caasi@ucselx.sdsu.edu (richard) (12/07/90)
NBIAP NEWS REPORT
December 1990
ABRAC GUIDELINES
The long awaited ABRAC Guidelines for approval of field tests
apparently are stalled, at least for a time, in the Office of Vice
President Quayle. To review the situation, ABRAC (Agricultural
Biotechnology Research Advisory Committee) has a kind of "whatever
is left over" responsibility. Its assignment is to recommend to
USDA's Assistant Secretary for Science and Education whether to
approve or reject USDA-funded proposals for testing. In general,
the Committee's authority includes agriculture-related tests which
are not covered by the NIH/Rac Guidelines, do not involve pests
(USDA/APHIS's bailiwick), or pesticides or microorganisms (which
EPA reviews). However in some cases where USDA funding is
involved, arrangements may have to be made for dual reviews. In
its five years of existence, ABRAC has received only one proposal
concerned with genetically altered fish. Meanwhile, it has been
struggling to come up with some guidelines which it can use as a
basis for any further reviews it may be asked to carry out.
A series of four public meetings were held last September by ABRAC
and USDA's Office of Agricultural Biotechnology (which serves as
the Committee's staff) to obtain comments on an initial guidelines
draft. (A summary of the contents of the draft and the tentative
schedule for the meetings were included in the September News
Report.) Eighty five participants registered for the meetings.
A recently published summary of the comments showed that they
ranged all over the map: the proposed Guidelines were too strict
or not strict enough, how were they related to National
Environmental Policy Act Environmental Impact Statement
requirements, exactly what types and areas of research were
covered, would socioeconomic evaluations be required, what
relationship did they have to the actions IBCs and other state and
federal regulatory agencies might take, were they adequately based
on science, how were they related to the patenting process, why was
their scope so broad - or so narrow, why were they needed at all.
A new draft was prepared. It found its way to the Vice President's
Office where, rumor has it, extensive changes may be made. No one
seems willing to hazard a guess on what the eventual product will
look like or when the task will be completed.
EPA REGULATIONS
ABRAC is not the only one trying to get cranked up. According to
Biotechnology Notes, EPA's science advisory panel recently reviewed
a proposal for regulating small scale testing of microbial
pesticides. Apparently, a major topic was how broad a definition
should be used to regulate microorganisms with modified hereditary
traits under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). No word yet on how long it will be before EPA's draft
regulations will be available either.
THE GOLDENROD IS YELLOW...
According to a USDA announcement, "goldenrod weed and lowly yeast"
could be genetically engineered to yield premium natural rubber.
The announcement goes on to say that Katrina Cornish, a USDA
scientist, is scrutinizing round, white rubber particles she
separates from latex to find the genes in rubber trees and guayule.
She wants to insert them into goldenrod or microorganisms. The work
may take at least five years.
DRUGS FROM ANIMALS
The Genzyme Corporation has formed a joint venture with Japanese
partners to develop and sell drugs produced from genetically
altered animals, according to the Wall Street Journal. It will be
owned 75% by the Japanese, who will receive an exclusive license
on the use of Genzyme's transgenic technology in East Asia in
exchange for a $4 million contribution to the project increasing
to $7 million over three years.
The project will focus on animals which have been genetically
altered to secrete foreign proteins in their milk, which can be
purified and used as drugs. Currently, Genzyme is developing
transgenic goats to make therapeutic proteins, including one to
combat blood clots, which the joint venture wants to pursue.
TRANSGENIC CARP TEST GETS GO AHEAD
The USDA has completed an environmental assessment of a proposed
USDA funded transgenic carp test and has concluded that the test
will not significantly affect the environment. The way is now
clear for the test to proceed in newly constructed outdoor ponds
at the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station at Auburn
University. The carp involved in the test have received a growth
hormone gene from trout.
The research project will use nine transgenic carp that will be
artificially spawned indoors. A total of 50,000 of the resulting
fry, half transgenic and half controls will be stocked in the new
outdoor research ponds. When the fry have grown to the fingerling
stage (weighing about 30 grams), the number will be reduced to
3,000, divided equally between transgenic and control, and marked
for identification. Researchers will study the growth of the
fingerlings until they are about 15 months old. The test will be
terminated before the fish reach sexual maturity.
Copies of the environmental assessment and the "Finding of No
Significant Impact" are available from the Office of Agricultural
Biotechnology, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Room 324-A,
Administration Bldg., 14th and Independence Ave., S.W.,
Washington,D.C. 20250.
FIELD TEST OF RABIES VACCINE PRODUCES PROMISING RESULTS
On August 20, Philadelphia's Wistar Institute of Anatomy and
Biology with the cooperation of the State of Virginia and the
Nature Conservancy initiated a field test of an oral recombinant
rabies vaccine for raccoons on Parramore Island, Virginia.
Preliminary results from this test have been promising and Wistar
has applied to the USDA and the State of Pennsylvania to extend the
test to that state.
Rabies viruses contain a pathogenic portion as well as a harmless
coat protein portion. The Wistar vaccine was developed by removing
from the rabies virus a small number of genes that code only for
the harmless coat protein and than transferring them into the
vaccinia virus, the source of smallpox. The modified vaccinia
virus is then encapsulated and put into a bait which is attractive
to raccoons, major reservoirs of rabies in the eastern U.S. After
ingesting the vaccine the animals are immunized against rabies by
the harmless coat proteins without developing the disease. There
is no risk of rabies associated with this vaccine.
On Parramore Island, 3,120 vaccine laden baits were distributed
over 312 hectares. Individual records were kept on each bait to
determine the rate of disturbances. Within 96 hours, 90% of the
baits had been disturbed, mostly be raccoons. To measure uptake
of the bait and the vaccine in raccoons and non-target species, 209
raccoons, 36 rodents and 4 red foxes were live trapped and
examined. All were clinically normal and no dead animals were
found. Effective vaccine contact was measured by testing sero-
conversion due to the vaccine resulting in anti-rabies antibody
titers.
On days 13 and 14, four of seventeen (24%) of individual raccoon
sera examined showed significant levels of VNA (virus neutralizing
antibody). By the third week, eight of fifteen animals (53%) showed
evidence of elevated levels of VNA. Analysis of the results of the
Virginia test is continuing.
COLD TOLERANCE
Charles Guy and his team at the University of Florida, Gainesville,
have identified two proteins in spinach that turn on under exposure
to freezing temperatures according to USDA's Biotechnology Notes.
THe next step is to use recombinant DNA techniques to clone the
genes responsible and transfer them to petunia, a model for this
type of experiment. The eventual aim is to help Florida's citrus
industry which has had to live through three freezes in the last
ten years.
RESEARCH GRANT ANNOUNCEMENT
Applications are invited for competitive grant awards under the
Competitive Research Grants Program of USDA's Cooperative State
Research Service. Proposals may be submitted by U.S. universities,
other research institutions, Federal agencies, private
organizations, corporations and individuals. The following types
of proposals will be considered: research projects which are
fundamental or mission-linked, post doctoral awards to individuals,
and support for workshops, symposia or conferences.
Proposals are solicited in the following areas related to
agriculture, forestry and human nutrition: Natural Resources and
Environment; Nutrition, Food Quality and Health; Animal Systems and
Plant Systems. All of these are relevant to biotechnology and
molecular biology, particularly one category entitled Genomes,
Genetics and Diversity. For further specific information and grant
application kits, contact Proposal Services Branch, Cooperative
State Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, room 303,
Aerospace Center, Washington, DC 20250-2200. Telephone (202) 401-
5049. Closing dates range from January 14, 1991 to April 8, 1991,
depending on subject area.
LITERATURE NOTES
Mark D. Dibner, Ph.D., North Carolina Biotechnology Center
(Note: Numbers in parentheses refer to record numbers of articles
listed in the Current Literature database of this bulletin board.)
As the year winds down, I would like to return to my journal
watching duties and review some of the literature that was added
to the Current Literature database this month. An excellent review
of new gene technologies on the ornamental plant and cut flower
industry appeared in The Scientist in late August (4599). This
industry represents a $9 billion dollar a year market in the United
States alone! Ralph Hardy of the Boyce Thompson Institute at
Cornell University estimates that the spending on R&D by the top
U.S. companies working with genetic engineering of flowers is
between $10 and $20 million each year. Other funding is available,
such as the $5 million supplied by Suntory Ltd. of Japan to Calgene
Pacific Pty. Ltd. (Calgene's Australian subsidiary) to develop a
blue rose. In addition to the biotech firms working with plant
biotechnology, a number of large corporations are working in this
area, such as DuPont and Monsanto. Top biotech firms in the area
are DNA Plant Technology, BioTechnica and Calgene in the United
States and Plant Genetic Systems of Belgium.
Another review, written by Kathleen Trivers of the National Academy
of Sciences (4557) details research in plant molecular biology in
the USSR. This paper details eight institutes, half in Moscow,
with significant research activities in this field. The paper was
based on an interacademy workshop on plant molecular biology
sponsored by the National Academy.
I reported earlier on breakthroughs in genetic engineering
techniques applied to corn. This crop is the largest in the United
States in both acreage and value, according to a report in Genetic
Technology News (4643), and the breakthroughs in technology may
lead to a half billion dollar market for engineered corn seed. For
example, GTN estimates the market for herbicide resistant corn to
be at $150 million per year and the market for nematode and insect
resistant corn to be over $200 per year. Other improvements, such
as increased corn oil, male sterility or changes in protein content
could account for another $130 million in seed sales. Benefits
will be reaped by the farmer as well as by the supplier of these
seeds. For example, GTN estimates that herbicide resistant corn
will result in $300 million savings to farmers (in savings on
chemicals, better weed control, etc.) and half of the savings will
go to the seed supplier.
In upcoming reports, I hope to cover the major story in November
that the USDA is expected to approve outdoor experiments involving
transgenic fish at Auburn University in Alabama. The engineered
carp carry trout growth hormone genes and experiments are designed
to monitor the passage of the inserted genes to offspring. My mind
is dazzled by the possibilities -- salmon the size of my hot water
heater. But then, I was expecting to see Christmas trees that
glows in the dark (from inserted luciferase) and that has not yet
come to pass. Oh well. Have enjoyable and safe Holidays!
FORUM
Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported that scientists are
discovering that disease-causing bacteria are picking up new genes
that render the bacteria resistant to most antibiotics. The source
of the new genes is unknown at this time but evidence suggests that
the bacteria import the genetic material that enables them to
construct new defenses against antibiotics. Levels of bacterial
resistance vary, though resistance in some strains seems to be
increasing. For example, penicillin by itself is rarely prescribed
for Staphylococcus bacteria infections in hospitals because as many
as 80% of such strains are resistant to it. Once resistant strains
of bacteria develop in one part of the world, they inevitably
spread. As Dr.Alexander Tomasz, a biochemist at Rockefeller
University, points out, "By seeking control over bacteria, we also
started an armaments race with them. The bugs are very clever."
In a similar vein, the topic of "Insect adaptation to insect
resistant transgenic plants" was on the agenda of a recent EPA
conference on Pesticidal Transgenic Plants. Dr. George Kennedy of
North Carolina State University pointed out that some 500 insect
species are already resistant to pesticides. Moreover, pesticidal
transgenic plants will not be immune from the adaptation problem
and the current dependence on a limited number of organisms such
as Bacillus thuringiensis(Bt) to confer insect resistance on plants
may actually enhance natural selection for adaptation by insects.
Of the 100 field tests approved to date by the USDA's APHIS, 50 are
for transgenic plants incorporating the Bt gene or a viral coat
protein. To minimize the potential for resistance adaptations,
Kennedy recommended the development of specific management and
regulatory strategies that would for example encourage the use of
large scale mosaics in plantings. According to Kennedy, the
development of viable resistance management strategies will require
the collaboration of industry (the major player in pesticidal
transgenic plants), education of end users, development of a system
to monitor adaptations and a plan of action to deal with adaptive
insects when they are found. There seems to be a natural tendency
to regard genetically modified organisms as the final answer to
many of the world's health, environmental and food problems. These
two pieces about genetic adaptations by microbes and insects
provide an antidote for this excess of optimism about
biotechnology. They remind us that evolution is a dynamic, ongoing
process and surprises lie in wait in every strand of living DNA.
Considering the large financial investment needed to bring pest
resistant plants to the current point of near commercialization,
it is sobering to think that the benefits of this new product could
wither in a relatively short time in the face of insect adaptation.
It seems that the investment in research and development of this
promising new biotechnology product has only begun.