Plant Biotech Blog

Check Biotech
November 30, 2007

Reduced crop productivity due to soils containing toxic levels of boron (B) is a worldwide problem in food production. It is estimated that up to 17% of the barley yield losses in southern Australia are caused by B toxicity. We found that the expression of AtBOR4, an Arabidopsis paralog of BOR1, the first identified boron transporter gene, generates plants that are tolerant of high B levels.

BOR4 is a polarly localized borate exporter that enhances B efflux from roots. The present study is a foundation for the improvement of crop productivity in soils containing excess B, which are distributed in arid areas of the world.

Boron (B) is an essential nutrient for plants and animals, but in high concentrations it is toxic. Living organisms, including plants, must control the B distribution to maintain adequate levels of B in their cells. Reduced crop quality and yields in soils containing toxic levels of B are a worldwide problem in food production, especially in arid areas. By manipulating B transport, we have generated plants that are tolerant of high levels of B.

B accumulation occurs both naturally and through artificial means such as irrigation. About five million ha of soils containing greater than 15 mg kg–1 B, above the threshold for normal plant growth, exist in southern Australia, corresponding to 30% of the region. Up to 17% of the barley yield loss in this area was estimated to be caused by B toxicity. B-tolerant cultivars with reduced B uptake are known for barley, but breeding programs have not yet produced a practical solution for B tolerance.

Arabidopsis thaliana BOR1, an efflux-type borate transporter, was the first B transporter identified in a biological system. BOR1 is required for the transport of B from roots to shoots under conditions of low B supply. BOR1 is capable of conferring high B tolerance to yeast by pumping boric acid out of the cell. However, in plants under high B conditions, BOR1 is degraded via endocytosis, and overexpression of BOR1 does not improve plant growth in the presence of toxic levels of B.

We focused on AtBOR4 (The Arabidopsis Information Resource code At1g15460 and GenBank code NM_101415), one of the six BOR1 paralogs present in the A. thaliana genome. B transport activities of BOR4 and BOR4–green fluorescent protein (GFP) fusion were confirmed in yeast. We generated seven independent transgenic A. thaliana lines producing the BOR4-GFP fusion under the control of cauliflower mosaic virus 35S RNA promoter.

Immunoblot analysis of a generated transgenic line showed that BOR4 accumulated in the presence of a high B supply, suggesting that BOR4 is exempt from the posttranslational BOR1 degradation system.The supply of 10 mM boric acid was substantially lethal to wild-type plants, but much more vigorous root and shoot growth with varying degrees was observed in all the homozygous Pro35S-BOR4-GFP transgenic lines grown on solid medium containing 10 mM boric acid. Accumulation of BOR4-GFP and tolerance of B were positively correlated. The B concentrations in the roots and shoots of these transgenic plant lines were lower than that in the wild type in the presence of 3 mM boric acid. Overall tracer B uptake was also reduced in the transgenic line 4. These results suggest that the overproduction of BOR4-GFP improved growth under conditions of B toxicity through B efflux.

Furthermore, GFP fluorescence derived from BOR4-GFP was strongly detected in the plasma membranes of the distal sides of epidermal cells in the elongation zone of roots of the transgenic lines carrying ProBOR4- BOR4-GFP. The distal localization of BOR4 is likely important for the directional export of B from the roots to the soil to prevent the accumulation of B in the xylem and growing cells. This enhanced B efflux from the roots of crop plants is expected to result in improved crop productivity in the B-toxic soils found in a number of regions of the world.

Source: Check Biotech

Herald Sun (Australia)
Andrew Bolt
November 30, 2007

THE campaigners warning us we might end up with two heads after eating GM foods are ignoring the science that says it’s good for you.

Let me prove how dead to reason are the state politicians now screaming that genetically modified crops could kill us.

These Greens and soy-milk Labor panic-merchants actually got their scientific advice from Jeffrey Smith.

Now there’s a laugh — or would be if it didn’t confirm we’re losing our minds. Unreason rules.

Smith, an activist and author of Seeds of Deception, was brought out from the United States to convince us Premier John Brumby was toying with our lives by deciding now to lift at last Victoria’s ban on GM canola.

And how glad our greens, anti-capitalists and conspiracy-theorists were to hear him. In fact, he got the kind of reception we normally reserve for that other Profit of Doom, Al Gore.

The ABC gave him lots of air time, without expressing the slightest doubt about his evidence or credentials. Same story with The Age, which ran a typical Smith polemic.

“There is irrefutable evidence that GM foods are unsafe to eat”, Smith roared. “Working with more than 30 scientists worldwide, I documented 65 health risks of GM foods. There are thousands of toxic or allergic-type reactions in humans . . .”

In fact, GM corn had a gene that “if transferred from corn snacks, for example, it could turn our intestinal flora into living pesticide factories”.

Gosh. Your guts turned into poison factories. Think of that.

Think also how useful to a professional alarmist like Smith are words like “if” and “could” — especially when none of the millions of people who have snacked on GM food have found their stomachs actually converted into Mortein plants.

And think, too, what it says about Smith that he fails to add that the Food and Agricultural Organisation says the rat study he relies on “is unlikely to present a public health concern”.

Yet the most astonishing part of Smith’s visit was that he walked into Parliament House on Tuesday last week as the guest of anti-GM politicians who wanted a briefing on the science behind his scares.

What was so astonishing about that, you may ask? Astonishing is that Smith walked in, rather than floated.

Read the rest of this entry »

GMO Africa
November 22, 2007

This week I revisit the relevance of GM crops to Africa’s agriculture. Two anti-biotech activists from South Africa prompt me to do so.

Andrew Taynton of South African Freeze Alliance on Genetic Engineering (SAFeAGE) and Dulcie Krige, a social scientist, claim GM crops aren’t the solution to food insecurity that bedevils Africa today. Writing in the Legal Brief, the two, in their article entitled, “Are GM crops the solution to Africa’s food problems?” argue food sustainability in Africa is possible without crop genetic engineering.

“…thousands of years of careful seed selection by African farmers has given rise to local varieties with valuable attributes such as drought and disease resistance,” they observe. To them, seed scientists can use a marriage of indigenous knowledge and modern technology to produce “…varieties which result in increased yields and disease resistance without running the risks associated with GM.”

Taynton and Krige identify Marker Assisted Systems (MAS) as one of the technologies that Africans must embrace in place of agricultural biotechnology. They argue it’s safe and cost effective. They even sneaked in a quote Jeff Cox, Monsanto’s Northern Europe, made in August 2002, to the effect that Marker Assisted Systems (MAS) could be used to boost crop yields, to bolster their argument.

The two take issue with GM crops out of concern that biotech companies’ sole interest is to patent seeds, then sell them to farmers at rooftop prices. Here, the obvious targets as usual are multinational biotech companies like Monsanto, DuPont and Bayer. My question is, if the problem is corporate profiteering, why should Africa not see this as an opportunity to invest in GM seeds production? Africa has a galaxy of scientists who can make great marks in this field.

The debate on GM crops’ relevance to Africa is as old as the technology behind them. There are those, like Tayton and Krige, who believe GM crops have no role to play in Africa’s agriculture. There are others, like myself, who deride the argument that Africa must avoid GM crops at all costs. Other continents are practicing agricultural biotechnology, and so should Africa.

I agree GM crops might not solve all of Africa’s food problems, but they have a pivotal role to play to solve the problem. It would be an aberration to, even, declare GM crops the cure to global food problems.

Every technology, including crop genetic engineering, has a value to a particular segment of the society. Farmers who prefer Marker Assisted Systems technology, for instance, must be allowed to embrace it, while those for GM crops should be left to their own devices. There’s nothing like mutual exclusivity, where the adoption of one agricultural technology automatically excludes the other.

People must stop inciting African farmers against technologies, such as agricultural biotechnology, that might improve their bottom line.

The Hindu
November 20, 2007

New Delhi (PTI): Biotechnology and other new technological developments in the field of agriculture would enhance the food production in the country, the government informed Lok Sabha on Monday.

Minister of State for Agriculture, Kanti Lal Bhuria said biotechnology, besides improving economic and social benefits, would also contribute to increase crop productivity, lower production costs, conserve bio-diversity and increase stability of production to lessen suffering during famines.

He said the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) is developing improved varieties with high yield potential, tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses and better quality traits through bio-technological interventions.

The government has also taken many steps for infrastructural development for research in biotechnology and human resource development through out India, he said

“Other technologies like Geographic Information System, Remote Sensing, Global Position System and Simulation Modelling have helped in increasing agriculture production,” he told in a written reply to Lok Sabha.

The minister said using radiation-induced mutation and cross-breeding, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) has developed 29 improved varieties and released for commercial cultivation. These comprise 16 in oilseeds, 11 in pulses and one each in rice and jute.

Replying to a query on application of nanotechnology for improving the production, the minister said, “Nanotechnology has potential in enhancing resource use efficiency in terms of soil-water-nutrient-pesticide through development of suitable nano-products and biosensors”.

“The potential, however, remains to be harnessed,” Bhuria said.

Source: The Hindu

AgBios
November 16, 2007

NEW DELHI - US-based biotech major Monsanto is planning to launch a new hybrid version of cotton in India for commercial cultivation by 2011, notwithstanding the criticism over its existing products in the country and allegations that yields from the cotton seeds are much below claims.

After the success of Bollgard I and Bollgard II genetically modified (GM) cotton, Mahyco-Monsanto Biotech (MMB) is hopeful that its Roundup Ready Flex (RRF), a second generation hybrid would be commercialised in the next two-three years.

Approvals have already been granted for field trials which are being done in South India to examine the growth, development, crop yield and fibre quality. The company plans to undertake trials in a wider area from next year.

“The technology is currently in early stages of regulatory trials and we expect to make it available to farmers by 2011,” MMB Deputy Managing Director Raj Ketkar told PTI.

On earlier variants of Bt cotton, experts had expressed doubts on their productivity levels.

Explaining the significance of RRF cotton, Ketkar said the new version is a weed control variant. It has been modified using two copies of gene to tolerate applications of glyphosate, the active ingredient in the Roundup family of herbicide.

“Conventional cotton is susceptible to glyhosate damage. Farmers can use RRF to control weeds that emerge in their crop without causing crop damage,” he said.

Source: AgBios

AgBios
By Alok Jha
November 16, 2007

Genetically modified plants which produce essential omega-3 fish oils could be the only way to ensure people get enough of these nutrients, according to a major EU-funded study. The plants, which would be used as feed for farm animals, could increase omega-3 in human diets without adding to pressure on rapidly declining fish stocks.

Long-chain fatty acids called EPA and DHA, found mainly in oily fish such as tuna, salmon and mackerel, can give protection against cardiovascular diseases and slow mental decline in elderly people and are essential for the healthy development of a baby’s brain in the womb.

Experts recommend that we eat about 450mg of omega-3 oils every day, but most adults manage barely half that amount. Among teenagers, the figure drops to just 100mg a day. Low-income families get about 50mg a day less than average. To address the health problems that could result from a lack of these essential fatty acids, a five-year EU-funded project called Lipgene brought together almost 200 scientists and economists to look for ways to increase the levels of the oils in people’s diets. An analysis carried out for the project found that the costs of increasing omega-3 consumption across Europe would be paid back many times over in reduced healthcare costs.

Ian Givens, of the University of Reading, one of the Lipgene scientists, said that part of the answer lay in increasing omega-3 fish oils in popular foods. Only 30% of Britons regularly eat oily fish, but 80% eat poultry. “The target we set ourselves was for a 200g portion of meat to contain 300mg of EPA and DPA together - we’ve achieved that. If that strategy was adopted on a widespread basis, that poultry meat in the amounts it’s currently consumed would provide the population with 120-130mg a day.”

Givens increased the omega-3 levels in his chickens by adding the oils, taken from fish, to their feed. However, this method may not be sustainable given the depletion of fish stocks around the world.

Johnathan Napier, of Rothamsted Research Institute in Hertfordshire, said that the only sustainable way to increase omega-3 in people’s diets was to turn to GM technology. “There are no naturally occurring plant species that have the capacity to synthesise these long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, which is why we have to take the GM route - there is no alternative.”

EPA and DHA are normally made by microscopic marine algae which are then eaten by small fish, passing the fatty acids into the food chain. Napier took genes from algae and inserted them into linseed and oilseed rape crops so that these produced the oils. The GM plants can be used as feed for chickens or other animals. Napier said that fields of GM crops for animal feed could be grown within five years.

Another advantage would be a source of fish oils free from mercury contamination. The scientists said concerns among the public about GM crops would need to be addressed, but Givens was confident of support. “When the issues about sustainability of fish oils and the worldwide picture becomes clearer, and also when people are able to see what the benefits to them are, I suspect mindsets will change.”

Napier said that environmentalists would need to consider the sustainability aspect. “If you’re reducing the pressure on natural fish stocks, that’s got to be a benefit. You can’t always be a nay-sayer, you’ve got to come up with a positive solution.”

Source: AgBios

Truth about Trade & Technology
By Terry Wanzek
November 16, 2007

The drought now choking the Southeastern United States is a slow-motion natural disaster. Officials in Atlanta say they could run out of water by January. The governor of Georgia is asking for prayers. “The only solution is rain,” says his spokesman. “And the only place we get that is from a higher power.”

Farmers understand the threat of drought. It’s one of our biggest fears, partly because we have no control over it. You can be the best farmer in the world, but if the skies don’t release rain, nothing will grow.

The problem afflicting Georgia and its neighbors is severe–the worst drought in a century, say the experts. Other parts of the world are experiencing their own problems. In Australia, farmers are in the seventh year of the worst drought that anyone Down Under can recall. They’re calling it the “Big Dry.”

There won’t ever come a time when crops won’t need water. But if biotechnology is allowed to reach its full potential, there may come a time when crops need less water than they do now. Drought-resistant crops are on the scientific horizon. They can become a reality soon–but only if we make a determined effort to develop them.

In truth, biotechnology already has improved the ability of crops to survive dry spells. Herbicide-resistant plants prevent the growth of weeds, which suck moisture from our fields. As a result, these biotech-derived plants can get by with a bit less access to water than the crops of just a generation ago.

What’s more, because GM crops make it possible to farm without constant plowing, our fields don’t suffer from nearly as much soil erosion as they once did. If my ancestors had access to the same crop technologies that I use today, they might not have suffered from the Dust Bowl catastrophes of the 1930s, when dust storms aggravated drought conditions and led to what may be the worst decade in the history of American agriculture.

That period generated at least one great work of literature–The Grapes of Wrath–but it also produced untold suffering in the heartland. Biotechnology virtually guarantees that there won’t be a sequel to John Steinbeck’s famous book.

Read the rest of this entry »

SciDev.net
November 14, 2007

India has launched a national biotechnology development strategy focusing on biotechnology’s potential to provide long-term benefits for agriculture, health and the environment.

The strategy, issued by science minister Kapil Sibal this week (13 November), includes a target for the biotechnology industry to generate US$7 billion by 2012, and the revamping of biotechnology education programmes to create global centres of educational and research excellence.

To achieve this target, Sibal said the country will boost funds for biotechnology by five-fold over the next five years, from 14,500 million Indian rupees (US$362 million) during 2002–2007 to 65,000 million Indian rupees (US$1.6 billion) by 2012.

He said at the press briefing for the strategy that the funds will be used to “beef up” India’s biotechnology infrastructure.

“We need a new vision. The next big challenges are in health, agriculture and environment, which the nation must invest in seriously,” Sibal told reporters.

In a major new initiative, the strategy will reserve up to 30 per cent of Department of Biotechnology’s (DBT’s) budget for public-private partnerships and the launch of a biotechnology industry partnership programme for advanced technologies.

The strategy aims to improve biotechnology education throughout the country by identifying highly-reputed colleges in around 20 smaller universities and supporting them through teacher training programmes.

Existing university science departments will be upgraded, and departments working on different disciplines will be streamlined to create globally competitive centres of education and research.

A UNESCO regional centre for science, education and innovation in biotechnology will be set up at Faridabad, near Delhi in northern India. The centre will provide global standard, industry-oriented training for physicians, biologists and engineers.

India is also introducing a cost-sharing scheme that allows industry to retain intellectual property. The DBT has drafted two bills to be taken to the Indian Parliament in 2008, one of which relates to protection, utilisation and regulation of intellectual property.

Source: SciDev.net

AgBios
November 14, 2007

The field trial was conducted at the University of Agricultural Sciences in Dharward, Karnataka.

According to the researchers, pest-resistant eggplant may become the first genetically engineered food crop in South Asia by 2009.

The engineered eggplant expresses a natural insecticide derived from the bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), which makes it resistant to the fruit and shoot borer (FSB), a highly destructive pest that accounts for up to 40 per cent of eggplant crop losses each year in India, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and other areas of South and Southeast Asia.

Sathguru and Cornell are handling the project on the resistant eggplant as part of the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP) II, which is funded by the US Agency for International Development. The work on the resistant eggplant began in 2002.

“Cornell has worked effectively to facilitate a productive partnership between the public and private sectors that will make this technology available to eggplant producers at every economic level,” said Ronnie Coffman, international professor of plant breeding and genetics and director of International Programs in Cornell’s College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (CALS).

“In five years, with support from Sathguru and Cornell, our partners were able to bring this flagship program to field trials and get food, feed and environmental safety approvals,” added K.V. Raman, Cornell professor of plant breeding.

So far, the eggplant has been found to be non-toxic as well as non-allergenic in tests on fish, chickens, rabbits, goats, rats, and cattle.

In the ongoing tests, the researchers are trying to determine whether the plant will continue to resist FSB in the field and for how long. They also want to see whether the Bt eggplant cross-pollinates with other eggplants in the field, and how far the Bt plants should be from other eggplant fields.

They believe that the Bt eggplant will reduce insecticide use by 30 percent while doubling the yield of marketable fruit, although eggplant is eaten as a vegetable.

The researchers also believe that Indian and Bangladesh together will plant 110,000 acres of the FSB-resistant eggplant commercially by the end of 2010, and 650,000 acres by 2015.

Economists from Cornell and other institutions say that the Bt eggplant would result in lower prices for consumers, higher yields for farmers, and boost the Indian economy by 411 million dollars and Bangladeshi economy by 37 million dollars by 2015.

“In spite of the green revolution in India, agricultural growth has stagnated there to less than 2 percent per year. It is important for a land-grant university like Cornell to be engaged in the improvement of technologies and help create a road map that leads to agricultural and economic growth in places like South and Southeast Asia and Africa,” said Raman.

Source: AgBios

ABC Rural
November 13, 2007

One of the world’s leading wheat breeders believes GM crops are not only safe, but hold the key to helping farmers cope with drought conditions and global warming.

Ian Edwards has worked as a plant breeder and genetic researcher for 42 years and says he is fed up having to de-bunk myths put forward by anti-GM lobbyists.

Dr Edwards wants governments to get behind GM technology, so it can be used to help farmers make money and look after the environment.

“Frankly genes for drought tolerance in our crops are going to become vital to us here in Australia,” he says.

“We have a real salinity problem and GM has some very real options in salt tolerance.

“These are the kinds of things we are going to see a lot more of and in fact the environment is a major concern and actually it’s also one of the major reasons for a change in public opinion attitudes significantly over the last year”.

Source: ABC Rural