Tree Genetics & Genomes

, Volume 3, Issue 2, pp 111–118 | Cite as

Restoration of threatened species: a noble cause for transgenic trees

  • S. A. Merkle
  • G. M. Andrade
  • C. J. Nairn
  • W. A. Powell
  • C. A. Maynard
Review

Abstract

Some of the first applications of transgenic trees in North America may be for the conservation or restoration of threatened forest trees that have been devastated by fungal pathogens or insect pests. In some cases, where resistance has yet to be found in the natural population of a tree species, incorporating genes from other organisms may offer the only hope for restoration. In others, transgenics may play a role as part of an integrated approach, along with conventional breeding or biocontrol agents. American chestnut (Castanea dentata) was wiped out as a canopy species by a fungal disease accidentally introduced into the United States around 1900. Similarly, American elm (Ulmus americana) virtually disappeared as a favored street tree from Northeastern U.S. cities after the introduction of the Dutch elm disease fungus in the 1940s. In both cases, progress has been made toward restoration via conventional techniques such as selection and propagation of tolerant cultivars (American elm) or breeding with a related resistant species (American chestnut). Recently, progress has also been made with development of systems for engineering antifungal candidate genes into these “heritage trees.” An Agrobacterium-leaf disk system has been used to produce transgenic American elm trees engineered with an antimicrobial peptide gene that may enhance resistance to Dutch elm disease. Two gene transfer systems have been developed for American chestnut using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of embryogenic cultures, setting the stage for the first tests of potential antifungal genes for their ability to confer resistance to the chestnut blight fungus. Despite the promise of transgenic approaches for restoration of these heritage trees, a number of technical, environmental, economic, and ethical questions remain to be addressed before such trees can be deployed, and the debate around these questions may be quite different from that associated with transgenic trees developed for other purposes.

Keywords

American chestnut American elm Transgenic trees 

References

  1. Anagnostakis SL (1987) Chestnut blight: the classical problem of an introduced pathogen. Mycologia 79:23–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrade GM, Merkle SA (2005) Enhancement of American chestnut somatic seedling production. Plant Cell Rep 24:326–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrade GM, Nairn CJ, Le HT, Merkle SA (2005) Regeneration of transgenic American Chestnut plants following co-cultivation of embryogenic tissues with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. IUFRO Tree Biotechnology 2005, November 6–11, 2005, Pretoria, South Africa. Abstract No. S7, p 10Google Scholar
  4. Ballweber LM, Jaynes JE, Stamm WE, Lampe MF (2002) In vitro microbicidal activities of cecropin peptides D2A21 and D4E1 and gel formulations containing 0.1 to 2% D2A21 against Chlamydia trachomatis. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 46:34–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bolyard MG (1994) Regeneration of ‘Frontier’ elm from leaf explants. J Environ Hortic 12:93–95Google Scholar
  6. Bolyard MG, Srinivasan C, Cheng JP, Sticklen M (1991) Shoot regeneration from leaf explants of American and Chinese elm. HortScience 26:1554–1555Google Scholar
  7. Burnham CR (1988) The restoration of the American chestnut. Amer Scientist 76:478–487Google Scholar
  8. Cardwell NA, McDaniel GL (1998) Comparison of chitinases from dogwood anthracnose resistant and susceptible Cornus species. HortScience 33:298–301Google Scholar
  9. Carraway DT, Merkle SA (1997) Plantlet regeneration from somatic embryos of American chestnut. Can J For Res 27:1805–1812CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carraway DT, Wilde HD, Merkle SA (1994) Somatic embryogenesis and gene transfer in American chestnut. J Am Chestnut Found 8(1):29–33Google Scholar
  11. Clarke HRG, Davis JM, Wilbert SM, Bradshaw HD, Gordon MP Jr (1994) Wound-induced and developmental activation of a poplar tree chitinase gene promoter in transgenic tobacco. Plant Mol Biol 25:799–815PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Conde P, Santos C, Loureiro J (2004) Somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from leaves of Ulmus minor Mill. Plant Cell Rep 22:632–639PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Connors BJ, Maynard CA, Powell WA (2001) Expressed sequence tags from stem tissue of American chestnut. Biotechnol Lett 23:1407–1411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Connors BJ, Miller M, Maynard CA, Powell WA (2002) American chestnut promoters capable of directing reporter gene expression in transgenic Arabidopsis plants. Plant Sci 163:771–781CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Corredoira E, Ballester A, Vieitez AM (2002) Somatic embryogenesis in elm. Ann Bot 89:637–644PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Corredoira E, Ballester A, Vieitez AM (2003a) Proliferation, maturation and germination of Castanea sativa Mill. somatic embryos originated from leaf explants. Ann Bot 92:129–136PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Corredoira E, Ballester A, Vieitez AM (2003b) Proliferation and maintenance of embryogenic capacity in elm embryogenic cultures. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 39:394–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Corredoira E, Vieitez AM, Ballester A, Montenegro D, San-Jose MC (2004) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of European chestnut embryogenic cultures. Plant Cell Rep 23:311–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fenning TM, Gartland KMA, Brasier CM (1993) Micropropagation and regeneration of English elm, Ulmus procera Salisbury. J Exp Bot 44:1211–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fenning TM, Tymens SS, Gartland JS, Brasier CM, Gartland KMA (1996) Transformation and regeneration of English elm using wild-type Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Sci 116:37–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gartland JS, McHugh AT, Brasier CM, Irvine RJ, Fenning TM, Gartland, KMA (2000) Regeneration of phenotypically normal English elm (Ulmus procera) plantlets following transformation with an Agrobacterium tumefaciens binary vector. Tree Physiol 20:901–907PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Gartland JS, Brasier CM, Fenning TM, Birch R, Gartland KMA (2001) Ri-plasmid mediated transformation and regeneration of Ulmus procera (English elm). Plant Growth Regul 33:123–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gartland KMA, McHugh AT, Crow RM, Garg A, Gartland JS (2005) Biotechnological progress in dealing with Dutch elm disease. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol 41:364–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gautheret R (1940) Nouvelles recherches sur le bouregeonnement du tissue cambial d’Ulmus campestris cultive in vitro. Comptes Rendue Acaddemie Science Paris 210:744–746Google Scholar
  25. George MW, Tripepi RR (1994) Cytokinins, donor plants and time in culture affect shoot regenerative capacity of American elm leaves. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 39:27–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gonsalves D (1998) Control of papaya ringspot virus in papaya: a case study. Annu Rev Phytopathol 36:415–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Gray-Mitsumune M, Molitor EK, Cukovic D, Carlson JE, Douglas CJ (1999) Developmentally regulated patterns of expression directed by poplar PAL promoters in transgenic tobacco and poplar. Plant Mol Biol 39:657–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Griffin GJ (2000) Blight control and restoration of the American chestnut. J For 98:22–27Google Scholar
  29. Gura T (2001) Innate immunity: ancient system gets new respect. Science 291:2068–2071PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hancock REW, Diamond G (2000) The role of cationic antimicrobial peptides in innate host defenses. Trends Microbiol 8:402–410PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Harlow WM, Harrar ES, Hardin JW, White FM (1996) Textbook of dendrology, 8th edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Hebard F (2005) Meadowview notes 2004–2005. J Amer Chestnut Found 19(2):16–29Google Scholar
  33. Hollick JB, Gordon MP (1995) Transgenic analysis of a hybrid poplar wound-inducible promoter reveals developmental patterns of expression similar to that of storage protein genes. Plant Physiol 109:73–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Holzmueller E, Jose S, Jenkins M, Camp A, Long A (2006) Dogwood anthracnose in eastern hardwood forests: what is known and what can be done? J For 104:21–26Google Scholar
  35. Hubbes M (1999) The American elm and Dutch elm disease. Forest Chron 75:265–273Google Scholar
  36. Kapaun JA, Cheng ZM (1997) Plant regeneration from leaf tissues of Siberian elm. HortScience 32:301–303Google Scholar
  37. Liang H, Powell WA, Allen RD, Maynard CA (2001) Increased Septoria musiva resistance in transgenic hybrid poplar leaves expressing a wheat oxalate oxidase gene. Plant Mol Biol 45:619–629PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liang H, Catranis CM, Maynard CA, Powell WA (2002) Enhanced resistance to the poplar fungal pathogen, Septoria musiva, in hybrid poplar clones transformed with genes encoding antimicrobial peptides. Biotechnol Lett 24:383–389CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. MacFarlane DW, Meyer SP (2005) Characteristics and distribution of potential ash tree hosts for emerald ash borer. For Ecol Manag 213:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mason HS, DeWald DB, Mullet JE (1993) Identification of a methyl jasmonate-responsive domain in the soybean vspB promoter. Plant Cell 5:241–251PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McClure MS, Salom SM, Shields KS (2001) Hemlock woolly adelgid. USDA Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise Team Publication FHTET-2001-03, 14 pGoogle Scholar
  42. McCown DD, McCown BH (1987) North American hardwoods. In: Bonga JM, Durzan DJ (eds) Cell and tissue culture in forestry, vol 3. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, pp 247–260Google Scholar
  43. McPherson BA, Mori SR, Wood DL, Storer AJ, Svihra P, Kelly NM, Standiford RB (2005) Sudden oak death in California: disease progression in oaks and tanoaks. For Ecol Manag 213:71–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mentag R, Luckevich M, Morency M-J, Séguin A (2003) Bacterial disease resistance of transgenic hybrid poplar expressing the synthetic antimicrobial peptide D4E1. Tree Physiol 23:405–411PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Merkle SA, Wiecko AT, Watson-Pauley BA (1991) Somatic embryogenesis in American chestnut. Can J For Res 21:1698–1701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Michler CH, Pijut PM, Jacobs DF, Meilan R, Woeste KE, Ostry ME (2006) Improving disease resistance of butternut (Juglans cinerea), a threatened fine hardwood: a case for single-tree selection through genetic improvement and deployment. Tree Physiol 26:121–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Newhouse AE (2005) Transformation of American elm with a gene encoding a synthetic antimicrobial peptide for resistance to Dutch-elm disease. MS Thesis. State University of New York, College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, NY, p 97Google Scholar
  48. Newhouse A, Schrodt F, Maynard C, Powell W (2006) Agrobacterium transformation of American elm (Ulmus americana) leaf pieces. In: Wang K (ed) Agrobacterium Protocols, 2nd edn., vol 2. Methods in molecular biology book series, Humana, Totowa, NJ (in press)Google Scholar
  49. Norelli JL, Mills JZ, Momol MT, Aldwinckle HS (1998) Effect of cecropin-like transgenes on fire blight resistance of apple. Acta Hortic 489:273–278Google Scholar
  50. Nuss DL (2005) Hypovirulence: mycoviruses at the fungal-plant interface. Nat Rev/Microbiology 3:632–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Osusky M, Zhou G, Osuska L, Hancock RE, Kay WW, Misra S (2000) Transgenic plants expressing cationic peptide chimeras exhibit broad-spectrum resistance to phytopathogens. Nat Biotechnol 18:1162–1166PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Polin LD, Liang H, Rothrock RE, Nishii M, Diehl DL, Newhouse AE, Nairn CJ, Powell WA, Maynard CA (2006) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of American chestnut [Castanea dentata (Marsh.) Borkh.] somatic embryos. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 84:69–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Powell WA, Maynard CA (1997) Designing small antimicrobial peptides and their encoding genes. In: Klopfenstein NB, Chun YW, Kim M-S, Ahuja MR (eds) Micropropagation, genetic engineering, and molecular biology of populus, Techical Report RM-GTR-297, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 165–172Google Scholar
  54. Powell WA, Catranis CM, Maynard CA (1995) Synthetic antimicrobial peptide design. Mol Plant-Microb Interact 8:792–794Google Scholar
  55. Powell WA, Catranis CM, Maynard CA (2000) Design of self-processing antimicrobial peptides for plant protection. Lett Appl Microbiol 31:163–168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rajasekaran K, Stromberg KD, Cary JW, Cleveland TE (2001) Broad-spectrum antimicrobial activity in vitro of the synthetic peptide D4E1. J Agric Food Chem 49:2799–2803PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Read P, Szendrak E (1995) Generating new plants through tissue culture methods. J Am Chestnut Found 9:50–53Google Scholar
  58. Robichaud RL, Lessard VC, Merkle SA (2004) Treatments affecting maturation and germination of American chestnut somatic embryos. J Plant Physiol 161:957–969PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sadka A, DeWald DB, May GD, Park WD, Mullet JE (1994) Phosphate modulates transcription of soybean VspB and other sugar-inducible genes. Plant Cell 6:737–749PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Saur U, Wilhelm E (2005) Somatic embryogenesis from ovaries, developing ovules and immature zygotic embryos, and improved embryo development of Castanea sativa. Biol Plant 49:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schwab U, Gilligan P, Jaynes J, Henke D (1999) In vitro activities of designed antimicrobial peptides against multidrug-resistant cystic fibrosis pathogens. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 43:1435–1440PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Scorza R, Callahan A, Hily J-M, Webb K, Demuth M, Cordts J, Briard P, Monsion M, Malinowski T, Zawadzka B, Cambra M, Capote N, Zagrai I, Minoiu N, Damsteegt V, Levy L, Gonsalves D, Georgi L, Abbott A, Ravelonandro M (2005) ‘Honeysweet’—a transgenic plum pox virus resistant plum—development, field testing, and regulatory issues. In: International symposium on biotechnology of temperate fruit crops and tropical species, Program and abstract book, October 10–14, 2005, Daytona Beach, FL, p 141Google Scholar
  63. Small MJ, Small CJ, Dreyer GD (2005) Changes in hemlock-dominated forest following woolly adelgid infestation in southern New England. J Torrey Bot Soc 132:458–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Smith GF, Nicholas NS (2000) Size- and age-class distributions of Fraser fir following balsam wooly adelgid infestation. Can J For Res 30:948–957CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tossi A, Sandri L, Giangaspero A (2000) Amphipathic, β-helical antimicrobial peptides. Biopolymers 55:4–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Viéitez FJ (1995) Somatic embryogenesis in chestnut. In: Jain SM, Gupta PK, Newton RJ (eds) Somatic embryogenesis in woody plants, vol 2. Kluwer, Dordrecht, pp 375–407Google Scholar
  67. Viéitez FJ, Merkle SA (2004) Fagaceae. In: Litz RE (ed) Biotechnology of fruit and nut crops. CAB International, Wallingford, pp 263–296Google Scholar
  68. Xing Z, Satchwell M, Powell WA, Maynard CA (1997) Micropropagation of American chestnut: increasing rooting rate and preventing shoot-tip necrosis. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 33:43–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Xing Z, Powell WA, Maynard CA (1999) Development and germination of American chestnut somatic embryos. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 57:47–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zaoff M (1987) Magainins, a class of antimicrobial peptides from Xenopus skin: isolation, characterization of two active forms, and partial cDNA sequence of a precursor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 84:5449–5453PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zhang YZ, Huang DW, Zhao TH, Liu HP, Bauer LS (2005) Two new species of egg parasitoids (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae) of wood-boring beetle pests from China. Phytoparasitica 33:253–260Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. A. Merkle
    • 1
  • G. M. Andrade
    • 1
  • C. J. Nairn
    • 1
  • W. A. Powell
    • 2
  • C. A. Maynard
    • 2
  1. 1.Warnell School of Forestry and Natural ResourcesUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.College of Environmental Science and ForestryState University of New York (SUNY)SyracuseUSA

Personalised recommendations