Genomic Approaches and Intellectual Property Protection for Variety Release: A Perspective from the Private Sector

  • J. Stephen C. Smith
  • Elizabeth S. Jones
  • Barry K. Nelson
  • Debora S. Phillips
  • Robin A. Wineland
Chapter

Abstract

Genetic gain is a critical means to improve crop production and will increasingly be relied upon to further improve agricultural productivity in ways that are more sustainable. Partly through the use of molecular markers plant breeders have been able to increase the rate of genetic gain by increasing efficiencies in selection for improved performance of agronomic traits. Greater knowledge of the genetic basis of agronomic traits will help breeders to more efficiently explore and harness plant genetic resources including those that are currently exotic. Efficient processes to obtain intellectual property protection (IPP) are important to allow the private sector to invest in research and product development. Morphological data are currently the criteria by which varieties are judged to meet the criteria for Plant Variety Protection (PVP); similar data also form an important component of patent filings. Molecular markers that are based upon specific Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms, including those surveyed using whole genome sequence data, now provide the basis for intellectual property (IP) systems that are more efficient, precise, cost effective, better supportive of IP, and with true potential for greater harmonization. We report on how such a transition could be undertaken.

Keywords

Genetic gain Intellectual Property Protection (IPP) Plant Breeders’ Rights (PBR) Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Utility patents Molecular markers Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNPs) UPOV Morphology Phenotype Genetic distance Variety Identification Distinctness Uniformity and stability (DUS) 

References

  1. Ammann K (2008) Integrated farming: why organic farmers should use transgenic crops. N Biotechnol 25:101–107PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ammann K (2009) Why farming with high tech methods should integrate elements of organic agriculture. N Biotechnol 26:378–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arabic Knowledge@Wharton (2012) Can biotechnology solve China’s food security problem? Wharton University of Pennsylvania. http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/arabic/article.cfm?articleid=2850. Accessed 18 Oct 12
  4. Araus JL, Ferrio JP, Buxo R, Voltas J (2007) The historical perspective of dryland agriculture: lessons learned from 10,000 years of wheat cultivation. J Exp Bot 58:131–145PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Austin DF, Lee M, Veldboom LR (2001) Genetic mapping in maize with hybrid progeny across testers and generations: plant height and flowering. Theor Appl Genet 102:163–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Austin RB, Arnold MH (1989) Variability in wheat yields in England: analysis and future rospects. In: Anderson JR, Hazell PBR (eds) Variability in grain yields implications for agricultural research and policy in developing countries. Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  7. Bennett AJ, Bending GD, Chandler D et al (2011) Meeting the demand for crop production: the challenge of yield decline in crops grown in short rotations. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc 87:52–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bhattramakki D, Dolan M, Hanafey M et al (2002) Insertion–deletion polymorphisms in 3’ regions of maize genes occur frequently and can be used as highly informative genetic markers. Plant Mol Biol 48:539–547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borlaug NE, Dowswell CR (2005) Feeding a world of ten billion people: a 21st century challenge. In: Tuberosa R, Phillips RL, Gale M (eds) Proceedings of the International Congress: in the wake of the double helix: from the green revolution to the gene revolution, 27–31 May 2003, Bologna, Italy. Avenue Media, Bologna, pp 3–23Google Scholar
  10. Bredemeijer GMM, Cooke RJ, Ganal MW et al (2002) Construction and testing of a microsatellite database containing more than 500 tomato varieties. Theor Appl Genet 105:1019–1026PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brookes G, Barfoot P (2008) Global impact of biotech crops: socio-economic and environmental effects, 1996–2006. AbBioForum 11:21–38Google Scholar
  12. Calderini DF, Slafer GA (1998) Changes in yield and yield stability in wheat during the 20th century. Field Crops Res 57:335–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. CAMBIA (undated) Can IP rights protect plants? Patent Lens. http://www.patentlens.net/daisy/patentlens/1234.html. Accessed 17 Oct 2012
  14. Castleberry RM, Crum CW, Krull CF (1984) Genetic improvement of U.S. maize cultivars under varying fertility and climatic conditions. Crop Sci 24:33–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ching A, Caldwell KS, Jung M et al (2002) SNP frequency, haplotype structure and linkage disequilibrium in elite maize inbred lines. BMC Genet doi:10.1186/1471-2156-3-19Google Scholar
  16. Cohen JI (2000) Managing intellectual property: challenges and responses for agricultural research institutes. In: Persley GJ, Latin MM (eds) Agricultural biotechnology and the poor: proceedings of an international conference. CGIAR, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  17. Crookston RK (2006) A top 10 list of developments and issues impacting crop management and ecology during the past 50 years. Crop Sci 46:2253–2262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. DEFRA (2009) The potential to increase productivity of wheat and oilseed rape in the UK. Report to the government chief scientific adviser. Dept. for the Environment, Food, and Regional Affairs, LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Duvick DN (2005) The contribution of breeding to yield advances in maize (Zea mays L.). Adv Agron 86:83–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Enoki H, Miki K, Koinuma K (2006) Mapping of quantitative trait loci associated with early flowering of a northern flint maize (Zea mays L.) inbred line. Maydica 51:515–523Google Scholar
  21. ESA (2011) Position on Concept of EDV. ESA_11.0043. Eur Seed Assoc, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  22. FAOSTAT (2011) Statistics Office of FAO. http://faostat.fao.org. Accessed 18 Oct 2012
  23. Fernandez-Cornejo J (2004) The seed industry in U.S. agriculture: an exploration of data and information on crop seed markets, regulation, industry structure, and research and development. Agric Inf Bull (U S Dep Agric) No 786, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Foley JA, Ramankutty N, Brauman KA et al (2011) Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 478:337–342PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Fu H, Dooner HK (2002) Intraspecific violation of genetic colinearity and its implications in maize. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 99:9573–9578PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Glaszmann JC, Kilian B, Upadhyaya HD, Varshney RK (2010) Accessing genetic diversity for crop improvement. Curr Opin Plant Biol 13:167–173PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Godfray HCJ (2011) Food and Biodiversity. Science 333:1231–1232PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Green RE, Cornell SJ, Scharlemann JPW, Balmford A (2005) Farming and the fate of wild nature. Science 307:550–555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayes DJ, Lence SH, Goggi S (2009) Impact of intellectual property rights in the seed sector on crop yield growth and social welfare: a case study approach. AgBioForum 12:155–171Google Scholar
  30. Heckenberger M, Bohn M, Frisch M et al (2005a) Identification of essentially derived varieties with molecular markers: an approach based on statistical test theory and computer simulations. Theor Appl Genet 111:598–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Heckenberger M, Bohn M, Klein D, Melchinger AE (2005b) Identification of essentially derived Varieties obtained from biparental crosses of homozygous lines: II. Morphological distances and heterosis in comparison with simple sequence repeat and amplified fragment length polymorphism data in Maize. Crop Sci 45:1132–1140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Heckenberger M, Bohn M, Melchinger AE (2005c) Identification of essentially derived varieties obtained from biparental crosses of homozygous lines: I. Simple sequence repeat data from maize inbreds. Crop Sci 45:1120–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hof IL, Reid A (2008) Construction of an integrated microsatellite and key morphological characteristic database of potato varieties on the EU common catalogue part 1: discussion of morphological and molecular data (revised). 11th session of the working group on biochemical and molecular techniques and DNA profiling in particular, Madrid, Sept 16–18, 2008. BMT/11/0 Rev, UPOV, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoisington D, Khairallah M, Reeves T et al (1999) Plant genetic resources: what can they contribute toward increased crop productivity? Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 96:5937–5943PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. ISF (2004a) Guidelines for the handling of a dispute on essential derivation in Lettuce. Int Seed Federa, Nyon, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  36. ISF (2004b) Technical Protocol for Implementation of the ISF Guidelines for the Handling of a Dispute on EDV in Lettuce. Int Seed Federa, Nyon, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  37. ISF (2005) Essential Derivation Information and Guidance to Breeders. Int Seed Federa, Nyon, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  38. ISF (2006) Use of DNA markers for DUS testing, essential derivation and identification. Int Seed Federa, Nyon, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  39. ISF (2007a) Guidelines for the handling of a dispute on essential derivation in cotton. Int Seed Federa, Nyon, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  40. ISF (2007b) Guidelines for the handling of a dispute on essential derivation in oilseed rape. Int Seed Federa, Nyon, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  41. ISF (2008) Guidelines for the handling of a dispute on essential derivation of maize lines. Int Seed Federa, Nyon, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  42. ISF (2009) Guidelines for handling a dispute on essential derivation in ryegrass. Int Seed Federa, Nyon, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  43. ISF (2012) ISF View on intellectual property. Int Seed Federa, Nyon, Switzerland. http://www.worldseed.org/cms/medias/file/PositionPapers/OnIntellectualProperty/View_on_Intellectual_Property_2012.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 12
  44. JIC (2012) JIC statement on intellectual property, John Innes Centre, Norwich. http://www.jic.ac.uk/corporate/about/policies/ip-policy.htm. Accessed 18 Oct 2012
  45. Jones ES, Sullivan H, Bhattramakki D, Smith JS (2007) A comparison of simple sequence repeat and single nucleotide polymorphism marker technologies for the genotypic analysis of maize (Zea mays L.). Theor Appl Genet 115:361–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jones H, Jarman RJ, Austin L et al (2003) The management of variety reference collections in distinctness, uniformity and stability testing of wheat. Euphytica 132:175–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kahler AL, Kahler JL, Thompson SA et al (2010) North American study on essential derivation in Maize: II. selection and evaluation of a panel of simple sequence repeat loci. Crop Sci 50:486–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kaufmann K, Pajoro A, Angenent GC (2010) Regulation of transcription in plants: mechanisms controlling developmental switches. Nat Rev Genet 11:830–842PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Krattiger AF (2004) Editor’s introduction: PVP and agricultural productivity. IP Strategy Today 9:ii–viGoogle Scholar
  50. Lai J, Li R, Xu X et al (2010) Genome-wide patterns of genetic variation among elite maize inbred lines. Nat Genet 42:1027–1030PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lal R (2001) Managing world soils for food security and environmental quality. Adv Agron 74:155–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Laval G, SanCristobal M, Chevalet C (2002) Measuring genetic distances between breeds: use of some distances in various short term evolution models. Genet Sel Evol 34:481–507PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Law JR, Anderson SR, Jones ES et al (2011a) Approaches to improve the determination of eligibility for plant variety protection: I Evaluation of morphological characteristics. Maydica 56:1–18Google Scholar
  54. Law JR, Anderson SR, Jones ES et al (2011b) Approaches to improve the determination of eligibility for plant variety protection: II Identification and evaluation of a core set of morphological characteristics. Maydica 56:209–219Google Scholar
  55. Law JR, Anderson SR, Jones ES et al (2011c) Characterization of maize germplasm: comparison of morphological datasets compiled using different approaches to data recording. Maydica 56–1708. http://www.maydica.org/articles/56_069.pdf. Accessed 18 Oct 2012
  56. Le Buanec B (2004) Protection of plant-related innovations: evolution and current discussion. IP Strategy Today 9:1–18Google Scholar
  57. Li Y, Dong Y, Niu S, Cui D (2007) The genetic relationship among plant-height traits found using multiple-trait QTL mapping of a dent corn and popcorn cross. Genome 50:357–364PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Mackay I, Horwell A, Garner J et al (2011) Reanalyses of historical series of UK variety trials to quantify the contributions of genetic and environmental factors to trends and variability in yield over time. Theor Appl Genet 122:225–238PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Mackay TFC (2009) A-maize-ing Diversity. Science 325:688–689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Malik S (2012) Food prices expected to rise after second wettest summer on record the guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/10/food-prices-rise-wettest-summer. 10 Oct 2012
  61. Marlander B, Hoffmann C, Koch H-J et al (2003) Environmental situation and yield performance of the sugar beet crop in Germany: heading for sustainable development. J Agron Crop Sci 189:2012–2026CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Martienssen RA, Colot V (2001) DNA methylation and epigenetic inheritance in plants and filamentous fungi. Science 293:1070–1074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mauria S, Singh NN, Mukherjee AK, Bhat KV (2000) Isozyme characterization of Indian maize inbreds. Euphytica 112:253–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Mauria S, Singh NN, Bhat KV, Lakhanpaul S (2002) Assessment of genetic variation in Indian maize inbreds using RAPD markers. J Genet Breed 56:15–19Google Scholar
  65. Mickelson SM, Stuber CS, Senior L, Kaeppler SM (2002) Quantitative trait loci controlling leaf and tassel traits in a B73 × Mo17 Population of Maize. Crop Sci 42:1902–1909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. MMEDV (1999) Molecular and other markers for establishing essential derivation in crop plants (EDV). EU-AgriNet. http://ec.europa.eu/research/agriculture/projects/qlrt_1999_01499_en.htm. Accessed 18 Oct 2012
  67. Nelson BK, Kahler AL, Kahler JL et al (2011) Evaluation of the numbers of single nucleotide polymorphisms required to measure genetic gain distance in maize (Zea mays L.). Crop Sci 51:1470–1480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Nelson PT, Coles ND, Holland JB et al (2008) Molecular characterization of maize inbreds with expired U.S. Plant variety protection. Crop Sci 48:1673–1685CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. NFU (2012) A mixed harvest, but wheat well down. National Farmers Union. http://www.nfuonline.com/Your-sector/Crops/News/A-mixed-harvest,-but-wheat-well-down/. Accessed 10 Oct 2012
  70. Ogilvie A, Farmer G (1997) Documenting the Medieval Climate. In: Hulme M, Barrow E (eds) Climates of the British Isles: present, past and future. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  71. Peng JH, Sun D, Nevo E (2011) Domestication evolution, genetics and genomics in wheat. Mol Breed 28:281–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Phalan B, Onial M, Balmford A, Green RE (2011) Reconciling food production and biodiversity conservation: land sharing and land sparing compared. Science 333:1289–1291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Qin J, Chen W, Guan R et al (2006) Genetic contribution of foreign germplasm to elite chinese soybean (Glycine max) cultivars revealed by SSR markers. Chin Sci Bull 51:1078–1084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Raven PH (2010) Does the use of transgenic plants diminish or promote biodiversity? New Biotechnol 27:528–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Rodrigues DH, de Alcantara Neto F, Schuster I (2008) Identification of essentially derived soybean cultivars using microsatellite markers. Crop Breed Appl Biotechnol 8:74–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Ronald P (2011) Plant Genetics, sustainable agriculture and global food supply. Genet 188:11–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rudel TK, Schneider L, Uriarte M et al (2009) Agricultural intensification and changes in cultivated areas, 1970–2005. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:20675–20680PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Russell WA (1984) Agronomic performance of maize cultivars representing different eras of maize breeding. Maydica 29:375–390Google Scholar
  79. SGRP (2010) Booklet of CGIAR centre policy instrument, guidelines and statements on genetic resources, biotechnology and intellectual property rights. Version III. System-wide genetic resources program (SGRP) and the CGIAR genetic resources policy committee (GRPC). Bioversity Int. Rome. http://www.sgrp.cgiar.org/sites/default/files/Policy_Booklet_Version3.pdf. Accessed 09 Oct 2012
  80. Smith BD (1989) Origins of agriculture in Eastern North America. Science 246:1566–1571Google Scholar
  81. Sourdille P, Baud S, Leroy P (1996) Detection of linkage between RFLP markers and genes affecting anthocyanin pigmentation in maize (Zea mays L.). Euphytica 91:21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Tenaillon MI, Sawkins MC, Long AD et al (2001) Patterns of DNA sequence polymorphism along chromosome 1 of maize (Zea mays ssp. mays L.). Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:9161–9166PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. The Royal Society (2009) Reaping the benefits: Science and the sustainable intensification of global agriculture. ISBN: 978-0-8540-784-1. The Royal Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  84. Tian F, Bradbury PJ, Brown PJ et al (2011) Genome-wide association study of leaf architecture in the maize nested association mapping population. Nat Genet 43:159–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Van Inghelandt D, Melchinger AE, Lebreton C, Stich B (2010) Population structure and genetic diversity in a commercial maize breeding program assessed with SSR and SNP markers. Theor Appl Genet 120:1289–1299PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Vroh Bi I, McMullen MD, Sanchez-Villeda H et al (2006) Single nucleotide polymorphisms and insertion-deletions for genetic markers and anchoring the maize fingerprint contig physical map. Crop Sci 46:12–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wang Q, Dooner HK (2006) Remarkable variation in maize genome structure inferred from haplotype diversity at the bz locus. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 103:17644–17649PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Warburton ML, Crossa J, Franco J et al (2006) Bringing wild relatives back into the family: recovering genetic diversity in CIMMYT improved wheat germplasm. Euphytica 149:289–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams SB, Weber KA (1989) Intellectual property protection and plants. In: Caldwell BE (ed) Intellectual property rights associated with plants. ASA Spec. Publ. No. 52. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA, MadisonGoogle Scholar
  90. Yan J, Warburton M, Crouch J (2011) Association mapping for enhancing maize (Zea mays L.) genetic improvement. Crop Sci 51:433–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Yu J, Zhang Z, Zhu C et al (2009) Simulation appraisal of the adequacy of number of background markers for relationship estimation in association mapping. Plant Genome 2:63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Stephen C. Smith
    • 1
  • Elizabeth S. Jones
    • 2
  • Barry K. Nelson
    • 1
  • Debora S. Phillips
    • 1
  • Robin A. Wineland
    • 1
  1. 1.DuPont PioneerJohnstonIowa
  2. 2.Syngenta Biotechnology, Inc.RaleighNorth Carolina

Personalised recommendations