Potato Research

, 51:75 | Cite as

Cisgenesis, a New Tool for Traditional Plant Breeding, Should be Exempted from the Regulation on Genetically Modified Organisms in a Step by Step Approach

  • E. JacobsenEmail author
  • H. J. Schouten


Modern potato breeding requires over 100,000 seedlings per new variety. Main reasons are (1) the increasing number of traits that have to be combined in this tetraploid vegetatively propagated crop, and (2) an increasing number of traits (e.g., resistance to biotic stress) originates from wild species. Pre-breeding by introgression or induced translocation is an expensive way of transferring single traits (such as R-genes, coding for resistance to biotic stress) to the cultivated plant. The most important obstacle is simultaneous transfer of undesired neighbouring alien alleles as linkage drag. Stacking several genes from different wild sources is increasing this linkage drag problem tremendously. Biotechnology has enabled transformation of alien genes into the plant. Initially, transgenes were originating mainly from microorganisms, viruses or non-crossable plant species, or they were chimeric. Moreover, selection markers coding for antibiotic resistance or herbicide resistance were needed. Transgenes are a new gene source for plant breeding and, therefore, additional regulations like the EU Directive 2001/18/EC were developed. Because of a strong opposition against genetic modification of plants in Europe, the application of this Directive is strict, very expensive, hampering the introduction of genetically modified (GM) crops and the use of this technology by small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Currently, GM crops are almost the exclusive domain of multinationals. Meanwhile, not only transgenes but also natural genes from the plant species itself or from crossable plant species, called cisgenes, are available and the alien selection genes can be avoided in the end product. This opens the way for cisgenic crops without alien genes. The existing EU directive for GM organisms is not designed for this new development. The cisgenes belong to the existing breeders’ gene pool. The use of this classical gene pool has been regulated already in agreements regarding breeders’ rights. We are proposing a step by step approach starting with a crop and gene specific derogation and monitoring towards a general exemption of cisgenic plants from the Directive. Two examples, i.e. development of cisgenic potato for resistance to Phytophthora infestans and cisgenic apple for resistance to Venturia inaequalis are discussed shortly for illustration of the importance of cisgenesis as a new tool for traditional plant breeding. Cisgenesis is simplifying introgression and induced translocation breeding tremendously and is highly recommended for SMEs and developing countries.


Apple breeding Cisgenesis Genetic modification Malus domestica Phytophthora infestans Potato breeding Solanum tuberosum Venturia inaequalis 


  1. Ahloowalia BS, Maluszynski M, Nichterlein K (2004) Global impact of mutation-derived varieties. Euphytica 135:187–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anonymous (2001) Directive 2001/18/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 12 March 2001 on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms and repealing Council Directive 90/220/EEC. Off J Euro Comm 106:1–38 (
  3. Belfanti E, Silfverberg-Dilworth E, Tartarini S, Patocchi A, Barbieri M, Zhu J, Vinatzer BA, Gianfranceschi L, Gessler C, Sansavini S (2004) The HcrVf2 gene from a wild apple confers scab resistance to a transgenic cultivated variety. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101:886–890PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chahal GS, Gosal SS (2002) Principles and procedures of plant breeding: biotechnological and conventional approaches. Alpha Science International, PangbourneGoogle Scholar
  5. Espley RV, Hellens RP, Putterill J, Stevenson DE, Kutty-Amma S, Allan AC (2007) Red colouration in apple fruit is due to the activity of the MYB transcription factor, MdMYB10. Plant J 49:414–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ewen SWB, Pusztai A (1999) Effect of diets containing genetically modified potatoes expressing Galanthus nivalis lectin on small rat intestine. The Lancet 354:1353–1354CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Friebe B, Jiang J, Raupp WP, McIntosh RA, Gill BS (1996) Characterization of wheat-alien translocations conferring resistance to diseases and pests: current status. Euphytica 91:59–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Greco R, Ouwerkerk PFB, Sallaud C, Kohli A, Colombo L, Puigdomènech P, Guiderdoni E, Christou P, Hoge JHC, Pereira A (2001) Transposon insertional mutagenesis in rice. Plant Physiol 125:1175–1177PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Haverkort AJ, Boonekamp PM, Hutten R, Jacobsen E, Lotz LAP, Kessel GJT, Visser RGF, van der Vossen EAG (2008) Societal costs of late blight in potato and prospects of durable resistance through cisgenic modification. Potato Research 51 (this issue)Google Scholar
  10. Heeres P, Schippers-Roozenboom 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
  11. Heiligser HJB, Loonen AS, Bergervoet M, Wolters AMAS, Visser RGF (2006) Post-transcriptional gene silencing of GBSS1 in potato: effects of size and sequence of the inverted repeat. Plant Mol Biol 60:647–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hermsen JGTH, Ramanna MS (1973) Double-bridge hybrids of Solanum bulbocastanum and cultivars of Solanum tuberosum. Euphytica 22:457–466CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jacobsen E (2007) Cisgenesis: next step in advanced traditional breeding. In: Haverkort AJ, Anisimov BV (eds) Potato production and innovative technologies. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 348–352Google Scholar
  14. Jacobsen E, Hutten R (2006) Stacking resistance genes in potato by cisgenesis instead of introgression breeding. In: Haase NU, Haverkort AJ (eds) Potato developments in a changing Europe. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Wageningen, pp 46–57Google Scholar
  15. Jacobsen E, Schouten HJ (2007a) Cisgenesis strongly improves introgression breeding and induced translocation breeding of plants. Trends Biotechnol 25:219–223PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacobsen E, Schouten HJ (2007b) Gentechniek vernieuwt de plantenveredeling: Cisgenese veilig en goed voor het milieu. SPIL 237–238:15–19Google Scholar
  17. Jansen JPA (1997) Aphid resistance in composites. Patent NL003261Google Scholar
  18. Lammerts van Bueren ET, Verhoog H, Tiemens-Hulscher M, Struik PC, Haring MA (2007) Organic agriculture requires process rather than product evaluation of novel breeding techniques. NJAS-Wageningen J Life Sci 54:401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McKnight TD, Lillis MT, Simpson RB (1987) Segregation of genes transferred to one plant cell from two separate Agrobacterium strains. Plant Mol Biol 8:439–445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nelson OE (1968) The waxy locus in maize. II. The location of the controlling element alleles. Genetics 60:507–524PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Parisi L, Lespinasse Y, Guillaumes J, Kruger J (1993) A new race of Venturia inaequalis virulent to apples with resistance due to the Vf gene. Phytopathology 83:533–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Redenbaugh K (1992) Safety assessment of genetically engineered fruits and vegetables: a case study of Flavr Savr tomato. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  23. Rommens CM, Ye J, Richael C, Swords K (2006) Improving potato storage and processing characteristics through all-native DNA transformation. J Agric Food Chem 54:9882–9887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rommens CM, Haring MA, Swords K, Davies HV, Belknap WR (2007) The intragenic approach as a new extension to traditional plant breeding. Trends Plant Sci 12:397–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Schaart JG, Krens FA, Pelgrom KTB, Mendes O, Rouwendaal GJA (2004) Effective production of marker-free transgenic strawberry plants using inducible site-specific recombination and a bifunctional selectable marker gene. Plant Biotechnol 2:233–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E (2006a) Cisgenic plants should be excluded from GMO regulations. Nat Biotechnol 24:753PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schouten HJ, Krens FA, Jacobsen E (2006b) Cisgenic plants are similar to traditionally bred plants. EMBO Reports 7:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. van Eck HJ (2007) Genetics morphological and tuber traits. In: Vreugdenhil D (ed) Potato biology and biotechnology: advances and perspectives. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 91–116Google Scholar
  29. van Gelder WMJ (1989) Steroidal glycoalkaloid in Solanum species: consequences for potato breeding and food safety. Wageningen University PhD thesis, WageningenGoogle Scholar
  30. Vetten N, Wolters AMA, Raemakers K, Meer van der I, Stege ter R, Heeres E, 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
  31. William HM, Trethowan R, Crosby-Galvan EM (2007) Wheat breeding assisted by markers: Cimmyt’s experience. Euphytica 157:307–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Yu HX, Tang SZ, Liu QQ, Wang L, Zhao ZP, Xu L, Huang BL, Gong ZY, Tang SZ, Gu MH (2006) Breeding of selectable marker-free transgenic rice lines containing AP1 gene with enhanced disease resistance. Agric Sci in China 5:805–811Google Scholar

Copyright information

© EAPR 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Plant BreedingWageningen University and Research CentreWageningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Transforum Agribusiness & Rural AreasZoetermeerThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations