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.

Last edit 02-06-09