Technology Issues in Plant Development
Technology Issues in Plant Development
Technology Issues in Plant Development
com
Many of what will become standard tools in functional genomic analysis will find gainful employment in plant biotechnology.
draw out the association between observed traits and particular genetic markers, thereby narrowing the search for the genes responsible. One of the challenges in this field will be to characterize the contributions of multiple genes and environmental factors to the trait of interest in the crop. Functional genomics Gene mapping and positional cloning can tell us which genes are important and their importance, but tells us nothing about how they behave and what they actually do. Many of what will become standard tools in functional genomic analysis will find gainful employment in plant biotechnology. Thus, the kinds of microarray technologies (often misnamed DNA chips) being developed at companies such as Incyte, Affymetrix (Palo Alto, CA), or Sequenom (Hamburg, Germany) to follow the messenger RNA levels of known genes will be applied extensively to panels of plant genes. Similarly, techniques such as SAGE1 (serial analysis of gene expression), which do not require prior gene identification, will be used for comparative plant gene expression profiling.
http://biotech.nature.com
Barbara Mazur is director of biotechnology research at DuPont Agricultural Products Experimental Station, P.O. Box 80402, Wilmington, DE 19880-0402, USA (Barbara.J.Mazur-1@usa.dupont.com).
A number of researchers are on the trail of transcription factors, for instance. In tobacco, abscisic acid has been shown 3 to increase the production of mRNA for two seed storage proteins while repressing the expression of isocitrate lyase mRNA. The response to abscisic acid appear to be modulated both developmentally and by exogenous sucrose and calcium. In other work, on the anthocyanin pigment synthesis pathway in maize, Vicki Chandler and colleagues at the University of Oregon have shown that regulation of pigment synthesis is dependent on the allelic composition at a particular locus4.
In order to improve both agronomic and grain quality traits in transgenic crops, however, it will be important to precisely control gene expression in both a tissue-specific and temporal manner.
Another phenomenon that continues to be the focus of several research programs, especially for high-level expression of transgenes, is the influence of scaffold- or matrixattachment regions (SAR, MAR)5,6. These regions of DNA are thought to be of fundamental importance for the organization of nuclear material and for the regulation of gene expression. When flanked with a SAR from tobacco, for instance, the expression per copy of a beta-glucuronidase reporter gene was almost 140-fold higher than a control with no SAR6. SARs are one possible response to reduce homology-dependent gene silencing mechanisms, a phenomenon apparent when multiple copies of a transgene are present. However, they are less effective with large numbers of a given transgene. In this regard, improved knowledge of antisense7 and of cosuppression mechanisms that plants have evolved to combat transposable elements or virus infections8 would aid in improving the efficiency of expression. Site-specific recombination systems such as Cre-lox9 and chemically regulated promoters10 are being used to study the control and timing of specific gene expression in detail. Genetic variation The palette of the molecular plant breeders is, of course, now much broader than it was traditionally. Bacterial genes for herbicide
tolerance and Bacillus thuringiensis insecticidal proteins have already been used in genetically engineered crops widely grown in North America and elsewhere. Bacterial enzymes have also been used to increase the lysine content of experimental crops: dihydropicolinic acid synthase encoded by a gene from a Corynebacterium species and an aspartokinase gene from E. coli expressed in the seeds of canola and soybean increased the seed lysine content around two- to fivefold11. The comparable plant enzymes are subject to lysine feedback inhibition whereas the bacterial enzymes are not. Non-crop plants and insects will also provide abundant sources of genes for the development of novel crops. So, too, will animals and humansparticularly in the production of pharming crops. Furthermore, in vitro mechanisms of molecular evolution promise to generate genes encoding entirely novel proteins, albeit based solidly on natures original designs. Thus, DNA shuffling has been used to develop a version of the green fluorescent protein that has over 40-fold higher fluorescence than the wild-type protein12. Another source of variability will be shuffling of the modular enzymatic units within multifunctional enzyme complexes. A group at KOSAN Biosciences (Burlingame, CA) and Stanford University (Stanford, CA), for instance, has shown that the substrate specificity of polyketide synthases is influenced by a small hypervariable region in one enzyme module. They suggest this region could be manipulated by combinatorial mutagenesis to produce novel enzyme specificities, thereby providing a means for synthesizing new types of polyketides. In taking crop improvement forward over the next decade or so, researchers will have to capture and correlate the vast amounts of information stemming from studies of plant genomes, expression patterns, and the physiology of whole plants. To harness this new knowledge in novel crops, they will need efficient methods, not only for transforming crops, but also for analyzing the outcomes of transformation at an early stage.
1. Velculescu, V.E. et al. Science 270, 484487 (1995). 2. Sundaresan, V. et al. Genes and Development 15, 17971810 (1995). 3. Bustos, M.M., Iyer, M. & Gagliardi, S.J. Plant Mol. Biol. 37, 265274 (1998). 4. Hollick, J.B. & Chandler, V.L. Genetics 150, 891897 (1998). 5. Meier, I. et al. Plant Cell 8, 21052115 (1996). 6. Allen, G.C. et al. Plant Cell 8, 899913 (1996). 7. Baulcombe, D.C. Plant Mol. Biol. 32, 7988 (1996). 8. Matzke, M.A. & Matzke, A.J. Cell Mol. Life Sci. 54, 94103 (1998). 9. Odell, J.T., Hoopes, J.L. & Vermerris, W. Plant Physiol. 106, 447458 (1994). 10. McNellis, T.W. et al. Plant J. 14, 247257 (1998). 11. Falco, S.C. et al. 1995. Bio/Technology 13:577-587. 12. Crameri, A. et al. Nat. Biotechnol. 14, 315319 (1996).
http://biotech.nature.com