The role of physiological understanding in plant breeding; From a breeding perspective

The role of physiological understanding in improving the efficiency of breeding programs is examined largely from the perspective of conventional breeding programs. Impact of physiological research to date on breeding programs, and the nature of that research, was assessed from (i) responses to a questionnaire distributed to plant breeders and physiologists, and (ii) a survey of literature abstracts. Ways to better utilise physiological understanding for improving breeding programs are suggested, together with possible constraints to delivering beneficial outcomes. Responses from the questionnaire indicated a general view that the contribution by crop physiology to date has been modest. However, most of those surveyed expected the contribution to be larger in the next 20 years. Some constraints to progress perceived by breeders and physiologists were highlighted. The survey of literature abstracts indicated that from a plant breeding perspective, much physiological research is not progressing further than making suggestions about possible approaches to selection. There was limited evidence in the literature of objective comparison of such suggestions with existing methodology, or of development and application of these within active breeding programs. It is argued in this paper that the development of outputs from physiological research for breeding requires a good understanding of the breeding program(s) being serviced and factors affecting its performance. Simple quantitative genetic models, or at least the ideas they represent, should be considered in conducting physiological research and in envisaging and evaluating outputs. The key steps of a generalised breeding program are outlined, and the potential pathways for physiological understanding to impact on these steps are discussed. Impact on breeding programs may arise through (i) better choice of environments in which to conduct selection trials, (ii) identification of selection criteria and traits for focused introgression programs, and (iii) identifying traits for indirect selection criteria as an adjunct to criteria already used. While many breeders and physiologists apparently recognise that physiological understanding may have a major role in the first area, there appears to be relatively Little research activity targeting this issue, and a corresponding bias, arguably unjustified, toward examining traits for indirect selection. Furthermore, research on traits aimed at crop improvement is often deficient because key genetic parameters, such as genetic variation in relevant breeding populations and genetic (as opposed to phenotypic) correlations with yield or other characters of economic importance, are not properly considered in the research. Some areas requiring special attention for successfully interfacing physiology research with breeding are discussed. These include (i) the need to work with relevant genetic populations, (ii) close integration of the physiological research with an active breeding program, and (iii) the dangers of a pre-defined or narrow focus in the physiological research.

Regulation of CSF-1 receptor expression

Cells of the mononuclear phagocyte lineage possess receptors for macrophage colony-stimulating factor (CSF-1) encoded by the c-fms protooncogene and respond to CSF-1 with increased survival, growth, differentiation, and reversible changes in function. The c-fms gene is itself a macrophage differentiation marker. In whole mount analyses of mRNA expression in embryos, c-fms is expressed at very high levels on placental trophoblasts. It is detectable on individual cells in the yolk sac around 8.5 to 9 days postcoitus, appears on isolated cells in the head of the embryo around 9.5 dpc, and appears on numerous cells throughout the embryo by day 10.5. The extent of c-fms expression is much greater than for other macrophage-specific genes including lysozyme and a macrophage-specific protein tyrosine phosphatase. Our studies of the cis-acting elements of the c-fms promoter have indicated a key role for collaboration between the macrophage-specific transcription factor, Pu.1, which functions in determining the site of transcription initiation, and other members of the Ets transcription factor family. This is emerging as a common pattern in macrophage-specific promoters. We have shown that two PU box elements alone can function as a macrophage-specific promoter. The activity of both the artifical promoter and the c-fms promoter is activated synergistically by coexpression of Pu.1 and another Ets factor, c-Ets-2. A 3.5kb c-fms exon 2 promoter (but not the 300bp proximal promoter) is also active in a wide diversity of tumor cell lines. The interesting exception is the melanoma cell line K1735, in which the promoter is completely shut down and expression of c-fms causes growth arrest and cell death. The activity of the exon 2 promoter in these nonmacrophages is at least as serum responsive as the classic serum-responsive promoter of the c-fos gene. It is further inducible in nonmacrophages by coexpression of the c-fms product. Unlike other CSF-1/c-fms-responsive promoters, the c-fms promoter is not responsive to activated Ras even when c-Ets-2 is coexpressed. In most lines, production of full length c-fms is prevented by a downstream intronic terminator, but in Lewis lung carcinoma, read-through does occur, and expression of both c-fms and other macrophage-specific genes such as lysozyme and urokinase becomes detectable in conditions of serum deprivation. (C) 1997 Wiley-Liss, Inc.