Those of you who remember our little discussion here recently of grasspea breeding, and in particular the importance (or otherwise) of breeding for low values of the neurotoxin β-N-oxalyl-L-α,β-diaminopropionic acid (β-ODAP) in its seeds, will not be surprised to learn that a press release a few days ago announcing a new(ish) promising low-ODAP variety called Ceora sent me scurrying around in Genebank Database Hell.
Grass pea is a hardy annual legume with a growth habit similar to field pea, characterised by resistance to both drought and waterlogging. Its low cost, low input nature makes it a prime feed crop.
It has been restricted in use, however, due to the presence of neurotoxin ODAP, which causes paralysis of the lower limbs (lathyrism).
This was overcome by the breeding of cultivar Ceora (Lathyrus sativus) by Dr Colin Hanbury, Prof Kadambot Siddique and Dr Ashutosh Sarker of the Centre for Legumes in Mediterranean Agriculture (CLIMA).
With an ODAP level of 0.04 to 0.09 percent, Ceora virtually eliminates the toxin’s effects, making it safe for animal consumption.
Dr Gusmao has delved deeper into the plant’s benefits.
Those benefits are a suite of adaptations to cope with, and indeed also avoid, water deficits. Promising indeed. But how was this miracle plant concocted?
Ok, so googling pretty quickly revealed that Ceora, which incidentally “is the first grass pea (Lathyrus sativus) cultivar to be bred and released in Australia” …
…was derived from a cross made in 1994 at Northam, Western Australia (WA), using female parent K33 (originating from Pakistan) x male parent 8604 (originating from Bangladesh).
That’s from its official registration note. So all we now have to do is trace K33 and 8604. And that’s where I hit a wall. Because apart from finding that 8604 was also subsequently called ATC 80723 (see page 425 here), I could make no further headway. ((The ATC apparently refers to its ATFCC, or Australian Temperate Field Crops Collection, record, which indicates that it came from Bangladesh via the Western Australian Department of Agriculture, circa 1994.)) Sure, 8604 might be this accession in GRIN. But then again it might not be. And of a K33 (in its various permutations) from Pakistan I could find no mention in any database. There’s a grasspea labelled K33 cv Zubryak from Russia in VIR’s database, but that’s coincidence, surely.
So I was reluctantly forced, and not for the first time, to enlist the help of a Virgil, in this case Dirk Enneking, who has commented here frequently on grasspea and other pulse breeding issues. To cut a long story short, he used his global network of grasspea contacts to discover (or re-discover, as he also found some of this stuff buried in his old notes), that 8604 is a breeding line developed by crossing the Indian line Pusa-24 (as male) with the Bangladeshi landrace “Jamalpur local” (female). Both P-24 (as it is also known) and Jamalpur local have a history of use in grasspea improvement. The former in particular is known for its low ODAP content. As for, K33 its origin seems to lie with Pakistani researcher Hafeez I.T. Khawajas, but little is know beyond that.
Anyway, all this is of any conceivable interest to anyone only if they can get hold of the germplasm. ((Or perhaps if they doubt the value of multilateralism.)) Ceora is of course commercially available, although a reference sample is also stored in the USDA system. So too is P-24, although it is presumably also in the Indian genebank at NBPGR (and perhaps ICARDA, though I couldn’t find it on Genesys). Hopefully all this stuff is at Horsham, but I cannot be sure because they, like NBPGR, are not online. For now.
P.S. And here’s a final thought. This took a couple of weeks and endless emails to unravel. The much more complicated Wita 9 pedigree story just a few clicks. Once we get genebank databases sorted out, we’ll have to link them to breeders’ databases. Once.
P.P.S. Now, speaking of grain legume breeding in Australia, did someone mention the Afghan pea accession PS998?
PS998 = WBH 2126 (weibullsholm)
http://www.nordgen.org/sesto/index.php?scp=ngb&thm=sesto&accnumtxt=NGB102126
= PI 222117
http://www.ars-grin.gov/cgi-bin/npgs/acc/display.pl?1179686
But how would you know that, unless you just knew it?
you need to have a good filing system
OK, how can the rest of us find out, then?
and dtsearch to trawl it http://www.dtsearch.com/
What’s wrong with Google?
It has become evil?
How can the rest find out? Without privileged access to unpublished data, they cannot. While more of the unpublished data could be integrated into gene bank documentation, for any new varieties here is a thought.
The simplest solution is to ask breeders when they decide to publish their pedigrees [some may have good commercial reasons not to], to reference any of their parent material, which originated from gene bank collections, with the original donor’s ID numbers.
In the case of 8604 the original breeder’s ID was LS 8604 published by Campbell, C. G. and C. J. Briggs (1987). “Registration of low neurotoxin content Lathyrus germplasm LS 8246.” Crop Science 27(4): 821. [source of this reference is the CLIMA Lathyrus bibliography, original record CABI abstracts]
There may be a role here for editors and reviewers to encourage authors to dig deep into their records and those of their peers in order to preserve those valuable ID links for their material.
I think it might also be worthwhile to have a serious discussion within the breeder and genebank communities about Digital Object Identifiers. Has there been any progress since the post I just linked to?
Hi all
I was the main breeder of Ceora. While I don’t know where all the stored seed has ended up since I left CLIMA I do have all my records with me. Some of the lines we obtained as part of that program had mysterious origins.
Colin