) =0.13, P>0.7). Similarly, Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of 

Tan Rot affected fruit did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=313) =3.44, 

P>0.05).

Black Rot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher overall rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (9%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (1%). Chi-square test revealed 

that the percentage of Black Rot affected fruit significantly differed by cultivar (X2(1, N=469) 

=19.50, P<0.001). Black Rot was not uniformly influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. Chi-square test revealed that the percentage of Black Rot affected fruit differed 

significantly between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=156) =7.51, P<0.01) with GD having a higher 

incidence of Black Rot (15%) than GD743 (1%). Conversely, Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that 

the percentage of Black Rot affected fruit did not significantly differ between GS784 and GS

(X2(1, N=313) =0.35, P>0.5).

By Cultivar – Tan Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 31 125 156

GS + GS784 6 307 313

Total 37 432 469

Chi Square = 46.19 P < 0.001

df = 1

Golden Delicious – Tan Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 15 56 71

GD Control 16 69 85

Total 31 125 156

Chi Square = 0.13 P > 0.7

df = 1

Granny Smith – Tan Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 0 143 143

GS Control 6 164 170

Total 6 307 313

Chi Square (Yates) = 3.44 P > 0.05

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 161 of 163

By Cultivar – Black Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 14 142 156

GS + GS784 2 311 313

Total 16 453 469

Chi Square (Yates) = 19.50 P < 0.001

df = 1

Golden Delicious – Black Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 1 70 71

GD Control 13 72 85

Total 14 142 156

Chi Square (Yates) = 7.51 P < 0.01

df = 1

Granny Smith – Black Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 1 142 143

GS Control 1 169 170

Total 2 311 313

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.35 P > 0.5

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 162 of 163

Table 73: Field Report - 2009 Fruit Rot After Storage - NY2005 - December 30, 2010

Field Trial: New York GEN-03 (2005) Date of Incident: December 30, 2010

Pest / Disease: 2009 Fruit Rot (After Storage)

Data Collected: Fruit Rot after storage was reported as the number of fruit showing tan or black rot and the total 

number of fruit examined. Black rot is caused by Botryosphaeria obtuse. Tan rot is probably 

mostly caused by Colletotrichum spp. However, we didn’t culture from any of these fruits, so 

we can’t be 100% certain what caused each rot. Total = number of fruit.

Incident 

Summary:

Tan Rot did not appear to be cultivar specific with a similar rate of incidence in Golden 

Delicious (GD + GD743) (3%) and Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (3%). Chi-square test 

revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit did not significantly differ by cultivar 

(X2(1, N=372) =0.04, P>0.8). Tan Rot was not influenced by incorporation of the GEN-03 

transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit did not 

significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=176) =0.17, P>0.5). Similarly, Chisquare (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Tan Rot affected fruit did not differ 

significantly between GS784 and GS (X2(1, N=196) =3.35, P>0.05).

Black Rot appears to be cultivar specific with a higher rate of incidence in Golden Delicious 

(GD + GD743) (2.3%) than Granny Smith (GS + GS784) (0%). However, Chi-square (Yates) 

test revealed that the percentage of Black Rot affected fruit did not differ significantly by 

cultivar (X2(1, N=372) =2.62, P>0.1). Black Rot was not influenced by incorporation of the 

GEN-03 transgene. Chi-square (Yates) test revealed that the percentage of Black Rot affected 

fruit did not significantly differ between GD743 and GD (X2(1, N=176) =0.26, P>0.5). Both 

GS and GS784 were similarly unaffected by Black Rot in 2009 fruit after storage.

By Cultivar – Tan Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 6 170 176

GS + GS784 6 190 196

Total 12 360 372

Chi Square = 0.04 P > 0.8

df = 1

Golden Delicious – Tan Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 4 84 88

GD Control 2 86 88

Total 6 170 176

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.17 P > 0.5

df = 1

Granny Smith – Tan Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 0 88 88

GS Control 6 102 108

Total 6 190 196

Chi Square (Yates) = 3.35 P > 0.05

df = 1
Events GD743 and GS784 Page 163 of 163

By Cultivar – Black Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD + GD743 4 172 176

GS + GS784 0 196 196

Total 4 368 372

Chi Square (Yates) = 2.62 P > 0.1

df = 1

Golden Delicious – Black Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GD743 3 85 88

GD Control 1 87 88

Total 4 172 176

Chi Square (Yates) = 0.26 P > 0.5

df = 1

Granny Smith – Black Rot

Event Name Infected Not Infected Total

GS784 0 88 88

GS Control 0 108 108

Total 0 196 196

Chi Square = P not calculated

df =
Biology of Cultivated Apple

Submitted by:

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc.

PO Box 1533

Summerland, BC V0H 1Z0

Canada

Submitted October 25, 2011
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 2 of 28

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................................................................3

NOMENCLATURE ....................................................................................................................................................4

1. OVERVIEW.........................................................................................................................................................5

2. THE BIOLOGY OF CULTIVATED APPLE...................................................................................................5

2.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION, USE AS A CROP PLANT AND ORIGIN OF SPECIES................................................5

2.2 BRIEF OUTLOOK OF AGRONOMIC PRACTICES FOR CULTIVATED APPLE ..................................................6

2.3 THE REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY OF CULTIVATED APPLE.............................................................................7

2.4 THE CENTRES OF ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES..................................................................................................8

2.5 CULTIVATED APPLE AS A VOLUNTEER WEED.............................................................................................9

2.6 SUMMARY OF ECOLOGY OF CULTIVATED APPLE .....................................................................................10

3. THE CLOSE RELATIVES OF CULTIVATED APPLE ..............................................................................11

3.1 INTERSPECIFIC / GENUS HYBRIDIZATION..................................................................................................11

3.2 POTENTIAL FOR INTROGRESSION OF GENETIC INFORMATION FROM CULTIVATED APPLE INTO 

RELATIVES ..............................................................................................................................................................11

3.3 OCCURRENCE OF CULTIVATED APPLE IN THE UNITED STATES ...............................................................12

4. POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS OF CULTIVATED APPLE WITH OTHER LIFE FORMS.................12

4.1 EXAMPLES OF POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS OF CULTIVATED APPLE WITH OTHER LIFE FORMS DURING 

ITS LIFECYCLE........................................................................................................................................................12

5. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................13

APPENDIX 1. LIFE FORMS POTENTIALLY INTERACTING WITH CULTIVATED APPLE..................14

 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 3 of 28

List of Tables

Table 1: Life Forms Potentially Interacting with Cultivated Apple ............................................................................12

Table 2: Bacterial Diseases of Cultivated Apple .........................................................................................................14

Table 3: Fungal Diseases of Cultivated Apple ............................................................................................................15

Table 4: Nematode Disease of Cultivated Apples.......................................................................................................19

Table 5: Viral Diseases of Cultivated Apple ...............................................................................................................20

Table 6: Viroid Disease of Cultivated Apple...............................................................................................................21

Table 7: Suspected Viral- and Viroid-Like Diseases of Cultivated Apple ..................................................................22

Table 8: Phytoplasmal and Spiroplasmal Diseases of Cultivated Apple .....................................................................23

Table 9: Insects Interacting with Cultivated Apple .....................................................................................................24

Table 10: Mites Interacting with Cultivated Apple .....................................................................................................25

Table 11: Pollinators of Cultivated Apple ...................................................................................................................26

Table 12: Wildlife Interacting with Cultivated Apple .................................................................................................27

Table 13: Soil Microbes Interacting with Cultivated Apple ........................................................................................28
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 4 of 28

Nomenclature

Throughout this document Malus x domestica is referred to by its common name, cultivated 

apple or simply apple. The table below summarizes the synonyms for apple.

Malus x domestica

Taxonomy ID: 37501

synonym: Malus pumila var. domestica (Borkh.) C. K.Schneid.

synonym: Malus sylvestris var. domestica (Borkh.) Mansf.

synonym: Malus sylvestris var. domestica

synonym: Malus domestica Borkh.

synonym: Malus pumila var. domestica

synonym: Malus pumila auct.

synonym: Malus domestica

common name: cultivated apple

common name: apple tree

common name: apple

1 Reference: NCBI Taxonomy Browser (Malus x domestica) (NCBI, 2011)
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 5 of 28

1. OVERVIEW

In this document the biology of cultivated apple and plants related to apple are considered along 

with potential routes of gene escape. Since the mechanism by which genes are moved from one 

flowering plant to another is through cross pollination of sexually compatible plants, the plants 

with which apple can cross-pollinate are also described. Below is an analysis of the biology of 

cultivated apple. This review focuses solely on apple in the United States.

This document is a companion to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

regulatory submission “Petition for the Determination of Nonregulated Status: ArcticTM Apple 

(Malus domestica) Events GD743 and GS784,” submitted by Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

(OSF). It is intended to provide background information on the biology of cultivated apple, its 

centers of origin, its related species and the potential for gene introgression from cultivated apple

into relatives, and details of the life forms with which it may interact. 

Such species-specific information will serve as a guide for addressing some of the information 

requirements of the regulatory guidelines. Specifically, it will be used to determine whether there 

are significantly different or altered interactions with other life forms resulting from the 

transgenic plant event, which could potentially cause it to become a weed of agriculture, become 

invasive of natural habitats or be otherwise harmful to the environment. 

The conclusions drawn in this document about the biology of cultivated apple relate only to 

conventional plants of this species, and not to transgenic ones. 

2. THE BIOLOGY OF CULTIVATED APPLE

2.1 General Description, Use as a Crop Plant and Origin of Species

The cultivated apple, Malus x domestica, is a member of the rose family Rosaceae, which is 

made up in general of herbs, shrubs or trees that are deciduous or evergreen and often thorny.

Fruit produced by members of the family can be a follicle, achene, drupe, hip or pomme. Flowers 

are usually perfect. 

Rosaceae consists of about 100 genera with more than 2,000 species distributed throughout the 

world, but is most common in temperate regions. It is sometimes divided into tribes or 

subfamilies based on fruit characteristics, namely: Spiraeaceae, Pomaceae (Malaceae) and 

Amygdalaceae (Drupaceae) (Rehder, 1958). Rosaceous species of agronomic importance

because of their fruit include apple, pear, quince, peach, cherry, apricot, plum, strawberry, 

raspberry and blackberry. Those of ornamental importance include: crab apple, pyrocantha, 

spirea, mountain ash, rose and others. 

The genus Malus, to which cultivated apple and crab apple belong, includes about 25 species 

worldwide. The center of diversity of cultivated apple is central Asia, but native or naturalized 

Malus occur in central and northern Europe and a number of Malus species are native to 

temperate Asia and western China (Way et al., 1990).

Cultivated apple in the United States of America (USA) includes cultivars used for fresh 

consumption, as well as, processing into juice, sweet (non-alcoholic) cider, pie filling, sauce, 

hard (alcoholic) cider, juice concentrate, fruit leather, dehydrated fruit bars and other products

(Downing, 1989). The pomace left over from juice production and other byproducts of 

manufacturing may be fed to livestock or wild animals, or be used as an ingredient in foods such 

as, baked goods, for extraction of ester flavors, etc. 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 6 of 28

Fresh apples are the primary apple product consumed. Processed apples generally account for 

less than 50 percent of the U.S. crop, the actual proportion varying from year to year and from 

location to location (Outlook, 2007). Apples compete with processed snack foods and 

confectionaries, as well as with fruits and fresh vegetables. Apple is notable for its positive 

nutritional qualities. It is a natural snack food with low fat content, sugar content of 11-16

percent, is a good source of potassium, is a good source of dietary fiber including soluble pectin, 

and phenol antioxidants (Vinson et al., 2001) including vitamin C. Children and infants consume 

a disproportionate amount of fresh and processed products of apple (Dennison, 1966).

Cultivated apple is the most important temperate fruit crop. Countries with significant apple 

production are: China, Europe, USA, India, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Japan, Chile, New Zealand, 

Canada, Australia, South Africa, Argentina and Brazil (O'Rourke, 1994). Per-capita annual 

consumption in the USA is on the order of 16 pounds of fresh apples and 29 pounds of processed 

apple products (O'Rourke, 2010). The farm-gate value of apples in the USA is about $1.6 billion 

(Perez and Pollack, 2008). 

2.2 Brief Outlook of Agronomic Practices for Cultivated Apple

Cultivated apple is grown as a tree in orchards throughout temperate regions of the world 

(Westwood, 1993). Fruit cultivars with desirable quality and production characteristics are 

propagated by grafting a scion onto a rootstock, since apple does not root easily from cuttings 

(Rom and Carlson, 1987). Rootstock cultivars – also usually Malus x domestica – are propagated 

in layer beds and affect the scion cultivar by inducing traits such as dwarf growth habit, 

precocity and resistance to root diseases or cold temperatures, or have other characteristics useful 

for efficient apple production (Kester et al., 2011). Seedlings of hardy cultivars such as Wealthy 

and crab apples are also sometimes used as rootstock. 

Trees in modern orchards are planted at a density of 200-2,000+ trees per acre; trees are seldom 

higher than 15 feet tall at maturity. Production averages about 16 tons per acre, varying

considerably depending on orchard age, cultivar, management practices and weather. An apple 

orchard in full production produces about 80,000 apples per acre (Gallardo et al., 2010).

Orchards are often located on slopes to avoid the colder temperatures and frost pockets found in 

low-lying elevations that can kill flowers, and to avoid waterlogged soil conditions that can 

result in tree death. Climatic areas with a hardiness zone rating of 5a (McKenney et al., 2001) or 

warmer, but cool enough to result in the 1,200 or more chilling hours, that are most 

advantageous for commercial production. Apple production is centered in, but not exclusive to,

areas with low to moderate rainfall, to promote good fruit quality and to avoid diseases such as 

apple scab and canker that are problematic in damper climates. In a modern orchard setting, trees

are replaced after about 20 years as new and improved cultivars become available or land use 

changes. Specimen apple trees growing in favorable locations can be very long lived, probably as 

long as a pear trees that has been documented to be more than 400 years old (Wikipedia(1), 

2011).

Apple trees in commercial plantings reach maturity at an age of 4-5 years; they flower in the 

early spring, producing white or pink flowers about two inches in diameter that develop on 

fruiting spurs in groups of six flowers. Cultivated apple often develops a biennially-bearing 

habit, tending to produce abundant flowers in one year but fewer in the next; this is a significant 

production hindrance that can be ameliorated by thinning fruit soon after bloom. Fruits can be 

uniformly red, green, yellow, or bicolored, such as striped or blushed red on yellow or green 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 7 of 28

background (Wikipedia(2), 2011). The most desirable weight of commercial apple ranges from 6 

to 9 ounces (oz) per piece. Apples are picked from mid-August to November in north temperate 

zones, and can be stored for up to a year. There are about 12 significant commercial apple 

cultivars in international trade with many of these grown in all major production areas. Widely 

grown cultivars are: Golden Delicious, Delicious, Granny Smith, Gala, McIntosh and Fuji.

Minor international cultivars include: Jonagold, Cox’s Orange Pippen, Braeburn, Mutsu and Pink 

Lady.

Most cultivars are diploid with a chromosome number of 34 (n=17); a few are triploid

(Darlington and Wylie, 1955). Natural or induced mutations of many cultivars, especially redskinned ones, have been selected by horticulturalists and are commercially important. They are 

known by the synonymous terms: clonal selections, strains or sports of the parent cultivar. The 

most common commercially-important characteristics of these are enhanced fruit color, altered 

tree growth habit and earlier fruit maturity time. The genetic differences between the strain and 

its parent are usually small, and have not yet been described even with molecular genetic 

techniques.

Apple is a labor intensive, highly-managed crop requiring about 200 hours of labor per acre per 

year. Major crop management operations include: fruit harvesting, tree pruning, fruit thinning, 

irrigation, and pest and disease control. Mature commercial orchards generate cash flows of 

about $4,000 per acre per year (Gallardo et al., 2010). Apple scab and powdery mildew are the 

major fungal diseases; fire blight (Erwinia amylovora) is the major bacterial disease; and codling 

moth the key insect pest in most production areas; while leaf roller, aphids, mites, and other 

minor pests are of concern in most areas.

Virus diseases infect apple, with most viruses spread during propagation through use of 

contaminated grafting wood (WSU, 2010). Virus diseases have become a limited concern to 

apple growers because of the success of certified budwood schemes that distribute virus-free 

wood for propagation. Apple can be infected by a number of quarantinable diseases, and 

certification standards are in place for the import and export of fruit, propagating wood and trees.

2.3 The Reproductive Biology of Cultivated Apple

Apple is propagated by grafting a scion bud to a rootstock. Most nursery trees are produced in 

specialized commercial fruit-tree nurseries. These companies have access to favorable growing 

locations, to specialized technology, to certified propagating wood of the most popular cultivars 

and to information useful to growers deciding on planting decisions. Some growers produce their 

own nursery trees. The sequence of operations in apple propagation is: rootstock liners are 

planted in a nursery in the spring; they are budded in August; the stock is cut back to the bud the 

following March; the scion bud develops into a nursery tree in the following growing season.

Nursery trees are dug up in the fall, graded and stored over the winter; and then are distributed to 

growers for planting the following spring (OVTFA, 1993). Flowering occurs in year 2, following 

planting with full fruit production in year 4 or 5. 

About 10 percent of apple flowers develop to mature fruit; the others fail due to lack of 

pollination, competition between fruits, or cultural practices to remove some fruit to promote the 

size and quality of the remaining fruit. That proportion is higher for crab apple. Nearly all apple 

cultivars require cross-pollination for consistent cropping, with about 3-5 percent of the orchard 

area devoted to pollinizer cultivars of either another fruit cultivar or a specialized crab-apple 

pollinizer cultivar. Genes conferring incompatibility have been described and are sufficient in 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 8 of 28

number that the diversity between cultivars results in nearly all cultivars being cross compatible. 

Some cultivars are at least partially self-fertile due to environmentally-induced breakdown of 

that incompatibility system when flowers age or temperatures are high (Warmund, 1996). 

Pollination is carried out by insects, primarily cultivated or wild honeybees or other insect 

pollinators such as bumblebees, osmia bees and other species (Dupree et al., 1987). The period 

of flowering during which viable pollen is produced by an apple plant varies, depending on 

weather conditions, from about 7-30 days. Wind pollination is inconsequential for apple; 

emasculated flowers seldom, if ever, set fruit even though flowers on nearby branches produce 

abundant pollen. 

Rootstock cultivars seldom flower since this component of the tree consists of only the root and a 

short stem; any rootstock-derived shoots that might develop are removed to prevent competition 

with the scion. Rootstock layer beds are maintained in vigorous vegetative growth and are 

selected for juvenility to promote rooting. Ungrafted rootstocks, should they be managed in the 

same way as fruiting cultivars, develop much the same way producing fruit after 2-3 years. The 

fruit of most rootstock cultivars is unattractive, small and insipid.

Pollen fertility of most apple cultivars is close to 100 percent, but is reduced in some cultivars 

such as McIntosh by unknown factors and in others such as Jonagold by their triploidy. An apple 

flower commonly has 10-15 and as many as 20 ovules, some of which fail to develop into seeds. 

Cultivars vary in average seed number per fruit from about 3-12, with pollination conditions 

influencing this average. A small percentage of fruit may develop by parthenocarpy (the 

production of fruit without fertilization) (Olien, 1987). Apomixix – development of an embryo 

without the occurrence of fertilization – has been documented in some Malus species. Seeds 

require conditioning by stratification at an optimum temperature of about 35°F for several 

months to germinate (Bradford and Nonogaki, 2007).

Seedling trees have a juvenile growth phase of 5-10 years – shortened by grafting onto rootstock

– before producing flowers; they are characterized by lanky shoot growth and thorny spurs, and 

are adapted to growing in communal thickets. Damaged trees can regenerate shoots from roots,

which contributes to the dense structure of wild crab apple communities and raises the question 

of what proportion of tree stems in these communities originate directly from seed compared to 

those that regenerated from roots of established plants. 

A large, mature cultivated apple tree can produce in the order of 2,000 fruits per year, potentially 

yielding 10,000 seeds. They may live for 50 years or longer, theoretically producing 500,000 

seeds in its lifetime. For a naturalized apple-tree population to be at equilibrium, each individual 

apple tree need reproduce just one other to replace itself. This suggests that the probability of an 

individual apple seed developing into a mature tree is small in comparison to annual plants that 

produce fewer seeds per plant and require, on average, a replacement plant each year to maintain 

a stable population.

2.4 The Centers of Origin of the Species

The domesticated and cultivated apple originates from mountainous regions in Central Asia,

notably the western foothills of the Tian Shan Mountains of Kazakhstan and nearby areas with 

similar ecology. Cultivars, seedlings and hybrids derived from these populations were distributed 

to temperate areas of Europe and Asia by ancient travelers, resulting in naturalized populations 

in the Caucasus Mountains and in Persia, Russia and Europe and were later brought to America 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 9 of 28

by pioneers in the 17th and 18th century. The cultivated domestic apple is thought to be derived 

primarily from Malus sieversii; for some old cultivars, interspecific hybridization is a possibility,

although such history remains to be clearly described.

Crab apple species introduced to North America for use as ornamentals are native to 

southwestern China and the middle latitudes of Asia in general. Five species of crab apples 

within the section Chloromeles are native to North America; one, Pacific Crab (Malus fusca),

occurs on the west coast. The other three species are similar to each other and closely related to 

Malus fusca, and occur in the east (Hosie, 1979); they are: M. angustifolia, M. coronaria and M. 

ioensis. Malus glabrata (Biltmore crab apple) occurs from northwest Carolina to Alabama. The 

introduced ornamental species Malus baccata and Malus prunifolia, originating in Asia, have 

escaped from cultivation in the northeastern USA but are not naturalized (Little, 1979). All crabs 

have small, insipid fruit, M. fusca about 0.20 inches in diameter and 0.10 oz. and M. coronaria, 

about 1.38 inches and 0.52 oz.. M. fusca is adapted to wet, often disturbed habitats such as the 

edge of ponds or creek banks in West Coast rain forest habitat. New cultivars of crab apple, 

frequently interspecific hybrids of two crab apple cultivars with disease resistance or enhanced 

ornamental traits, have been introduced by breeders and nurseries (Draper and Chatfield, 1996).

Cultivated apple cultivars or seedlings were valuable on mixed farms in pioneer times because 

their fruit could be stored for use as fresh produce in the winter or processed to canned and dried 

apple, juice and cider. Rudimentary breeding efforts, or selection and propagation of exceptional 

chance seedlings, in Canada and the USA resulted in cultivars such as McIntosh, Delicious and 

Golden Delicious.

Later, government-sponsored breeding programs established in the 20th century resulted in 

introduction of cultivars with improved fruit quality, storage and production characteristics and 

improved rootstock cultivars. Many significant introductions of apple cultivars were clonal 

improvements originating from spontaneous mutants occurring in trees in commercial orchards.

Over 180 clones of Delicious originating in this way have been named and introduced (Higgins, 

2005) (Wikipedia(3), 2011). Clonal improvements of the cultivars McIntosh, Gala, Fuji, Pink 

Lady and Braeburn are also commercially important.

The 1971 National Apple Registrar of the United Kingdom describes over 8,000 historic and 

modern named cultivars (Smith, 1971).

2.5 Cultivated Apple as a Volunteer Weed

Cultivated apple is not regarded as a weedy species, although has been reported to be a 

successional species in abandoned pasture but not abandoned cultivated field (Stover and Mark, 

1998). Animals such as bears can carry fruit containing seed away from cultivated areas, and 

occasionally establishing feral trees in undisturbed habitat. 

Cultivated apple tree seedlings can be persistent; the species has escaped cultivation and 

naturalized in southern Canada, in the eastern USA, and from British Columbia south to 

California (Little, 1979). Four species of crab apples within the section Chloromeles are native to 

North America (see above). The introduced ornamental species Malus baccata and Malus 

prunifolia have escaped from cultivation in the northeastern USA, but are not naturalized (Little, 

1979). Research using molecular techniques found no introgression of cultivated apple genes to 

native Malus species of North America (Dickson et al., 1991). Nonetheless hybridization 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 10 of 28

between cultivated apples and at least native and introduced crab apple species of the group 

Chloromeles can occur from time to time when the two species are grown together.

Domesticated apple has been grown in North America for several centuries, allowing more than 

sufficient time for hybrids between cultivated apple and native or introduced Malus species to 

naturalize, should they occur in sufficient numbers and successfully compete. Hybrids involving 

cultivated apple have been reported and are expected to be recognizable by their intermediate 

fruit characteristics. Plants of the hybrids malus x platycarpa (platycarpa is sometimes united 

taxonomically with coronaria; the common name of the hybrid is big fruit crab) and malus x 

soulardii and malus x ioensis appear to be local and not very common. Should they occur, 

hybrids between cultivated apple and crab apple are expected to be easily recognized because 

fruit size of the hybrid is intermediate between the domestic apple and crab. 

Volunteer plants originating from seed in apple orchards are very rare due to the perennial nature 

of the crop, and associated orchard management practices such as herbicide treatment of tree 

rows and mowing of the alley between rows. Local authorities have enacted legislation to 

enforce removal of abandoned orchards and seedling trees occurring near orchards. Apples are 

poorly suited to the ecology of higher elevation areas dominated by conifer species. Many 

commercial cultivars are damaged by temperatures below -13F, their response being tempered 

by preconditioning temperature and genetic composition. Hardy cultivars have been developed to 

withstand colder temperatures and these are grown to some extent in colder regions. Apples 

supercool to a minimum of about -40F, at which temperature ice crystals form in the cells,

killing the fruit. This results in even very hardy cultivars of apple being uncommon in areas 

where temperatures are regularly below -40F. Individual trees may survive if protected by snow

or growing in some other special microenvironment.

Nearly all apple trees in orchards are grafted on rootstock, usually specialized rootstock cultivars 

or less commonly seedlings grown for this purpose, thus shoots originating from roots are the 

rootstock cultivar. Removal of feral or abandoned orchard trees by cutting at ground level is 

often not effective unless measures were taken to kill the root by removing the stump or treating 

it with herbicide.

2.6 Summary of Ecology of Cultivated Apple

Cultivated apple – an introduced domesticated and cultivated species naturalized in Europe – is 

derived from Malus sieversii, native to the foothills of central Asia. It is related to both native 

North American Malus and introduced crab apple species, and can hybridize with them. Feral 

cultivated apple is not weedy nor very common, but is successional in abandoned pasture and has 

naturalized in some areas of North America. Cultivated apple occurs in the same general area as 

trees of introduced ornamental crab apple, and backyard cultivated apple trees may be near 

native or naturalized crab apple. Feral cultivated apple trees near commercial plantings are 

usually removed to prevent them becoming a source of pest infestation and disease inoculum. 

The occurrence of volunteers in commercial plantings is very rare because of orchard 

management practices. Shoots can regenerate from the roots or stumps of injured apple trees.

Apple is a long-lived tree that depends on bees or other insects for cross-pollination. The ratio of 

number of seeds produced by a cultivated apple tree in its lifetime (several hundred thousand) to 

the number of plants needed to maintain a stable population is several orders of magnitude larger 

than for annual crop species, but apple is an effective colonizer of disturbed land such as 

abandoned pasture, and trees may persist in such locations for many years. 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 11 of 28

3. THE CLOSE RELATIVES OF CULTIVATED APPLE

3.1 Interspecific/Genus Hybridization

In considering the potential environmental impact following the unconfined release of 

genetically modified apple, it is important to understand the possible development of hybrids 

through interspecific and intergeneric crosses with other cultivars and related species. 

Development of hybrids could result in the introgression of the novel traits into these related 

species and resulting in: 

 the related species becoming more weedy, and/or

 the introduction of a novel trait with potential for ecosystem disruption into the related 

species. 

For a trait to become incorporated into a species genome, both repeated backcrossing of plants of 

that species by the hybrid intermediaries, and survival and fertility of the resulting offspring are 

necessary. 

3.2 Potential for Introgression of Genetic Information from Cultivated Apple into 

Relatives

Several crab apple species are native to North America and hybridization between cultivated 

apple and native apple and some introduced crab apple species is possible. Domesticated apple 

has been grown in North America for several centuries, allowing more than sufficient time for 

hybrids between cultivated apple and native or introduced Malus species to naturalize should 

they occur frequently and successfully compete. Naturalized hybrids involving cultivated apple 

have not been reported, but should be recognizable by their intermediate fruit characteristics.

Establishment of native crab apple plants from seed is calculated to be a lower-probability event 

than for annual crops, as the number of seeds produced by an individual apple tree in its lifetime 

is large yet few trees are needed to replace the parent. Native crab apples grow in thickets, and it 

is unclear if local populations are maintained primarily through seed or by vegetative 

regeneration of shoots from roots.

Bee colonies facilitate pollination, transferring pollen from cultivated apple or crab apple pollen 

source trees to receptor trees and incidental pollen transfer in the opposite direction. Effective 

transfer of pollen from orchards to native crab apple flowers depends on synchronous flowering 

of the two species and close proximity. Pollination efficiency decreases rapidly as the distance 

between pollen source and receptor tree increases; the frequency of transfer is influenced by the 

size and proximity of competing sources of pollen.

Commercial growers have traditionally planted about 3-5 percent of orchards trees as pollen 

source cultivars, arranging them so that pollinating bees need travel 50 feet or less to reach 

receptor trees. Thus, the vast majority of cross-pollination of apple in commercial orchards is 

between receptive flowers and adjacent pollen sources. When pollinating, individual bees are 

usually loyal to the location and species and/or cultivar from which they are collecting nectar or 

pollen. 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 12 of 28

3.3 Occurrence of Cultivated Apple in the United States

Cultivated apple occurs in commercial orchard plantings, as fruit trees in gardens or pastures, in 

nurseries, or as escaped or naturalized trees that are long lived. With proper care and attention it 

can be grown in nearly all areas

4. POTENTIAL INTERACTIONS OF CULTIVATED APPLE WITH OTHER LIFE 

FORMS

4.1 Examples of Potential Interactions of Cultivated Apple With Other Life Forms 

During its Lifecycle

For a description of diseases of apple and the organisms causing bacterial, fungal, virus and other 

diseases: see (Jones and Aldwinckle, 1990)

For a description of insect and related pests of apple: see (MacNay and Creelman, 1958)

For a description of insect-observed pollinating apple in British Columbia: see (Dupree et al., 

1987)

Table 1: Life Forms Potentially Interacting with Cultivated Apple

Organism Class Reference/Description

Bacterial Diseases Table 2

Fungal Diseases Table 3

Parasitic Nematodes Table 4

Viral Diseases Table 5

Viroid Diseases Table 6

Suspected Viral and Viroid-Like Diseases Table 7

Phytoplasmal Table 8

Insect Pests Table 9

Mite Pests Table 10

Pollinators Table 11

Wildlife Table 12

Soil Microbes Table 13

other Malus x domestica orchards, gardens, nurseries, feral trees, abandoned 

orchards

other introduced ornamental crab apple species and 

breeding derived hybrids, native and naturalized 

crab apple species or crab apple pollinizer cultivars 

derived from introduced ornamental species
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 13 of 28

5. REFERENCES

Bradford KJ, Nonogaki H. 2007. Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination, First Edition ed: WileyBrackwell. 392 p.

Darlington CD, Wylie AP. 1955. Chromosome Atlas of Flowering Plants, 2nd ed. London: George Allen & Unwin 

Ltd.

Dennison BA. 1966. Fruit juice consumption by infants and children: a review. Journal of the American College of 

Nutrition 15:4S - 11S.

Dickson EE, Kresovich S, Weeden NF. 1991. Isozymesin North America Malus (Rosaceae): hybridization and 

species differentiation. Systematic Botany 16:13.

Downing DL. 1989. Processed Apple Products: Van Nostrand Reinhold. 448 p.

Draper E, Chatfield C. 1996. Selection, Care, and Use of the Ornamental Crabapple (HYG-1029-96). Columbus, 

OH: Ohio State University. 7 p.

Dupree C, Scott D, Winston ML. 1987. Wild bee pollinator diversity and abundance in orchard and uncultivated 

habitats in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia. The Canadian Entomologist 119:735 - 745.

Gallardo RK, Taylor M, Hinman H. 2010. 2009 Cost Estimates of Establishing and Producing Gala Apples in 

Washington. Washington State University Extension Fatsheet FS005E.

Higgins A. 2005. Why the Red Delicious No Longer Is. In: Washington Post.

Jones AL, Aldwinckle HS. 1990. Compendium of apple and pear diseases. St Paul, Minneapolis: The American 

Phytopathological Society.

Kester DE, Davies FE, T. DF, Geneve R. 2011. Propagation Methods and Rootstocks for Fruit and Nut Species. In: 

Hartmann & Kester's Plant Propagation: Principles and Practices: Prentice Hall.

Little ELJ. 1979. Malus. In: Check List of United States Trees (Native and Naturalized). Washington, DC: Forest 

Service, USDA. p 167-170.

MacNay CG, Creelman IS. 1958. List of insects and mites affecting tree fruits in Canada: Canada Department of 

Agriculture, Science Services, Entomology Division.

McKenney DW, Kesteven JL, Hutchinson MF, Venier LA. 2001. Canada's plant hardiness zones revisited using 

modern climate interpolation tecniques. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 81:13.

NCBI. 2011. Taxonomy Browser (Malus x domestica). In: 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi, accessed on 111103.

O'Rourke AD. 1994. The World Apple Market, First Edition ed: CRC Press.

O'Rourke AD. 2010. World Apple Review - 2010 Edition: Belrose Inc.

Olien WC. 1987. Crabapples and heir potential for research and fruit production. HortScience 22:541.

Outlook. 2007. In: US Apple: Apple Crop Outlook and Marketing Conference. Chicago, IL.

OVTFA. 1993. Tree Fruit Home Nurseries: A Growers Manual: Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority. 47 p.

Perez A, Pollack S. 2008. Fruit and Tree Nuts Outlook. In: USDA-ERS.

Rehder A. 1958. Malus. In: Manual of cultivated trees and shrubs hardy in North America: MacMillan. p 389-399.

Rom RC, Carlson RF. 1987. Rootstocks for Fruit Crops. New York: Wiley and Sons.

Smith MW. 1971. National Apple Register of the United Kingdon. London: William Clowes and Sons.

Stover ME, Mark PL. 1998. Successional vegatation in cultivated and pasture land in Tomkins County, New York. 

Journal of the Torrey Botanical Society 125:15.

Vinson JA, Su X, Zubik L, Bose P. 2001. Phenol antioxidant quantity and quality in foods: fruits. Journal of 

Agricultural and Food Chemistry 49:5315-5321.

Warmund MR. 1996. Pollinating Fruit Crops: University Extension, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Way RD, Aldwinckle HS, Lamb RC, Rejman A, Sansavini S, Shen T, Watkins R, Westwood MN, Yoshida Y. 1990. 

Genetics resources of temperate fruit crops. In: Moore JN, Ballington JR, editors. Acta Horticulturae. p 1.

Westwood MN. 1993. Temperate Zone Pomology. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press.

Wikipedia(1). 2011. Endicott Pear Tree. In: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endicott_Pear, accessed 110901.

Wikipedia(2). 2011. List of Apple Cultivars. In: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_cultivars, accessed 110901.

Wikipedia(3). 2011. Red Delicious. In: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_delicious, accessed 110901.

WSU. 2010. 2010 Crop Protection Guide for Tree Fruits in Washington (EB0419). In. Pullman, WA: Extension 

Publishing and Printing.
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 14 of 28

Appendix 1. Life Forms Potentially Interacting with Cultivated Apple

Table 2: Bacterial Diseases of Cultivated Apple

Blister spot Pseudomonas syringae pv. papulans (Rose 1917) Dhanvantari 1977

Crown gall Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Smith and Townsend 1907) Conn 1942

Fire blight (FB) Erwinia amylovora (Burrill 1882) Winslow et al. 1920

Hairy root Agrobacterium rhizogenes (Riker et al. 1930) Conn 1942

Source: The American Phytopathological Society
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 15 of 28

Table 3: Fungal Diseases of Cultivated Apple

FUNGAL DISEASES

Alternaria blotch Alternaria mali Roberts = A. alternata (Fr.:Fr) Keissl, apple pathotype

Alternaria rot Alternaria alternata (Fr.:Fr.) Keissl

American brown rot Monilinia fructicola (G. Wint.) Honey

Anthracnose canker and bull's-eye 

rot

Pezicula malicorticis (H. Jacks.) Nannf

Cryptosporiopsis curvispora (Peck) Gremmen in Boerema & Gremmen 

[anamorph]

Apple scab Venturia inaequalis (Cooke) G. Wint.

 Spilocaea pomi Fr.:Fr. [anamorph]

Apple ring rot and canker Botryosphaeria berengeriana De Not. (Japan, China) = Physalospora 

piricola Nose

Armillaria root rot = shoestring 

root rot Armillaria mellea (Vahl:Fr.) P. Kumm.

Bitter rot

Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) Spauld. & H. Schrenk

 Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. in Penz. [anamorph]

C. acutatum J. H. Simmons

Black pox Helminthosporium papulosum Berg.

Black root rot Xylaria mali Fromme

X. polymorpha (Pers.:Fr.) Grev.

Black rot, frogeye leafspot and 

canker

Botryosphaeria obtusa (Schwein.) Shoemaker

 Sphaeropsis malorum Berk. [anamorph]

Blister canker = nailhead canker Biscogniauxia marginata (Fr.) Pouzar = Nummularia discreta (Schwein.) Tul. 

& C. Tul.

Blue mold

Penicillium spp.

P. expansum Link

Brooks fruit spot

Mycosphaerella pomi (Pass.) Lindau

 Cylindrosporium pomi C. Brooks [anamorph]

Brown rot blossom blight and spur 

infection* Monilinia laxa (Aderhold & Ruhland) Honey

Calyx-end rot Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary

Clitocybe root rot Armillaria tabescens (Scop.) Dennis et al. = Clitocybe tabescens (Scop.) 

Bres.

Diaporthe canker* Diaporthe tanakae Kobayashi & Sakuma (Japan)

 Phomopsis tanakae Kobayashi & Sakuma[anamorph]

Diplodia canker Botryosphaeria stevensii Shoemaker = Physalospora malorum Shear et al.

 Diplodia mutila (Fr.: Fr.) Mont. [anamorph]

European brown rot

Monilinia fructigena Honey in Whetzel

 Monilia fructigena Pers.:Fr. [anamorph]

Monilinia laxa (Aderhold & Ruhland) Honey

Fisheye rot Butlerelfia eustacei Weresub & Illman = Corticium centrifugum (Lév.) Bres.

Flyspeck Schizothyrium pomi (Mont.:Fr.) Arx

 Zygophiala jamaicensis E. Mason [anamorph]
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 16 of 28

FUNGAL DISEASES

Fruit blotch, leaf spot and twig 

canker Phyllosticta solitaria Ellis & Everh.

Glomerella leaf spot

Glomerella cingulata (Stoneman) Spauld. & H. Schrenk

 Colletotrichum gloeosporioides (Penz.) Penz. & Sacc. in Penz. 

[anamorph]

Gray mold rot = dry eye rot, 

blossom-end rot

Botrytis cinerea Pers.Fr.

 Botryotinia fuckeliana (de Bary) Whetzel [teleomorph]

Leptosphaeria canker and fruit rot

Diapleella coniothyrium (Fuckel) Barr = Leptosphaeria 

coniothyrium (Fuckel) Sacc.

 Coniothyrium fuckelii Sacc. [anamorph]

Leucostoma canker and dieback

Leucostoma cincta (Fr.:Fr.) Hohn.

 Cytospora cincta Sacc. [anamorph]

Valsa auerswaldii Nitschke = Leucostoma auerswaldii (Nitschke) Hohn.

 Cytospora personata Fr. [anamorph]

Marssonina blotch*

Diplocarpon mali Harada & Sawamura (Japan, Canada, India, Korea, 

Rumania)

 Marssonina coronaria (Ellis & J. J. Davis) J. J. Davis [anamorph]

Moldy core and core rot

Alternaria spp.

Cladosporium spp.

Coniothyrium sp.

Epicoccum spp.

Pleospora herbarum (Pers.) Rabenh.

Stemphylium spp.

Ulocladium spp.

wet core rot, mainly Penicillium spp.

Monilia leaf blight* Monilinia mali (Takahashi) Whetzel (Japan, China, former Soviet Union)

 Monilia sp. [anamorph]

Monochaetia twig canker

Seiridium unicorne (Cooke & Ellis) Sutton = Monochaetia mali (Ellis & 

Everh.) Sacc.

 Lepteutypa cupressi (Nattras et al.) H. J. Swart [teleomorph]

Mucor rot

Mucor spp.

M. piriformis E. Fischer

Nectria canker

Nectria galligena Bres. in Strass.

Cylindrocarpon heteronemum (Berk. & Broome)

 Wollenweb. [anamorph]

Nectria twig blight = coral spot Nectria cinnabarina (Tode:Fr.) Fr.

 Tubercularia vulgaris Tode:Fr. [anamorph]

Peniophora root canker* Peniophora sacrata G. H. Cunn.

Perennial canker

Neofabrae perennans Kienholz

Cryptosporiopsis perennans (Zeller & Childs)

 Wollenweb. [anamorph]

Phomopsis canker, fruit decay and 

rough bark

Phomopsis mali Roberts

 Diaporthe perniciosa Em. Marchal [teleomorph]

Phymatotrichum root rot = cotton Phymatotrichopsis omnivora (Duggar) Hennebert = Phymatotrichum 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 17 of 28

FUNGAL DISEASES

root rot omnivorum Duggar

Phytophthora crown, collar and 

root rot = sprinkler rot

Phytophthora spp.

P. cactorum (Lebert & Cohn) J. Schröt.

P. cambivora (Petr.) Buisman

P. cryptogea Pethybr. & Lafferty

P. megasperma Drechs.

P. syringae (Kleb.) Kleb.

Phytophthora fruit rot Phytophthora cactorum (Lebert & Cohn) J. Schrot.

P. syringae (Kleb.) Kleb.

Pink mold rot Trichothecium roseum (Pers.:Fr.) Link = Cephalothecium roseum Corda

Powdery mildew Podosphaera leucotricha (Ellis & Everh.) E. S. Salmon

Rosellinia root rot = Dematophora 

root rot

Rosellinia necatrix Prill.

 Dematophora necatrix R. Hartig [anamorph]

Rusts

American hawthorne rust

Gymnosporangium globosum (Farl.) Farl.

Cedar apple rust

Gymnosporangium juniperi-virginianae Schwein

Japanese apple rust*

Gymnosporangium yamadae Miyabe ex Yamada (Asia)

Pacific Coast pear rust

Gymnosporangium libocedri (C. Henn.) F. Kern

Quince rust

Gymnosporangium clavipes (Cooke & Peck) Cooke & Peck in Peck

Side rot Phialophora malorum (M. N. Kidd & A. Beaumont) McColloch

Silver leaf Chondrostereum purpureum (Pers.:Fr.) Pouzar

Sooty blotch complex

Peltaster fructicola (Johnson, Sutton, Hodges)

Geastrumia polystigmatis Batista & M. L. Farr

Leptodontium elatius (G. Mangenot) De Hoog

Southern blight Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc.

Athelia rolfsii (Curzi) Tu & Kimbrough [teleomorph]

Thread blight = Hypochnus leaf 

blight

Corticium stevensii Burt = Pellicularia koleroga Cooke = Hypochnus 

ochroleucus Noack

Valsa canker*

Valsa ceratosperma (Tode:Fr.) Maire (Japan, China, Korea) Cytospora 

sacculus (Schwein.)

Gvritischvili [anamorph]

Violet root rot* Helicobasidium mompa Tanaka (Japan, China, Korea)

White root rot Scytinostroma galactinum (Fr.) Donk = Corticium galactinum (Fr.) Burt

White rot Botryosphaeria dothidea (Moug.) Ces. & De Not.

Fusicoccum aesculi Corda [anamorph]

X-spot = Nigrospora spot Nigrospora oryzae (Berk. & Broome) Petch

Zonate leaf spot*

Cristulariella moricola (Hino) Redhead (Japan)

 Grovesinia pyramidalis M. Cline et al. [teleomorph]

*Not known to occur naturally on apple in the United States of America
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 18 of 28

FUNGAL DISEASES

Source: The American Phytopathological Society
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 19 of 28

Table 4: Nematode Disease of Cultivated Apples

NEMATODES, PARASITIC

Dagger nematode

Xiphinema americanum Cobb

X. rivesi Dalmasso

X. vuittenezi Luc et al.

Lesion nematode Pratylenchus spp.

P. penetrans (Cobb) Filipjev & Schuurmans-Stekhoven

Pin nematode Paratylenchus spp.

Ring nematode Criconemella spp.

Root-knot nematode Meloidogyne spp.

Source: The American Phytopathological Society
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 20 of 28

Table 5: Viral Diseases of Cultivated Apple

VIRAL DISEASES

Apple chlorotic leafspot genus Trichovirus, Apple chlorotic leafspot 

virus (ACLSV

Apple dwarf (Malus platycarpa) Apple stem pitting virus (ASPV) 

Apple flat apple genus Nepovirus, Cherry rasp leaf virus (CRLV)

Apple mosaic genus Ilarvirus, Apple mosaic virus (ApMV)

genus Ilarvirus, Tulare apple mosaic virus (TAMV)

Apple stem grooving = Apple decline of Virginia crab genus Capillovirus, Apple stem grooving virus (ASGV)

Apple stem pitting = apple Spy 227 epinasty and 

decline Apple stem pitting virus (ASPV)

Apple union necrosis and decline genus Nepovirus, Tomato ringspot virus (ToRSV)

Source: The American Phytopathological Society
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 21 of 28

Table 6: Viroid Disease of Cultivated Apple

VIROID DISEASES

Apple blister bark (‘Delicious’) Apple fruit crinkle viroid (AFCVd)

Apple dimple fruit Apple scar skin viroid (ASSVd)

Apple fruit crinkle* Apple fruit crinkle viroid (AFCVd) (Japan)

Apple scar skin = apple dapple, apple sabi-ka, apple bumpy fruit Apple scar skin viroid (ASSVd)

*Not known to occur naturally on apple in the United States of America.

Source: The American Phytopathological Society
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 22 of 28

Table 7: Suspected Viral- and Viroid-Like Diseases of Cultivated Apple

SUSPECTED VIRAL- AND VIROID-LIKE DISEASES

(graft-transmissible pathogens [GTP])

Dead spur GTP, unidentified

False sting GTP, virus suspected

Green crinkle GTP, virus suspected

Rough skin GTP, virus suspected

Star crack GTP, virus suspected

Source: The American Phytopathological Society
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 23 of 28

Table 8: Phytoplasmal and Spiroplasmal Diseases of Cultivated Apple

PHYTOPLASMAL and SPIROPLASMAL DISEASES

Apple chat fruit Phytoplasma suspected

Apple decline Phytoplasma suspected

Apple proliferation Phytoplasma

Rubbery wood Phytoplasma suspected

Source: The American Phytopathological Society
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 24 of 28

Table 9: Insects Interacting with Cultivated Apple

INSECTS

Codling Moth Lapeyresia pomonella

Fruittree Leafroller Archips argyrosplus

European Leafroller Archips rosanus

Obliquebanded Leafroller Choristoneura rosaceana

Threelined Leafroller Pandemis limitata

Bruce Spanworm Operophtera bruceata

Green Fruitworm Lithophane georgii

Eyespotted Budmoth Spilonota ocellana

Fall Webworm Hyphantria cunea

Apple Aphid Aphis pomi

Wooly Apple Aphid Eriosoma lanigerum

Rosy Apple Aphid Dysaphis plantaginea

Apple Grain Aphid Rhopalosiphum fitchii

San Jose Scale Quadraspidiosus perniciosus

European Fruit Scale Quadraspidiosus ostraeformis

Oystershell Scale Lepidosaphes ulmi

Apple Mealybug Phenacoccus aceris

Onespotted Stinkbug Euschistus variolarius

Mullein Bug Campylomma verbasci

Lygus Bugs Lygus spp.

Western Flower Thrips Frankliniella occidentalis

White Apple Leafhopper Typhlocyba pomaria

Dock Sawfly Ametastegia glabrata

Tentiform Leafminer (TLM) Phyllonorycter blancardella

Apple Leaf Midge Dasineura mali

Japanese Beetle (JB) Popillia japonica

Source: (MacNay and Creelman, 1958)
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 25 of 28

Table 10: Mites Interacting with Cultivated Apple

MITES

McDaniel Spider Mite Tetranychus McDanieli

Twospotted Spider Mite Tetranychus urticae

Apple Rust Mite Aculus schlechtendali

Source: (MacNay and Creelman, 1958)
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 26 of 28

Table 11: Pollinators of Cultivated Apple

POLLINATORS

Honey bees Apis mellifera

Orchard Mason bees Osmia spp.

Bumblebees Genus Bombus

Solitary bees

Andrena spp.

Halictus spp.

Hover flies Eristalis cerealis

Eristalis tenax

Source: (Dupree et al., 1987)
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 27 of 28

Table 12: Wildlife Interacting with Cultivated Apple

WILDLIFE

Birds starling, robin, crow, geese, songbirds, raptors

Mammals small: mice, voles, shrew

large: deer, bear, coyote, rabbits, cats, dogs 
Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. 

Biology of Cultivated Apple Page 28 of 28

Table 13: Soil Microbes Interacting with Cultivated Apple

SOIL MICROBES

Nematodes

Root Lesion Nematode, Pratylenchus penetrans

Dagger Nematodes, Xiphinema