Advertisement

Potato Research

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 47–57 | Cite as

Societal Costs of Late Blight in Potato and Prospects of Durable Resistance Through Cisgenic Modification

  • A. J. Haverkort
  • P. M. Boonekamp
  • R. Hutten
  • E. Jacobsen
  • L. A. P. Lotz
  • G. J. T. Kessel
  • R. G. F. Visser
  • E. A. G. van der Vossen
Article

Abstract

In the European Union almost 6 Mha of potatoes are grown representing a value of close to €6,000,000,000. Late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans causes annual losses (costs of control and damage) estimated at more than €1,000,000,000. Chemical control is under pressure as late blight becomes increasingly aggressive and there is societal resistance against the use of environmentally unfriendly chemicals. Breeding programmes have not been able to markedly increase the level of resistance of current potato varieties. New scientific approaches may yield genetically modified marker-free potato varieties (either trans- and/or cisgenic, the latter signifying the use of indigenous resistance genes) as improved variants of currently used varieties showing far greater levels of resistance. There are strong scientific investments needed to develop such improved varieties but these varieties will have great economic and environmental impact. Here we present an approach, based on (cisgenic) resistance genes that will enhance the impact. It consists of five themes: the detection of R-genes in the wild potato gene pool and their function related to the various aspects in the infection route and reproduction of the late blight causing pathogen; cloning of natural R-genes and transforming cassettes of single or multiple (cisgenic) R-genes into existing varieties with proven adaptation to improve their value for consumers; selection of true to the wild type and resistant genotypes with similar qualities as the original variety; spatial and temporal resistance management research of late blight of the cisgenic genetically modified (GM) varieties that contain different cassettes of R-genes to avoid breaking of resistance and reduce build-up of epidemics; communication and interaction with all relevant stakeholders in society and transparency in what research is doing. One of the main challenges is to explain the different nature and possible biological improvement and legislative repercussions of cisgenic GM-crops in comparison with transgenic GM-crops. It is important to realize that the present EU Directive 2001/18/EC on GM crops does not make a difference between trans- and cisgenes. These rules were developed when only transgenic GM plants were around. We present a case arguing for an updating and refinement of these rules in order to place cisgenic GM-crops in another class of GM-plants as has been done in the past with (induced) mutation breeding and the use of protoplast fusion between crossable species.

Keywords

Cisgenesis Cloning Communication Late blight Phytophthora infestans Potato Resistance management Selection Transformation 

References

  1. Dale PJ, McPartlan HC (1992) Field performance of transgenic potato plants compared with controls regenerated from tuber discs and shoot cuttings. Theor Appl Genet 84:585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. De Vetten N, Wolters MA, Raemakers K, van der Meer I, ter Stege R, Heeres P, Visser RGF (2003) A transformation method for obtaining marker-free plants of a cross-pollinating and vegetatively propagated crop. Nat Biotechnol 21:439–442PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. De Wolf M, van der Klooster A (2006) Kwantitatieve Informatie Akkerbouw en Vollegrondsgroenteteelt (Quantitative information of arable farming and field production of vegetables.) KWIN AGV, (http://www.ppo.wur.nl/NL/publicaties/). PPO 354
  4. Heeres P, Jacobsen E, Visser RGF (1997) Behaviour of genetically modified amylose free potato clones as progenitors in a breeding program. Euphytica 98:169–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Heeres P, Schippers-Rozenboom M, Jacobsen E, Visser RGF (2002) Transformation of a large number of potato varieties: genotype-dependent variation in efficiency and somaclonal variability. Euphytica 124:13–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jacobsen E, Schouten HJ (2007) Cisgenesis strongly improves introgression breeding and induced translocation breeding of plants. Trends Biotechnol 25:220–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Kaniewski WK, Thomas PE (1999) Field testing for resistance and agronomic performance in transgenic plants. Mol Biotechn 12:101–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lisbon Strategy (2004) Facing the challenge, the Lisbon strategy for growth and empoyment. Report of the high level group. Luxemburg office for official publications of the European Communities. ISBN 92-894-7054-2Google Scholar
  9. Lotz LAP, Wevers JDA, van der Weide RY (1999) My view. Pro’s and con’s of transgenic tolerant crops need to be more broadly assessed and discussed: the European outlook. Weed Sci 47:479–480Google Scholar
  10. NAO (2007) Feiten en cijfers, 2006 (Facts and figures 2006). Nederlandse Aardappelorganisatie, the HagueGoogle Scholar
  11. Skelsey P, Rossing WAH, Kessel GJT, Powell J, van der Werf W (2005) Influence of host diversity on development of epidemics: an evaluation and elaboration of mixture theory. Phytopathology 95:328–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Van de Wiel CCM, Lotz LAP (2006) Outcrossing and coexistence of genetically modified with (genetically) unmodified crops: a case study of the situation in the Netherlands. NJAS—Wageningen J Life Sci 54:17–35Google Scholar
  13. Van der Vossen EAG, Sikkema A, te Lintel Hekkert B, Gros J, Stevens P, Muskens M, Wouters D, Pereira A, Stiekema WJ, Allefs S (2003) An ancient R gene from Solanum bulbocastanum confers broad spectrum resistance to late blight in cultivated potato and tomato. Plant J 36:867–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Van der Vossen EAG, Gros J, Sikkema A, Muskens M, Wouters D, Wolters P, Pereira A, Allefs S (2005) The Rpi-blb2 gene from Solanum bulbocastanum is a Mi-1 gene homolog conferring broad-spectrum late blight resistance in potato. Plant J 44(2):208–222PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EAPR 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Haverkort
    • 1
  • P. M. Boonekamp
    • 1
  • R. Hutten
    • 1
  • E. Jacobsen
    • 1
  • L. A. P. Lotz
    • 1
  • G. J. T. Kessel
    • 1
  • R. G. F. Visser
    • 1
  • E. A. G. van der Vossen
    • 1
  1. 1.Wageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations