A new study published as preprint examines the differences between conventional plant breeding and new genetic engineering (also called new genomic techniques, NGTs). It shows that ‘recombinant enzymatic mutagens’, such as CRISPR/Cas, can generate biological effects that are frequently very different to those found in conventional breeding. The differences are mostly independent of the overall number of mutations. These findings are decisive to the risk assessment of NGT plants.
There are several constraints in conventional breeding which limit outcomes, caused by plant biology and cellular mechanisms. Conversely, such constraints are often are just minor hurdles for NGTs. Applications of NGTs allow the introduction of genetic changes and gene combinations previously unknown in the current breeding pool, and which are also unlikely to result from previously used breeding methods, including random mutagenesis. The differences to conventional breeding are not only significant for potential innovation in plant breeding, but also for the risk assessment of NGT plants.
Basically, gene scissors, such as CRISPR/Cas, are biotechnologically engineered enzymes that are also known as ‘recombinant enzymatic mutagens’ (REMs). Their specific mode of action is decisive for their technical potential: while random mutagenesis with physicochemical mutagens merely causes breaks in the DNA, REMs, such as CRISPR/Cas, additionally interfere with cellular repair mechanisms. For example, REMs can substantially delay the repair processes in DNA, and thus prevent the cells from restoring gene function.
The study also found that more recently developed REMs can even expand NGT capabilities to the introduction of specific new genetic variations. In addition, REMs are especially relevant to the targeting of regulatory genetic elements. In combination with artificial intelligence, they open up a huge ‘design room’ for small genetic variations with wide ranging effects, and thus for the production of NGT plants that are novel to the environment.
Some of these findings were already known, but not reflected in the current debate on the future regulation of NGT plants in the EU. The new study now provides new and compelling evidence that different causes of mutations can lead to different outcomes. It also provides a long list of examples of respective NGT plants. The findings now have to be taken into account for the political decision making about future regulation of NGT plants.
Contact:
Christoph Then, info@testbiotech.org, Tel + 49 151 54638040
Further information: