Genetic modification for disease resistance: a position paper

Scott, Peter R.; Thomson, Jennifer A.; Grzywacz, D.; Savary, Serge; Strange, Richard; Ristaino, Jean Beagle; Korsten, Lisé

doi:10.1007/s12571-016-0591-9

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…GM crops have been implemented massively on a global scale: in some countries over 90% of particular crops are GM and this proportion is increasing (Schulman, 2020;Scott et al, 2016). As mentioned in the introduction, Europe is lagging behind.…”

Section: Risk a Sse Ssmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is relatively easy to detect an antimicrobial protein or metabolite, but not so easy to prove that it is safe for us to eat, and indeed this is one of the common worries amongst consumers (Scott et al, 2016). One of the criticisms of GMO technology use by its opponents is that it is intrinsically not (or might not be) safe, though there is no evidence to support this assertion (Scott et al, 2016). That does not mean that specific transgenic solutions are risk free.…”

Section: Food Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several factors are responsible for this, including societal and political barriers for the use of GM (genetically modified) crops. The EU represents the most significant opponent, and this has ramifications both for the export of GM products from other parts of the world to the EU and on research and development for new products in, or for sale in, the EU (Collinge, 2018;Lucas, 2011;Scott et al, 2016). Indeed, the EU is under-represented in the research reviewed in this paper because it is a challenge to obtain funding within the EU for applied research that is unlikely to benefit the funding country or region in the foreseeable future.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Transgenic approaches for plant disease control: Status and prospects 2021

Collinge

Sarrocco

2021

Plant Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant diseases are responsible for major crop losses and postharvest spoilage; though losses are difficult to calculate, educated estimates suggest they are responsible for 20% to 40% of losses from plough to plate for major crops (Oerke, 2006;Savary et al., 2019). Hypothetically, with current estimated population growth, we could solve the challenge of feeding the world by 2050 were we able to control all disease (Collinge et al., 2010). Plant disease can be managed primarily by farmer skill, pesticides, disease resistance, and biological control, in roughly that order of importance. Disease resistance is effective when it works because no specific input is required by the grower after sowing or planting. However, despite major effort by plant pathologists and breeders over a century, no effective disease-resistant cultivars are available for many diseases, and, for many important diseases, the pathogen overcomes natural

show abstract

Section: Risk a Sse Ssmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Food Safetymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Transgenic approaches for plant disease control: Status and prospects 2021

Collinge

Sarrocco

2021

Plant Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Table 3 describe the review of the application of some of the new genetic medication techniques (nGM) or new breeding techniques (NBTs) (i) RNAi, (ii) Cisgenics and intragenics, (iii) Gene editing in general, (iv) Genome editing specifically using CRIPR Cas9 in pest management. (Vincelli, 2016;Scott et al, 2016;Sniezko and Koch, 2017;Dong and Ronald., 2019) insect pest management (Mabubu et al, 2016;Dar et al, 2017b;Sniezko and Koch, 2017;Alphey and Bonsall, 2018) Herbicide-resistant crops (Kniss 2018;Fartyal et al, 2018) Intragenics diversity in effector genes of banana disease (Stergiopoulos et al, 2014), and potato disease (Yang et al, 2018) understanding of the evolution of insect epigenetic systems (Hunt et al, 2014) glyphosate resistance in Chilepepper (Ortegaet al, 2018), sugarcane resistance to herbicide (Dermawan et al, 2016 )…”

Section: New Breeding Techniques and Genome Editing Technologiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trend of Biotechnology Applications in Pest Management: A Review

Alemu

2020

Int J Appl Sci Biotechnol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are many constraints that severely affect the global agricultural production and productivity which include the ever increasing of population growth, degradation of natural resources, climate changes and emerging pests. Among these factors, biotic constraints or pests are known to cause 25-50% or complete loss of plant production. Accordingly, various plant protection technologies have been deployed with the trend of focusing on the use modern biotechnological tools that are proven to be most effective and mandatory. The review covers a wide array of pest management methods ranging from the conventional biological control methods up to molecular breeding techniques. Furthermore, the application of new genetic engineering techniques fueled by new breakthroughs and innovations are the cornerstone of this review. Accordingly, the continuous increasing trend of GM crops cultivation in both crop type and hectare has urged many countries to deploy the technology as a key strategy to enhance their bioeconomy. In fact, plant protection is the discipline that immensely benefit from biotechnology than any other disciplines for ensuring food security and sustainable development. However, in order to fully exploit the enormous potential of biotechnology, appropriate biosafety regulatory frameworks and proper stewardship programs need to be effectively implemented. This integrated approach can promptly help respond to the ever-dynamic threat of pests and hence reliably combat food insecurity and ably contribute to sustainable development. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Biotechnol. Vol 8(2): 108-131

show abstract

“…At present, antibiotics and chemicals are mainly used to control plant diseases in agricultural production, but the long-term use of chemical pesticides will produce a series of side effects, including improving the drug resistance of plant pathogens, causing crop pesticide residues, environmental pollution, endangering human health, and destroying the ecological balance ( Pandit et al, 2022 ). Breeding resistant varieties is the most reliable management tool for controlling bacterial diseases, despite the characteristic potential to provide disease resistance to the host, the use of genetically modified crops remains the subject of global controversy ( Scott et al, 2016 ). With the development of biotechnology, people began to look for a plant disease control strategy that is harmless to humans and the environment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Isolation of Bioactive Compounds, Antibacterial Activity, and Action Mechanism of Spore Powder From Aspergillus niger xj

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aspergillus fungi can produce a wide range of secondary metabolites, and they have represented a potential resource of novel bioactive compounds. Bacterial plant diseases have a serious impact on the sustainable development of agriculture worldwide, so it is necessary to use natural antibacterial compounds in microorganisms to control plant pathogens. This study was conducted to investigate the bioactive compounds of Aspergillus niger xj, three plant pathogens (Agrobacterium tumefaciens T-37, Erwinia carotovora EC-1, and Ralstonia solanacearum RS-2) were used as indicator bacteria, according to the biological activity tracking, five compounds were isolated from A. niger xj spore powder, and characterization of compounds was done by NMR (1H-NMR and 13C-NMR) and EI-MS and was identified as ergosterol (1), β-sitosterol (2), 5-pentadecylresorcinol (3), 5-hydroxymethyl-2-furancarboxylic acid (4), and succinimide (5). Compounds 3 and 5 were isolated from A. niger xj for the first time. The minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of five compounds against three plant pathogens was evaluated, the results showed that compound 4 exhibited the strongest antibacterial activity against tested bacteria, and RS-2 was the most sensitive to compound 4, showing the lowest MIC of 15.56 μg/ml. We concluded that the mechanism of action of the compound 4 against RS-2 might be described as compound 4 acting on bacterial protein synthesis and intracellular metabolism according to the results of the scanning electron microscopy observation, permeability of cell membrane and SDS-PAGE. These results indicated that compound 4 has good potential to be as a biocontrol agent. In conclusion, the results from this study demonstrated that the compounds with antibacterial activity are of great significance of the prevention and control of plant phytopathogenic bacteria, and they may be applicable to exploring alternative approaches to integrated control of phytopathogens.

show abstract

Genetic modification for disease resistance: a position paper

Cited by 7 publications

References 11 publications

Transgenic approaches for plant disease control: Status and prospects 2021

Transgenic approaches for plant disease control: Status and prospects 2021

Trend of Biotechnology Applications in Pest Management: A Review

Isolation of Bioactive Compounds, Antibacterial Activity, and Action Mechanism of Spore Powder From Aspergillus niger xj

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About