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.

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 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.

Modelling negative feedback networks for activating transcription factor 3 predicts a dominant role for miRNAs in immediate early gene regulation

Activating transcription factor 3 (Atf3) is rapidly and transiently upregulated in numerous systems, and is associated with various disease states. Atf3 is required for negative feedback regulation of other genes, but is itself subject to negative feedback regulation possibly by autorepression. In cardiomyocytes, Atf3 and Egr1 mRNAs are upregulated via ERK1/2 signalling and Atf3 suppresses Egr1 expression. We previously developed a mathematical model for the Atf3-Egr1 system. Here, we adjusted and extended the model to explore mechanisms of Atf3 feedback regulation. Introduction of an autorepressive loop for Atf3 tuned down its expression and inhibition of Egr1 was lost, demonstrating that negative feedback regulation of Atf3 by Atf3 itself is implausible in this context. Experimentally, signals downstream from ERK1/2 suppress Atf3 expression. Mathematical modelling indicated that this cannot occur by phosphorylation of pre-existing inhibitory transcriptional regulators because the time delay is too short. De novo synthesis of an inhibitory transcription factor (ITF) with a high affinity for the Atf3 promoter could suppress Atf3 expression, but (as with the Atf3 autorepression loop) inhibition of Egr1 was lost. Developing the model to include newly-synthesised miRNAs very efficiently terminated Atf3 protein expression and, with a 4-fold increase in the rate of degradation of mRNA from the mRNA/miRNA complex, profiles for Atf3 mRNA, Atf3 protein and Egr1 mRNA approximated to the experimental data. Combining the ITF model with that of the miRNA did not improve the profiles suggesting that miRNAs are likely to play a dominant role in switching off Atf3 expression post-induction.