Newsletter June 02
These newsletters
are edited and distributed at irregular intervals by Dag Lindgren. Email me if
you want to be added or removed from the mailing list or your email-address
changed.
An URL address to
this Newsletter is
http://daglindgren.upsc.se/Newsletters/Newsletter02to03/Newsletter_June02.htm
Eucalyptus conference in China
International
Symposium on Eucalyptus Plantations
Early
September 2002
The announcement is available at:
http://www.sustainablechina.com/SDNews/forest.shtml
Varför skall
samhället vara intresserat av fröplantager?
Dag Lindgren har sammanfattat skälen i ett
dokument (som kanske kommer i sin helhet i nästa newsletter) och en
föredragning på CFOP
Joint
publication SkogForsk and SLU
An
analysis based on SkogForsk publication list.
Strenghtening genetics at SLU
A
discussion with a suggestion of a research school in quantitative genetics,
which as far as I understand suggests a program with three research recruitment
positions and six doctorand positions, is on the agenda for next faculty board
meeting. Nothing is said about localisation. It demonstrates that there are
people and forces, who believe in what we do, and if this suggestion was
successfully launched, I think it can be stated that forest genetics would be
on good way to regain much of the ground lost the past three years. From Umeå
genetics point of view, the above all needed strengthening for the future of
the group would be a research recruitment position in quantitative genetics,
let's hope there is place for that in the program (that seems to be).
A GMO
Vision
At a seminar at Sävar focusing on resistance mechanisms April 2002, I
formulated a GMO vision. I believe some biotech person could work towards this
vision, although I worry they won’t. As gene patents expire within twenty
years, there is little chance of making a profit from this thought (like most
GMO thoughts). I developed the vision somewhat anyhow.
The vision concerns a forester 2150. He observes something that is damaging
his trees (like that some pine crowns of the small “estate” I manage myself,
turned red spring 2001). He discusses with the computer/communicator, which is
inserted in his left hip. That results in a diagnosis and a suggestion for a
genetic cure, which he accepts. When his communicators sends a message to a
satellite. The satellite emits a laser beam to the trees in the affected stand
(and no other trees) carrying the code for triggering specified genetic
sequences in a long standard package of GMOs all forest trees are carrying
(according to EU directive 2138/22396/EC). The specific DNA sequence in those
trees is marketed under the trade name “Hell’s Angel”. Part of this gene
package is designed to receive and interpret messages coded in laser beams. The
genes activated triggers the biosynthesis of the right thing on the right place
at the right time, as well as a proper physiological reaction. In that way the
harming agent is confined and controlled at maximum speed and efficiency. When
the danger is over, the trees are immediately instructed to return to their
ordinary life (or maybe at some stage of guard to a new outbreak or a secondary
disease for some period). Even the initial message may consider different
treatments of different trees, damaged could be healed, attacked
counterattacked and not yet attacked but in risk zone protected.
It seems almost hopeless to be genetically prepared for all types of
pests and diseases, which may harm a tree, with ordinary genes. The forest
environments vary much. The pests have their own evolution and they have a
nasty habit of changing the rules of the game during the game. A genetic cure
must be designed almost a century before the attack. Any genetic effort is on
the cost of other genetic efforts, and thus reduces the gain in all other
characters. Any defense mechanism costs resources for the tree, which cannot be
spent on whatever foresters grow trees for. For most of the time the defense
may be there and interfere with the life of the tree although it may not be
needed for most of the time. Different defense mechanisms may interact with
each other in unpredictable ways. A bug killer could be suspected of killing
non-hostile bugs. But to carry some extra DNA is a very limited burden for a
tree as long as this DNA shuts up.
“Hell’s Angel” contains hundreds of genes, which are completely silent
when not explicitly asked for. They code for all sorts of resistance mechanisms
as well as purely physiological events, which can be combined with the actual
defenses to obtain a vital strategy. Most of those genes will stay silent
forever; they are just where as an insurance policy. Just those genes needed
for the specific case are triggered and only for as long and in the relevant
tissues and quantities needed. A single Mendelian gene may seldom control
resistance alone, but it is more likely to be an interaction between a numbers
of genes. Hell’s Angel is very flexible as it contains many genes. Even
unforeseen problems can usually be dealt with if the variety of genes and
mechanisms in Hell’s Angel is sufficiently large. Hell’s Angel has not a
complicated hierarchy for specific internal feed backs for very many and
specialized pathogens, but rely more on external triggering of a response, to
make it more independent on relations and priorities made a long time ago. If
the first cure does not help, there are plenty of alternatives to continue.
Even the first response may be a multiple one there several levels of
resistance are introduced at once, making it less likely that genetic diversity
among trees and pathogen should live survivors, and thus leave little
evolutionary escape for the troublemaker.
Seven comments were obtained on a preliminary version of this suggestion
I distributed to 16 persons: “Your assumption, that there will be any
foresters left in 2150, is rather wild…” “I do not believe in this for a
second…” It was pointed out that genetic variation among trees might cause
different reactions. On the other hand it was pointed out that GMOs are likely
to focus on intensively managed forests where variation is lower than in
nature. I got an offer to get nice illustrations done to make the vision more
appealing. Most conventional thoughts seem to go to mechanisms letting the
disease trigger the response (as often happens in nature) rather than doing it
by an external impulse.
I got many and very
constructive comments from Seppo. He pointed (like another comment) at the
triggering of genes with some sort of physical signal is not an easy task, a
chemical signal would be easier, but also much more complicated and expensive
to distribute among trees. A signature from the stand may be enough to trigger
some response and the proper genes may amplify that. Different trees may be
differently triggered. The idea may not be constrained to biological threats,
e.g. the vegetative cycle could be adjusted to current forecasts rather than
given once forever at planting. It could be expanded to late growth phase, when
the tree could be better tailored to the needs of the future industry; this
includes impregnation with substances to prevent decay in saw logs; degradation
of lignin; and allocation of more growth resources to the stem wood the last
years.
Comments and
discussion
I conclude that a key
problem is: How do you get a gene to react on an electromagnetic signal (radio
or light). Some receptor mechanisms may constitute a rather big interaction
with the tree. Can we place a receptor in each cell? I feel that this might be
the best. Events need to be triggered only in special cells and at certain
times. A physical signal which can penetrate to each cell ought to be much more
selective and controllable than triggering a hormonal process.
Can trees react on
electromagnetic signals? Yes, trees respond to the length of undisturbed
nights, a short period of light in the night is enough to get a response. One
may debate the strength of the signal needed. Perhaps it would be necessary for
the forester to call on a helicopter with strong spotlights to work on the
field, the satellite signal (or mobile call signal or radio signal) may be too
weak.
No strict difference
can be made between genes controlling resistance and genes controlling other
matters. Growth rhythm may be very important in many disease spreading
scenarios, the receptive window may be very narrow and manipulating its timing
may be an important way to escape the disease.
Another key problem is
who should be in control. The Tree, the Computer or the Forester? The vision
recognizes a place for the forester. But he may not be at the place. Or the
forester may come too late. The tree may feel that something is happening long
before a forester or even a satellite can detect it. In the vision I assume
that the tree keeps its natural ability to respond. But we may add something
more by GMO or conventional breeding? If it is regarded a major problem we may
actually do that, but if it is a minor problem I suggest to constrain it to
what the tree can not raise to live by itself. The risk seem too big that
unforeseen complications will occur. It a computer or man should be in control
can be seen as optional and reciprocal. The command structure can be formulated
and implemented very late, and depending on experiences and Man’s habits and
psyche when it is relevant.
Now I think a priority
in GMO research is to construct a GMO package just for receiving and
interpreting signals. Let us call it Hermes. To get an efficient control of the
GMO it must function in each cell, and the natural capacity to receive
electronic signals is probably too undeveloped to utilize. Hermes should be
designed to be on always and thus it has not the advantage of Hell’s Angel to
be off most of the time. To switch off Hermes is only made in extreme
emergency, while Hell’s Angel default is switched off just as a precaution. Or
to suggest a still more far reaching tentative conclusion: we must learn to do
programming and a programming/communication language of GMOs. A hybrid between
Biotech and IT, it could be called BIT.
Some less repelling
name than Hell’s Angel may be better for giving the idea a better image,
suggestions appreciated. I had difficulties finding something better. Some
suggestions for the non-resistance part from Seppo (“Harvest It”; “Anti-Arctic”) sound duller.
Acknowledgement: This vision is the result of a dialogue with a number
of persons. I have not mentioned all comments I have utilized. Among the longer
and more creative replies I would like to mention Seppo, Ove and Eleonor. And
thanks, Ola, for a not very encouraging comment.
The attack
of the clones…
This is the next performance in the Starwar saga. This message is a more
important contribution to the public perception of clones than the recently
issued report by Sonesson et al.
EU law
A portal can be found at
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/
The most important for forest
genetics is 1999/105/EC. I guess it is best to search on 1999 105 from the
portal, but I found it at
http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/dat/2000/l_011/l_01120000115en00170040.pdf
There are similar rules issued by
OECD. The essential content of the OECD scheme expressed in simpler and easier
to read language was published by Nanson (2001) in Silvae Genetica 50: 181-187.
The intention is that the OECD scheme and EU directive should be almost
compatible.
Concerning bulk propagation OECD
(Nanson p 182) writes in a note 2 to what the EU directive call Appendix VI
“The relevant Authority can approve subsequent multiplication be vegetative
propagation of seed certified ….” The offspring of “qualified” or “tested”
parents may be mixed and bulk propagated. Nanson seems not to mention any rules
about proportion
In the directive 6 c it seems that
vegetative bulk propagation is possible under some circumstances. The
circumstances, however, give problems. E.g. Annex IV 2c says the number and
proportions of parental contributions must be approved. It can be claimed that the current Swedish
rule (20% of the plants are currently allowed to have a common parent) serves
the purpose but may not be strong enough, so it may imply strengthening of the
rules for reasons which are obscure and not evident from the OECD scheme.
Apropos the previous paragraphs. Jag gjorde en
föredragning om klonregler på Skogsstyrelsen, men eftersom den inte var så väl
övertänkt så kan man inte klicka sig fram och länken kommer nog
inte att vara kvar för evigt, men…
Application
of Genetic Markers to Forest Tree Species
The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute
(IPGRI) has recently placed on its website "Application of Genetic Markers
to Forest Tree Species" (a draft report to IPGRI of the project
"Developing Decision-making Strategies on Priorities for Conservation and
Use of Forest Genetic Resources") by Gene Namkoong and Mathew Koshy. The
document is available at http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/publications/pubsurvey.asp?id_publication=737
(PDF, 116 KB.
Electronic discussion about
biotechnology
FAO Research and Technology Paper 8, entitled
"Agricultural Biotechnology
for Developing Countries - Results of an Electronic
Forum", has been
published. It presents a report of the first six
e-mail conferences hosted
by the FAO Electronic Forum on Biotechnology in Food
and Agriculture from
March 2000 to May 2001.
http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/Y2729E/Y2729E00.HTM
It came altogether 400 contributions to the debate.
Two of them were from Sweden, both from me.
Quantitative Genetics and
Genomic
The Gordon Conference on Quantitative Genetics and
Genomics will be held February 9 - 14, 2003 in Ventura, California.
http://nitro.biosci.arizona.edu/Gordon2003.html
IUFRO Symposium of Population and Evolutionary Genetics
of Forest Trees which will be held
in Stara Lesna on August 25-29, 2002. Information
at
http://www.tuzvo.sk/~paule/conference
Genpatent i
växtförädling
Arnulf
Merker och Dag Lindgren skrev en replik i lokalpressen.
IUFRO
meeting about Tree Biotechnology.
It will take place in Umea, Sweden, in June
7-12 2003. Please find more information at the conference home page:
www.treebiotech2003.norrnod.se
Previous IUFRO conferences on molecular biology of forest trees:
· 1985, Avon Lake, Ohio, USA, Howard Kriebel
(party chair), 29 attendees
· 1987, Petawawa, Ontario, Canada, Bill
Cheliak, 29 attendees
· 1989, Riksgransen, Lappland, Sweden, Petter
Gustafsson, 29 participants, Mike Greenwood elected chair
· 1990, Lake Tahoe, California, USA, Dave
Neale & Claire Kinlaw, 84 attendees
· 1992, Bordeaux, France, Antoine Kremer, 96
attendees
· 1994, Scarborough, Maine, USA, Mike
Greenwood, 68 attendees
· 1995, Gent, Belgium, Wout Boerjan, 118
attendees, Steve Strauss elected chair
· 1997, Quebec City, Canada, Pierre Charest,
177 attendees
· 1999, Oxford, UK, 168 attendees, Malcolm Campbell (also elected chair)
· 2001, Skamania Lodge, Washington, USA, Steve Strauss and H.D Bradshaw, 302 attendees
The dramatically raising number of attendees clearly
demonstrates the raise of the interest in this field.
The genetic group at Umeå
At present we are
three senior scientists (Dag, Jan-Erik and Anders). We now have visits by four
visiting scientists: Huogen Li, JianGuo Cui, Seog Gu Son and Daoqun Zang. Mohan
Vargheze just returned to India (a bit earlier than planned because of problems
related to health). Seog Gu Son will leave around June 18 for Korea. Currently
he is sheep-herding a Korean TV team, which makes programmes about Swedish
Forestry. I assume that the Korean visitor group led by Kyu Suk Kang earlier
this year got a good impression, thank you who contributed to that! Darius
Danusevicius will come late June (Alena and the Uppsala people may like to
invite him for a day, as he may not have a long term prebooked Umeå flight).
Alexei Federkov will come in the autumn.
Family
news
Darius (and Lina)
got a big baby boy; they say they intend to call him Julius, probably after a
famous forest geneticist (if that’s the reason?). Let that be an example, name
your decedents after famous forest geneticists. May I suggest "Gene"?
Newsletter
technical comments
It is unbelievable
difficult to get IT issues to work (that is one of the reasons I sometimes
think we live in a world which does not want to improve). If links do not function, do not hesitate to tell
me.
Jag hade hoppats att några av de länkar jag gör till dokument hade spridits
via SkogForsks Rådgivande grupps protokoll och CFOPs diskussionsprotokoll,
eftersom jag tycker de innehöll relevant information till såväl organet som de
som får protokollet. Någon av dessa länkar hade jag kanske inte spritt till
detta forum om de spritts i andra former. En länk, som faktiskt spridits i ett
av detta protokoll, vidarebefordrar jag inte i detta medium, eftersom jag
tycker det räcker med protokollet.
In the April
newspaper it seems I involuntary included some demand of a confirmation of a
reply. That was a surprise for me (computers make many surprising things), but
I still comment on the result. The email was delivered Saturday evening to 65
receivers. Three read it Sunday, 7 Monday morning and one three weeks later
(that is also a surprise that 90% of the readers of this newsletter can be expected
to open it within 48 hours). More than 80% never reacted. I asked some and they
did not seem to be aware of some request to reply. Two replied commenting
without having read it. Thus I conclude that whatever the service was for, it
does not work well.
For
how long will these newsletters remain? I intend to go on a sabbatical to US in the end of
the year, and when I consider terminating this service. There is not a complete
lack of interest; some discussions has been raised; I have got a few
appreciating comments; there are a few who ask to be included on the list, but
not sufficient many to indicate that receivers see it as a valuable service; it
serves as a channel for my own thoughts and my discussion with myself (I like
personally to have somewhere to address reflections, but I doubt if many others
like to listen); so I doubt the value of the newsletter is worth my time or
promotes our group. I also regret to say that I detect painfully many and embarrassing
mistakes in my previous texts, which is also a reason to avoid publication in a
form which is not well proof read. My web links and my open, although a bit
rough, attitude is not sufficiently appreciated; it is too problematic to
handle IT; forest geneticists and tree breeders are not a very communicative
society.