Explore the vast range of titles available.

Products of genome editing as the most promising \"New Plant Breeding Technology\" (NPBT) have made the transition from the lab to the market in a short time. Globally, research activities employing genome editing are constantly expanding and more and more plants with market-oriented traits are being developed, and companies have already released the first genome edited crops to the market. Few countries, most of which are located in the Americas, have adapted legislations to these technologies or released guidelines supporting the use of genome editing. Other countries are debating the path to come either because there is no clarity on the legal classification or due consensus is hampered by a renewed GMO debate. In recent years (2017-2020), eight countries have introduced guidelines clarifying the legal status of genome edited products and many of those are actively committed to international harmonization of their policies. In this publication we give an overview on the current and potentially future international regulatory environment and an update on plants derived by genome editing with market-oriented traits.

Novel plant genome editing techniques call for an updated legislation regulating the use of plants produced by genetic engineering or genome editing, especially in the European Union. Established more than 25 years ago and based on a clear distinction between transgenic and conventionally bred plants, the current EU Directives fail to accommodate the new continuum between genetic engineering and conventional breeding. Despite the fact that the Directive 2001/18/EC contains both process- and product-related terms, it is commonly interpreted as a strictly process-based legislation. In view of several new emerging techniques which are closer to the conventional breeding than common genetic engineering, we argue that it should be actually interpreted more in relation to the resulting product. A legal guidance on how to define plants produced by exploring novel genome editing techniques in relation to the decade-old legislation is urgently needed, as private companies and public researchers are waiting impatiently with products and projects in the pipeline. We here outline the process in the EU to develop a legislation that properly matches the scientific progress. As the process is facing several hurdles, we also compare with existing frameworks in other countries and discuss ideas for an alternative regulatory system.

Background Genome annotation is of key importance in many research questions. The identification of protein-coding genes is often based on transcriptome sequencing data, ab-initio or homology-based prediction. Recently, it was demonstrated that intron position conservation improves homology-based gene prediction, and that experimental data improves ab-initio gene prediction. Results Here, we present an extension of the gene prediction program GeMoMa that utilizes amino acid sequence conservation, intron position conservation and optionally RNA-seq data for homology-based gene prediction. We show on published benchmark data for plants, animals and fungi that GeMoMa performs better than the gene prediction programs BRAKER1, MAKER2, and CodingQuarry, and purely RNA-seq-based pipelines for transcript identification. In addition, we demonstrate that using multiple reference organisms may help to further improve the performance of GeMoMa. Finally, we apply GeMoMa to four nematode species and to the recently published barley reference genome indicating that current annotations of protein-coding genes may be refined using GeMoMa predictions. Conclusions GeMoMa might be of great utility for annotating newly sequenced genomes but also for finding homologs of a specific gene or gene family. GeMoMa has been published under GNU GPL3 and is freely available at http://www.jstacs.de/index.php/GeMoMa .

CRISPR/Cas enables a targeted modification of DNA sequences. Despite their ease and efficient use, one limitation is the potential occurrence of associated off-target effects. This systematic review aims to answer the following research question: Which factors affect the occurrence of off-target effects caused by the use of CRISPR/Cas in plants? Literature published until March 2019 was considered for this review. Articles were screened for relevance based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. Relevant studies were subject to critical appraisal. All studies included in the systematic review were synthesized in a narrative report, but studies rated as high and medium/high validity were reported separately from studies rated as low and medium/low or unclear validity . In addition, we ran a binary logistic regression analysis to verify five factors that may affect the occurrence of off-target effects: (1) Number of mismatches (2) Position of mismatches (3) GC-content of the targeting sequence (4) Altered nuclease variants (5) Delivery methods. In total, 180 relevant articles were included in this review containing 468 studies therein. Seventy nine percentage of these studies were rated as having high or medium/high validity . Within these studies, 6,416 potential off-target sequences were assessed for the occurrence of off-target effects. Results clearly indicate that an increased number of mismatches between the on-target and potential off-target sequence steeply decreases the likelihood of off-target effects. The observed rate of off-target effects decreased from 59% when there is one mismatch between the on-target and off-target sequences toward 0% when four or more mismatches exist. In addition, mismatch/es located within the first eight nucleotides proximal to the PAM significantly decreased the occurrence of off-target effects. There is no evidence that the GC-content significantly affects off-target effects. The database regarding the impact of the nuclease variant and the delivery method is very poor as the majority of studies applied the standard nuclease SpCas9 and the CRISPR/Cas system was stably delivered in the genome. Hence, a general significant impact of these two factors on the occurrence of off-target effects cannot be proved. This identified evidence gap needs to be filled by systematic studies exploring these individual factors in sufficient numbers.

Conventional genetic engineering techniques generate modifications in the genome stable integration of DNA elements which do not occur naturally in this combination. Therefore, the resulting organisms and (most) products thereof can unambiguously be identified with event-specific PCR-based methods targeting the insertion site. New breeding techniques such as genome editing diversify the toolbox to generate genetic variability in plants. Several of these techniques can introduce single nucleotide changes without integrating foreign DNA and thereby generate organisms with intended phenotypes. Consequently, such organisms and products thereof might be indistinguishable from naturally occurring or conventionally bred counterparts with established analytical tools. The modifications can entirely resemble random mutations regardless of being spontaneous or induced chemically or irradiation. Therefore, if an identification of these organisms or products thereof is demanded, a new challenge will arise for (official) seed, food, and feed testing laboratories and enforcement institutions. For detailed consideration, we distinguish between the - regardless of their origin - the that generated a specific modification and the , i.e., an organism produced by genome editing carrying a specific genetic alteration in a known background. This article briefly reviews the existing and upcoming detection and identification strategies (including the use of bioinformatics and statistical approaches) in particular for plants developed with genome editing techniques.

Background Within the last decades, genome-editing techniques such as CRISPR/Cas, TALENs, Zinc-Finger Nucleases, Meganucleases, Oligonucleotide-Directed Mutagenesis and base editing have been developed enabling a precise modification of DNA sequences. Such techniques provide options for simple, time-saving and cost-effective applications compared to other breeding techniques and hence genome editing has already been promoted for a wide range of plant species. Although the application of genome-editing induces less unintended modifications (off-targets) in the genome compared to classical mutagenesis techniques, off-target effects are a prominent point of criticism as they are supposed to cause unintended effects, e.g. genomic instability or cell death. To address these aspects, this map aims to answer the following question: What is the available evidence for the range of applications of genome-editing as a new tool for plant trait modification and the potential occurrence of associated off-target effects? This primary question will be considered by two secondary questions: One aims to overview the market-oriented traits being modified by genome-editing in plants and the other explores the occurrence of off-target effects. Methods A literature search in nine bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, and 47 web pages of companies and governmental agencies was conducted using predefined and tested search strings in English language. Articles were screened on title/abstract and full text level for relevance based on pre-defined inclusion criteria. The relevant information of included studies were mapped using a pre-defined data extraction strategy. Besides a descriptive summary of the relevant literature, a spreadsheet containing all extracted data is provided. Results Altogether, 555 relevant articles from journals, company web pages and web pages of governmental agencies were identified containing 1328 studies/applications of genome-editing in model plants and agricultural crops in the period January 1996 to May 2018. Most of the studies were conducted in China followed by the USA. Genome-editing was already applied in 68 different plants. Although most of the studies were basic research, 99 different market-oriented applications were identified in 28 different crops leading to plants with improved food and feed quality, agronomic value like growth characteristics or increased yield, tolerance to biotic and abiotic stress, herbicide tolerance or industrial benefits. 252 studies explored off-target effects. Most of the studies were conducted using CRISPR/Cas. Several studies firstly investigated whether sites in the genome show similarity to the target sequence and secondly analyzed these potential off-target sites by sequencing. In around 3% of the analyzed potential off-target sites, unintended mutations were detected. Only a few studies conducted off-target analyses using unbiased detection methods (e.g. whole genome sequencing). No off-target effects that could be correlated to the genome-editing process were identified in these studies. Conclusions The rapid adoption in plant breeding was demonstrated by a considerable number of market oriented applications (crops and traits) described in publications worldwide. Studies investigating off-target effects are very heterogeneous in their structure and design. Therefore, an in-depth assessment regarding their weight of evidence is mandatory.

RecQ helicases are involved in the processing of DNA structures arising during replication, recombination, and repair throughout all kingdoms of life. Mutations of different RecQ homologues are responsible for severe human diseases, such as Blooms (BLM) or Werner (WRN) syndrome. The loss of RecQ function is often accompanied by hyperrecombination caused by a lack of crossover suppression. In the Arabidopsis genome seven different RecQ genes are present. Two of them (AtRECQ4A and 4B) arose because of a recent duplication and are still nearly 70% identical on a protein level. Knockout of these genes leads to antagonistic phenotypes: the RECQ4A mutant shows sensitivity to DNA-damaging agents, enhanced homologous recombination (HR) and lethality in a mus81 background. Moreover, mutation of RECQ4A partially suppresses the lethal phenotype of an AtTOP3α mutant, a phenomenon that had previously been demonstrated for RecQ homologues of unicellular eukaryotes only. Together, these facts strongly suggest that in plants RECQ4A is functionally equivalent to SGS1 of Saccharomyces cerevisiae and the mammalian BLM protein. In stark contrast, mutants of the closely related RECQ4B are not mutagen-sensitive, not viable in a mus81 background, and unable to suppress the induced lethality caused by loss of TOP3α. Moreover, they are strongly impaired in HR. Thus, AtRECQ4B is specifically required to promote but not to suppress crossovers, a role in which it differs from all eukaryotic RecQ homologues known.

Topoisomerase 3α, a class I topoisomerase, consists of a TOPRIM domain, an active centre and a variable number of zinc-finger domains (ZFDs) at the C-terminus, in multicellular organisms. Whereas the functions of the TOPRIM domain and the active centre are known, the specific role of the ZFDs is still obscure. In contrast to mammals where a knockout of TOP3α leads to lethality, we found that CRISPR/Cas induced mutants in Arabidopsis are viable but show growth retardation and meiotic defects, which can be reversed by the expression of the complete protein. However, complementation with AtTOP3α missing either the TOPRIM-domain or carrying a mutation of the catalytic tyrosine of the active centre leads to embryo lethality. Surprisingly, this phenotype can be overcome by the simultaneous removal of the ZFDs from the protein. In combination with a mutation of the nuclease AtMUS81, the TOP3α knockout proved to be also embryo lethal. Here, expression of TOP3α without ZFDs, and in particular without the conserved ZFD T1, leads to only a partly complementation in root growth-in contrast to the complete protein, that restores root length to mus81-1 mutant level. Expressing the E. coli resolvase RusA in this background, which is able to process Holliday junction (HJ)-like recombination intermediates, we could rescue this root growth defect. Considering all these results, we conclude that the ZFD T1 is specifically required for targeting the topoisomerase activity to HJ like recombination intermediates to enable their processing. In the case of an inactivated enzyme, this leads to cell death due to the masking of these intermediates, hindering their resolution by MUS81.

The European Commission has asked EU Member States for comments on a French law notification demanding plant varieties produced with the help of in vitro mutagenesis have to be eliminated from the national catalog of approved varieties because of missing legal authorization deemed required by genetic engineering law. Primary target are herbicide-tolerant Clearfield oilseed rape varieties. The scientific reasoning is questionable, traceability is illusive, and law enforcement is likely to be impossible.

SPO11, a homolog of the subunit A of the archaebacterial topoisomerase VI, is essential for double-strand break (DSB)-induced initiation of meiotic recombination. In contrast with single homologs in animals and yeasts, three homologs are present in Arabidopsis thaliana and other higher plants. Whereas At SPO11-3 is involved in somatic endoreduplication, At SPO11-1 and, as recently shown, At SPO11-2 are essential for the initiation of meiotic recombination. Further defining the role of At SPO11-2, we were able to demonstrate that it is required for proper chromosome segregation, as its loss resulted in aneuploidy in the surviving progeny. The double mutant spo11-1 spo11-2 does not differ phenotypically from the single mutants, indicating that both proteins are required for the same step. Contrary to the observations for the At rad51-1 single mutant, the combination of spo11-2 and rad51-1 did not lead to chromosome fragmentation, indicating that SPO11-2, like SPO11-1, is required for DSB induction. As the meiotic phenotype of both single SPO11 mutants can be reversed by complementation using the full-length genes but not the same constructs mutated in their respective catalytically active Tyr, both proteins seem to participate directly in the DNA breakage reaction. The active involvement of two SPO11 homologs for DSB formation reveals a striking difference between plants and other eukaryotes in meiosis.