The challenges of delivering genetically modified crops with nutritional enhancement traits

Abstract

The potential for using genetic modification (GM) to enhance the nutritional composition of crops (for either direct human consumption or as animal feed) has been recognized since the dawn of the GM era, with such ‘output’ traits being considered as distinct, if not potentially superior, to ‘input’ traits such as herbicide tolerance and insect resistance. However, while input traits have successfully been used and now form the basis of GM agriculture, output trait GM crops are still lagging behind after 20 years. This is despite the demonstrable benefits that some nutritionally enhanced crops would bring and the proven value of GM technologies. This Review considers the present state of nutritional enhancement through GM, highlighting two high-profile examples of nutritional enhancement—Golden Rice and omega-3 fish oil crops—systematically evaluating the progress, problems and pitfalls associated with the development of these traits. This includes not just the underlying metabolic engineering, but also the requirements to demonstrate efficacy and field performance of the crops and consideration of regulatory, intellectual property and consumer acceptance issues.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Schematic representation of timelines for conversion of idea into innovation in agriculture.

References

  1. 1.

    Bevan, M. W., Flavell, R. B. & Chilton, M. -D. A chimaeric antibiotic resistance gene as a selectable marker for plant cell transformation. Nature 304, 184–187 (1983).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Fraley, R. T. et al. Expression of bacterial genes in plant cells. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 80, 4803–4807 (1983).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Herrera-Estrella, L., Depicker, A., Van Montagu, M. & Schell, J. Expression of chimaeric genes transferred into plant cells using a Ti-plasmid-derived vector. Nature 303, 209 (1983).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Shah, D. M. & et al. Engineering herbicide tolerance in transgenic plants. Science 233, 478–481 (1986).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Vaeck, M. et al. Transgenic plants protected from insect attack. Nature 328, 33–37 (1987).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops: 2016 (ISAAA, 2016).

  7. 7.

    Martin, C. & Li, J. Medicine is not health care, food is health care: plant metabolic engineering, diet and human health. New Phytol. 216, 699–719 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Enserink, M. Tough lessons from golden rice. Science 320, 468–471 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Burkhardt, P. K. et al. Transgenic rice (Oryza sativa) endosperm expressing daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus) phytoene synthase accumulates phytoene, a key intermediate of provitamin A biosynthesis. Plant J. 11, 1071–1078 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Ye, X. et al. Engineering the provitamin A (beta-carotene) biosynthetic pathway into (carotenoid-free) rice endosperm. Science 287, 303–305 (2000).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Al-Babili, S. & Beyer, P. Golden Rice—five years on the road—five years to go?. Trends Plant Sci. 10, 565–573 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Potrykus, I. Lessons from the ‘Humanitarian Golden Rice’ project: regulation prevents development of public good genetically engineered crop products. New Biotechnol. 27, 466–472 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Dubock, A. The present status of Golden Rice. J. Huazhong Agric. Univ. 33, 69–84 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Paine, J. A. et al. Improving the nutritional value of Golden Rice through increased pro-vitamin A content. Nat. Biotechnol. 23, 482–487 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Bollinedi, H. et al. Molecular and Functional characterization of GR2-R1 event based backcross derived lines of Golden Rice in the genetic background of a mega rice variety Swarna. PLoS ONE 12, e0169600 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Broun, P., Gettner, S. & Somerville, C. Genetic engineering of plant lipids. Annu Rev. Nutr. 19, 197–216 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Napier, J. A., Usher, S., Haslam, R. P., Ruiz-Lopez, N. & Sayanova, O. Transgenic plants as a sustainable, terrestrial source of fish oils. Eur. J. Lipid Sci. Technol. 1179, 1317–1324 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Domergue, F., Abbadi, A. & Heinz, E. Relief for fish stocks: oceanic fatty acids in transgenic oilseeds. Trends Plant Sci. 10, 112–116 (2005).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Petrie, J. R. et al. Metabolic engineering plant seeds with fish oil-like levels of DHA. PLoS ONE 7, e49165 (2012).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Usher, S., Haslam, R. P., Ruiz-Lopez, N., Sayanova, O. & Napier, J. A. Field trial evaluation of the accumulation of omega-3 long chain polyunsaturated fatty acids in transgenic Camelina sativa: Making fish oil substitutes in plants. Metab. Eng. Commun. 9, 93–98 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Napier, J. A., Olsen, R. E. & Tocher, D. R. Update on GM canola crops as novel sources of omega-3 fish oils. Plant Biotechnol. J. 17, 703–705 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Betancor, M. B. et al. A nutritionally-enhanced oil from transgenic Camelina sativa effectively replaces fish oil as a source of eicosapentaenoic acid for fish. Sci. Rep. 5, 8104 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Tejera, N. et al. A Transgenic Camelina sativa seed oil effectively replaces fish oil as a dietary source of eicosapentaenoic acid in mice. J. Nutr. 146, 227–235 (2016).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lee, H. & Krimsky, S. The rrested development of Golden Rice: the scientific and social challenges of a transgenic biofortified crop. J. Soc. Sci. Stud. 4, 51–64 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Chi‐Ham, C. L. et al. An intellectual property sharing initiative in agricultural biotechnology: development of broadly accessible technologies for plant transformation. Plant Biotechnol. J. 10, 501–510 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Turrall, S. Evaluation of a public dialogue on Rothamsted Research working with industry (Rothamsted Research, 2014).

  27. 27.

    Stilgoe, J., Owen, R. & Macnaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 42, 1568–1580 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Stilgoe, J. A tale of two trials. Responsible Innovation https://jackstilgoe.wordpress.com/2015/09/04/a-tale-of-two-trials/ (2015).

  29. 29.

    Martin, C. A role for plant science in underpinning the objective of global nutritional security? Ann. Bot. 24, 541–553 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Butelli, E. et al. Enrichment of tomato fruit with health-promoting anthocyanins by expression of select transcription factors. Nat. Biotechnol. 26, 1301–1308 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Borrill, P., Connorton, J. M., Balk, J., Miller, A. J., Sanders, D. & Uauy, C. Biofortification of wheat grain with iron and zinc: integrating novel genomic resources and knowledge from model crops. Front. Plant Sci. 21, 53 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Naqvi, S. et al. Transgenic multivitamin corn through biofortification of endosperm with three vitamins representing three distinct metabolic pathways. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 106, 7762–7767 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Zhu, Q. et al. From Golden Rice to aSTARice: Bioengineering astaxanthin biosynthesis in rice endosperm. Mol. Plant 11, 1440–1448 (2018).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Polturak, G. et al. Engineered gray mold resistance, antioxidant capacity, and pigmentation in betalain-producing crops and ornamentals. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 9062–9067 (2017).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Van Montagu, M. It Is a long way to GM agriculture. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 62, 1–23 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Alston, J. M., Andersen, M. A., James, J. S. & Pardey, P. G. Persistence Pays Vol. 34 (Springer, 2009).

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank BBSRC (UK) for financial support under Institute Strategic Programme Grants BBS/E/C/000I0420 and BBS/E/C/00005207.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johnathan A. Napier.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Journal peer review information: Nature Plants thanks Shan Lu, Mark Taylor and other anonymous reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Napier, J.A., Haslam, R.P., Tsalavouta, M. et al. The challenges of delivering genetically modified crops with nutritional enhancement traits. Nat. Plants 5, 563–567 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0430-z

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing