» Articles » PMID: 36072906

Natural and Artificial Sources of Genetic Variation Used in Crop Breeding: A Baseline Comparator for Genome Editing

Overview
Journal Front Genome Ed
Date 2022 Sep 8
PMID 36072906
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Traditional breeding has successfully selected beneficial traits for food, feed, and fibre crops over the last several thousand years. The last century has seen significant technological advancements particularly in marker assisted selection and the generation of induced genetic variation, including over the last few decades, through mutation breeding, genetic modification, and genome editing. While regulatory frameworks for traditional varietal development and for genetic modification with transgenes are broadly established, those for genome editing are lacking or are still evolving in many regions. In particular, the lack of "foreign" recombinant DNA in genome edited plants and that the resulting SNPs or INDELs are indistinguishable from those seen in traditional breeding has challenged development of new legislation. Where products of genome editing and other novel breeding technologies possess no transgenes and could have been generated traditional methods, we argue that it is logical and proportionate to apply equivalent legislative oversight that already exists for traditional breeding and novel foods. This review analyses the types and the scale of spontaneous and induced genetic variation that can be selected during traditional plant breeding activities. It provides a base line from which to judge whether genetic changes brought about by techniques of genome editing or other reverse genetic methods are indeed comparable to those routinely found using traditional methods of plant breeding.

Citing Articles

Micronutrient Biofortification in Wheat: QTLs, Candidate Genes and Molecular Mechanism.

Nasim A, Hao J, Tawab F, Jin C, Zhu J, Luo S Int J Mol Sci. 2025; 26(5).

PMID: 40076800 PMC: 11900071. DOI: 10.3390/ijms26052178.


Genome editing in Sub-Saharan Africa: a game-changing strategy for climate change mitigation and sustainable agriculture.

Amoah P, Oumarou Mahamane A, Byiringiro M, Mahula N, Manneh N, Oluwasegun Y GM Crops Food. 2024; 15(1):279-302.

PMID: 39481911 PMC: 11533803. DOI: 10.1080/21645698.2024.2411767.


Breeding for improved digestibility and processing of lignocellulosic biomass in .

Vanhevel Y, De Moor A, Muylle H, Vanholme R, Boerjan W Front Plant Sci. 2024; 15:1419796.

PMID: 39129761 PMC: 11310149. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2024.1419796.


Reproducibility of next-generation-sequencing-based analysis of a CRISPR/Cas9 genome edited oil seed rape.

Pallarz S, Fiedler S, Wahler D, Lamke J, Grohmann L Food Chem (Oxf). 2023; 7:100182.

PMID: 37822547 PMC: 10562171. DOI: 10.1016/j.fochms.2023.100182.


Regulation of plants developed through new breeding techniques must ensure societal benefits.

Jenkins D, Juba N, Crawford B, Worthington M, Hummel A Nat Plants. 2023; 9(5):679-684.

PMID: 37156859 DOI: 10.1038/s41477-023-01403-2.

References
1.
Pichot C, El Maataoui M, Raddi S, Raddi P . Surrogate mother for endangered Cupressus. Nature. 2001; 412(6842):39. DOI: 10.1038/35083687. View

2.
Xiong Z, Gaeta R, Pires J . Homoeologous shuffling and chromosome compensation maintain genome balance in resynthesized allopolyploid Brassica napus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011; 108(19):7908-13. PMC: 3093481. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1014138108. View

3.
Cai X, Xu S . Meiosis-driven genome variation in plants. Curr Genomics. 2008; 8(3):151-61. PMC: 2435351. DOI: 10.2174/138920207780833847. View

4.
Jacobs M . Studies on the genetic activity of thymidine-base analogue in Arabidopsis thaliana. Mutat Res. 1969; 7(1):51-62. DOI: 10.1016/0027-5107(69)90049-9. View

5.
Kao K, Saleem M, Abrams S, Pedras M, Horn D, Mallard C . Culture conditions for induction of green plants from barley microspores by anther culture methods. Plant Cell Rep. 2013; 9(11):595-601. DOI: 10.1007/BF00231796. View