Great Expectations

Nature has a (behind paywall) feature on Five crop researchers who could change the world. Rather than celebrating those who have arrived, Emma Marris highlights the work of five researchers who still have some way to go before reaching the Food Hall of Fame.

These are her picks.

Peter Dodds (CSIRO, Australia) works on the fundamentals of wheat stem rust. He investigates the substances that the rust fungus excretes, and the plant could use to trigger a defense reaction. He hopes to engineer new and more complex resistance, that the rust might not be able to break. Seems particularly relevant in the light of the UG99 scare.

Jerry Glover is a crop perennializer at the Land Institute, in Kansas, USA. The folks at the Land Institute want us to move from annual to perennial crops. That would be better for the soil and would take much less energy (nitrogen) to produce. They are clearly in it for the long run, but here’s a short and palatable piece about it.

Zhang Jinghua (Hong Kong Baptist University) works on deficit irrigation. The theory is that under modest water stress plants shift all their resources to reproduction and hence grain yield can increase. One trick in his book, and that of Australian grape growers, is ‘partial root zone drying’. Some roots are dry, and signal the need to fill the seeds, while other roots can access the water that is needed to keep producing. Water saving is particularly important in increasingly water scarce Northern China.

Richard Sayre, the director of the Institute for Renewable Fuels, Missouri, USA, was selected because he heads the BioCassava Plus collaboration. They are hoping to develop genetically modified cassava of which 500 g contains the daily requirements of protein, vitamin A and E, iron and zinc 1. They have succeeded in transformations for individual traits, now they have to figure out how to artificially transfer 15 genes into a single variety.

Julian Hibberd (U. of Cambridge) studies photosynthesis. He is one of the brains in the C4 rice consortium led by IRRI. They are trying to create rice plants with C4 rather than C3 photosynthesis. C4 photosynthesis is more efficient at high temperature, and it could be the next big thing (after short straw) to radically elevate rice yield potential — “by a whopping 50%” 2, thinks Hibberd. Seems far fetched, but C4-ness has independently evolved in many plant families, so why not another time, with a little help?

An interesting group, but did Nature miss anyone? Perhaps in branches of research less dominated by biotech? Let us know.

Onion tears

A Kiwi researcher laments that regulations make it pointless to work on GMO’s in New Zealand. He mentions a particular sad case in point: the obstacles to testing tearless onions. There is no reference to this in the trade-journal for this type of news, the Onion 3. What to say? Perhaps there is nothing wrong with making onions tearless, but I feel it would be a loss. Not having rational objections, I search for a metaphysical answer. Something like Carlos Drummond de Andrade’s poem about an opposite case:

Mal do Século

Como se não bastasse o mundo de tristezas
entre céu e terra,
principalmente em terra,
vem o agrónomo, descobre
o vírus da tristeza nas laranjeiras.

My translation:

Times of Sorrow

As if there wasn’t enough sadness
between heaven and earth
particularly on earth
comes the agronomist, discovers
the sadness virus in the orange trees

Nibbles: Radishes, Fungi, Genomics, Bagel, Eels, Barack Hussein, Pomegranate

Yes, maybe, no, yes: Transgenes in Mexican maize, after all

Update: The link below was behind a paywall. A new one, via SciDev.net, seems to be open access.
Elena Álvarez-Buylla and co-workers have found transgenes from genetically modified maize in landraces in Mexico. Their paper is to be published in Molecular Ecology, but for now we have this news article in Nature.

The evolving story has multiple layers, including the science ethics controversy. Quist and Chapela published the same finding in Nature in 2001, but their methods were questioned, and the journal made an unprecedented statement saying there had been insufficient evidence to justify the publication. Some saw the hand (and money) of Big Biotech in this 4, and in the subsequent denial of tenure to Chapela at the University of California, Berkeley (that was later overturned). Now Nature reports that the Álvarez-Buylla paper was not published in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) because the journal’s editor-in-chief Randy Schekman, also at Berkeley, considered that “the report could gain undue exposure in the press due to a political or other environmental agenda.”

We’ll see if the current paper settles the scientific controversy. Ortiz-García and colleagues did not find any transgenes in a large sample in 2003/4; a result that was found worthy of publication in PNAS. The Nature news article suggests that Álvarez-Buylla found the transgenes in only one field (out of more than 100 sampled), and that this field was also sampled by Quist and Chapela. So are we talking about a single farmer with a cousin in Iowa sending seed remittances? Or about a relatively small fraction of maize plants across the country?

It seems entirely obvious that if there are transgenes in U.S. maize, these will spread down to Mexico. Someone needs to find them first, for sure, but the more relevant question is not if transgenes spread, but rather: which, where, what mechanism(s) (long versus short distance dispersal), how fast, how much, how persistent, and what are the consequences, if any? The term “pollution” is used a lot in this debate. Me, I do not believe in pure races.