Plant breeding and plant genetics: Biotechnology past, present and future

1. Plant breeding and plant genetics:Biotechnology past, present and future Alan McHughen, DPhil. Univ. of California Riverside, Ca. 92521 USA alanmc@citrus.ucr.edu

2. Plant breeding history • 10,000 years of human agriculture • Selection • Introduction • Crossing, wide crosses • Spontaneous mutation • Induced mutation Now, all plants are genetically modified from their ancestral progenitors.

3. Environmental damage caused by: Source Example of problem Prior regulatory scrutiny Entire Genotypes Naturally occurring invasions Ordinary Successions none Unintentional introductions Russian thistle in NA none ? Intentional introduction; Purple loosestrife; Eurasion milfoil low/none Intentional introductions, Prickly Pear cactus in Australia low Unintended displacements Johnsongrass in NA Intentional introductions, Intentional displacements Soybean in NA low Single Genes Intentional introductions, Rht genes in wheat low/moderate intentional displacements: Canola from rapeseed moderate GMOs None recorded high

4. Significant numbers Number of field trials of GMOs > 10,000 Number of countries conducting trials 23 Number of GM plant species tested 41 Number of hectares of GM crops, year 2002 > 50 M Number of significant adverse safety incidents 0

5. Biotechnology’s fourconcepts: Number 1: • All organisms are made of cells and cell products

6. Biotechnology’s fourconceptsNumber 2: • All organisms are made of cells and cell products • Each cell in an organism contains the same set of genes

7. Biotechnology’s fourconceptsNumber 3: • All organisms are made of cells and cell products • Each cell in an organism contains the same set of genes • The genome contains all the genetic information necessary to make an entire organism

8. Biotechnology’s fourconceptsNumber 4: • All organisms are made of cells and cell products • Each cell in an organism contains the same set of genes • The genome contains all the genetic information necessary to make an entire organism • All organisms share the same genetic language

11. Variety release requirements:Conventional • Agronomic performance • Proximate analysis • Antinutritive factors

13. Variety release requirements:Transgenic • Agronomic performance • Proximate analysis • Antinutritive factors • Plus:

14. Molecular characterization of inserted DNA, Southern and restriction analyses PCR for several fragments, Various enzyme assays (ALS, NOS, NPT-II) Copy number of inserts Size of each fragment, Source of each fragment Utility of each fragment How fragments were recombined How construct was delivered into flax Biological activity of inserted DNA (genes) Quantitative analyses of novel proteins (western analyses) Temporal activity of inserted genes spatial activity of inserted genes complete amino acid analysis detailed amino acid analysis for valine, leucine and isoleucine Toxicity (feeding trials were not warranted) Allergenicity (feeding trials were not warranted) Biological analysis: Pathogenicity to other organisms dormancy, outcrossing potential for horizontal gene transfer seed production flowering time, flower morphology analysis of relatives stability of inserted genes over seed generations survivability in natural environment survivability in agricultural environment in presence of herbicide survivability in agricultural environment in absence of herbicide Interaction with other organisms- alterations to traditional relationships Interactions with other organisms- novel species Changes to persistence or invasiveness Any selective advantage to the GMO Any selective advantage to sexually compatible species Plan for containment and eradication in the event of escape Plus:

16. US agencies regulating agricultural biotechnology • USDA- APHIS: environmental release • FDA: food safety • EPA: chemical (herbicide, insecticide) uses

17. Generally Positive Generally Negative Professional Scientific and/or Medical bodies with an opinion on GM foods

18. Generally Positive The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) The American Medical Association, (AMA) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) American Society for Plant Biology (ASPB) Generally Negative Professional Scientific and/or Medical bodies with an opinion on GM foods

19. Generally Positive World Health Organization (WHO) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Royal Society (London) Brazil National Academy of Science, Chinese National Academy of Science Indian National Academy of Science Mexican Academy of Science Third World Academy of Sciences Generally Negative Professional Scientific and/or Medical bodies with an opinion on GM foods

20. Generally Positive The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) The American Medical Association, (AMA) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) American Society for Plant Biology (ASPB) World Health Organization (WHO) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Royal Society (London) Brazil National Academy of Science, Chinese National Academy of Science Indian National Academy of Science Mexican Academy of Science Third World Academy of Sciences Generally Negative Professional Scientific and/or Medical bodies with an opinion on GM foods

21. Generally Positive The U.S. National Research Council (NRC) U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) The American Medical Association, (AMA) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) American Society for Plant Biology (ASPB) World Health Organization (WHO) Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Royal Society (London) Brazil National Academy of Science, Chinese National Academy of Science Indian National Academy of Science Mexican Academy of Science Third World Academy of Sciences Generally Negative Professional Scientific and/or Medical bodies with an opinion on GM foods

22. Documented benefits of biotech crops • Farmers • Increased yields • Decreased chemical costs • Cleaner fields • Less fuel used • Less tillage

23. Documented benefits of biotech crops • Consumers • Safer food (mycotoxins in maize) • Safer food (greater regulatory scrutiny) • Less pesticide • Environmental benefits

24. Documented benefits of biotech crops • Environment • Less pesticide burden • Safer pesticides • Improved soil from less tillage • Less fuel usage • Increased biodiversity

25. Product quality traits in GM plants under test: Feed digestibility; Increased solids; Higher amino acid content Esthetic appeal; Improved shelf life; Reduced caffeine coffee Protein content; Oil profile; Fruit size; Fruit carbo profile Toxin degradation; Phytate reduced; Heat stable; B-glucanase increased Starch content; Increased stanol; Storage protein altered; Lignin reduced; Glutenin added; Bruise resistance Increased antioxidents; Amino acid enhanced Plus: Pharmaceuticals antibodies vaccines enzymes nutriceuticals

26. Conclusion: prospects • Beneficiaries will continue to include farmers and consumers • Benefits of products will be more obvious and geared to consumers • Nutritional enhancements (Golden rice) • Safer foods (reduced allergens, toxins and other natural antinutritional factors) • Safer foods (better storage and testing)