Genome edited animals: Learning from GM crops?

Regulatory frameworks can facilitate or hinder the potential for genome editing to contribute to sustainable agricultural development

The advent of new breeding techniques (NBTs), in particular genome editing (GEd), has provided more accurate and precise ways to introduce targeted changes in the genome of both plants and animals. This has resulted in the use of the technology by a wider variety of stakeholders for different applications in comparison to transgenesis. Regulators in different parts of the world are now examining their current frameworks to assess their applicability to these NBTs and their products. We looked at how countries selected from a sample of geographical regions globally are currently handling applications involving GEd organisms and what they foresee as opportunities and potential challenges to acceptance of the technology in their jurisdictions. In addition to regulatory frameworks that create an enabling environment for these NBTs, acceptance of the products by the public is vitally important. We, therefore, suggest that early stakeholder engagement and communication to the public be emphasized to foster public acceptance even before products are ready for market. Furthermore, global cooperation and consensus on issues cutting across regions will be crucial in avoiding regulatory-related bottlenecks that affect global trade and agriculture.

Lessons learned from the introduction of genetically engineered crops: relevance to gene drive deployment in Africa

The application of gene drives to achieve public health goals, such as the suppression of Anopheles gambiae populations, or altering their ability to sustain Plasmodium spp. infections, has received much attention from researchers. If successful, this genetic tool can contribute greatly to the wellbeing of people in regions severely affected by malaria. However, engineered gene drives are a product of genetic engineering, and the experience to date, gained through the deployment of genetically engineered (GE) crops, is that GE technology has had difficulty receiving public acceptance in Africa, a key region for the deployment of gene drives. The history of GE crop deployment in this region provides good lessons for the deployment of gene drives as well. GE crops have been in commercial production for 24 years, since the planting of the first GE soybean crop in 1996. During this time, regulatory approvals and farmer adoption of these crops has grown rapidly in the Americas, and to a lesser extent in Asia. Their safety has been recognized by numerous scientific organizations. Economic and health benefits have been well documented in the countries that have grown them. However, only one transgenic crop event is being grown in Europe, and only in two countries in that region. Europe has been extremely opposed to GE crops, due in large part to the public view of agriculture that opposes "industrial" farming. This attitude is reflected in a highly precautionary regulatory and policy environment, which has highly influenced how African countries have dealt with GE technology and are likely to be applied to future genetic technologies, including gene drives. Furthermore, a mistrust of government regulatory agencies, the publication of scientific reports claiming adverse effects of GE crops, the involvement of corporations as the first GE crop developers, the lack of identifiable consumer benefit, and low public understanding of the technology further contributed to the lack of acceptance. Coupled with more emotionally impactful messaging to the public by opposition groups and the general tendency of negative messages to be more credible than positive ones, GE crops failed to gain a place in European agriculture, thus influencing African acceptance and government policy. From this experience, the following lessons have been learned that would apply to the deployment of gene drives, in Africa:It will be important to establish trust in those who are developing the technology, as well as in those who are making regulatory decisions. Engagement of the community, where those who are involved are able to make genuine contributions to the decision-making process, are necessary to achieve that trust. The use of tools to facilitate participatory modeling could be considered in order to enhance current community engagement efforts.Trusted, accurate information on gene drives should be made available to the general public, journalists, and scientists who are not connected with the field. Those sources of information should also be able to summarize and analyze important scientific results and emerging issues in the field in order to place those developments in the proper context. Engagement should involve more opportunities for participation of stakeholders in conceptualizing, planning, and decision-making.Diversifying the source of funding for gene drive research and development, particularly by participation of countries and regional bodies, would show that country or regional interests are represented.Efforts by developers and neutral groups to provide the public and decisionmakers with a more thorough understanding of the benefits and risks of this technology, especially to local communities, would help them reach more informed decisions.A better understanding of gene drive technology can be fostered by governments, as part of established biosafety policy in several African countries. Developers and neutral groups could also be helpful in increasing public understanding of the technology of genetic engineering, including gene drives.Effective messaging to balance the messaging of groups opposed to gene drives is needed. These messages should be not only factual but also have emotional and intuitive appeal.

Potentials, prospects and applications of genome editing technologies in livestock production

In recent years, significant progress has been achieved in genome editing applications using new programmable DNA nucleases such as zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like endonucleases (TALENs) and the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/Cas9 system (CRISPR/Cas9). These genome editing tools are capable of nicking DNA precisely by targeting specific sequences, and enable the addition, removal or substitution of nucleotides via double-stranded breakage at specific genomic loci. CRISPR/Cas system, one of the most recent genome editing tools, affords the ability to efficiently generate multiple genomic nicks in single experiment. Moreover, CRISPR/Cas systems are relatively easy and cost effective when compared to other genome editing technologies. This is in part because CRISPR/Cas systems rely on RNA-DNA binding, unlike other genome editing tools that rely on protein-DNA interactions, which affords CRISPR/Cas systems higher flexibility and more fidelity. Genome editing tools have significantly contributed to different aspects of livestock production such as disease resistance, improved performance, alterations of milk composition, animal welfare and biomedicine. However, despite these contributions and future potential, genome editing technologies also have inherent risks, and therefore, ethics and social acceptance are crucial factors associated with implementation of these technologies. This review emphasizes the impact of genome editing technologies in development of livestock breeding and production in numerous species such as cattle, pigs, sheep and goats. This review also discusses the mechanisms behind genome editing technologies, their potential applications, risks and associated ethics that should be considered in the context of livestock.

The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research

The application of genome editing to animal research connects to a wide variety of policy concerns and public conversations. We suggest focusing narrowly on public opinion of genome editing is to overlook the range of positions from which people are brought into relationships with animal research through these technologies. In this paper, we explore three key roles that publics are playing in the development of genome editing techniques applied to animals in biomedical research. First, publics are positioned by surveys and focus groups as stakeholders with opinions that matter to the development of research technologies. Learning lessons from controversies over genetically modified food in Europe, these methods are used to identify problems in science-society relations that need to be managed. Second, people are recruited into research projects through participating in biobanks and providing data, where their contributions are encouraged by appeals to the public good and maintained by public confidence. Thirdly, patients are increasingly taking positions within research governance, as lay reviewers on funding panels, where their expertise helps align research priorities and practices with public expectations of research. These plural publics do not easily aggregate into a simple or singular public opinion on genome editing. We conclude by suggesting more attention is needed to the multiple roles that different publics expect - and are expected - to play in the future development of genomic technologies.

Public Perceptions Regarding Genomic Technologies Applied to Breeding Farm Animals: A Qualitative Study

The societal acceptability of different applications of genomic technologies to animal production systems will determine whether their innovation trajectories will reach the commercialisation stage. Importantly, technological implementation and commercialisation trajectories, regulation, and policy development need to take account of public priorities and attitudes. More effective co-production practices will ensure the application of genomic technologies to animals aligns with public priorities and are acceptable to society. Consumer rejection of, and limited demand for, animal products developed using novel genomic technologies will determine whether they are integration into the food system. However, little is known about whether genomic technologies that accelerate breeding but do not introduce cross-species genetic changes are more acceptable to consumers than those that do. Five focus groups, held in the north east of England, were used to explore the perceptions of, and attitudes towards, the use of genomic technologies in breeding farm animals for the human food supply chain. Overall, study participants were more positive towards genomic technologies applied to promote animal welfare (e.g., improved disease resistance), environmental sustainability, and human health. Animal “disenhancement” was viewed negatively and increased food production alone was not perceived as a potential benefit. In comparison to gene editing, research participants were most negative about genetic modification and the application of gene drives, independent of the benefits delivered.

Improvement of Disease Resistance in Livestock: Application of Immunogenomics and CRISPR/Cas9 Technology

Disease occurrence adversely affects livestock production and animal welfare, and have an impact on both human health and public perception of food-animals production. Combined efforts from farmers, animal scientists, and veterinarians have been continuing to explore the effective disease control approaches for the production of safe animal-originated food. Implementing the immunogenomics, along with genome editing technology, has been considering as the key approach for safe food-animal production through the improvement of the host genetic resistance. Next-generation sequencing, as a cutting-edge technique, enables the production of high throughput transcriptomic and genomic profiles resulted from host-pathogen interactions. Immunogenomics combine the transcriptomic and genomic data that links to host resistance to disease, and predict the potential candidate genes and their genomic locations. Genome editing, which involves insertion, deletion, or modification of one or more genes in the DNA sequence, is advancing rapidly and may be poised to become a commercial reality faster than it has thought. The clustered regulatory interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) [CRISPR/Cas9] system has recently emerged as a powerful tool for genome editing in agricultural food production including livestock disease management. CRISPR/Cas9 mediated insertion of NRAMP1 gene for producing tuberculosis resistant cattle, and deletion of CD163 gene for producing porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) resistant pigs are two groundbreaking applications of genome editing in livestock. In this review, we have highlighted the technological advances of livestock immunogenomics and the principles and scopes of application of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted genome editing in animal breeding for disease resistance.

Harnessing genomics to fast-track genetic improvement in aquaculture

Aquaculture is the fastest-growing farmed food sector and will soon become the primary source of fish and shellfish for human diets. In contrast to crop and livestock production, aquaculture production is derived from numerous, exceptionally diverse species that are typically in the early stages of domestication. Genetic improvement of production traits via well-designed, managed breeding programmes has great potential to help meet the rising seafood demand driven by human population growth. Supported by continuous advances in sequencing and bioinformatics, genomics is increasingly being applied across the broad range of aquaculture species and at all stages of the domestication process to optimize selective breeding. In the future, combining genomic selection with biotechnological innovations, such as genome editing and surrogate broodstock technologies, may further expedite genetic improvement in aquaculture.

Is gene editing an acceptable alternative to castration in pigs?

Male piglets are commonly castrated to eliminate the risk of boar taint. Surgical castration is the commonly used procedure and is known to induce pain. Gene modification targeted at eliminating boar taint in male pigs has been proposed as a possible alternative to surgical castration. The aims of this study were to explore public acceptability of this biotechnology using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data to assess acceptability of 570 participants from southern Brazil were analysed with multinomial logistic regression models and Spearman correlations; qualitative responses of the reasons provided in support of their position were coded into themes. Just over half of the participants (56%) considered gene modification of male pigs acceptable. Acceptability was lower among participants who grew up in an agricultural environment (ρ = 0.02), but was not influenced by sex, age, religion, urban or rural living, or level of education. Acceptability of gene modification of male pigs as an alternative to surgical castration was positively related to the perception of benefits (r = -0.56, ρ<0.0001) and negatively related to the participant’s perception of risks (r = -0.35, ρ<0.0001). Acceptability was not related to knowledge of basic concepts of genetic biotechnologies (r = 0.06, ρ<0.14), or to awareness of issues related to pig castration or boar taint (r = 0.03, ρ<0.44), both of which were low among participants. Participants that considered gene modification of pigs acceptable justified their position using arguments that it improved animal welfare. In contrast, those that were not in favour were generally opposed to genetic modification. Unforeseen downstream consequences of using genetic modification in this manner was a major concern raised by over 80% of participants. Our findings suggest that perceived animal welfare may encourage public support of gene editing of food animals. However, potential risks of the technology need to be addressed and conveyed to the public, as many participants requested clarification of such risks as a condition for support.

Proposed U.S. regulation of gene-edited food animals is not fit for purpose

Dietary DNA is generally regarded as safe to consume, and is a routine ingredient of food obtained from any living organism. Millions of naturally-occurring DNA variations are observed when comparing the genomic sequence of any two healthy individuals of a given species. Breeders routinely select desired traits resulting from this DNA variation to develop new cultivars and varieties of food plants and animals. Regulatory agencies do not evaluate these new varieties prior to commercial release. Gene editing tools now allow plant and animal breeders to precisely introduce useful genetic variation into agricultural breeding programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it has no plans to place additional regulations on gene-edited plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding prior to commercialization. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed mandatory premarket new animal drug regulatory evaluation for all food animals whose genomes have been intentionally altered using modern molecular technologies including gene editing technologies. This runs counter to U.S. biotechnology policy that regulatory oversight should be triggered by unreasonable risk, and not by the fact that an organism has been modified by a particular process or technique. Breeder intention is not associated with product risk. Harmonizing the regulations associated with gene editing in food species is imperative to allow both plant and animal breeders access to gene editing tools to introduce useful sustainability traits like disease resistance, climate adaptability, and food quality attributes into U.S. agricultural breeding programs.

Invited review: Reproductive and genomic technologies to optimize breeding strategies for genetic progress in dairy cattle

Abstract. Dairy cattle breeders have exploited technological advances that have emerged in the past in regards to reproduction and genomics. The implementation of such technologies in routine breeding programs has permitted genetic gains in traditional milk production traits as well as, more recently, in low-heritability traits like health and fertility. As demand for dairy products increases, it is important for dairy breeders to optimize the use of available technologies and to consider the many emerging technologies that are currently being investigated in various fields. Here we review a number of technologies that have helped shape dairy breeding programs in the past and present, along with those potentially forthcoming. These tools have materialized in the areas of reproduction, genotyping and sequencing, genetic modification, and epigenetics. Although many of these technologies bring encouraging opportunities for genetic improvement of dairy cattle populations, their applications and benefits need to be weighed with their impacts on economics, genetic diversity, and society.

Goat domestication and breeding: a jigsaw of historical, biological and molecular data with missing pieces

Domestic goats (Capra hircus) are spread across the five continents with a census of 1 billion individuals. The worldwide population of goats descends from a limited number of bezoars (Capra aegagrus) domesticated 10 000 YBP (years before the present) in the Fertile Crescent. The extraordinary adaptability and hardiness of goats favoured their rapid spread over the Old World, reaching the Iberian Peninsula and Southern Africa 7000 YBP and 2000 YBP respectively. Molecular studies have revealed one major mitochondrial haplogroup A and five less frequent haplogroups B, C, D, F and G. Moreover, the analysis of autosomal and Y-chromosome markers has evidenced an appreciable geographic differentiation. The implementation of new molecular technologies, such as whole-genome sequencing and genome-wide genotyping, allows for the exploration of caprine diversity at an unprecedented scale, thus providing new insights into the evolutionary history of goats. In spite of a number of pitfalls, the characterization of the functional elements of the goat genome is expected to play a key role in understanding the genetic determination of economically relevant traits. Genomic selection and genome editing also hold great potential, particularly for improving traits that cannot be modified easily by traditional selection.