In the conference hall of a hotel in Chester County, Pennsylvania, more than 100 agricultural producers gathered together. They may not have the relevant background of genetic editing, but they all know the mushrooms. In Pennsylvania, the average daily production of mushrooms is nearly 500 tons, which dominates the $1.2 billion mushroom market in the United States. However, some of the mushrooms they produced had not yet been sold, they turned brown on the shelves and were corrupted. In the conference hall of a hotel in Chester County, Pennsylvania, more than 100 agricultural producers gathered together. They may not have the relevant background of genetic editing, but they all know the mushrooms. In Pennsylvania, the average daily production of mushrooms is nearly 500 tons, which dominates the US$1.2 billion mushroom market in the United States. However, some of the mushrooms they produced had not yet been sold, they turned brown on the shelves and were corrupted. Mushrooms are very sensitive to physical collisions. Even careful "one-touch" picking and careful packaging may activate enzymes that accelerate mushroom deterioration. On a foggy morning last fall, a biologist named Yinong Yang walked onto the podium at a lecture on continuing education related to mushrooms and announced that he had found a way to solve the browning problem of mushrooms. . Although the Phytopathology Professor at Pennsylvania State University is not an expert in mushroom cultivation, he used a new technology called CRISPR to perform genome editing on the most popular mushroom in the western world, Agaricus bisporus. . Growers in the audience's chair may have never heard of CRISPR technology, but when Yang Yinong made a comparison of pure white agaricus mushrooms after CRISPR technology modification with common mushrooms that spoiled brown, they also realized that One of the hidden great commercial value. Pennsylvania State University is also well aware of its commercial value. The day before the seminar was held by Yang Yinong, they applied for a patent for the research results. “Low price†cuts mushroom browning genes In October 2013, an alumnus named David Carroll knocked on the door of Yang Yinong’s laboratory. Carol, chairman of a mushroom company, wanted to know whether the new gene editing technology could be used for mushroom improvement to reduce the browning of mushrooms. Biologists have previously identified six genes encoding brown enzymes, and enzymes that cause browning of apples and potatoes are also encoded by these genes. Four of these so-called browning genes are highly expressed in fruiting bodies of mushrooms and produce a large number of browning enzymes. Yang Yinong believes that if he can use gene editing technology to introduce mutations in the mushroom genome, it will prevent the expression of one of the browning genes. , it may slow down the browning rate of mushrooms. The reason CRISPR technology is so simple is because biologists can directly construct mutation-producing molecules according to their needs. Just like utility knives that combine the functions of a compass, scissors, and vise, these molecular tools do an excellent job of two tasks: locking a specific DNA sequence and then cutting it. Once the cleavage of the target site DNA occurs, the mutation will naturally occur. Yang also used a tiny DNA mutation to disrupt the expression of a brown enzyme gene and confirmed this mutation using DNA detection. He said that a skilled molecular biologist could build a specialized mutation tool in about 3 days for editing any gene of any organism. This is why CRISPR technology is sought after by scientists - fast, economical and simple. It took about 2 months to make anti-brown mushrooms in the laboratory. Yang Yinong hinted that such research was extremely stylized and very inexpensive if not particularly simple. Synthesizing the guide RNA and its "skeleton" is the most difficult step in the entire research project and it can be completed in a few hundred dollars. There are many small biotech companies currently customizing the CRISPR architecture for editing any gene. Yang Yinong said: "If you do not consider the manpower, this project will require less than 10,000 US dollars." The wave of genetic editing technology in agriculture Scientists who study animals also closely follow the wave of gene editing. Recombinetics is a small biotechnology company in Minnesota, USA. The company's researchers blocked genetic signals from Holstein cows, the major dairy strain of the dairy industry, to control the growth of horns in vivo. They genetically edited the natural mutations of the Argus beef cattle into the genome of Holstein cows. Agricultural scientists believe that genetic editing technology makes the farming industry more humane, because this technology allows the public Holstein cows do not need to undergo cruel surgery. Removing the cow's horn can not only prevent the cow from fighting and can also prevent the dairy farmer from being injured. Scott Fahrenkrug, the company's chief executive, believes that this gene editing process does not involve genetic modification. It only introduces several bases in the cow’s genome, and its genetic composition is similar to what we already have. There is no difference in food. At the same time, scientists from China and South Korea have begun collaborating to develop muscle-type pigs. They plan to use genetic editing techniques to knock down the myostatin gene in pigs. Like other powerful technologies, CRISPR technology has inspired some agricultural dreamers' fantasy of future agriculture. Some scenes that are almost sci-fi have begun to appear in scientific literature. Michael Palmgren, a Botanist at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, suggested that scientists could use this new gene editing technology to restore food crops to “wildnessâ€, ie to recover those lost during long-term agricultural breeding. Wild traits. Many food crops with high economic value (rice, wheat, citrus and bananas) are very resistant to many pathogens; repairing the lost genes may increase the disease resistance of these crops. Daniel F. Voytas works both at academic institutions and at Calyxt Biotech. At the University of Minnesota laboratories, Voitas began experimenting with a method known as molecular acclimation to restore the wild traits of crops: the transfer of good genes from existing hybrid lines to wild species that are more tolerant and more adaptable ( Such as wild corn and potatoes). Voitas said: "Let the wild breed have a variety of good traits, such as changing the size of the fruit or the number of ears of corn, usually only need to change 5-7 genes. Now, we don't have to spend 10 years to bring wild and domesticated strains. For cross-breeding, you only need to edit the relevant genes directly, and you can domesticate the wild species." Gene editing crops do not require strict controls In the short span of three years since the introduction of CRISPR technology, it has had a profound impact on the agricultural community. As of fall 2015, about 50 scientific papers on the genetic editing of plants using CRISPR technology have been published, and there are preliminary indications that the USDA believes that not all genetically modified crops need to be like “traditional†genetically modified crops (GMO). As such, strict supervision is accepted. Although the attitude of regulators to genetically modified crops is not yet fully understood, several companies have begun to compete for planting gene editing crops in the hope that these crops will eventually enter the market. The biggest advantage of CRISPR technology lies in its unprecedented accuracy. CRISPR technology can knock out any gene in the genome or insert a gene at a specific position in the genome to introduce good traits into crops. Users of this technology believe that this is the least biologically destructive of all plant breeding methods (including the "natural" breeding techniques used by humans for thousands of years). The technology also allows scientists to avoid the use of controversial transgene technology (ie the introduction of exogenous genes) in many cases. Some scientists are optimistic about the prospects of CRISPR crops because they believe that these crops are fundamentally different from genetically modified crops, and that this will change the debate on GMO foods. Voitas said: "This new technology has forced us to rethink what GMO is." The use of CRISPR technology to edit crop genes is less restrictive, which can also save a lot of manpower and material resources. In October last year, Yang Yinong made an informal introduction to mushroom research for officials of the Department of Agriculture and Animal Health Inspection of the US Department of Agriculture. US Department of Agriculture officials believe that edited mushrooms do not require special or long-term regulatory review. If this is true, this will be the most important economic advantage of CRISPR technology, because Voitas estimates that the cost of the regulatory review process may be as high as $35 million, which can take up to five and a half years. Gene Editing Transgene When Yang Yinong introduced the mushroom research project to Pennsylvanian agricultural producers and officials of the US Department of Agriculture, he used a phrase that could explain the problem, non-transgenic genetic modification, to describe the nature of his experiments. This carefully thought-out new formulation is to distinguish the high-precision gene editing technology such as CRISPR from the agricultural biotechnology that previously transferred foreign DNA into plants. Yang Yinong and many people think that the subtle wording is very important to avoid falling into the GMO debate. In fact, abbreviations such as "GEO" (gene-edited organism) have begun to appear as an alternative to "GMO" or "GM." Most critics of biotech foods believe that any form of genetic modification should belong to GM, and they all have the potential to cause unexpected mutations that pose a threat to human health or the environment. Scientists like Voitas and Yang Yinong believe that all forms of plant breeding (when wheat was cultivated in the Neolithic era 3000 years ago) involve genetic modification, and traditional breeding techniques are biologically speaking It is not harmless. As Yang Yinnong said, it will cause "great" genetic destructiveness. Preliminary indications suggest that genetic editing (including CRISPR technology) may obtain regulatory approval sooner. To date, at least US regulators have treated some genetically modified crops differently than genetically modified GMO crops. When Calyxt first asked the U.S. Department of Agriculture about the need for regulatory review of genetically engineered potatoes, US federal officials spent a year reviewing and finally decided in August 2014 that genetically modified crops need no special consideration; last summer When the company again reported their genetically engineered soybeans to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, review officials took only two months to make a similar decision. For biotech companies, this shows that the U.S. authorities believe that the new technologies of these gene editing are fundamentally different from those of genetically modified technology; and for the critics of genetic modification technology, this means that biotech companies are in a loophole in the regulatory system. . Yang Yinong’s mushroom may be the first CRISPR food reported to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. New technologies like CRISPR have prompted some governments to start revisiting the definition of GMO. In November last year, the Swedish Agriculture Committee ruled that certain plant mutations induced by CRISPR technology do not meet the EU definition of GMO; the Argentine government also decided that some genetically modified crops are not subject to GMO control. The EU has always had quite strict regulations on genetically modified crops. With the emergence of new gene editing technologies, it is currently reviewing relevant policies, but the relevant legislation has not yet been so fast. Although there is no middle ground on this issue, Voitas and others have proposed a potential compromise: gene mutations or gene knockouts that result from gene editing should be seen as similar to traditional breeding methods (eg, Mutations caused by mutated X-rays; and the use of gene editing to introduce new DNA should be subject to appropriate regulatory review. The public reaction is hard to predict Will consumers agree with the optimistic views of those scientists? Still think CRISPR crops are just another genetically modified food? Since CRISPR technology is only now beginning to be applied to food crops, these problems have not stirred the public, but it will quickly attract public attention. Although CRISPR technology is more accurate than traditional breeding techniques, it is not foolproof. Sometimes, this precise cutting tool also cuts the non-target area, there is the possibility of "off target", which has caused some people to worry about the safety of the technology. Jennifer Kuzma is a policy analyst at North Carolina State University. She began to pay attention to related scientific progress and policy changes from the early days of GMO Agriculture. She said: "Accuracy is an advantage of this technology, but that does not mean that the associated risks will be reduced. Off-target cutting may have completely different hazards." Kuzma predicts that those who have always opposed genetic modification technology will not easily accept CRISPR foods. She said: “The public who boycotted the first generation of GMOs cannot accept the second generation of genetic modification technology simply because we have only changed a small amount of DNA. They will still classify CRISPR foods with the previous GMOs.†Zma is more concerned with the new era in which more and more genetically-edited foods are about to enter the market, how to update the entire regulatory structure, and to absorb more opinions during the review period. How will Yang Yinong's mushroom fate be? At the end of his lecture, the growers who planted the mushrooms had no obvious reaction and attitude to the new technology except for courtesy applause. Yang Yinong also understood this point. He told the growers: "The commercialization of this kind of mushroom depends entirely on you." The anti-brown mushroom is still a tentative experimental project for the time being. If the grower is not convinced of the value of the anti-brown mushroom, or if he fears that the consumer will resist, these genetically edited mushrooms with good traits may never be available. For the mushrooms growing in the dark, it is usually not a bad thing to not see the sky, but this may not bode well for this transformative new technology. (World Wide Web Author: Written by: Stephen Hall · S · Translation: Zhao Jin) Wall Pack,Led Wall Pack Lights,Outdoor Led Wall Pack Lights,Alleyways Wall Pack Light Fuonce-Lighting , https://www.fuoncelighting.com