Regulatory issues concerning CRISPR/Cas9-modified plants

Hi there

First, I try to answer the question: What regulatory issues could be raised in using Crispr/Cas9-modified plants in the field. As written in my blog there is a pioneering discussion about the topic going on, how to deal with genetical engineering at the level of international and national law. In Europa, the authorities are currently debating on how to implement these newish methods in the existing law. 

Swiss law says: “Genetically modified organisms may be put into circulation only if the Confederation has granted authorisation.” (Gene Technology Act, Art. 12, BAFU) That means in general that the handling of this GMO’s is forbidden or at least very difficult, as is research. But in the same act there is this one sentence: “Genetically modified organism means organisms in which the genetic material has been altered in a way that does not occur under natural conditions by crossing or natural recombination.” (Gene Technology Act, Art. 5, BAFU) So in principle the Crispr/Cas9-method does not go under the term of genetic modified plants. Which leads to the conclusion that the Swiss regulation could allow genetic engineered plants.

To answer the question above: Regulatory issues should be carefully considered, but transparency must be given. Coexistence models could be conceived which specifically identify the attachment areas of the plants. In my opinion there is from today’s perspective no scientific reason to handle Crispr/Cas9 as strict as GMO’s, but a controlled cultivation makes sense, especially in the beginning phase of acceptance. The precautionary and polluter-pays principles apply. (GTA, Art. 2, BAFU)

But still even biotechnology scientists recommend at least a monitoring program of the ongoing researches, especially at on- and off-target mutations. (Lawrenson et al, 2015) And the Federal Council in Switzerland extended last year the moratorium against GMO’s until 2021, to have more time in the discussion about the future of GMO cultivation in Swiss agriculture. (media release, Bern, 29.06.2016) What shows how sensible the topic is. Nobody “wants to burn their fingers”, how the Swiss would say, at the same time, however, much is at stake. The latest news in the patent dispute is that the European Patent Office (EPA) allocate a patent to the Broad-Institute about Crispr-Cpf1 (a variation of the Cas9 enzyme). (NZZ-article, 02.03.2017) That these patents are cradles of gold is needless to say.

It’s hard estimate how the society will react in the coming ten years. There will always be a part of the society which is absolutely decline Gen technology out of emotional reasons. Will the research community succeed in conducting a fact-based discussion in public? Will the pressure from industry and medicine be too great to allow any discussion at all? Whatever the outcome, the next few years will be very interesting to follow.

Thanks for reading and commenting 

References:

Federal Act of 21 March 2003 on Non-Human Gene Technology (Gene Technology Act, GTA), 2004, Federal Office of Environment

Tom Lawrenson, Oluwaseyi Shorinola, Nicola Stacey, Chengdao Li, Lars Østergaard, Nicola Patron, Cristobal Uauy, Wendy Harwood, 2015: Induction of targeted, heritable mutations in barley and Brassica oleracea using RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease

Media release of the Federal Office, Bern, 29.06.2016, found (06.05.2017) at: https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/dokumentation/medienmitteilungen.msg-id-62442.html

Article in paper, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, found (06.05.2017) at: https://www.nzz.ch/wissenschaft/gentechnologie-die-eu-erteilt-crispr-patent-an-das-broad-institute-ld.148739

Application of the CRISPR/Cas9

Hi there

This blog-post serves to give you a brief overview of the CRISPR/Cas9 method as well as to outline with which ethical conflicts this science branch must deal.

Many scientist were working on that subject for quite a while, but since 2012 it’s known over the entire world. The research group around E.Charpentier and J.Doudna published their work about the use of the method. And so, it works:

CRISPR are repetitive sequence on the DNA of Prokaryotes. This CRISPR-DNA is meant to storage foreign DNA (e.g. bacteriophage) as a so-called Spacer. This spacer can then be transcripted by a RNA (pre-crRNA), in the case of an infection. The pre-crRNA and the Endonuclease Cas9 are then working together to cut and destroy the viral DNA at a specific spot, the Spacer like one. In other words: the Cas9 knows how to cut and the transcripted Spacer knows where to. The complete process is not fully understood yet but a lot can already be done (in all organisms) and further research is in progress.

The CRISPR/Cas method is an answer on infection but works for other DNA sections and Eukaryotes as well. That means this method is comparable to the hammer in the toolbox of genetic engineering. The astonishing thing about the method is its accuracy and velocity. Not all off-target effects (Nuclease cuts on a wrong spot) are nowadays eradicate, but the artificial synthesised Cas9 and the Guide RNA are getting better and better which leads also to a better result. The requirements for using genome editing is therefore a well-equipped biomolecular laboratory.

By using genome editing (e.g. CRISPR/Cas9) plants can gain stronger resistance or have other characteristics that make them more interesting. The processed plants don’t show any transgenes and are sometimes already in use for production. Canada and the U.S.A. permitted a potato variety that contains 75% less Acrylamides, which is cancerogenic and arise trough frying.  

Having such a powerful instrument to selectively change single base pairs, this science branch must deal with ethical conflicts. Changing DNA is still a taboo topic for many and the debate is more emotional than fact-based. Therefore, a great fear is in the broad population, saying that scientist just play with the essence of life. In my opinion this method is highly promising and many good things are possibly with it. But the brief time since its publication and the high potential of misusing frightens me somehow. It’s not a discover that can be taken easily, by saying it is just normal progress, because of the profound change that this will bring to humanity. Genome Editing will change the way we all think, and that always need its time.

Thanks for reading and commenting

References:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR/Cas-Methode

http://www.bfr.bund.de/de/fragen_und_antworten_zum_genome_editing_und_crispr_cas9-199684.html

http://www.gensuisse.ch/de/crisprcas

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6213/1258096?intcmp=collection-crispr

http://blog.addgene.org/how-to-design-your-grna-for-crispr-genome-editing

http://www.pflanzenforschung.de/index.php?cID=10760

Establishing an in vitro culturing system

Hi there

This Blog-Entry serves to answer several questions regarding in-vitro culturing techniques based on the scientific paper: Micropropagation of a difficult-to-root weeping mulberry (Morus alba var. Shidareguwa): A popular variety for ornamental purposes (Aroonpong, 2015).

-       Whenever plants are requested for agricultural or pharmaceutical means, its cultivation is of economic importance. To improve the belonging work steps and even the result, detailed knowledge is necessary. The aim of the Mulberry-Study is to receive plants with higher rooting ability after propagation.

-       To carry out a successful shoot induction, healthy, 3-year-old plants from the field are required. After shoot multiplication on media, the root induction comes at a different media with 1-month-old regenerated shoots (tips and nodes).

-       The results concerning the success of different explant types are shown in Figure 2. It’s evident that shoot tips have the highest survival rate and are much less affected of endo- and exophytic contamination. In addition, there were no browning to proof after 5 days of culture in this study.

-       The duration of the different acclimation stages is of great importance. In vitro plants require more time generally than ex vitro, to receive a survival rate from 90 – 100 %. Crucial factors are at one hand the room air with its specific gas composition and at the other hand the relentlessness of direct sun light.

Another interesting method to enhance the root ability of plants or var. Shidareguwa in special is to breed instead of in vitro cultivation. By taking a strong rooting variety as breeding partner the new born shoots will show aspects of both parental plants (weeping character and strong rooting).

Read more: Inheritance of a weeping character and the low frequency of rooting from cuttings of the mulberry variety ‘Shidareguwa’ (H. Yamanouchi, 2009)

bye