Safety, Security, and Policy Considerations for Plant Genome Editing

Progress and challenges in sorghum biotechnology, a multipurpose feedstock for the bioeconomy

Sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench] is the fifth most important cereal crop globally by harvested area and production. Its drought and heat tolerance allow high yields with minimal input. It is a promising biomass crop for the production of biofuels and bioproducts. In addition, as an annual diploid with a relatively small genome compared with other C4 grasses, and excellent germplasm diversity, sorghum is an excellent research species for other C4 crops such as maize. As a result, an increasing number of researchers are looking to test the transferability of findings from other organisms such as Arabidopsis thaliana and Brachypodium distachyon to sorghum, as well as to engineer new biomass sorghum varieties. Here, we provide an overview of sorghum as a multipurpose feedstock crop which can support the growing bioeconomy, and as a monocot research model system. We review what makes sorghum such a successful crop and identify some key traits for future improvement. We assess recent progress in sorghum transformation and highlight how transformation limitations still restrict its widespread adoption. Finally, we summarize available sorghum genetic, genomic, and bioinformatics resources. This review is intended for researchers new to sorghum research, as well as those wishing to include non-food and forage applications in their research.

An Outlook on Global Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Crops

The revolutionary technology of CRISPR/Cas systems and their extraordinary potential to address fundamental questions in every field of biological sciences has led to their developers being awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. In agriculture, CRISPR/Cas systems have accelerated the development of new crop varieties with improved traits-without the need for transgenes. However, the future of this technology depends on a clear and truly global regulatory framework being developed for these crops. Some CRISPR-edited crops are already on the market, and yet countries and regions are still divided over their legal status. CRISPR editing does not require transgenes, making CRISPR crops more socially acceptable than genetically modified crops, but there is vigorous debate over how to regulate these crops and what precautionary measures are required before they appear on the market. This article reviews intended outcomes and risks arising from the site-directed nuclease CRISPR systems used to improve agricultural crop plant genomes. It examines how various CRISPR system components, and potential concerns associated with CRISPR/Cas, may trigger regulatory oversight of CRISPR-edited crops. The article highlights differences and similarities between GMOs and CRISPR-edited crops, and discusses social and ethical concerns. It outlines the regulatory framework for GMO crops, which many countries also apply to CRISPR-edited crops, and the global regulatory landscape for CRISPR-edited crops. The article concludes with future prospects for CRISPR-edited crops and their products.

An Outlook on Global Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Crops

The revolutionary technology of CRISPR/Cas systems and their extraordinary potential to address fundamental questions in every field of biological sciences has led to their developers being awarded the 2020 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. In agriculture, CRISPR/Cas systems have accelerated the development of new crop varieties with improved traits—without the need for transgenes. However, the future of this technology depends on a clear and truly global regulatory framework being developed for these crops. Some CRISPR-edited crops are already on the market, and yet countries and regions are still divided over their legal status. CRISPR editing does not require transgenes, making CRISPR crops more socially acceptable than genetically modified crops, but there is vigorous debate over how to regulate these crops and what precautionary measures are required before they appear on the market. This article reviews intended outcomes and risks arising from the site-directed nuclease CRISPR systems used to improve agricultural crop plant genomes. It examines how various CRISPR system components, and potential concerns associated with CRISPR/Cas, may trigger regulatory oversight of CRISPR-edited crops. The article highlights differences and similarities between GMOs and CRISPR-edited crops, and discusses social and ethical concerns. It outlines the regulatory framework for GMO crops, which many countries also apply to CRISPR-edited crops, and the global regulatory landscape for CRISPR-edited crops. The article concludes with future prospects for CRISPR-edited crops and their products.

Problem formulation and phenotypic characterisation for the development of novel crops

Phenotypic characterisation provides important information about novel crops that helps their developers to make technical and commercial decisions. Phenotypic characterisation comprises two activities. Product characterisation checks that the novel crop has the qualities of a viable product-the intended traits have been introduced and work as expected, and no unintended changes have been made that will adversely affect the performance of the final product. Risk assessment evaluates whether the intended and unintended changes are likely to harm human health or the environment. Product characterisation follows the principles of problem formulation, namely that the characteristics required in the final product are defined and criteria to decide whether the novel crop will have these properties are set. The hypothesis that the novel crop meets the criteria are tested during product development. If the hypothesis is corroborated, development continues, and if the hypothesis is falsified, the product is redesigned or its development is halted. Risk assessment should follow the same principles. Criteria that indicate the crop poses unacceptable risk should be set, and the hypothesis that the crop does not possess those properties should be tested. However, risk assessment, particularly when considering unintended changes introduced by new plant breeding methods such as gene editing, often ignores these principles. Instead, phenotypic characterisation seeks to catalogue all unintended changes by profiling methods and then proceeds to work out whether any of the changes are important. This paper argues that profiling is an inefficient and ineffective method of phenotypic characterisation for risk assessment. It discusses reasons why profiling is favoured and corrects some misconceptions about problem formulation.

An EU Perspective on Biosafety Considerations for Plants Developed by Genome Editing and Other New Genetic Modification Techniques (nGMs)

The question whether new genetic modification techniques (nGM) in plant development might result in non-negligible negative effects for the environment and/or health is significant for the discussion concerning their regulation. However, current knowledge to address this issue is limited for most nGMs, particularly for recently developed nGMs, like genome editing, and their newly emerging variations, e.g., base editing. This leads to uncertainties regarding the risk/safety-status of plants which are developed with a broad range of different nGMs, especially genome editing, and other nGMs such as cisgenesis, transgrafting, haploid induction or reverse breeding. A literature survey was conducted to identify plants developed by nGMs which are relevant for future agricultural use. Such nGM plants were analyzed for hazards associated either (i) with their developed traits and their use or (ii) with unintended changes resulting from the nGMs or other methods applied during breeding. Several traits are likely to become particularly relevant in the future for nGM plants, namely herbicide resistance (HR), resistance to different plant pathogens as well as modified composition, morphology, fitness (e.g., increased resistance to cold/frost, drought, or salinity) or modified reproductive characteristics. Some traits such as resistance to certain herbicides are already known from existing GM crops and their previous assessments identified issues of concern and/or risks, such as the development of herbicide resistant weeds. Other traits in nGM plants are novel; meaning they are not present in agricultural plants currently cultivated with a history of safe use, and their underlying physiological mechanisms are not yet sufficiently elucidated. Characteristics of some genome editing applications, e.g., the small extent of genomic sequence change and their higher targeting efficiency, i.e., precision, cannot be considered an indication of safety per se, especially in relation to novel traits created by such modifications. All nGMs considered here can result in unintended changes of different types and frequencies. However, the rapid development of nGM plants can compromise the detection and elimination of unintended effects. Thus, a case-specific premarket risk assessment should be conducted for nGM plants, including an appropriate molecular characterization to identify unintended changes and/or confirm the absence of unwanted transgenic sequences.

Plants Developed by New Genetic Modification Techniques-Comparison of Existing Regulatory Frameworks in the EU and Non-EU Countries

The development of new genetic modification techniques (nGMs), also referred to as "new (breeding) techniques" in other sources, has raised worldwide discussions regarding their regulation. Different existing regulatory frameworks for genetically modified organisms (GMO) cover nGMs to varying degrees. Coverage of nGMs depends mostly on the regulatory trigger. In general two different trigger systems can be distinguished, taking into account either the process applied during development or the characteristics of the resulting product. A key question is whether regulatory frameworks either based on process- or product-oriented triggers are more advantageous for the regulation of nGM applications. We analyzed regulatory frameworks for GMO from different countries covering both trigger systems with a focus on their applicability to plants developed by various nGMs. The study is based on a literature analysis and qualitative interviews with regulatory experts and risk assessors of GMO in the respective countries. The applied principles of risk assessment are very similar in all investigated countries independent of the applied trigger for regulation. Even though the regulatory trigger is either process- or product-oriented, both triggers systems show features of the respective other in practice. In addition our analysis shows that both trigger systems have a number of generic advantages and disadvantages, but neither system can be regarded as superior at a general level. More decisive for the regulation of organisms or products, especially nGM applications, are the variable criteria and exceptions used to implement the triggers in the different regulatory frameworks. There are discussions and consultations in some countries about whether changes in legislation are necessary to establish a desired level of regulation of nGMs. We identified five strategies for countries that desire to regulate nGM applications for biosafety-ranging from applying existing biosafety frameworks without further amendments to establishing new stand-alone legislation. Due to varying degrees of nGM regulation, international harmonization will supposedly not be achieved in the near future. In the context of international trade, transparency of the regulatory status of individual nGM products is a crucial issue. We therefore propose to introduce an international public registry listing all biotechnology products commercially used in agriculture.

Policy and Governance Perspectives for Regulation of Genome Edited Crops in the United States

Genome editing for crop improvement lies at the leading edge of disruptive bioengineering technologies that will challenge existing regulatory paradigms for products of biotechnology and which will elicit widespread public interest. Regulation of products of biotechnology through the US Coordinated Framework for Biotechnology is predicated on requiring burden of proof that regulation is warranted. Although driven by considerations of newly emerging processes for product development, regulation has, for the most part, focused on characteristics of the biotechnology product itself and not the process used for its development per se. This standard of evidence and product focus has been maintained to date in regulatory considerations of genome edited crops. Those genome edited crops lacking recombinant DNA (rDNA) in the product intended for environmental release, lacking plant pest or pesticidal activity, or showing no food safety attributes different from those of traditionally bred crops are not deemed subject to regulatory evaluation. Regardless, societal uncertainties regarding genome editing are leading regulators to seek ways whereby these uncertainties may be addressed through redefinition of those products of biotechnology that may be subject to regulatory assessments. Within US law prior statutory history, language and regulatory action have significant influence on decision making; therefore, the administrative law and jurisprudence underlying the current Coordinated Framework strongly inform policy and governance when considering new plant breeding technologies such as genome editing.

Tuning CRISPR-Cas9 Gene Drives in Saccharomyces cerevisiae

Control of biological populations is an ongoing challenge in many fields, including agriculture, biodiversity, ecological preservation, pest control, and the spread of disease. In some cases, such as insects that harbor human pathogens (e.g., malaria), elimination or reduction of a small number of species would have a dramatic impact across the globe. Given the recent discovery and development of the CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology, a unique arrangement of this system, a nuclease-based "gene drive," allows for the super-Mendelian spread and forced propagation of a genetic element through a population. Recent studies have demonstrated the ability of a gene drive to rapidly spread within and nearly eliminate insect populations in a laboratory setting. While there are still ongoing technical challenges to design of a more optimal gene drive to be used in wild populations, there are still serious ecological and ethical concerns surrounding the nature of this powerful biological agent. Here, we use budding yeast as a safe and fully contained model system to explore mechanisms that might allow for programmed regulation of gene drive activity. We describe four conserved features of all CRISPR-based drives and demonstrate the ability of each drive component-Cas9 protein level, sgRNA identity, Cas9 nucleocytoplasmic shuttling, and novel Cas9-Cas9 tandem fusions-to modulate drive activity within a population.

While it is not deliberate, much of today's biomedical research contains logical and technical flaws, showing a need for corrective action

Biomedical research has advanced swiftly in recent decades, largely due to progress in biotechnology. However, this rapid spread of new, and not always-fully understood, technology has also created a lot of false or irreproducible data and artifacts, which sometimes have led to erroneous conclusions. When describing various scientific issues, scientists have developed a habit of saying "on one hand… but on the other hand…", because discrepant data and conclusions have become omnipresent. One reason for this problematic situation is that we are not always thoughtful enough in study design, and sometimes lack enough philosophical contemplation. Another major reason is that we are too rushed in introducing new technology into our research without assimilating technical details. In this essay, we provide examples in different research realms to justify our points. To help readers test their own weaknesses, we raise questions on technical details of RNA reverse transcription, polymerase chain reactions, western blotting and immunohistochemical staining, as these methods are basic and are the base for other modern biotechnologies. Hopefully, after contemplation and reflection on these questions, readers will agree that we indeed know too little about these basic techniques, especially about the artifacts they may create, and thus many conclusions drawn from the studies using those ever-more-sophisticated techniques may be even more problematic.

Risk associated with off-target plant genome editing and methods for its limitation

Assessment for potential adverse effects of plant genome editing logically focuses on the specific characteristics of the derived phenotype and its release environment. Genome-edited crops, depending on the editing objective, can be classified as either indistinguishable from crops developed through conventional plant breeding or as crops which are transgenic. Therefore, existing regulatory regimes and risk assessment procedures accommodate genome-edited crops. The ability for regulators and the public to accept a product focus in the evaluation of genome-edited crops will depend on research which clarifies the precision of the genome-editing process and evaluates unanticipated off-target edits from the process. Interpretation of genome-wide effects of genome editing should adhere to existing frameworks for comparative risk assessment where the nature and degree of effects are considered relative to a baseline of genome-wide mutations as found in crop varieties developed through conventional breeding methods. Research addressing current uncertainties regarding unintended changes from plant genome editing, and adopting procedures that clearly avoid the potential for gene drive initiation, will help to clarify anticipated public and regulatory questions regarding risk of crops derived through genome editing.