Lessons from Two Decades of Field Trials with Genetically Modified Trees in the USA: Biology and Regulatory Compliance

  • Steven H. Strauss
  • Cathleen Ma
  • Kori Ault
  • Amy L. Klocko
Chapter
Part of the Forestry Sciences book series (FOSC, volume 82)

Abstract

We summarize the many field trials that we have conducted in the USA beginning in 1995 and continuing to this day. Under USDA APHIS federal regulatory notifications and permits, we have planted nearly 20,000 trees derived from approximately 100 different constructs in more than two dozen field experiments. The large majority of the trials were in Populus and included hybrid white poplars (P. tremula × alba INRA 717-1B4 and P. tremula × tremuloides INRA 353-53), but also included diverse hybrid cottonwoods such as P. trichocarpa × deltoides and P. deltoides × nigra. One field trial used transgenic sweetgum ( Liquidambar ). Most trials were conducted on Oregon State University (OSU) land, but several were also conducted on the land of industry collaborators in Oregon, Washington, and other states. The main traits we have studied are floral sterility and flowering time modification; size and growth rate modification by gibberellin perturbation; activation-based gene tagging; stability of reporter gene expression and RNAi suppression; herbicide and pest resistance gene impacts on plantation productivity; lignin modification and its impacts on physiological processes; and effects of isoprene reduction on growth and stress tolerance. The most significant lessons from these years of trials are: (1) Visual abnormalities in form or growth rate due to the transformation and in vitro regeneration (somaclonal variants) have been observed in several experiments, but are extremely rare (below 1 % of events produced). (2) Gene expression and RNAi-induced gene suppression have been highly stable—with a virtual absence of transgene silencing —over many years for virtually all transgenic trees whether assayed by a visual phenotype (reporter gene, flowering time, sexual sterility, herbicide or pest tolerance), or by molecular measures of transgene expression (e.g., quantitative RT-PCR). (3) The regulatory process has largely been efficient and workable, though it imposes significant biological constraints, costs, and risks that are very difficult for an academic laboratory to bear when trials span several years. It is most difficult where flowering is needed. (4) Field environments invoke complex and largely unpredictable changes to expression and associated phenotypes when studying physiology-modifying transgenes, including those affecting wood properties, suggesting the need to study several field sites, genetic backgrounds, and gene insertion events over many years, similar to common practices of conventional breeding. However, regulatory requirements make this very difficult to do for transgenic trees. (5) Collaborative field trials with industry have shown that common transgenic traits, such as herbicide and insect resistance, can have large productivity benefits in near-operational plantation conditions (e.g., two-year volume growth improvements of ~20 %)—suggesting that it could be highly beneficial to incorporate transgenic traits into production programs. Regulatory reforms to focus on product benefits as well as risks, and that do not assume harm from the use of recombinant DNA methods, are needed if transgenic technology is to provide significant benefits in forestry.

References

  1. Ault K, Viswanath V, Jayawickrama J, Ma C, Eaton JA, Meilan R, Hohenschuh W, Murthy G, Strauss S (2016) Improved growth and weed control of glyphosate-tolerant poplars. New Forests (in press)Google Scholar
  2. Biotechnology, Information Systems for (2014) USDA field trials of GM cropsGoogle Scholar
  3. Bradford KJ, Van Deynze A, Gutterson N, Parrott W, Strauss SH (2005) Regulating transgenic crops sensibly: lessons from plant breeding, biotechnology and genomics. Nat Biotechnol 23(4):439–444CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Bradshaw, HD Jr, Strauss SH (2000) Breeding strategies for the 21st century: Domestication of poplar. Poplar Culture in North America, Part 2, Chapter 14. Dickmann DI, Isebrands JG, Eckenwalder JE, Richardson J, National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6, NRC Research Press, Canada, pp 383–394Google Scholar
  5. Brunner AM, Busov VB, Strauss SH (2004) Poplar genome sequence: functional genomics in an ecologically dominant plant species. Trends Plant Sci 9(1):49–56CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Busov VB, Meilan R, Pearce DW, Ma C, Rood SB, Strauss SH (2003) Activation tagging of a dominant gibberellin catabolism gene (GA 2-oxidase) from poplar that regulates tree stature. Plant Physiol 132(3):1283–1291PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Busov VB, Brunner AM, Meilan R, Filichkin S, Ganio L, Gandhi S, Strauss SH (2005a) Genetic transformation: a powerful tool for dissection of adaptive traits in trees. New Phytol 167(1):9–18CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Busov V, Fladung M, Groover A, Strauss S (2005b) Insertional mutagenesis in populus: relevance and feasibility. Tree Genet Genomes 1(4):135–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Busov V, Strauss SH, Pilate G (2010a) Transformation as a tool for genetic analysis in populus. In: Genetics and genomics of populus, pp 113–133Google Scholar
  10. Busov V, Yordanov Y, Gou J, Meilan R, Ma C, Regan S, Strauss SH (2010b) Activation tagging is an effective gene tagging system in populus. Tree Genet Genomes 7:91–101Google Scholar
  11. Elias AA, Busov VB, Kosola KR, Ma C, Etherington E, Shevchenko O, Gandhi H, Pearce DW, Rood SB, Strauss SH (2012) Green revolution trees: semidwarfism transgenes modify gibberellins, promote root growth, enhance morphological diversity, and reduce competitiveness in hybrid poplar. Plant Physiol 160(2):1130–1144PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Elorriaga E, Ma C, Etherington E, Meilan R, Skinner JS, Brunner A, Strauss SH (2014) A tapetal ablation transgene induces stable male sterility and slows field growth in poplar. Tree Genet Genomes 10:1583–1593 Google Scholar
  13. Etherington E, Gandhi H, Busov V, Meilan R, Ma C, Kosola KR, Strauss SH (2007) Dwarfism genes for modifying the stature of woody plants: a case study in poplar. Landscape Plant News 18:3–6Google Scholar
  14. Hoenicka H, Lehnhardt D, Nilsson O, Hanelt D, Fladung M (2014) Successful crossings with early flowering transgenic poplar: interspecific crossings, but not transgenesis, promoted aberrant phenotypes in offspring. Plant Biotechnol J 12:1066–1074Google Scholar
  15. Horsch RB, Fry JE, Hoffmann NL, Eichholtz D, Rogers SG, Fraley RT (1985) A simple and general-method for transferring genes into plants. Science 227(4691):1229–1231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hu WJ, Harding SA, Lung J, Popko JL, Ralph J, Stokke DD, Tsai CJ, Chiang VL (1999) Repression of lignin biosynthesis promotes cellulose accumulation and growth in transgenic trees. Nat Biotechnol 17:808–812CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. James RR, Croft BA, Strauss SH (1998) Susceptibility of the cottonwood leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) to different strains and transgenic toxins of Bacillus thuringiensis. Environ Entomol 28:108–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Klocko A, Stanton BJ, van Oosten C, Strauss SH (2013) Green revolution plantations: could short trees be a big thing? Information systems for biotechnology news report. 7–9 MayGoogle Scholar
  19. Klocko AL, Meilan R, James RR, Viswanath V, Ma C, Payne P, Miller L, Skinner JS, Oppert B, Cardineau GA, Strauss SH (2014a) Bt-Cry3Aa transgene expression reduces insect damage and improves growth in field-grown hybrid poplar. Can J Forest Res 44(1):28–35Google Scholar
  20. Klocko AL, Ault K, Ma C, Dow M, Robertson S, Strauss SH (2014b) Targeting floral development genes for genetic containment of forest trees: PtLFY-RNAi causes sterility while allowing vigorous tree growth in field-grown poplar. American Society of Plant Biologists Annual Meeting, Portland, Oregon: Poster P06034-BGoogle Scholar
  21. Li J, Brunner AM, Meilan R, Strauss SH (2009) Stability of transgenes in trees: expression of two reporter genes in poplar over three field seasons. Tree Physiol 29(2):299–312CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Li J, Brunner AM, Shevchenko O, Meilan R, Ma C, Skinner JS, Strauss SH (2008) Efficient and stable transgene suppression via RNAi in field-grown poplars. Transgenic Res 17(4):679–694CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Lu H, Viswanath V, Ma C, Etherington E, Dharmawardhana P, Shevchenko O, Pearce DW, Rood SB, Busov V, Strauss SH (2015). Transgenic modification of gibberellic acid modifies growth rate and biomass allocation in Populus. Tree Genet Genomes 11:127Google Scholar
  24. Meilan R, Han KH, Ma CP, James RR, Eaton JA, Stanton BJ, Hoien E, Crockett RP, Strauss SH (2000a) Development of glyphosate-tolerant hybrid cottonwoods. Tappi J 83(1):164–166Google Scholar
  25. Meilan R, Ma C, Cheng S, Eaton JA, Miller LK, Crockett RP, DiFazio SP, Strauss SH (2000b) High levels of Roundup® and leaf-beetle resistance in genetically engineered hybrid cottonwoods. In: Blatner KA, Johnson JD, Baumgartner DM (eds) Hybrid poplars in the pacific northwest: culture, commerce and capability. Washington State University Cooperative Extension Bulletin MISC0272, Pullman, WA, pp 29–38Google Scholar
  26. Meilan R, Auerbach DJ, Ma C, DiFazio SP, Strauss SH (2001) Stability of herbicide resistance and GUS expression in transgenic hybrid poplars (Populus sp.) during several years of field trials and vegetative propagation. HortScience 37:1–4Google Scholar
  27. Mohamed R, Wang CT, Ma C, Shevchenko O, Dye SJ, Puzey JR, Etherington E, Sheng XY, Meilan R, Strauss SH, Brunner AM (2010) Populus CEN/TFL1 regulates first onset of flowering, axillary meristem identity and dormancy release in populus. Plant J 62(4):674–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Rottmann WH, Meilan R, Sheppard LA, Brunner AM, Skinner JS, Ma C, Cheng S, Jouanin L, Pilate G, Strauss SH (2000) Diverse effects of overexpression of LEAFY and PTLF, a poplar (populus) homolog of LEAFY/FLORICAULA, in transgenic poplar and Arabidopsis. Plant J Cell Mol Biol 22(3):235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Skinner JS, Meilan R, Brunner A, Strauss SH (2000) Options for genetic engineering of floral sterility in forest trees. In: Jain SM, Minocha SC (eds) Molecular biology of woody plants, pp 135–153Google Scholar
  30. Strauss SH (2003) Regulating biotechnology as though gene function mattered. Bioscience 53(5):453–454CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Strauss SH, Brunner AM, Busov VB, Ma CP, Meilan R (2004) Ten lessons from 15 years of transgenic Populus research. Forestry 77(5):455–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Strauss SH, Schmitt M, Sedio R (2009a) Forest Scientist views of regulatory obstacles to research and development of transgenic forest biotechnology. J Forest 107(7):350–357Google Scholar
  33. Strauss SH, Tan H, Boerjan W, Sedjo R (2009b) Strangled at birth? forest biotech and the convention on biological diversity. Nat Biotechnol 27(6):519–527CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Strauss SH, Kershen DL, Bouton JH, Redick TP, Tan HM, Sedjo RA (2010) Far-reaching deleterious impacts of regulations on research and environmental studies of recombinant DNA-modified perennial biofuel crops in the united states. Bioscience 60(9):729–741CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Strauss SH, Costanza A, Seguin A (2015) Genetically engineered trees: paralysis from good intentions. Science 349:794–795Google Scholar
  36. Valenzuela S, Strauss SH (2005) Lost in the woods. Nat Biotechnol 23(5):532–533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Viswanath V, Albrectsen BR, Strauss SH (2012) Global regulatory burden for field testing of genetically modified trees. Tree Genet Genomes 8(2):221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Viswanath V, Ma C, Etherington E, Dharmawardhana P, Pearce DW, Rood SB, Busov VB, Strauss SH (2011) Greenhouse and field evaluation of transgenic poplars with modified gibberellin metabolism and signaling genes. BMC Proceedings 5:O22PubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Voelker SL, Lachenbruch B, Meinzer FC, Jourdes M, Ki CY, Patten AM, Davin LB, Lewis NG, Tuskan GA, Gunter L, Decker SR, Selig MJ, Sykes R, Himmel ME, Kitin P, Shevchenko O, Strauss SH (2010) Antisense down-regulation of 4CL expression alters lignification, tree growth, and saccharification potential of field-grown poplar. Plant Physiol 154(2):874–886PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Voelker SL, Lachenbruch B, Meinzer FC, Kitin P, Strauss SH (2011a) Transgenic poplars with reduced lignin show impaired xylem conductivity, growth efficiency and survival. Plant, Cell Environ 34(4):655–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Voelker SL, Lachenbruch B, Meinzer FC, Strauss SH (2011b) Reduced wood stiffness and strength, and altered stem form, in young antisense 4CL transgenic poplars with reduced lignin contents. New Phytol 189(4):1096–1109CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Wei H, Meilan R, Brunner AM, Skinner JS, Ma CP, Gandhi HT, Strauss SH (2007) Field trial detects incomplete barstar attenuation of vegetative cytotoxicity in Populus trees containing a poplar LEAFY promoter: barnase sterility transgene. Mol Breeding 19(1):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wei H, Meilan R, Brunner AM, Skinner JS, Ma C, Gandhi HT, Strauss SH (2006) Field trial detects incomplete barstar attenuation of vegetative cytotoxicity in populus trees containing a poplar LEAFY promoter:barnase sterility transgene. Mol Breeding 19:69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yordanov YS, Ma C, Strauss SH, Busov VB (2014) EARLY BUD-BREAK 1 (EBB1) is a regulator of release from seasonal dormancy in poplar trees. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111(27):10001–10006PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Zawaski C, Kadmiel M, Pickens J, Ma C, Strauss S, Busov V (2011) Repression of gibberellin biosynthesis or signaling produces striking alterations in poplar growth, morphology, and flowering. Planta 234:1285–1298CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Zhang C, Norris-Caneda KH, Rottmann WH, Gulledge JE, Chang S, Kwan BY-H, Thomas AM, Mandel LC, Kothera RT, Victor AD, Pearson L, Hinchee MA (2014) Control of pollen mediated gene flow in transgenic trees. Plant Physiol 159:1319–1334Google Scholar
  47. Zhang H, Harry DE, Ma C, Yuceer C, Hsu CY, Vikram V, Shevchenko O, Etherington E, Strauss SH (2010) Precocious flowering in trees: the FLOWERING LOCUS T gene as a research and breeding tool in Populus. J Exp Bot 61(10):2549–2560CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Steven H. Strauss
    • 1
  • Cathleen Ma
    • 1
  • Kori Ault
    • 1
  • Amy L. Klocko
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Forest Ecosystems and SocietyOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA

Personalised recommendations