Towards social acceptance of plant breeding by genome editing

Abstract

Although genome-editing technologies facilitate efficient plant breeding without introducing a transgene, it is creating indistinct boundaries in the regulation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Rapid advances in plant breeding by genome-editing require the establishment of a new global policy for the new biotechnology, while filling the gap between process-based and product-based GMO regulations. In this opinion article we review the recent developments for producing major crops using genome-editing and propose a regulatory model that takes into account the various methodologies to achieve genetic modifications as well as the resulting types of mutation. Moreover, we discuss the future integration of genome-edited crops into society, specifically a possible response to the Right-to-Know movement which demands labelling of food that contains genetically-engineered ingredients.The need for regulatory models Genome-editing via technologies such as zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas systems (e.g. Cas9) offers the ability to perform robust genetic engineering in many species [1][2][3] Genome-editing-mediated plant breedingConventional genetic engineering begins with extracellular DNA manipulation to construct a plasmid vector harboring a gene or a specific DNA sequence to be transferred into the chosen organism. The entire plasmid or only the DNA fragment is then shot into plant cells by using particle bombardment or delivered into the cells by

Consumer acceptance of food crops developed by genome editing

“…Moreover, methodologies on genome-wide profiling of off-target effects are available to validate each nuclease or gRNA of the CRISPR/Cas9 system before generating genome edited organisms (Kim, et al 2015;Tsai, et al 2015). However, a recent review on plant genome editing suggests that most of the relevant reports have not evaluated the occurrence of off-target mutations in resultant crops (Araki and Ishii 2015) (Table 1).…”

“…As discussed above, most of the relevant crop reports have not addressed off-target mutations in resultant plants (Araki and Ishii 2015) (Table 1). Pauwels et al assert that the use of next-generation sequencing is currently not always significant in the risk assessment of GM plants (Pauwels, et al 2015).…”

“…Another important issue is that different GMO regulations have been enacted worldwide. Some countries, including Argentina, Canada, Japan, India and the USA, regulate GM crops under product-based GMO regulations, whereas others, such as Australia, China, EU and New Zealand, regulate GM crops under process-based regulations (Araki and Ishii 2015;Araki, et al 2014;Davidson 2010;Lucht 2015;Ramessar, et al 2008). Such regulatory mosaicism regarding GM crops in global society are partially to blame for public distrust in the regulation of GM crops (Lucht 2015; Zilberman, et al 2013).…”

“…Transgene-free plants produced via genome editing might bypass product-based GMO regulation, which is based on the existence of exogenous DNA such as transgenes in the final product (Araki and Ishii 2015;Araki, et al 2014;Nagamangala Kanchiswamy, et al 2015;Voytas and Gao 2014). Some groups advocate that such transgene-free crops should not be regulated (Camacho, et al 2014), even under process-based GMO regulation We surveyed the regulatory status of food crops generated by NPBTs ( Table 2).…”

“…gene modifications at target sites (Araki and Ishii 2015). In addition, genome editing is a versatile genetic engineering tool.…”