Cisgenics - A Sustainable Approach for Crop Improvement

The implication of molecular biology in crop improvement is now more than three decades old. Not surprisingly, technology has moved on, and there are a number of new techniques that may or may not come under the genetically modified (GM) banner and, therefore, GM regulations. In cisgenic technology, cisgenes from crossable plants are used and it is a single procedure of gene introduction whereby the problem of linkage drag of other genes is overcome. The gene used in cisgenic approach is similar compared with classical breeding and cisgenic plant should be treated equally as classically bred plant and differently from transgenic plants. Therefore, it offers a sturdy reference to treat cisgenic plants similarly as classically bred plants, by exemption of cisgenesis from the current GMO legislations. This review covers the implications of cisgenesis towards the sustainable development in the genetic improvement of crops and considers the prospects for the technology.     

Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts

Novel plant genome editing techniques call for an updated legislation regulating the use of plants produced by genetic engineering or genome editing, especially in the European Union. Established more than 25 years ago and based on a clear distinction between transgenic and conventionally bred plants, the current EU Directives fail to accommodate the new continuum between genetic engineering and conventional breeding. Despite the fact that the Directive 2001/18/EC contains both process- and product-related terms, it is commonly interpreted as a strictly process-based legislation. In view of several new emerging techniques which are closer to the conventional breeding than common genetic engineering, we argue that it should be actually interpreted more in relation to the resulting product. A legal guidance on how to define plants produced by exploring novel genome editing techniques in relation to the decade-old legislation is urgently needed, as private companies and public researchers are waiting impatiently with products and projects in the pipeline. We here outline the process in the EU to develop a legislation that properly matches the scientific progress. As the process is facing several hurdles, we also compare with existing frameworks in other countries and discuss ideas for an alternative regulatory system.     

EFSA’s scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence: looking back and ahead

Genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and derived food and feed products are subject to a risk analysis and regulatory approval before they can enter the market in the European Union (EU). In this risk analysis process, the role of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), which was created in 2002 in response to multiple food crises, is to independently assess and provide scientific advice to risk managers on any possible risks that the use of GMOs may pose to human and animal health and the environment. EFSA’s scientific advice is elaborated by its GMO Panel with the scientific support of several working groups and EFSA’s GMO Unit. This review presents EFSA’s scientific activities and highlights its achievements on the risk assessment of GMOs for the first 10 years of its existence. Since 2002, EFSA has issued 69 scientific opinions on genetically modified (GM) plant market registration applications, of which 62 for import and processing for food and feed uses, six for cultivation and one for the use of pollen (as or in food), and 19 scientific opinions on applications for marketing products made with GM microorganisms. Several guidelines for the risk assessment of GM plants, GM microorganisms and GM animals, as well as on specific issues such as post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) were elaborated. EFSA also provided scientific advice upon request of the European Commission on safeguard clause and emergency measures invoked by EU Member States, annual PMEM reports, the potential risks of new biotechnology-based plant breeding techniques, evaluations of previously assessed GMOs in the light of new scientific publications, and the use of antibiotic resistance marker genes in GM plants. Future challenges relevant to the risk assessment of GMOs are discussed. EFSA’s risk assessments of GMO applications ensure that data are analysed and presented in a way that facilitates scientifically sound decisions that protect human and animal health and the environment.     

Revisiting GMOs: Are There Differences in European Consumers’ Acceptance and Valuation for Cisgenically vs Transgenically Bred Rice?

Both cisgenesis and transgenesis are plant breeding techniques that can be used to introduce new genes into plant genomes. However, transgenesis uses gene(s) from a non-plant organism or from a donor plant that is sexually incompatible with the recipient plant while cisgenesis involves the introduction of gene(s) from a crossable—sexually compatible—plant. Traditional breeding techniques could possibly achieve the same results as those from cisgenesis, but would require a much larger timeframe. Cisgenesis allows plant breeders to enhance an existing cultivar more quickly and with little to no genetic drag. The current regulation in the European Union (EU) on genetically modified organisms (GMOs) treats cisgenic plants the same as transgenic plants and both are mandatorily labeled as GMOs. This study estimates European consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for rice labeled as GM, cisgenic, with environmental benefits (which cisgenesis could provide), or any combination of these three attributes. Data were collected from 3,002 participants through an online survey administered in Belgium, France, the Netherlands, Spain and the United Kingdom in 2013. Censored regression models were used to model consumers’ WTP in each country. Model estimates highlight significant differences in WTP across countries. In all five countries, consumers are willing-to-pay a premium to avoid purchasing rice labeled as GM. In all countries except Spain, consumers have a significantly higher WTP to avoid consuming rice labeled as GM compared to rice labeled as cisgenic, suggesting that inserting genes from the plant’s own gene pool is more acceptable to consumers. Additionally, French consumers are willing-to-pay a premium for rice labeled as having environmental benefits compared to conventional rice. These findings suggest that not all GMOs are the same in consumers’ eyes and thus, from a consumer preference perspective, the differences between transgenic and cisgenic products are recommended to be reflected in GMO labeling and trade policies.     

Canadian regulatory aspects of gene editing technologies

The development of gene editing techniques, capable of producing plants and animals with new and improved traits, is revolutionizing the world of plant and animal breeding and rapidly advancing to commercial reality. However, from a regulatory standpoint the Government of Canada views gene editing as another tool that will join current methods used to develop desirable traits in plants and animals. This is because Canada focusses on the potential risk resulting from the novelty of the trait, or plant or animal product entering the Canadian environment or market place, rather than the process or method by which it was created. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is responsible for the regulation of the environmental release of plants with novel traits, and novel livestock feeds, while Health Canada is responsible for the regulation of novel foods. Environment and Climate Change Canada, in partnership with Health Canada, regulates modified animals for entry into the environment. In all cases, these novel products may be the result of conventional breeding, mutagenesis, recombinant DNA techniques or other methods of plant or animal breeding such as gene editing. This novelty approach allows the Canadian regulatory system to efficiently adjust to any new developments in the science of plant and animal breeding and allows for risk-appropriate regulatory decisions. This approach encourages innovation while maintaining science-based regulatory expertise. Canadian regulators work cooperatively with proponents to determine if their gene editing-derived product meets the definition of a novel product, and whether it would be subject to a pre-market assessment. Therefore, Canada’s existing regulatory system is well positioned to accommodate any new innovations or technologies in plant or animal breeding, including gene editing.

     

U.S. regulatory framework for genetic biocontrol of invasive fish

This paper provides an overview of the U.S. regulatory framework governing genetic biocontrol efforts for invasive fish. Genetic biocontrol refers to the intentional release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the environment to control a target population of a non-native species. The terms “genetically modified” and “genetically engineered” are often used interchangeably, despite the scientific distinctions. A GMO is an organism that has had its genetic material altered or modified by humans through any method, including conventional breeding. Genetic engineering, as defined by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is the use of recombinant DNA techniques to introduce new characteristics or traits into an organism. GE organisms are therefore a subset of GMOs. As this paper will discuss, existing laws focus on GE organisms raising significant questions as to whether organisms modified without utilizing rDNA techniques fall within the jurisdiction of any federal agency. Under the 1986 Coordinated Framework for Regulation of Biotechnology, three federal agencies have primary responsibility over biotechnology—the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the FDA. Because the EPA has exempted biological control agents from regulation as pesticides and no fish species are currently considered plant pests, the FDA is the agency responsible for approving the use of genetically engineered fish for biocontrol. FDA regulates genetically engineered animals through its New Animal Drug Application (NADA) process. The NADA process presents several challenges to effective and transparent regulation of genetic biocontrol, including the FDA’s focus on drug safety, secrecy provisions potentially limiting disclosure of the results of environmental reviews, and the secondary role of the Fish and Wildlife Service, the federal agency with the most experience with invasive species management. In addition, relying on the NADA process creates a significant regulatory gap as NADA approval is only required for GE organisms. The regulatory framework for GMOs created for genetic biocontrol without rDNA technology is unclear and primary responsibility may fall to the states. Given its extensive experience with hatcheries, invasive fish species control, and environmental reviews, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is the more appropriate agency to review applications for genetic biocontrol. Efforts should be undertaken now, while genetic biocontrol is still in the theoretical stages, to increase the role of the FWS in the permitting process either through formal regulations or more informal mechanisms such as memorandum of understanding.     

Cisgenesis strongly improves introgression breeding and induced translocation breeding of plants

There are two ways for genetic improvement in classical plant breeding: crossing and mutation. Plant varieties can also be improved through genetic modification; however, the present GMO regulations are based on risk assessments with the transgenes coming from non-crossable species. Nowadays, DNA sequence information of crop plants facilitates the isolation of cisgenes, which are genes from crop plants themselves or from crossable species. The increasing number of these isolated genes, and the development of transformation protocols that do not leave marker genes behind, provide an opportunity to improve plant breeding while remaining within the gene pool of the classical breeder. Compared with induced translocation and introgression breeding, cisgenesis is an improvement for gene transfer from crossable plants: it is a one-step gene transfer without linkage drag of other genes, whereas induced translocation and introgression breeding are multiple step gene transfer methods with linkage drag. The similarity of the genes used in cisgenesis compared with classical breeding is a compelling argument to treat cisgenic plants as classically bred plants. In the case of the classical breeding method induced translocation breeding, the insertion site of the genes is a priori unknown, as it is in cisgenesis. This provides another argument to treat cisgenic plants as classically bred plants, by exempting cisgenesis of plants from the GMO legislations.     

Molecular characterization of cisgenic lines of apple ‘Gala’ carrying the Rvi6 scab resistance gene

Using resistance genes from a crossable donor to obtain cultivars resistant to diseases and the use of such cultivars in production appears an economically and environmentally advantageous approach. In apple, introgression of resistance genes by classical breeding results in new cultivars, while introducing cisgenes by biotechnological methods maintains the original cultivar characteristics. Recently, plants of the popular apple ‘Gala’ were genetically modified by inserting the apple scab resistance gene Rvi6 (formerly HcrVf2) under control of its own regulatory sequences. This gene is derived from the scab‐resistant apple ‘Florina’ (originally from the wild apple accession Malus floribunda 821). The vector used for genetic modification allowed a postselection marker gene elimination to achieve cisgenesis. In this work, three cisgenic lines were analysed to assess copy number, integration site, expression level and resistance to apple scab. For two of these lines, a single insertion was observed and, despite a very low expression of 0.07‐ and 0.002‐fold compared with the natural expression of ‘Florina’, this was sufficient to induce plant reaction and reduce fungal growth by 80% compared with the scab‐susceptible ‘Gala’. Similar results for resistance and expression analysis were obtained also for the third line, although it was impossible to determine the copy number and TDNA integration site–such molecular characterization is requested by the (EC) Regulation No. 1829/2003, but may become unnecessary if cisgenic crops become exempt from GMO regulation.     

Relative quantification in seed GMO analysis: state of art and bottlenecks

Reliable quantitative methods are needed to comply with current EU regulations on the mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and GMO-derived food and feed products with a minimum GMO content of 0.9 %. The implementation of EU Commission Recommendation 2004/787/EC on technical guidance for sampling and detection which meant as a helpful tool for the practical implementation of EC Regulation 1830/2003, which states that “the results of quantitative analysis should be expressed as the number of target DNA sequences per target taxon specific sequences calculated in terms of haploid genomes”. This has led to an intense debate on the type of calibrator best suitable for GMO quantification. The main question addressed in this review is whether reference materials and calibrators should be matrix based or whether pure DNA analytes should be used for relative quantification in GMO analysis. The state of the art, including the advantages and drawbacks, of using DNA plasmid (compared to genomic DNA reference materials) as calibrators, is widely described. In addition, the influence of the genetic structure of seeds on real-time PCR quantitative results obtained for seed lots is discussed. The specific composition of a seed kernel, the mode of inheritance, and the ploidy level ensure that there is discordance between a GMO % expressed as a haploid genome equivalent and a GMO % based on numbers of seeds. This means that a threshold fixed as a percentage of seeds cannot be used as such for RT-PCR. All critical points that affect the expression of the GMO content in seeds are discussed in this paper.     

出入境转基因产品及其分子检测现状与展望

随着转基因产品在全球的迅速推广,包括我国在内的很多国家都建立了转基因标识制度。各检验检疫口岸应转基因产品生产企业、食品制造商、消费者等多方面需要,相继开展了转基因产品的检测工作。准确可靠的转基因产品检测技术是各国检疫检疫单位的共同需求。转基因产品的检测主要有两大类方法,一类是DNA水平上的检测,另一类是蛋白质水平上的检测。多个发达国家也相继成立专门机构或部门,负责转基因产品生物检测技术标准化工作。国际上对转基因产品的检测工作有向委托鉴定方向发展的趋势。我们简要综述了出入境转基因产品及其分子检测现状。     

Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development

One of the major concerns of the general public about transgenic crops relates to the mixing of genetic materials between species that cannot hybridize by natural means. To meet this concern, the two transformation concepts cisgenesis and intragenesis were developed as alternatives to transgenesis. Both concepts imply that plants must only be transformed with genetic material derived from the species itself or from closely related species capable of sexual hybridization. Furthermore, foreign sequences such as selection genes and vector‐backbone sequences should be absent. Intragenesis differs from cisgenesis by allowing use of new gene combinations created by in vitro rearrangements of functional genetic elements. Several surveys show higher public acceptance of intragenic/cisgenic crops compared to transgenic crops. Thus, although the intragenic and cisgenic concepts were introduced internationally only 9 and 7 years ago, several different traits in a variety of crops have currently been modified according to these concepts. Five of these crops are now in field trials and two have pending applications for deregulation. Currently, intragenic/cisgenic plants are regulated as transgenic plants worldwide. However, as the gene pool exploited by intragenesis and cisgenesis are identical to the gene pool available for conventional breeding, less comprehensive regulatory measures are expected. The regulation of intragenic/cisgenic crops is presently under evaluation in the EU and in the US regulators are considering if a subgroup of these crops should be exempted from regulation. It is accordingly possible that the intragenic/cisgenic route will be of major significance for future plant breeding.     

Regulatory and associated political issues with respect to Bt transgenic maize in the European union

Legislation at the national level in Europe as well as that developed by the European Union (EU) generally permits release and commercialization of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). However, only 10 plant/event combinations were registered as of 2002: three maize events (Bt176, Mon810, and Bt11), with the other seven divided among carnation (3), oil-seed rape (2), tobacco (1), and raddiccio (1). Of these, only one maize event (Bt176) has been registered as a legal variety, and this was in Spain, where 22,000ha have been planted annually since 1998. In this paper, we first provide an overview on the complexity of EU GMO legislation. Then we discuss the minor role that results of EU-funded biosafety research have had on governmental policy. Finally, we provide information about initiatives for post-commercialization monitoring plans of Bt maize in Europe. As a result of the slow progress to date, we conclude that commercialization of GMOs will be seriously delayed in the EU for the next several years.     

Plant genome editing in the European Union—to be or not to be—a GMO

New plant-breeding techniques have been boosting plant breeding, since only a few years but already first promising products are pushing to the market. In contrast to this, in many countries, the current Directives regulating genetically modified organisms have been established more than 25 years ago, especially in the European Union being based on clear differentiation between transgenic plants and conventional breeding. Therefore, the question arises if these Directives are suitable to face the new challenge of genetic engineering or if there is a need for updated regulations.     

Genetic Modification in Floriculture

An important driving force for the floriculture industry is the development of novel plants and flowers. New varieties provide marketing opportunities for retailers and judicious selection can increase productivity for growers, as well as improving the quality of the final product in the consumer's hands. While plant exploration and conventional breeding programs have been very successful in achieving these goals, genetic modification offers additional routes for the generation of new varieties of important floricultural plants. This can be achieved by the incorporation of genes from outside of the normally available gene pool. This paper provides a summary of the potential applications of gene technology in floriculture and reviews progress to date, with a particular emphasis on the manipulation of flower color. The manipulation of the anthocyanin biosynthesis pathway in carnation to produce novel-colored flowers is so far the only commercial application of genetic modification in floriculture. This progress is in stark contrast to the widespread cultivation of genetically modified broad-acre crops. The commercial use of gene technology requires adherence to regulatory regimes specific to genetically modified plants, and compliance with intellectual property laws. These added complexities are a significant cost, which may be hampering the use of gene technology by breeders of floricultural crops. Another factor may be a perception that the public and retail trade may not accept genetically modified floricultural products. Experience in the real marketplace with the Florigene Moon-series? of genetically modified carnation suggests that these concerns are unwarranted.     

Overview of the current status of genetically modified plants in Europe as compared to the USA

Genetically modified crops have been tested in 1,726 experimental releases in the EU member states and in 7,815 experimental releases in the USA. The global commercial cultivation area of genetically modified crops is likely to reach 50 million hectares in 2001, however, the commercial production of genetically modified crops in the EU amounts to only a few thousand hectares and accounts for only some 0.03% of the world production. A significant gap exists between the more than fifty genetically modified crop species already permitted to be cultivated and to be placed on the market in the USA, Canada and other countries and the five genetically modified crop species permitted for the same use in the EU member states, which are still pending inclusion in the Common Catalogue of agricultural plant species. The further development of the "green gene technology" in the EU will be a matter of public acceptance and administrative legislation.     

浅谈多国转基因产品标识制度对我国的启示

转基因产品（genetically modified organis, GMO）标识是为了表明该产品由转基因生物生产、加工而成的特殊标识,即标识产品中含有转基因成分。21世纪以来,全球共有60多个国家种植转基因作物,随之出现大量转基因产品。其标识问题关乎消费者的知情权和选择权而备受公众关注。一方面,随着全球转基因技术研发和应用的不断推进,国际上对转基因产品的标识管理更加关注与重视;另一方面,我国正处在有序推进生物育种产业化的关键期,转基因产品标识管理制度的与时俱进至关重要。2019年全球共有29个国家种植转基因作物,种植面积位列前十的国家依次是美国、巴西、阿根廷、加拿大、印度、巴拉圭、中国、南非、巴基斯坦以及玻利维亚,这10个国家的转基因作物总种植面积占全球总种植面积的97.9%。以其他9个国家的转基因标识管理制度为切入点,分析不同国家及不同标识类别的特点,旨在为我国的转基因产品标识管理工作提供启示与参考。     

Harmonization of regulations for invertebrate biocontrol agents in Europe: progress,problems and solutions

The use of non‐native invertebrate biological control agents (IBCAs) in Europe is not covered by a Directive equivalent to that which regulates biocontrol with microorganisms or the genetic modification of crop plants. Regulation is at the discretion of individual member states and largely derived from national legislation on pesticides, plant health or environmental protection. There is no EU country with regulation of IBCAs that requires information on the microbial symbiont content of candidate species, and in the absence of horizontal transfer under natural conditions, this policy is unlikely to change. Although there have been few reported negative effects linked to the import and release of IBCAs, a number of countries have introduced or revised their regulatory frameworks in recent years. This article reviews major developments in the regulation and environmental risk assessment (ERA) of IBCAs in Europe over the last 10 years including: the fragmented pattern of regulation between countries, variation in information requirements for release licences, format and methods of ERA for different taxonomic groups of IBCAs, use and updating of the European Plant Protection Organisation Positive List, sources of expert advice on ERA data, communication between IBCA regulators, and options for the provision of international leadership to coordinate regulatory and ERA‐related issues with IBCA‐based biocontrol in Europe.     

Practical Applications of Manipulating Plant Architecture by Regulating Gibberellin Metabolism

The international trade in floriculture is estimated to be worth about US$150 billion, with the global demand for ornamentals steadily increasing. Consumer choice is influenced by factors such as plant architecture and flower colour. Conventional breeding has been responsible for the introduction of novel traits into ornamental plants and has played an important role in the development of new cultivars. However, a restricted gene pool and failure of distant crosses have led to the exploitation of somatic cell techniques, particularly genetic transformation, to generate plants with desirable traits. Gibberellins (GAs) are endogenous plant hormones that control key aspects of growth and development. Chemical growth regulators that modify GA biosynthesis are used extensively in horticulture to control plant stature, increasing production costs, manpower, and environmental risks. An alternative strategy involves genetic manipulation of GA metabolism to induce phenotypic changes, particularly alteration of stature. Because ornamentals are not used for human consumption, genetic manipulation approaches with these plants may be more acceptable in the immediate future to the general public, in certain parts of the world, than genetically manipulated food crops.     

Genetic modification of lignin concentration affects fitness of perennial herbaceous plants

Populations of four perennial herbaceous species that were genetically modified for altered lignin content (or associated forage digestibility) by conventional plant breeding were evaluated for two agricultural fitness traits, plant survival and plant biomass, in three Northcentral USA environments for more than 4 years. Reduced lignin concentration or increased digestibility resulted in increased winter mortality in two of four species and reduced biomass in one species. Results from other experiment indicate that these apparent genetic correlations may be ephemeral, suggesting that selection for fitness can be successful within high-digestibility or low-lignin germplasm. Results indicate that perennial plants genetically engineered with altered lignin concentration or composition for use in livestock, pulp and paper, or bioenergy production should be evaluated for fitness in field environments prior to use in agriculture. Received: 12 December 2000 / Accepted: 27 February 2001