Linking Public-Private Wheat Breeding in the UK: Successes, Failures, and Opportunities

1. Public – Private linkages in UK wheat breeding:Successes, Failures and OpportunitiesPeter Jack, RAGT, Cambridge 3rd UK Cereal Genetics and Genomics Workshop, John Innes Centre, Norwich, 6–7 April 2006

2. Background • Application of DNA markers in Breeding – 1 site – 3 owners! • PBI-Cambridge (1987-1997) • Privatised part of PBI (sold to Unilever) • PBI crops, plantation crops, vegetable crops • Monsanto Cambridge (1997 - 2004) • European Wheat & Barley breeding & biotech centre • RAGT Seeds Cambridge (2004-present) • European Wheat breeding centre • Number 2 European wheat breeder (after Limagrain/Nickerson-Advanta) • Very different organisations, crops, view of technology. • But consistent use of DNA markers by breeders throughout. • Strongly assisted by sharing site > facilitating technology transfer. • Communication is SO important!

3. Marker-Assisted Wheat Breeding in RAGT • Applications • Introgression novel alleles from non-adapted wheats or related species • Some characters would not have been introgressed without markers • Parental characterisation • Identifying optimal combinations of crosses • Early generation selection • Eliminating negative & enriching positive alleles • Mid & late generation selection • Fixing positive allele combinations. • Traits under marker selection • Disease resistance, Quality, Yield, Adaptation • BUT gene interactions e.g. yield penalty of disease, quality penalty of yield – need to understand why. • Sustainability traits too complex to tackle alone. • Source of Markers & Trait Marker Linkages • 50% discovered/validated in house • 50% sourced from public work (but most from outside UK!)

4. Scope of Talk • Focus specifically on Wheat given its importance in UK agriculture • Apologies to barley and other communities but similar principles apply? • Personal perspective • But also an attempt to synthesise many discussions within UK wheat breeding industry. • Distinction between Fundamental Plant Science & Crop Science • Fundamental science is curiosity driven and criteria of success is discovery per se - as judged by literature & not by applications. • Crop Science is “Applied” research i.e. there has to be clear benefit to Agriculture to justify “Crop” Science. • My comments relate to Crop Science & not fundamental Plant Science.

5. This subject has received much attention recently! • Recent discussion meetings • BCPC meeting at RRS 16/2/06. • WGIN management meeting at NIAB 7/2/06. • HGCA LINK project review at NIAB 6/3/06. • Reflects • genuine desire for more effective PP linkages (by some at least) • encouraged by broader analyses such as BBSRC Crop Science Review April ‘04. • Will consider outcomes later • First some successes • what can we learn from them & how do we achieve them more consistently.

6. Successes part1 - LINK • LINK projects e.g. practical benefits from: • Orange blossom midge; Septoria tritici; Lodging; Soil borne mosaic virus; Fusarium head blight (not an exclusive list just some examples) • Others in progress: Wheat functionality; HFN; Ergot. • Others in development: Drought tolerance & WUE; Second wheat. • Why is LINK successful? • Close relationship between Industry & Public scientists • e.g. hands on breeder involvement • at a practical level (in-kind); project set up & ownership; project management. • Not just suppliers of letters of support (at last minute with no opportunity to be involved!) • Rarely has this occurred in BBSRC projects or initiatives. • Limitations of LINK • In kind limits have now been reached – very difficult to take on new projects – should this be a limitation? Is there a way around? • DEFRA review of role in relation to supporting genetic research (outcome end ‘06) • Increasingly policy driven – how will important projects with lesser “sustainability” status be supported in future?

7. Successes part2 - Communication • WGIN as a Communications Vehicle • Management meetings consistently well attended by Industry & Public sector. • CIMMYT visit Dec ’04 – Industry & Public sector both involved. • These Cereal Genetics & Genomics Meetings! • Much debate over priorities & applications. • Need to ensure such ideas acted upon! • Need to ensure this or similar communications vehicle continues. • Wheat apprentice at JI. • Secondment in Industry to gain practical experience & commercial realities.

8. Successes part3 – Identification of Industry Needs • Wheat breeding community becoming more coordinated. • Especially pre-competitive research. • An example - Priority Traits List. • Aim is to identify important traits for which there is inadequate current public research. • Strong emphasis on work direct in wheat (or with clear route to wheat exploitation). • Many have strong sustainability aspects!

9. Wheat Priority Traits List • Intransigent pests • Insect pests such as wheat bulb fly and aphids • Clear environmental as well as production benefits • Possible approaches include current varietal differences, attractants, physical barriers, toxic agents (as seen in OBM) • Intransigent diseases • Fungal pathogens Take all and ergot • Take all: known alien leads (e.g. Agropyron caninum), Rye substitutions • Ergot: confirm varietal differences - if inadequate move to broader germplasm • Yield potential and associated agronomic traits • Includes resource utilisation efficiency! • Increase biomass and harvest index • Understand existing variation including recent advances with Robigus/Glasgow/… • Genetics of plant and apical development (morphology and phenology) • Designer ideotypes e.g. slow apical development + overwinter biomass accumulation + daylength response + adequate straw • Quality parameters and novel end use • Stability in bread and biscuit making properties • Bio-ethanol production

10. Priority Traits List - Outcomes • Take-all workshop, Cambridge 24/2/06 • Remarkable attendance list in terms of take-all research. • No easy solutions but can molecular genetics & genomics help? • Proposals required. • Grain quality workshop being planned. • But many opportunities remain! • e.g. Bioethanol; Insect resistance.

11. External Successes • What can we learn from others? • US Wheat National Marker Assisted Selection Program (MASwheat). • Web site contains much information that can be used directly e.g. marker protocols. • http://maswheat.ucdavis.edu/ • Model that others could take note of. • Appears to be very strong link between researcher & breeder – targets & translation. • US Scab (FHB) Initiative. • Coordinated programme to attack key pathogen from multiple approaches. • Model for key UK targets e.g. Bioethanol, insect pests?

12. Failures part1 – BBSRC Overview • BBSRC Crop Science Review identified many problems in UK Crop Science • No coherent strategy for crop research • Investment in plant science not yet impacting on strategic & applied crop science. • Fragmentation of funding within and between funders weakening the scientific strategy. • Shortage of suitably trained personnel. • Identified clear targets & technology priorities as basis for “BBSRC Crop Science Strategy”. • Quality through whole food chain including health & consumer benefits • Drought tolerance & water use • Durable & environmentally sustainable strategies for control of pests, pathogens & weeds; efficiency resource use & minimising waste. • Broadening crop range including novel crops & products for bioenergy… • Note the close fit with wheat breeders priority areas!

13. Failures part2 –Specific examples • Many marker-trait associations in UK use were developed outside UK e.g. markers to: • GAI alleles Rht1/2 • Puroindoline grain hardness. • Waxy. • Glutenin & gliadin storage proteins. • Bdv2 • Many disease resistance genes (FHB, Septoria, Rusts etc). • Importantly, much of the fundamental work behind these was conducted in UK. • the failure was to exploit these discoveries. • Public datasets often difficult to access or even know about. • More open dissemination should be encouraged. • WGIN core projects. • Targets were not agreed with those who would benefit from them e.g. breeders, end users. Sadly much of the work will not be taken up. • Many small projects – what about a focus on 1 or 2 key targets • e.g. bioethanol or insect resistance or take-all or exploiting diversity in synthetics? • BUT WGIN has played a valuable role in stimulating debate • engaging breeders in identifying common targets

14. Opportunities (& issues to be aware of) • BBSRC Crop Science Initiative. • Strong emphasis on translation of benefit. • Will this happen? Will there be a working relationship between public and industry scientists? • BBSRC LINK. • BBSRC would like to encourage LINK projects but will in kind limits restrict this? • Private sector much smaller than public so by definition can only match a small portion! • If this issue can be resolved then many opportunities open up. • Need for coordinated actions on key areas, especially where strong sustainability argument. • e.g. Bioethanol, insect pests. • NIAB - developing role in pre-breeding. • Supported by industry in area of pre-competitive breeding • important not to duplicate competencies. • MONOGRAM • Opportunity to not only align Institute activities but also to link with Industry – will this happen? Not forgetting Universities.

15. Conclusion • UK fundamental plant science is outstanding. • And much expenditure in “Crop” Science per se. • But small fraction projects translate into practical wheat benefits. • Especially in comparison with International outputs. • Recent LINK schemes are the exception – many successes. • Genuine collaboration & interaction between public and private sector. • But in kind requirements restrict options – this needs urgent attention. • BBSRC Initiatives such as CSI may help. • But better translational mechanisms are required. • Unclear how BBSRC response mode committees will respond to crops. • Communication vehicles such as WGIN are critical. • Emerging coordination between breeders in relation to pre-competitive research. • Make the most of this! • TALK to them! And LISTEN to them! • And INVOLVE them THROUGHOUT!