Arabidopsis HEAT SHOCK TRANSCRIPTION FACTORA1b overexpression enhances water productivity, resistance to drought, and infection.

Heat-stressed crops suffer dehydration, depressed growth, and a consequent decline in water productivity, which is the yield of harvestable product as a function of lifetime water consumption and is a trait associated with plant growth and development. Heat shock transcription factor (HSF) genes have been implicated not only in thermotolerance but also in plant growth and development, and therefore could influence water productivity. Here it is demonstrated that Arabidopsis thaliana plants with increased HSFA1b expression showed increased water productivity and harvest index under water-replete and water-limiting conditions. In non-stressed HSFA1b-overexpressing (HSFA1bOx) plants, 509 genes showed altered expression, and these genes were not over-represented for development-associated genes but were for response to biotic stress. This confirmed an additional role for HSFA1b in maintaining basal disease resistance, which was stress hormone independent but involved H2O2 signalling. Fifty-five of the 509 genes harbour a variant of the heat shock element (HSE) in their promoters, here named HSE1b. Chromatin immunoprecipitation-PCR confirmed binding of HSFA1b to HSE1b in vivo, including in seven transcription factor genes. One of these is MULTIPROTEIN BRIDGING FACTOR1c (MBF1c). Plants overexpressing MBF1c showed enhanced basal resistance but not water productivity, thus partially phenocopying HSFA1bOx plants. A comparison of genes responsive to HSFA1b and MBF1c overexpression revealed a common group, none of which harbours a HSE1b motif. From this example, it is suggested that HSFA1b directly regulates 55 HSE1b-containing genes, which control the remaining 454 genes, collectively accounting for the stress defence and developmental phenotypes of HSFA1bOx.

Field trials and tribulations--making sense of the regulations for experimental field trials of transgenic crops in Europe.

Transgenic plants that are being developed for commercial cultivation must be tested under field conditions to monitor their effects on surrounding wildlife and conventional crops. Developers also use this opportunity to evaluate the performance of transgenic crops in a typical environment, although this is a matter of commercial necessity rather than regulatory compliance. Most countries have adapted existing regulations or developed new ones to deal specifically with transgenic crops and their commodities. The European Union (EU) is renowned, or perhaps notorious, for having the broadest and most stringent regulations governing such field trials in the world. This reflects its nominal adherence to the precautionary approach, which assumes all transgenic crops carry an inherent risk. Therefore, field trials in the EU need to demonstrate that the risk associated with deploying a transgenic crop has been reduced to the level where it is regarded as acceptable within the narrowly defined limits of the regulations developed and enforced (albeit inconsistently) by national and regional governments, that is, that there is no greater risk than growing an equivalent conventional crop. The involvement of national and regional competent authorities in the decision-making process can add multiple layers of bureaucracy to an already-intricate process. In this review, we use country-based case studies to show how the EU, national and regional regulations are implemented, and we propose strategies that could increase the efficiency of regulation without burdening developers with further unnecessary bureaucracy.

Biosafety, risk assessment and regulation of plant-made pharmaceuticals.

The technology for plant-made pharmaceuticals (PMPs) has progressed significantly over the last few years, with the first commercial products for human use expected to reach the market by 2009 (see Note 1). As part of the 'next generation' of genetically modified (GM) crops, PMPs will be subject to additional biosafety considerations and are set to challenge the complex and overlapping regulations that currently govern GM plants, plant biologics (see Note 2) and 'conventional' pharmaceutical production. The areas of responsibility are being mapped out between the different regulatory agencies (Sparrow, P.A.C., Irwin, J., Dale, P., Twyman, R.M., and Ma, J.K.C. (2007) Pharma-Planta: Road testing the developing regulatory guidelines for plant-made pharmaceuticals. Transgenic Res., 2007), with specific guidelines currently being drawn up for the regulation of PMPs. In this chapter, we provide an overview of the biosafety (see Note 3), risk assessment (see Note 4) and regulation of this emerging technology. While reference will be made to EU regulations, the underlying principles of biosafety and risk assessment are generic to most countries.

Evolution of a regulatory framework for pharmaceuticals derived from genetically modified plants.

The use of genetically modified (GM) plants to synthesize proteins that are subsequently processed, regulated and sold as pharmaceuticals challenges two very different established regulatory frameworks, one concerning GM plants and the other covering the development of biotechnology-derived drugs. Within these regulatory systems, specific regulations and guidelines for plant-made pharmaceuticals (PMPs)--also referred to as plant-derived pharmaceuticals (PDPs)--are still evolving. The products nearing commercial viability will ultimately help to road test and fine-tune these regulations, and might help to reduce regulatory uncertainties. In this review, we summarize the current state of regulations in different countries, discuss recent changes and highlight the need for further regulatory development in this burgeoning, new industry. We also make the case for the harmonization of international regulations.