Next-generation disease resistance breeding

(TAL) effectors are molecules that can cut DNA at precise and known locations and might prove to be game-changing in everything from plant breeding to treating human disease.

This guest post on Biofortified explores the potential of (TAL) effector nuclease technology, but raises questions about its acceptability in crop breeding, comparing it (or trying to differentiate it) from genetically modified crops

TAL

The possibilities are immense for using TAL technology to induce targeted variations in the genomes of mammals, flies, worms and plants.

An application of TAL technology to crop breeding is described in a recent paper in Nature Biotechnology – link in Biofortified post. In this study, the authors used TAL-nucleases to remove a small stretch of DNA from the genome of rice that rendered it susceptible to bacterial blight, an important disease that affects millions of hectares throughout Asia.

TechNyou

This post on Biofortified asks for this breeding technology to be distinguished from transgenics – the technology that produces GMOs (or GM crops). Somehow I think this is wishful thinking because the genome has been modified and as the issue of GMO is more about values than the science, I suspect the same values that cause people to reject GMOs will be applied to the (TAL) effector technology. It will still be considered unnatural, and if it is as effective as predicted big companies will use it to their advantage. They will still questions its safety and potential effect on the environment….and so on

One comment I do align with is their reference to the random mutagenesis method, which requires highly toxic radiation or chemical treatment of seeds and why this is perfectly acceptable in the production of crop varieties that can be sold as “organic”, or simply accepted by those opposed to GM crops in general. I have yet to receive an acceptable answer from anyone about this.

Jason

TechNyou

Hopes for a salt-tolerant barley lift after first test

A salt-tolerance gene inserted into barley has undergone a small GM field trial in WA and producing a yield benefit in high salt conditions

GRDC Ground Cover – May-June 2012

Synthetic biology: our bipolar fears and aspirations

By Jason Major

TechNyou

It seems we don’t trust the establishment, industry or anyone of authority when it comes to synthetic biology. And in the hands of mad scientists, which is what they naturally are, we are doomed to become dehumanised Cybermen (and woman, if Cyberpeople have gender distinctions).

OK that is a bit of an exaggeration, but based on feedback from our recentpostcard this is an inkling of what we fear when it comes to this emerging science, though it isn’t all scary. Many still think synthetic biology will advance society and be of great benefit, others are more cautious and attach numerous caveats to their optimism.

Genome Jenga – the postcard

Mid last year we distributed a postcard to all those places you see those racks of free postcards. The art work, titled Genome Jenga, was on the topic of synthetic biology. People who got a card could post it back to us listing their fears and aspirations regarding this science and technology.

The results are in with about 150 cards returned. Not everyone listed their fears and aspirations (some requested info on other topics), but we got a snapshot of what postcard-collecting people think about this technology.

The first caveat, of course is that it is likely that many of those returning the postcard knew a smidgeon short of naff all about synthetic biology and its potential, but that is to be expected. It is after all still an emerging science. Consequently, some or many of these comments will be gut reactions, or an intuitive response based on a couple of media articles they may have read – possibly on our website?

What is syn bio

It sounds like the original deed done under that fateful apple tree; some will doubtless place it in the same category of evil. In reality it is where scientists blend biology, genetics, nanoscience and engineering. It is, for now anyway, an advanced form of genetic engineering.

Instead of installing a handful of genes with specific functions as you would do to make a genetically modified organism (GMO), synthetic biology is more about systems biology – putting novel biological systems such as whole metabolic pathways into organisms. Scientists are effectively trying to rewrite the genetic code, though one must be careful of suggesting it is about creating life. The aim, should we ever get a handle on this science, is to improve medical technologies, human health, food production, biofuel production and environmental monitoring…and anything else the imagination can conjure up.

As for a definition, it is such a new and fast evolving field that there doesn’t appear to be a standard definition for it. But here is one from the UK Royal Society:

“Synthetic biology is an emerging area of research that can broadly be described as the design and construction of novel artificial biological pathways, organisms or devices, or the redesign of existing natural biological systems.”

Our fears and aspirations

The first and obvious point to note from our postcard list was the large difference in the numbers of aspirations versus fears for synthetic biology. Fears outnumbered aspirations – 86 to 55

The second point was the apparent bipolar nature of our visions for this emerging technology: There were aspirations for the use of synthetic biology in human health and to enhance specific human traits. At the other end of the spectrum there were fears that it could damage our health, be used for enhancement purposes and disconnect us with our humanity. It was a similar story with the environment. Many thought it could make a positive difference to how we manage our environment especially with food production, but also with cleaning up contamination or in the production of biofuels. In contrast many feared that synthetic biology could lead to extinctions, damage the environment or contaminate our food. This possibly reflects differing values people have about technologies in general, especially when the applications are what I might call ‘personal’. For example, food has strong cultural links and the GM food debate has shown that we don’t like our food to be messed with either at the scientific level or by industrial monopolies controlling the end product. In addition, we are human and tweaking with us at a genetic, or bionic level conflicts with our concept of what is natural and off limits for many. If Chris Toumey’s research is anything to go by, I would hazard a guess that the more religious or spiritual among us would have stronger objections to the use of synthetic biology for any human enhancement. Research by Dietram Scheufele draws a similar conclusion.

The aspirations

I attempted to divide the aspirations into relevant groups. These can be seen in Table 1(a) below

I did further divide the environment group into sub-groups because there seemed to be natural sub-groups forming.

Top of the list of aspirations was finding ways to treat what ails us, from cancer to growing new organs, to disease in general. I included here, “repairing broken men” although I wasn’t sure if it belonged in the “What the…”category. On the bipolar side of things, one fear said the technology would lead to more cancers.

With a reasonable gap, the various environmental sub-groups and human enhancement were the next most popular. There was a spread of thoughts about what human enhancements would be acceptable: living longer, boosting brain power, fixing busted spines, and bringing back dead rock stars. Again the latter might have gone in the “What the…” category. Interestingly, there were only a couple of fears along these lines: designer babies and zombies.  The environmental aspirations largely involved food, either using the technology to improve crops or generally, taking the big picture suggesting that it could feed a growing population or prevent hunger.

Both aspirations and fears had a strong social, philosophical nature to them. The aspirations tended to be more general in a similar way to food, or that it would improve society, provide a better quality of life, and that it would add to our existing knowledge.

The Fears

By far the two biggest fear categories for synthetic biology were us humans misusing or abusing the technology, and the unknown or possible long-term effects. We have effectively zero trust in anyone or anything connected to business or power. Put the technology in the hands of crazy scientists; or subject to political influence and we will see it used for nefarious means such as biowarfare.

There was a significant proportion of fears related to human enhancement and how it would lead to the commodification of humans, or demean what it means to be human. It was also thought that it could also lead to inequality, discrimination, create a class of us and them (or the enhanced versus the unenhanced). Or as one fear announced it would lead to the discovery of the gay gene which the ultra-right will determine should be eliminated from the population.

More Caveats

Sometimes people didn’t label what they thought was an aspiration or fear, so there was some guess work involved for some of the comments. For example is “designer babies”, a fear or aspiration. Some people I know think it a grand idea – within reason. Others find it abhorrent at any level. This went in the fear category because most people I talk to are in the latter camp.

What the…

Some comments left me scratching the noggin:

Re-create any of my ex-wives (I am guessing that is a fear not a request?)

Return of the living dead (Is their widgee board not working and this is a request?)

And some people just watch too many movies:

The Happening, The Fly…etc

And some left me ….not sure if I have a word, incredulous, maybe? I’ll let you work out what comments I am referring to – see Table 1(b) below.

Table 1 (a) List of aspirations and on returned Synthetic Biology postcards

 Table 1 (b) The What the…? and uncategorised (general) comments on Synthetic Biology postcard

Q&A: Plant scientists answer your questions about GM wheat

Two UK scientists, one involved in the GM aphid-resistant wheat, answer questions in a Q&A by Sense about Science

Sense About Science, May 2012

High oleic acid safflower could transform bioeconomy

Using gene silencing techniques, CSIRO has produced safflower seed oil that contains more than 90 per cent of the valuable oleic fatty acid.

CSIRO 26 April 2012

Drought-tolerant GM soy: do arguments against hold water?

By Jason Major

TechNyou

Researchers in Argentina have isolated a drought-resistant sunflower gene and spliced it into soy, but the anti-GM crop arguments in this case appear contradictory and fail to hold water.

News about the research and the arguments from Greenpeace and others appeared in a number of news sites including PhysOrg . More info is at the bottom of this post.

For now we will assume the crop can achieve what the developers claim, that it grows and have better yields across all climate conditions – from wet to dry. Apparently it even performs better under saline conditions.

The research team that developed the crop is from Argentina’s Agrobiotechnology Institute of the Littoral, created by the National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) and the public National University of the Littoral, in the northeastern Argentine province of Santa Fe.

The researchers isolated one of the 50,000 sunflower genes. The gene known as HAHB4 helps the plant endure water shortages. They introduced the gene into wheat, corn and soybean species, followed by three years of field testing in different regions of the Argentina with varying climates and soils.

The opponents emerge

It is possible that the comments in this article have been taken out of context and in isolation as they are presented here maybe be misrepresenting what Greenpeace and others say, so I am happy to be enlightened, but here are my thoughts on the anti-arguments as presented in the article:

Greenpeace has apparently said this GM drought-tolerant soy will promote deforestation and the expansion of soy crops into new regions such as Pantagonia as well as cause a “significant loss” in biodiversity and force thousands of farmers and native people to relocate.

I find this interesting because the anti-GM groups are happy for a drought-tolerant crop to be developed through conventional breeding, indeed CSIRO’s recent news about their conventionally-bred salt-tolerant wheat was applauded. The obvious problem is of course that if indeed a GM, drought-tolerant soy bean did promote deforestation, loss of biodiversity, etc, then so will a conventionally-bred, drought-tolerant soy, for the same potential reasons.  C’mon Greenpeace…

Economics

Because it is genetically modified, the new soy seed would have little to no prospects of being sold in markets where such crops are opposed or outlawed, as in Europe, according to Greenpeace.

This argument may or may not be true, although they seem to sell their existing GM soy without any problems. From a purely personal perspective, however, I find farmers are generally smart people, they will make an economic decision about this crop. They will make an economic and agronomic judgement and if they decide to grow it, and can’t sell it and lose loads of money, then they won’t grow it again.

Increased pesticide use

Transgenic crops are far more widespread in South America, where environmentalists worry they could rush the shift to single-crop farming and denounce the encroachment of soy crops and the increased use of pesticides.

Again, I struggle with this argument because as stated above, a conventionally-bred drought-tolerant soy would have the same potential problems. If what they state happens becasueof the drought-tolerant trait, then it will happen regardless of whether the trait is introduced via convetional or transgenic breeding technologies.  A second point is that this crop’s trait is drought-tolerance not herbicide tolerance, so it is not going to change the herbicide application regime. Unless Greenpeace are referring to the fact that the increased acreage that might (or might not) occur because of the crop’s ability to grow in drought conditions in which case more herbicide and pesticide will indeed be used, but then that, as mentioned, would also apply to a conventionally-bred drought tolerant crop.

Final point and question

The research team has signed an agreement with Argentine firm Bioceres, which is co-owned by over 230 agricultural producers, to use and exploit the gene. Another company called Arcadia Biosciences is also involved. So this technology is not owned by a large multi-national; it is even to some extent public owned, and owned by the farmers that the product is targeted at. My questions is how much influence does this fact alone have on how acceptable (or not) this particular GM crop is to the public? As alluded to in previous blog posts the fact people hate and distrust the Monsanto’s of the world is one of their key reasons for finding GM crops unacceptable. I have even had people tell me that they would find a crop acceptable if Monsanto didn’t own the thing. So what about this drought-tolerant soy?

More information

IPS Inter Press Service News Agency

Image on homepage from PhysOrg

GM crops: are we anti-Monsanto rather than anti-technology?

By Jason Major

TechNyou

Another media story on GM crops, another long list of comments. The comments reveal that along with similar previous commentary we may simply fear Monsanto rather than the technology.

Adelaide Now and the Weekly Times published an article containing views of South Australian Farmers Federation president Peter White. He basically said we need GM technology and its use is essentially inevitable, calling for South Australia to drop its moratorium. As witnessed below, most of the people commenting disagree with him.  But as usual most of the comments have nothing to do with the science and are overwhelmingly anti-Monsanto, or express concerns of corporate control of our food supply. The science or the technology are barely mentioned.

Food control

Of the 58 comments 29 (or about 50%) were voicing concern about corporate control of our food by multi-national companies such as Monsanto. Actually, I was surprised that of those 29 mentions only 9 mentioned Monsanto. I thought there would be more. In all my public engagement activities, this concern is by far the biggest and I am sure if you analysed the comments of other online articles about GM crops there would be a similar response regarding corporate control of our food.

Real or perceived, there is concern that we no longer have control over what we eat or feed our children and that it is in the hands of a handful of insidious, nefarious, entities in some global corporate box happily counting their growing pile of money at the expense of humanity. They can’t be trusted; they are greedy, and seek total domination of the food supply. At least that is the impression you get from reading the comments.

The next largest category was my section called “other”. This simply contained negative comments along the lines of NO; or I WON’T TOUCH THIS CRAP; or NO FRANKENFOOD FOR ME. This was all that was written so I couldn’t categorise it except that they were against GM crops for some reason, and likely they were against any GM crop, whatever, whenever, which makes it value-based decision – most likely anyway.

Values

This brings me back to once again commenting on values versus science. There were only 5 comments that could be considered having anything to do with science and all these were positive comments supporting the technology in general. In some cases the comments might also be considered values-based rather than about the science, as expressed in the following comment:

“It always amuses me when Greenies stick their heads in the sand and refuse to follow the “overwhelming scientific consensus”. GM is safe and tasty and necessary for the survival of our species. I’d rather eat clean, GM food than food covered in megadoses of nasty “organic” pesticides any day.”

That is, it could be argued that this person’s values might be pro-technology in general.

Elephant in the room

Interesting, that this is one of the first times I have seen a number of mentions about the need to control population, though it was probably prompted by relevant quotes in the article. But in the context of food security and the need to feed 9 billion by 2050, it is surprising the issue of population control isn’t raised more often. From what I understand, however, the march toward the 9 billion mark is inevitable regardless of what we do. Whether we like it or not, the issue for society is how do we accommodate all of us.

The missing

Of note also is what people did not comment on – much. Only four comments mentioned concerns about health impacts of GM crops. Two made comments about potential health benefits.

Only three made comments about adverse environmental effects. Only four were about the lack of or desire for labelling of GM foods.

Obviously the overall sentiment was negative, but that sentiment was largely based on stuff unrelated to the science, and more about how we have chosen to use that science.

My question for everyone is what concerns, if any, do we have should a GM crop be produced with public or philanthropic funding? That is, there is no giant corporate thumb hovering over the research team dictating the terms.  Such crops do exist and are at various stages in the research pipeline. Should they develop a plant worth commercialising, will it be any more acceptable than one produced by or in partnership with a multi-national? Or will people, as I suspect they will, judge the crop on its traits and how it is intended to be used?

Trials start of GM wheat that terrifies aphids

Field trials in the UK are being done with a genetically modified wheat that emits a pheromone aphids release when they are under attack to create panic and prompt the insects to flee

Reuters 28 March 2012

Field trial of late blight resistant potatoes Q&A

The UK’s Sainbury’s laboratory has posted a Q&A on their research on late blight resistant potatoes

Sainsbury Laboratory

TechNyou

Obviously it is written in a positive light and there is only so much detail one can put in, but I am curious as to what, if any, influence this would have on people’s perceptions about GM crops, and this spud in particular. Doubtless it will have zero influence on those dead against GM crops anywhere, anyhow. But there are many out there others concerned and avoiding GM crops with a range of values, others with misinformed concepts (or not, but still with concerns), etc. Will they have a different opinion of this potato? If so why? Or why not?

What questions would they need answered before they could make a decision? Do they trust Sainsbury – why or why not… never ending list of questions really?

Scientists to save pregnant mother’s lives with bananas

Australian and Indian researchers will develop bananas high in iron to help prevent iron-deficiency anaemia in India.

QUT 9 March 2012

TechNyou

First the headline – no shortage of sensationalism there, but if it got you to read the story then I guess it did its job. The thing is there is a long way to go to see if this research will do that and as pointed out below, this banana alone will not solve the proble of iron deficiency.

Given that most cultivated banana varieties are clones and difficult to introduce new traits into using conventional breeding techniques I suspect these bananas will be transgenic, if they succeed. It is interesting they don’t mention that in the story. Are we now too afraid to mention the word for fear of automatic rejection, hate mail….?  When I get a moment I will find out some more about this research, but I am sure even with the limited info in the QUT news release there will be concerns raised. For example, I have the following questions:  has iron-deficient anemia always been a problem in India or just in the last 100 or so years? If it has, has vegetarianism always been the cause? If it hasn’t then how was it prevented in the past and can we learn from that, or is population pressure, poverty, etc preventing that (although poverty has been a problem forever)? How hard is it to use existing foods that are affordable and accessible to prevent iron-deficiency problems? Are there other solutions such as supplements in the form of vitamin pills; fortification of existing foods such as flour…and so on, and how does the economics of these stack up against the biofortification of this project? I am 100% certain that nobody in this banana project believes that their iron-rich banana will be the silver bullet. It will need to be part of multi-targeted approach to the issue, but it will interesting to know just what data was at their disposal for them to make the decision of biofortifying the banana.

Jason

TechNyou