Review: intellectual property aspects of plant transformation

One of the recurring themes of the debates concerning the application of genetic transformation technology has been the role of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). This term covers both the content of patents and the confidential expertise usually related to methodology and referred to as 'Trade Secrets'. This review explains the concepts behind patent protection, and discusses the wide-ranging scope of existing patents that cover all aspects of transgenic technology, from selectable markers and novel promoters to methods of gene introduction. Although few of the patents in this area have any real commercial value, there are a small number of key patents that restrict the 'freedom to operate' of new companies seeking to exploit the methods. Over the last 20 years, these restrictions have forced extensive cross-licensing between ag-biotech companies and have been one of the driving forces behind the consolidation of these companies. Although such issues are often considered of little interest to the academic scientist working in the public sector, they are of great importance in any discussion of the role of 'public-good breeding' and of the relationship between the public and private sectors.

Patents and transgenic plants

One of the recurring themes in any discussion concerning the application of genetic transformation technology is the role of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). This term covers both the content of patents and the confidential expertise, usually related to methodology and referred to as “Trade Secrets”. This review will explain the concepts behind patent protection, and will discuss the wide-ranging scope of existing patents that cover all aspects of transgenic technology, from selectable markers and novel promoters to methods of gene introduction. Although few of these patents have any significant commercial value, there are a small number of key patents that may restrict the “freedom to operate” of any company seeking to exploit the methods. Over the last twenty years, these restrictions have forced extensive cross-licensing between ag-biotech companies and have been one of the driving forces behind the consolidation of these companies. Although such issues are often considered to be of little interest to the academic scientist working in the public sector, they are of great importance in any debate about the role of “public-good breeding” and of the relationship between the public and private sectors.

Patents for plants: context and current status

One of the important themes in any discussion concerning the application of genetic transformation technology in horticulture or elsewhere is the role of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR). This term covers both the content of patents and the confidential expertise, usually related to methodology and referred to as “Trade Secrets”. This review will explain the concepts behind patent protection, and will discuss the wide-ranging scope of existing patents that cover novel genotypes of plants as well as all aspects of transgenic technology, from selectable markers and novel promoters to methods of gene introduction. Although few of these patents have any significant commercial value there are a small number of key patents that may restrict the “freedom to operate” of any company seeking to exploit the methods in the production of transgenic varieties. Over the last twenty years, these restrictions have forced extensive cross-licensing between ag-biotech companies and have been one of the driving forces behind the consolidation of these companies. Although such issues may have limited relevance in the horticultural sector, and are often considered to be of little interest to the academic scientist working in the public sector, they are of great importance in any debate about the role of “public-good breeding” and of the relationship between the public and private sectors.

Transformation of maize using silicon carbide whiskers

As the most commercially valuable cereal grown worldwide and the best-characterized in genetic terms, maize was predictably the first target for transformation among the important crops. Indeed, the first attempt at transformation of any plant was conducted on maize (1). These early efforts, however, were inevitably unsuccessful, since at that time, there were no reliable methods to permit the introduction of DNA into a cell, the expression of that DNA, and the identification of progeny derived from such a “transgenic” cell (2). Almost 20 years later, these technologies were finally combined, and the first transgenic cereals were produced. In the last few years, methods have become increasingly efficient, and transgenic maize has now been produced from protoplasts as well as from Agrobacterium-medieited or “Biolistic” delivery to embryogenic tissue (for a general comparison of methods used for maize, the reader is referred to a recent review—ref. 3). The present chapter will describe probably the simplest of the available procedures, namely the delivery of DNA to the recipient cells by vortexing them in the presence of silicon carbide (SiC) whiskers (this name will be used in preference to the term “fiber,” since it more correctly describes the single crystal nature of the material).

Bacterial evolution by genomic island transfer occurs via DNA transformation in planta

Our understanding of the evolution of microbial pathogens has been advanced by the discovery of "islands" of DNA that differ from core genomes and contain determinants of virulence [1, 2]. The acquisition of genomic islands (GIs) by horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is thought to have played a major role in microbial evolution. There are, however, few practical demonstrations of the acquisition of genes that control virulence, and, significantly, all have been achieved outside the animal or plant host. Loss of a GI from the bean pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola (Pph) is driven by exposure to the stress imposed by the plant's resistance response [3]. Here, we show that the complete episomal island, which carries pathogenicity genes including the effector avrPphB, transfers between strains of Pph by transformation in planta and inserts at a specific att site in the genome of the recipient. Our results show that the evolution of bacterial pathogens by HGT may be achieved via transformation, the simplest mechanism of DNA exchange. This process is activated by exposure to plant defenses, when the pathogen is in greatest need of acquiring new genetic traits to alleviate the antimicrobial stress imposed by plant innate immunity [4].