#capacity building » GCP Blog

Paradise left… then regained: A lifelong passion for plants, and plant science

Asia, Crop breeding, Genetics, Genomics, Researchers, Rice No Responses »

Jan 232013

Abdelbagi Ismail

I was forever inquisitive as to how things grew, and questioning when they didn’t grow well. I think it’s what got me interested in plant science.”
– Abdelbagi Ismail, Plant Physiologist and Principal Scientist, International Rice Research Institute.

Today, we talk to Abdel. His riveting voyage in plant science starts on the bountiful banks of the Nile, before we sail on to Asia’s ricelands. We’ll make a short stopover in USA for cowpeas and drought in between, then proceed to to our main meal of rice, spiced and seasoned with a strong dash of salt-and-P.

It’s not just about food, but also family: you’ll get to meet a sister Challenge Programme along the way. Intrigued? We hope so, so please do read on!

‘A’ for Abdel and agriculture – an early passion for plants
From a tender age, Abdel was fascinated by agriculture.

Growing up on a small family farm backing onto the banks of the Nile in the Northern State of Sudan, he helped his parents in tilling the land, sowing and harvesting.

Abdel reminisces, “It was a relaxing paradise with all types of fruit growing around you year-round. Working and living on a farm, I was forever inquisitive as to how things grew, and questioning when they didn’t grow well. I think it’s what got me interested in plant science.”

Armed with a Bachelor’s and Master’s in Agricultural Sciences (agronomy, crop production, water relations) from the University of Khartoum, Sudan, Abdel moved to the University of California, Riverside, USA, for a PhD on drought tolerance in cowpeas.

“It was the first time I had ever left Africa, and it was a real eye-opener,” Abdel recalls. “It was a fantastic new page in my career too, as I was working with world-class professors and mentors. I chose to work on cowpeas because it is a hardy crop that can be grown in dry conditions which were – and still are – becoming more prevalent in sub-Saharan Africa.” (you can take a sidetrack here, to see our research on cowpeas)

What interests me is how some societies have survived, and, in some cases, flourished because they invested in improving their plants and crops to adapt and adjust to weather adversities.”

Navigating away from the Nile, and discovering his niche
For this native son of the Nile, this move was a watershed. It marked the start of a dedicated – and still ongoing – career quest to understand how plants can adapt to better tolerate extreme environmental stresses such as higher and lower temperatures, too much or too little water, salinity, and nutrient imbalances.

“Abiotic stresses have had, and continue to have, a major impact on human life, with some societies disappearing altogether because of changes in soils or climate,” says Abdel. “What interests me is how some societies have survived, and, in some cases, flourished because they invested in improving their plants and crops to adapt and adjust to weather adversities.”

From time immemorial, the communities around the Nile where Abdel spent his childhood are a prime example of this flourishing against adversity.

IRRI beckons, and nurtures
In 2000, Abdel accepted a position at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in The Philippines.

Abdel inspects cyclone-damaged rice in Isladi Village, southern Bangladesh.

“I saw it as an opportunity to convert knowledge and scientific discoveries into resources that could help needy farmers,” explains Abdel.

Abdel confesses that when he joined IRRI, his intention was to stay for a short stint and then move on. But as he became more involved in his work, he felt IRRI offered him the best opportunity to build his career, and to contribute to global food-security issues.

“I’ve been here for 12 years now. IRRI really is a great place to grow as a person and a researcher, and to learn how to become a leader.”

Having GCP provide ongoing funding and support for public institutions to conduct a long-term project has been pivotal to the success of the project. It has given us all the security we need to focus on conducting the complex research required…”

Trailblazing for GCP : a much-needed dash of ‘salt-and-P’
In 2004, Abdel proposed a collaborative project between nine different research organisations, across seven countries, to improve salt tolerance and phosphorus uptake efficiency in rice. The work was funded by a sister CGIAR Challenge Programme on Water and Food (CPWF).

This work caught – and held – GCP’s attention, because it sought to overcome a problem that negatively affects the lives of tens of thousands of rice growers around the world. The two resultant GCP-funded IRRI-led projects involved partners from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Vietnam and USA’s University of California, Davis. Globally, more than 15 million hectares of ricelands are saline, and more than one-third of all ricelands are phosphorus-deficient, hitting poor communities hardest.

In the nine years since, and together with his colleagues and partners, Abdel has developed the proposal into a productive and coherent suite of interconnected projects: he has managed and overseen most of the progress made during the discovery of the genes associated with salinity tolerance (Saltol) and phosphorus uptake (Pup1), and their insertion into well-known rice varieties that farmers in Bangladesh, Indonesia and The Philippines know and trust.

It’s all about rice: salt tolerance (Saltol) ‘meets’ phosphorus uptake (Pup1) in Bangladesh. Abdel is on the extreme right. Next to him is Sigrid Heuer, Principal Investigator of the ‘Pup1’ work.

Keeping the faith, and going where no rice has gone before…
A long-term horizon helps, since, just like art, science cannot be hurried: “Having GCP provide ongoing funding and support for public institutions to conduct a long-term project has been pivotal to the success of the project,” Abdel emphasises.

“It has given us all the security we need to focus on conducting the complex research required to advance our knowledge about these genes, then breed and develop popular varieties containing then. In some cases, we have developed lines with doubled yields, and grown rice in areas where it has never been grown before because the land was too saline.”

For Abdel, such achievements are heartening as they provide farmers with greater food and income security, which in turn improves their and their community’s livelihoods.

“It brings a smile to my face whenever I think about how our work helps to produce higher-yielding crops for poverty-stricken countries whose farmers often can only afford to grow one crop per year,” says Abdel sincerely.

Abdel continues to build upon, and has even employed, partners he has met through the GCP project…”We want to improve their capacity to take up new breeding techniques, such as the use of molecular markers, which can reduce the time it takes to breed new varieties from six to 10 years to two to three years…”

Continually building on the best
So what’s in store for the future?

Having discovered the Saltol gene and developed experimental lines, his team is now training breeders from country breeding programmes on how they can successfully breed for salt tolerance and tolerance of other abiotic stresses using their own popular varieties, thereby fortifying popular varieties with these much-needed tolerance traits.

“We want to improve their capacity to take up new breeding techniques, such as the use of molecular markers, which can reduce the time it takes to breed new varieties from six to 10 years to two to three years,” reveals Abdel. “This will allow them to breed for crops quicker, in response to ever-changing and extreme climate conditions.”

As for his other projects with IRRI, Abdel continues to build upon, and has even employed, partners he has met through the GCP project to help him with his Stress tolerant rice for Africa and South Asia (STRASA) project.

GCP helped IRRI attract support from other funders…”

Going further, faster, together… five and counting, still learning, and the future looks bright
STRASA is almost five years old and has another five years left to run.

“GCP helped IRRI to attract additional support from other funders, such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, to start STRASA, which seeks to support the development and distribution of stress-tolerant varieties in Africa and South Asia,” Abdel explains.

Abdel’s parting words? “I’m still committed to understand how plants can be manipulated to adapt to, and better tolerate, extreme environmental stresses, which seems more feasible today than it has ever been before.”

Links

For an early history of Abdel’s work (2005–2006) see pp 36–40 here, and pp 26–28 here
Abdel’s research partners in Bangladesh and Indonesia
Complementary research and findings on improving rice phosphorus uptake

Science in her blood – Born into botany, bloomed into biochemistry and molecular biology, and now in applied science

Asia, Capacity building, Genetics, Genomics, Researchers, Rice, Women in science 1 Response »

Dec 212012

I’ve always enjoyed my job, particularly teaching students and young researchers, but this project has made me think about how I can do more practical science.” – Zeba Seraj, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Professor, University of Dhaka, Bangladesh

Zeba Seraj

Growing up with a botanist as a father, Zeba Seraj was nurtured to look at plants in a scientific light. But at one stage in her life, she took a different fork on the road: she was more interested in rat livers and cow eyes, before becoming a ‘late bloomer’ in applied science and molecular plant breeding, which is her current niche.

Taking that fork: rats seduced, cows made eyes, but both lost…
Having completed her Undergraduate and Master’s in Biochemistry at the University of Dhaka, Bangladesh, during the 70s and 80s, she moved to Scotland for a PhD at the University of Glasgow. After being persuaded that molecular biology and recombinant DNA technology were not likely to be too different in animals and plants, she focused on the separation of nuclear proteins involved in post-transcriptional processing in the rat liver system.

“I then went on to work as a postdoc at the University of Liverpool, UK, for 18 months, where I worked on a bovine retina cDNA [complementary DNA] library,” Zeba recalls. “I was exposed to a number of recombinant DNA techniques and was pleasantly surprised to find DNA much easier to work with compared to proteins! I enjoyed it, but when I returned to the Bangladesh, there was no work in that field, so I turned to plants.”

The rise of rice, propelled by ‘Petrra’ project and petri dish
Back at her old University, one of Zeba’s first projects was working on salt tolerance in rice which allowed her to set up plant tissue culture facilities and establish a modest molecular biology laboratory. Zeba thereafter worked with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) on the Petrra project (poverty elimination through rice research assistance). The project was funded by the Department for International Development, UK. Meanwhile, she also spent a couple of months in the laboratory of the illustrious Dr John Bennett at IRRI, learning the latest technology in DNA markers and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology. This inital work would, in a way, lead her to GCP.

Meeting GCP, and banking on potential
Zeba joined the GCP community in 2005, working on the rice Saltol (salt tolerance) project. She was a focal collaborator in Bangladesh for this IRRI-led project that aimed to revitalise marginal ricelands by discovering and breeding into popular rice varieties ‘survival’ genes to enable rice to not only survive but also thrive on saline or phosphorus-poor soils.

“We were introduced to the project through the Principal Investigator, Abdel Ismail,” recalls Zeba. “Our lab was not very modern, but we did have all the facilities to do marker work, as well as a firm grasp on the theory, so IRRI and GCP must have seen potential in us.”

…doing the research helped me understand the practical application better… It was a real eye-opener.”

Transiting from theory to practice
After 15 years of working as an associate professor and professor at the University of Dhaka (DU), mainly nurturing young biochemists, Zeba was re-energised by the thought of working on such a practical project that would have a direct impact on her country’s food security, and on its farmers’ livelihoods.

In the background, genotyping in progress at the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Dhaka. In thef oreground, student– supervisor consultations. Pictured (left to right) are: Zeba I Seraj, Roman, Adnan, Sarwar, Debashis,Rabin, Dost, Mishu, Shamim and Rejbana.

Nearly one million hectares along the Bangladesh coast are affected by varying degrees of salinity which has severely limited the introduction of modern high-yielding rice varieties, as few of these are saline-tolerant. Given Bangladesh’s high population, farmers need as bountiful yields as possible, and minimum risk of failure.

“After reading and teaching theory for so long, it was really exciting to actually put it into practice and work towards a practical outcome,” says Zeba.

“Actually doing the research helped me understand the practical application better too. It was a real eye-opener.”

Using molecular markers allowed us to at least halve the time it would take to release stress-tolerant rice.”

Gaining time: the ‘miracles’ and ‘magic’ of molecular makers
Zeba’s lab was responsible for the molecular evaluation and selection of rice lines bred by BRRI for insertion of the genomic region containing Saltol (discovered to confer salt toleranceby the previous IRRI-led GCP-funded project).

Md Sazzadur Rahman of BRRI assesses progress on a salt-tolerant rice variety in the field.

“We collected leaf samples from the BRRI-bred lines which were a combination of popular rice landraces and a Saltol donor.” explains Zeba ‘Landraces’ is ‘breeder-speak’ for varieties grown by, and popular with, farmers, but not necessarily improved by selective scientific breeding. Zeba continues, “We then used molecular markers which would indicate the presence of the Saltol genomic region.”

“The information we gathered guided the breeders at BRRI to select rice plants with the Saltol region. Selected plants were then further analysed with markers, to maximise the presence of popular alleles,” she adds. Allele is one of two, or more, forms of a gene – the alternative form of a gene responsible for a trait producing different effects.

“Using molecular markers allowed us to at least halve the time it would take to release stress-tolerant rice,” Zeba reveals.

I will be the happiest person on earth the day they release the new lines, knowing that I’d helped to make a difference.”

Seven years on, what next?
Zeba is grateful that she and her lab were active partners in GCP projects for seven consecutive years: first in the IRRI-led project in 2005 to 2009, then in a follow-up supplementary capacity-building DU-led project from 2010 to 2011, for which Zeba was the Principal Investigator.

Nirmal Sharma and Jamal emasculate the first backcross population of a crosscombination for a second backcross at BRRI

“I don’t think we could have done the work without the various GCP networks. Several times in the project we would lag behind and they’d offer us support to get us back on track,” says Zeba. “They also instilled in us the importance of proper data management, and we have now implemented their system to collect, store and report data for all of our projects. We also now have all the equipment and processes in place, meaning that we’re now able to accommodate similar projects, now and into the future.”

Personally Zeba feels the project has given her a new direction in her career that she’s keen to further explore. “I’ve always enjoyed my job, particularly teaching students and young researchers, but this project has made me think about how I can do more practical science,” confides Zeba.

As for the Saltol project, she is keeping a close eye on the application waiting for the news of high-yield salt-tolerant lines becoming accessible to all Bangladeshi rice farmers.

“I will be the happiest person on earth the day they release the new lines, knowing that I’d helped to make a difference.”

Links

More on Zeba Seraj on page 40 here
The road behind us: read on the early days (2005/2006) of the rice salt-tolerance work:
- on pages 36–39 here
- on pages 28–30 here
- on page 6 here
Profile: Abdel Ismail, Principal Investigator of the salt tolerance project

Born in Africa: A lifelong cross-continental love affair with science

Africa, Asia, Crop breeding, Genetics, Genomics, Researchers, Rice, Women in science 2 Responses »

Nov 302012

Sigrid Heuer

Meet Sigrid Heuer (pictured), a Molecular Biologist and Senior Scientist at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). Her lively and riveting story will take us from Africa through her native Europe and on to Asia, and finally Down Under to Australia.

Origins – the African chapter
Africa holds a special and soft spot in Sigrid’s love affair with science: it was while on this continent that she realised her calling in life as a scientist – linking people doing pure research on plant genes to help plants survive and even thrive in harsh environments, with people who want to apply that knowledge to breed crops that can change the lives of millions of farmers who constantly compromise with nature to make a living.

Fieldwork: Sigrid at a field trial for rice phosphorus uptake.

“Working as a postdoc at the Africa Rice Center in Senegal was a real life-changing experience,” Sigrid recollects with great fondness. “It’s where I found my niche, using my background in theoretical science and applying it to developing crops that could overcome abiotic stresses, and in doing so, make a real impact on people’s lives.”

Rowing further down the river: from upstream to downstream science
Sigrid was born and raised in Hamburg, Germany. She remembers wanting to be a psychologist and didn’t consider science until a few years after finishing school. After completing a biology undergraduate at Phillips University, Marburg, Germany, she returned to her home city of Hamburg to complete a Masters and PhD in plant physiology and molecular biology respectively.

“Back then, I was really involved in upstream science, fascinated in the fine details without much consideration of how such research could benefit society,” says Sigrid. “I still enjoy this form of science and really do value its purpose, but putting it into practice and focusing on the impact that it can have is what really motivates me now.”

Moving to IRRI, and meeting Pup1 and GCP
After three years in Senegal, Sigrid moved to the Philippines to join IRRI in 2003, first as a consultant then as a part-time scientist. In these early years, she was working on several projects, one of which was the GCP-funded Pup1 (rice phosphorus uptake) project.

“The project sought to identify the genes associated with phosphorus uptake in rice lines that could tolerate phosphorus-deficient soils,” says Sigrid. “It was an interesting project in which I was able to use my background in molecular biology. Little by little, I got more and more involved in the Pup1 project and after a year I was asked by Matthias Wissuwa, who was leading the project at the time, if I wanted to take it over. It was a great opportunity which I jumped at, not knowing then how challenging it would prove.”

Pup1 was the first major project I had managed. It was a playground of sorts that allowed me to learn what I needed to know about managing a project – writing proposals and reports, managing budgets and people’s time, and everything else that comes with leading a team.

The ‘root’ and ‘command post’ where it all happens: Sigrid in the office. For the benefit of our readers, we would have credited the young artist whose colourful work graces the background below the bookshelf, but we were too polite to pry and prise out the young talent’s name, having hogged too much of Sigrid’s time already!

Learning to lead – both work and play

Over the last seven years, Sigrid has been a Principal Investigator and joint leader of the project, which has given her latitude to mature professionally, and not just in science alone. “It’s been tough but personally fulfilling,” Sigrid says, with just a touch of exhaustion.

“Pup1 was the first major project I had managed. It was a playground of sorts that allowed me to learn what I needed to know about managing a project – writing proposals and reports, managing budgets and people’s time, and everything else that comes with leading a team. I was really lucky to have Matthias’ help as well as the other experienced collaborators and networks. However, the main factor that made my job a lot less stressful, was the benefit of long-term funding and support from GCP. GCP was always there, supporting us and giving us confidence even when we weren’t sure we were going to succeed.”

Persistence pays: tangible products, plus publication in Nature
In August 2012, Sigrid and her team achieved what they had set out to do seven years ago, through what Sigrid puts down to sheer persistence: their discovery of the Pup1 gene was recognised by their scientific peers and published in the highly renowned journal, Nature.

Sigrid (3rd left) at the lab with other colleagues in the phosphorus uptake team.

“Having our paper published is really something special and personally my greatest achievement to date,” says Sigrid, but she is also quick to add that it was a team achievement, and that the achievement was in itself humbling.

“It was a double reward for persisting with the research, and with getting it into Nature. We wanted it in Nature for several reasons. To raise awareness on phosphorus deficiency and phosphorus being a limited resource, especially in poorer countries; and to draw attention to how we do molecular breeding these days, which is a speedier, easier and cost-effective approach to developing crops that have the potential to alleviate such problems.”

Sigrid hopes the article will have a lasting impression on readers, and encourage funders to continue to support projects that have such impact on the lives of end-users.

What next? Technology transfer, transitions and torch smoothly passing on…
With the Pup1 gene now found, IRRI researchers are working with breeders from country-based breeding programmes around the world to help them understand the techniques to breed local varieties of rice that can grow in phosphorus-deficient soils. They are also collaborating with other projects that wish to use the Pup1 project as a case study for phosphorous deficiency tolerance in other crops like maize, sorghum, and wheat (see an example here, that includes partners from Africa and Latin America).

Sigrid sees this next stage as a perfect time to step down from the project: she plans to move to Adelaide, Australia at the end of 2012 to lead a new project that is looking at drought and nitrogen deficiency tolerance in wheat.

“Matthias passed the baton on to me, and now I get to pass the baton on to someone else, so it’s nice. And I’ll be sure to always be around to help them too.”

Links

VIDEO: Sigrid’s interview on BBC News, August 2012, on the discovery of the rice gene that boosts phosphorus uptake
PHOTO STORIES − Choose your favourite medium! We post to both Flickr and Facebook
- Meet the rice phosphorus uptake team and their work Flickr | Facebook
- Training breeders from developing countries Flickr | Facebook

Sigrid’s presentation at the GCP General Research Meeting 2011

GRM 2011: Rice with dual strength — Phosphorus uptake efficiency and alumunium tolerance from CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme

Breeding beans to better battle drought and disease in Ethiopia

Africa, Beans, Crop breeding, Genetics, Genomics, Legumes No Responses »

Nov 132012

Bean breeding in his bones: Asrat A Amele

For our bean team, we already see the benefits of being in the Tropical Legumes I project. We now understand molecular breeding, and we are able to apply molecular breeding techniques.” – Asrat A Amele (pictured)

Asrat is a bean breeder at Ethiopia’s South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI) at the Awassa Research Centre.

Besides breeding beans that will better battle drought, Asrat’s team combines drought tolerance with resistance to the bean stem maggot (BSM) – a pest that afflicts all bean-growing zones in Ethiopia.

Connections, continuity and capacity building
The Tropical Legumes I (TLI) was not an entirely new connection, as Asrat’s involvement with GCP predates this particular project. He started off as a GCP-funded fellow in 2007, investigating bean genetics for drought tolerance. The fellowship would also seem him do a stint in Colombia at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT, by its Spanish acronym). His work at the time on root phenotyping and quantitative trait loci (QTL) analysis has since been published.

At that time, Asrat remarked:

The GCP fellowships programme is great for a person like me, working in a developing-country research institute. I can say it potentially provides researchers with up-to-date scientific knowledge in areas of specialisation. It provides better contact with scientists in other parts of the world and opens a wider window to think on problems and deliver better research products.”

Thorugh GCP, Asrat also attended a molecular breeding course at Wageningen University and Research Centre in The Netherlands. Wageningen is a GCP Consortium member.

The ravages wrought by bean stem maggot.

Having passed through that door of opportunity and looking back now, what does Asrat say? “Through TLI, we were able to access new parental sources of germplasm recommended for release and use for breeding. For instance, we’ve received more than 200 lines from CIAT, from which 10 have been selected to be used as parents. We plan to do crosses with these parents to develop a marker-assisted recurrent selection [MARS] population, based on the problems plaguing beans in Africa.”

And it’s not all about material but also matters cerebral (and matters manual, as we shall see further on): “From the science meetings we attend, we’ve also gained valuable new contacts and acquired new knowledge.” Asrat reveals.

Two…and two

Fitsum Alemayehu

Daniel Ambachew

The next step is to validate the workability of MARS, and SARI has a GCP-funded PhD student, Fistum Alemayehu (pictured right), registered at the South Africa’s Free State University and conducting his phenotyping in Ethiopia, alongside other well-trained staff that SARI now has. Fistum is working on marker-assisted recurrent selection for drought tolerance in beans, while Daniel Ambachew (pictured left), another GCP-funded MSc student enrolled at Haramaya University, Ethiopia, is evaluating recombinant inbred line populations and varieties for combined dual tolerance of drought and bean stem maggot.

Both students are using molecular breeding: “For this work, we’ll be using SNP* markers. It is probably the first use of bean SNPs in sub-Saharan Africa. We will now do QTL analysis with the bean population we have from CIAT,” reveals Asrat.

* SNP: (pronounced ‘snips’) is a technical term, and the abbreviation is derived from ‘single nucleotide polymorphism’ – an advanced molecular-marker system widely used in genetic science. You can read more about SNPs in this press release.

Of humans and machines

A training session on maintaining farm machinery.

Moving on to matters manual and mechanical, besides enhanced human resources, SARI has benefited from infrastructure support as part of GCP’s comprehensive capacity-building package: the Institute now has an irrigation system to enable them conduct drought trials, and SARI technicians from more than 20 different SARI stations have been trained in proper use and routine maintenance of farm machinery. SARI also received two automatic weather stations from GCP for high-precision climatic data capture, with automated data loading and sharing with other partners in the network.

Through this project, SARI is now well tuned into the international arena of bean research and development, and profiting in new ways from this exposure to growing international connections.

Water drilling to install irrigation equipment at SARI.

Institutional revolution and rebirth
The engagement with GCP has revolutionised bean breeding at SARI and institutionalised marker-assisted selection. As a result, SARI will soon have a small molecular breeding laboratory funded by another agency. This lab will support one more PhD student and an additional MSc student, both registered in Ethiopian universities and working on marker-assisted selection for beans.

Thus, in this southern corner of Ethiopia, bean breeders conversant in molecular methods will continue to be ‘born’, better-prepared and well-equipped to meet the challenges facing bean breeding today.

Asrat on video

Links

VIDEO: The ABCs of bean breeding – Asrat is joined by other TLI colleagues working on brean breeding, and they walk us through the paces of their work.
BLOGPOST: Overview on bean research – Sidestepping varieties to create varieties to combat drought, disease and pests
OPEN ACCESS BOOK CHAPTER: How to phenotype beans for drought
Press release: A boon to bean breeding in the tropics
Bean research within the Legumes Research Initiative
BLOGPOST: Capacity building to improve research infrastructure
Browse our searchable Product Catalogue for bean products
Facts and figures on beans
Join the community of bean researchers online
GCP Consortium members

SLIDES: Phenotyping common beans for tolerance of drought and bean stem maggots in Ethiopia

TLI 2012: Bean breeding – Ethiopia from CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme

Breeding ‘sukses’ in Indonesia’s rice

Asia, Crop breeding, Genetics, Genomics, Researchers, Rice No Responses »

Sep 072012

Joko infront of his office at ICABIOGRAD’s Molecular Biology Division.

Indonesian upland rice growers can expect to receive improved varieties that thrive in phosphorus-poor soils within a few years, thanks to the hard work of their national breeding programmes.

Joko Prasetiyono is a proud Indonesian researcher who loves rice.

“I don’t know why. I just love researching ways to improve it so it grows and yields better. I also I love to eat it,” says Joko with a laugh.

Having worked as a molecular breeder, concentrating solely on rice for 17 years at the Indonesian Center for Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Research and Development (ICABIOGRAD), one would expect a different reaction. But Joko says he’s as interested in the little white grain as much as when he started as an undergraduate with ICABIOGRAD.

And why wouldn’t he be when he and his team are contributing to research that has just been published in Nature and is set to reduce fertiliser application and improve rice yields in Indonesia and the world over by 20 percent!

Improving Indonesian varieties, no genetic modification

Farmers often use phosphate fertilisers to aid in growing rice in these areas, but this option is often too expensive for Indonesian upland growers.

The project has found plants that have a Pup1 locus (a collection of genes), with the specific gene PSTOL1, are able to tolerate phosphorus-deficient conditions and produce better yields than those not suited for the conditions. An Indian rice variety, Kasalath, was one such.

“We are breeding rice varieties that we know have a Pup1 locus and subsequent PSTOL1 gene in them with Indonesian varieties that are suited to Indonesia’s growing systems,” explains Joko.

Partnering with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), ICABIOGRAD and their partner the Indonesian Center for Rice Research (ICRR) have improved the phosphorus tolerance of Indonesian rice varieties Dodokan, Situ Bagendit and Batur.

“The new plants we are creating are not genetically modified; just bred using smarter breeding techniques,” says Joko. “The aim is to breed varieties identical to those that farmers already know and trust, except that they will have the PSTOL1 gene and an improved ability to take up soil phosphorus.”

Joko says that these varieties are currently being tested in field trials and it will take another 2–3 years before Indonesian farmers will have a variety that will yield as well if not better, needing 30–50 percent less fertiliser.

Evolving Indonesian plant research

ICABIOGRAD team selecting breeding material in 2010. L-R: Masdiar Bustamam, Tintin Suhartini and Ida Hanarida.

GCP is as much about its people and partnerships as its research and products. ICABIOGRAD benefited from a GCP capacity-building grant in mid-2007 to enhance the institute’s capacity in phenotyping and molecular analysis. The grant covered, among other areas, intensive residential staff training at IRRI; PhD student support; infrastructure such as a moist room, temperature-controlled centrifuge apparatus, computers and appropriate specialised software; and a blast innoculation room. These capacity-building activities were coordinated by Masdiar Bustamam who has since retired, but was then a Senior Scientist at ICABIOGARD.

But coming back to Joko and the PSTOL1 work, Joko started on this project in 2005 as a GCP-funded PhD student at Bogor Agriculture University, Indonesia. He is grateful to be part of a transnational project, which has offered him technical support that he would not otherwise have been able to receive through ICABIOGRAD alone.

IRRI visits ICABIOGRAD in 2009. L-R: Matthias Wissuwa, Sigrid Heuer (both IRRI), Masdiar Bustaman (ICABIOGRAD) and Joong Hyoun Chin

Joko believes the experience of working with IRRI, as a joint partner on this project, will leave an important, and lasting, legacy for researchers at ICABIOGRAD and ICRR. The partnership has also challenged the two local institutes to broaden their horizons past their borders.

“IRRI is teaching us how to use marker-assisted selection and we [ICABIOGRAD and ICRR] are just as busy identifying phosphorus-deficient hotspots in upland areas, choosing the best Indonesian recipient rice varieties for the gene, conducting the breeding and phenotyping testing,” he clarifies.

Breeding for sustainability

The ultimate goal of this project is to help Indonesian growers use marginal land.

Over half the world rice lands are deficient of ‘plant-available’ phosphorus, and Indonesia is no different. Joko explains that while there is plenty of phosphorus in the soil, plants are not able to access it.

“Other minerals in the soil like aluminum, calcium and iron are bound to phosphorus, shielding it from plants roots so they can only absorb a fraction of it.”

Field test of Pup1 lines at Taman Bogo , Indonesia.

In most countries, farmers apply phosphate fertilisers to their crops to combat this deficiency. For Joko this is not a sustainable approach for a lot of Indonesia’s farmers because the fertilisers are expensive and costs will continue to rise as phosphate supplies dwindle.

“Our approach is a lot more sustainable and cost-effective than applying fertiliser. We’ll breed these new plants for phosphorus-poor soils to produce more roots so they can find more phosphorus. The more phosphorus they find, the more of it they can absorb.”

Joko hopes these new plants will help farmers on marginal lands to obtain decent yields without having to spend money on expensive phosphate fertilisers.

“It’s great that our work has been recognised by Nature for publication, but what we really want is to help rice growers here in Indonesia and around the world.”

Links

Press release: Rooting and shooting for rice
Media coverage
Improving rice in Asia
Comparative Genomics Research Initiative
Meet the PSTOL1 research team on Flickr or Facebook
Facts and figures on rice (IBP website)
Join the rice research community online (IBP website)

♫We’ll rock your world!♫

Comparative genomics in cereals, Crop breeding, Genomics, Researchers, Rice No Responses »

Sep 072012

“It is very rare that scientists can take their projects wherever they go. I’ve been very lucky to be able to do this, and much of this has to do with the support I’ve received from GCP.” – Matthias Wissuwa

In the world of phosphorus, Matthias (pictured) is somewhat of a ‘rock star, not that he would admit to it. We don’t understand why not, since to borrow his words, the project he’s involved has becoming something of a ‘celebrity project’ in the scientific community.

For a decade-and-a-half, he has searched tirelessly for a rice gene that could improve the crop’s yield in phosphorus-deficient soils –which make up half of the world’s soils. Last month, his transnational team published in Nature that their 15-year quest had ended, having finally found the elusive gene – Pup1.

We celebrate this happy ending, especially as we had the added pleasure of talking to Matthias recently: it was delightful in listening to the modest German recount the long journey which has taken him from his home town of Hamburg, to USA, Japan, The Philippines and back to Japan, all this while, faithfully ‘carrying’ Pup1 with him as he switched employers. As you’ve seen, Japan scores a double strike, so our ‘rock star’ is also ‘big on Japan’!

Talking to Matthias, we could sense the achievement was only just sinking in – that he and his team’s years of laboratory work was becoming a practical reality that will aid rice-growing farmers from Africa to Asia, and hopefully other grain growers in years to come. Here’s what Matthias had to say…

You started this project back in 1997. Tell us how you became interested in phosphorus deficiency and rice.

After completing my PhD in the United States, I accepted a postdoc position in Tsukuba, Japan, with the National Institute of Agro-Environmental Sciences (NIAES). It was an easy decision because my wife is Japanese.

My postdoc host, Dr Ae was interested in phosphorus, particularly in legumes. I originally started work on tolerance to phosphorus deficiency in groundnuts, but soon changed to rice to take advantage of the molecular tools available for rice.

Tsukuba is a very new city. It’s called The Science City in Japan because the Japanese government built it to house all the national research institutes. This was great for me as I became interested in QTL mapping, which was pioneered by scientists in Tsukuba. I got talking to people in the rice research community in Tsukuba and was introduced to Dr Yano, who was developing mapping populations for rice at the National Institute of Agrobiological Sciences. He kindly gave me his populations and that’s how I started to map QTL for phosphorus-deficiency tolerance in rice.

Dr Ae was perplexed by my decision, believing that studying legumes was far more challenging than rice. He always told me: “Rice is boring. They just make long, fine roots to capture phosphorus.” That was 15 years ago and he turned out to be right. Long roots are the secret for phosphorus uptake in rice, particular in Kasalath and varieties like that.

Field trials for phosporus-efficient rice in The Philippines.

Did you share Dr Ae’s hypothesis that longer roots were the secret to some rice varieties being able to tolerate phosphorus-deficient soils?

For a long time, I was not sure if it was just long roots. It was a real chicken-and-egg scenario – does strong phosphorus uptake spur root growth, or the other way around?

As it turns out, it is the latter – plants growing longer roots help with the uptake of more phosphorus – and Pup1 is responsible for this.

We have now shifted our aim and are looking for varieties of rice tolerant to phosphorus-deficient soils that either:

release organic acids, phosphatases or some other compound that makes phosphorus more readily available for the plant to absorb, or
manipulate soil microorganisms to favour those that can aid in making phosphorus more soluble, or
very efficiently utilise phosphorus once it is taken up.

All three mechanisms are found in legumes, so there is reason to believe that they exist in rice and we are now working on finding them.

GCP has been interested in the project since 2004 as its outcome aligns with GCP’s goals to improve crop yields and security in developing countries… It has become something of a ‘celebrity project’ in the scientific community, attracting researchers to work on the project or collaborate with us.

In 2002 you left NIAES and accepted a position with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), and were encouraged to continue your work on Pup1. When you moved back to Tsukuba in 2005 to accept the position you currently hold with the Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), you were again encouraged to continue your Pup1 project, collaborating with your successor at IRRI, Dr Sigrid Heuer. How important has it been to you and the project to have the support of your institutes?

It is very rare that scientists can take their projects wherever they go. I’ve been very lucky to be able to do this, and much of this has to do with the support I’ve received from GCP. They’ve been interested in the project since 2004 as its outcome aligns with GCP’s goals to improve crop yields and security in developing countries.

When I left IRRI, Sigrid was just starting and was more or less free to take on the project, so I asked her if she’d be interested in continuing my work with Pup1 at IRRI and collaborate with me in Japan. She was actually the perfect person for the project because her background in molecular biology complemented my background as a plant breeder.

Over the past seven years, we have worked together very well, and with the addition of Rico Gamuyao, a PhD student supervised by Sigrid, things have recently progressed quite quickly to the point that we were able to pinpoint Pup1.

So GCP has played a major role along your journey?

Yes, definitely. The support from GCP on the Pup1 project, now in its 8^th year, was instrumental at getting this project to where it is.

Quite simply, the funding from GCP allowed us to hire Rico as well as Juan Pariasca-Tanaka, a project scientist with me at JIRCAS. Neither Sigrid nor myself had the time to do all the hands-on work so having both Rico and Juan has been hugely helpful.

How important has the collaboration between IRRI and JIRCAS been for the project?

Are they playing with mud? Not at all! Working. Matthias (L) and Rico (R) have zipped up their boots and gone back to their bee…er…. we mean, roots, mucking mud here as they do some fieldwork related to the search for PSTOL1.

Tremendously important. Sigrid’s group at IRRI is relatively small as is mine in Japan, so we rely on each other’s complementary expertise when working on complicated projects.

We have also been fortunate to have constant interest in the project from the scientific community. It has become something of a ‘celebrity project’, and as such, attracted researchers to work on the project or collaborate with us.

For example, we are working with two US groups at Cornell University and Penn State, that are also funded by GCP, trying to track down Pup1 in other crops and identifying genes that control root architecture, and how different architectures may affect P uptake.

These collaborations are really exciting, and make it possible to answer questions that we could not answer ourselves, or that we would have overlooked, were it not for the partnerships.

It really has been a team effort and we wouldn’t have got to where we are now without all the help of everyone involved

You’ve been described as the Godfather and Guru of Pup1. How do compliments like this make you feel?

It makes me laugh but of course it’s a very well-meant comment, and to some extent, considering I’ve worked on it for 15 years, you could say that there is some truth to it.

I’ve done all the original work, but Sigrid has been just as instrumental. She did the part where my expertise was no longer adequate – the molecular side, looking at genes and thinking about the function of a gene and testing for its function.

It really has been a team effort and we wouldn’t have got to where we are now without all the help of everyone involved, which also includes the support of Dr Yano over the years.

…phosphorus deficiency is a worldwide problem that has recently gained public attention because of how expensive phosphate fertilisers have become…Farmers are always interested in saving money and improving yields and we believe this discovery will help with both.

Have you been surprised by the attention this project has received?

As I said, the project has always been in the scientific spotlight because it was the first to map a major QTL for phosphorus uptake.

We knew from the Sub1 story – the submergence tolerance gene, which was published in Nature 4–5 years ago – that the media would probably be interested in this similar discovery. I’m still very surprised that this unsexy story has caused such interest.

You have to remember though, phosphorus deficiency is a worldwide problem that has recently gained public attention because of how expensive phosphate fertilisers have become. About four years ago, the price almost tripled and continues to stay high.

Farmers are always interested in saving money and improving yields and we believe this discovery will help with both.

Phosphorus deficiency is probably even more critical in Africa than it is in Asia… This means Pup1 may have its biggest impact in Africa.

How will the research continue?

Having focused so much on the basic research, we now want to turn our attention to the application. IRRI and JIRCAS will train national breeding programmes to use marker-assisted selection and help them breed their own rice varieties with Pup1.

Sigrid and IRRI are mainly working with Asian national breeding programmes and we at JIRCAS focus more on African programmes such as the Africa Rice Center. Phosphorus deficiency is probably even more critical in Africa than it is in Asia, as phosphate fertilisers aren’t used nearly as much as they are in Asia. This means Pup1 may have its biggest impact in Africa.

We are also looking for new sources of tolerance to phosphorus-deficiency. One very exciting project involves West African rice (Oryza glaberrima) the father of the Nerica ™ (New Rice for Africa) varieties.

So far, we have found that this rice is very tolerant to phosphorus-deficient soils. It does have Pup1, but in addition harbours novel genes that also enhance performance on phosphorus-deficient soils.

We hope to discover a Pup2 in the years to come.

Links

PODCASTS: Catch Mathias’ interview on Episode 3.1 and Episode 3.2
Press release: Rooting and shooting for rice
Media coverage
Matthias’ home page
Improving rice in Asia
Comparative Genomics Research Initiative
Meet the PSTOL1 research team on Flickr or Facebook
Sub1: See post on submergence and salinity tolerance from a PhD student working on these two traits for rice
Facts and figures on rice (IBP website)
Join the rice research community online (IBP website)

Rooting for the key to more phosphorus for rice

Comparative genomics in cereals, Crop breeding, Genetics, Genomics, Rice 3 Responses »

Sep 072012

ALL IN THE ROOTS: A plant’s roots are a marvellously multitalented organ. They act as fingers and mouths helping plants forage and absorb water and nutrients. They act like arms and legs offering a sturdy base of support so a plant doesn’t keel over. They help store food and water, like our stomach and fat cells. And in some plants, can spawn new life – we leave that to your imagination!

That is why it is of little surprise that this multitalented organ was the key to discovering why some rice lines yield better in phosphorus-poor soils, a puzzle whose answer has eluded farmers and researchers… until now. And even better, the findings hold promise for sorghum, maize and wheat too. Please read on!

In search of the key – The Gene Trackers
In 1999, Dr Matthias Wissuwa, now with the Japan International Research Centre for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS), deduced that Kasalath, a northern Indian rice variety, contained one or more genes that allowed it to grow successfully in low-phosphorus conditions.

For years, Matthias made it his mission to find these genes, only to find it was as easy as finding a needle in a genetic haystack. He teamed up with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), and with GCP’s support, the gene trackers were able to narrow the search down to five genes of interest.

“We had started with 68 genes and within three years, we had narrowed in on these five candidate genes. And then, one-by-one, we checked whether they were related to phosphorous uptake,” recollects Dr Sigrid Heuer, senior scientist at IRRI and leader of the team that published the discovery in Nature in August 2012.

Sigrid Heuer at a rice phosphorus uptake demonstration field in The Philippines.

“In the end we found that if a certain protein kinase gene was turned on in tolerant plants like Kasalath, then those plants would perform better in phosphorus-deficient soils.”

They named this protein kinase gene PSTOL1, which stands for Phosphorus Starvation Tolerance. “When we put this gene into intolerant rice varieties that did not have this gene, they performed better in phosphorus-deficient soils.”

The importance of phosphorus
Rice, like all plants, needs phosphorus to survive and thrive. It’s a key element in plant metabolism, root growth, maturity and yield. Plants deficient in phosphorus are often stunted.

Sigrid explains that whereas phosphorus is abundant in most soils, it is however not always easily accessible by plants. “Many soil types bond tightly to phosphorus, surrendering only a tiny amount to plant roots. This is why more than half of the world’s rice lands are phosphorus-deficient.”

Farmers can get around this by applying phosphate fertilisers. However this is a very expensive exercise and is not an option for the majority of the world’s rice growers, especially the poorer ones –the price of rock phosphate has more than doubled since 2007. The practice is also not sustainable since it is a finite resource.

By selecting for rice varieties with PSTOL1, growers will be less reliant on phosphate fertilisers.

How it works: unravelling PSTOL1 mechanics
In phosphorus-poor soils, PSTOL1 switches on during the early stage of root development. The gene tells the plant to grow larger longer roots, which are able to forage through more soil to absorb and store more nutrients.

“By having a larger root surface area, plants can explore a greater area in the soil and find more phosphorus than usual,” says Sigrid. “It’s like having a larger sponge to absorb more water.”

A rice variety — IR-74 — with Pup1 (left) and without Pup1 (right).

Although the researchers focussed on this one key nutrient, they found the extra root growth helped with other vital elements like nitrogen and potassium.

Another by-chance discovery was that phosphorus uptake 1 (Pup1), the collection of genes (locus) where PSTOL1 is found, is present within a large group of rice varieties.

“We found that in upland rice varieties – those bred for drought-prone environments – most have Pup1,” says Sigrid. “So the breeders in these regions have, without knowing it, been selecting for phosphorus tolerance.”

“When thinking about it, it makes sense as phosphorus is very immobile in dry soils, therefore these plants would have had to adapt to grow longer roots to reach water deeper in the soil and this, at the same time, helps to access more reservoirs of phosphorous .”

Breeding for phosphorus tolerance, and going beyond rice
Using conventional breeding methods, Sigrid says that her team introduced PSTOL1 into two irrigated rice varieties and three Indonesian upland varieties, and found that this increased yields by up to 20 percent.

“In our pot experiments,” she added, “when we use soil that is really low in phosphorus, we see yield increases of 60 percent and more. This will mean growers of upland rice varieties will probably benefit the most from these new lines, which is pleasing given they are among the poorest rice growers in the world.”

Read how Indonesian researchers are developing their own breeds of upland rice with the PSTOL1 gene

Sigrid also sheds light on broadening the research to other crop varieties: “The project team is currently looking at Pup1 in sorghum and maize and we are just about to start on wheat.”

Building capacity and ensuring impact
Like all GCP projects, this one invests as much time in building capacity for country breeding programmes as on research.

Sigrid and her team are currently conducting the first Pup1 workshop to train researchers from Bangladesh, India, Indonesia, Nepal, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. They will share molecular markers that indicate the presence of PSTOL1, techniques to select for the gene, as well as for new phosphorus-efficient varieties.

Breeding for phosphorus-efficient rice in the Philippines.

“The aim of these workshops is to take these important tools to where they are most needed and allow them to evolve according to the needs and requirements of each country,” says Dr Rajeev Varshney, GCP’s Comparative and Applied Genomics Leader. “Breeders will be able to breed new rice varieties faster and more easily, and with 100 percent certainty that their rice plants will have the gene. Within three to five years, each country will be able to breed varieties identical to those that growers know and trust except that they will now have the Pup1 gene and an improved ability to unlock and take up soil phosphorus.”

Joining hands in collaboration
This IRRI-led project was conducted in collaboration with JIRCAS and the Indonesian Center for Agricultural Biotechnology and Genetic Resources Research and Development (ICABIOGRAD) working with the Indonesian Centre for Rice Research. Other partners included: Italy’s University of Milano, Germany’s Max Planck Institute in Golm, the University of The Philippines at Los Baños, USA’s Cornell University and University of California (Davis and Riverside), Brazil’s EMBRAPA, Africa Rice Center, Iran’s Agricultural Biotechnology Research Institute, Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and University of Dhaka in Bangladesh.

Links

VIDEO: Watch Sigrid talk about the project on BBC World News in this short clip
Press release: Rooting and shooting for rice
Media coverage
Improving rice in Asia
Comparative Genomics Research Initiative
Meet the PSTOL1 research team on Flickr or Facebook
Sigrid’s profile
Facts and figures on rice (IBP website)
Join the rice research community online (IBP website)

Sigrid’s presentation at the GCP General Research Meeting 2011

GRM 2011: Rice with dual strength — Phosphorus uptake efficiency and alumunium tolerance from CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme

A chat with the Chief

Closing GCP, GCP, History No Responses »

Jul 082012

Inside GCP today

Do a deep dive with Jean-Marcel into GCP’s ‘engine room’. What makes the Programme work? How is it structured and governed? For a geographically dispersed Programme with multi-institutional teams, what’s the trick that keeps the different parts moving and well-oiled to maintain forward motion and minimise friction? Get acquainted (and hopefully ‘infected’) with the ‘GCP Spirit’…

Jean-Marcel Ribaut (pictured) is the GCP Director. His work involves coordinating the research activities and overseeing finances, ensuring that at the end of the day that the overall Programme objectives are met. This means much multitasking, a great asset in running a multi-institutional partnership-based Programme. Jean-Marcel comes from a research background, although the research team he led while at CIMMYT was nothing the size of GCP…

…we’ve moved from exploration to application…underpinned by services and capacity building. To make a difference in rural development, to truly contribute to improved food security through crop improvement and incomes for poor farmers, we knew that building capacity had to be a cornerstone in our strategy.”

How long have you been GCP Director?
Since 2005. My first two years were a steep learning curve!

The GCP tagline – ‘Partnerships in modern crop breeding for food security’ – what does this mean for you?
GCP is a very dynamic Programme. The kind of research that we were doing in 2005 is quite different from what we are doing today. As we implement our strategy, we’ve moved from exploration to application. We therefore revised our tagline to match this evolution, with the Programme now focussing much more on modern crop breeding and related aspects. We had naturally started by looking for diversity in the alleles, then evolved to gene discovery and developing supporting tools and markers alongside capacity building. Now, our focus is on application – using this diversity, markers and tools to progress to the next level, and boost the genetic gains for our nine key crops in challenging environments.

This application is underpinned by a service component through our Integrated Breeding Platform, as well as a strong capacity-building component for both human resources and infrastructure.

To make a difference in rural development, to truly contribute to improved food security through crop improvement and incomes for poor farmers, we knew that building capacity had to be a cornerstone in our strategy.

We take an integrated approach … exploring new avenues but exercising due caution …we are not promoting molecular breeding as the magic bullet and only solution – it’s an additional useful tool for arriving at educated breeding decisions.

One of our objectives was to bridge the gap between upstream and downstream research in the teams we brought together. While we did have some failures where groups worked together for the project duration alone and didn’t continue their collaboration, we have had other cases where the teams we forged then have not only grown but also continued to work together – with or without us.”

Why is GCP’s work important?
Through our Research Initiatives, we focus on several crops, with relatively limited funding for each of them compared, say, to other much larger crop-specific initiatives supported for example by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. So, we operate on a proof-of-concept model: our goal is to demonstrate the use of new technologies and the application of out-of- the-box strategies which – if proven effective – will be funded and expanded by other agencies, including governments.

We take an integrated approach to problem-solving, exploring new avenues but exercising due caution while so doing. For example, for modern crop breeding which is our current focus, we are not promoting molecular breeding as the magic bullet and only solution – it’s an additional useful tool for arriving at educated breeding decisions.

…more than half our projects are led by scientists in developing countries

…The ‘GCP Spirit’ is visible and palpable: you can recognise people working with us have a spirit that is typical of the Programme.”

For you, what have been the major outcomes of the Programme so far?
Seeing developing-country partners come to the fore, and take the reins of project leadership. During Phase I, most project leaders were from CGIAR and advanced research institutes. However, over time, there has been a major shift and we are proud that today, more than half our projects are led by scientists in developing countries. They’ve moved from the position of implementers to the role of leaders, while CGIAR Centres and universities have taken a back seat, being more in a supporting role as mentors or tutors.

We have created this amazing chain of people, stretching from the labs to the fields. This ‘human’ component is a terrific living asset, but it is also very difficult to scientifically quantify. Perhaps the best way I can describe it is as a ‘GCP Spirit’ created by the researchers we work with. The Programme’s ‘environment’ is friendly, open to sharing and is marked by a strong sense of community and ‘belonging’. The ‘GCP Spirit’ is visible and palpable: you can recognise people working with us have a spirit that is typical of the Programme.

One of our objectives was to bridge the gap between upstream and downstream research in the teams we brought together. While we did have some failures where groups worked together for the project duration alone and didn’t continue their collaboration, we have had other cases where the teams we forged then have not only grown but also continued to work together – with or without us.

A number of the partnerships we’ve forged have had a win–win outcome for players at opposite ends of the research–development spectrum. For example, academia tends to place a high premium on publications and theory, and relatively lower value on application and the real-world context. GCP provides a window for academics to apply their expertise, which benefits developing-country partners.

GCP’s relationship with project ppartners goes beyond funding. We are not just giving money; we are engaged in partnership with our project teams. We in management consult with them, interact and grapple over the technical issues with them in candour, and we toast and celebrate the successes together. I see our management style as fairly ‘paternal’, particularly for projects led by scientists from developing countries, but paternal in the positive sense of wanting to see these groups of people succeed, and us helping them to do so.

If a research site needs a pump for fieldwork, we work with a local or international consultant who will visit the partner and evaluate their needs, advise them on what type of pump they need, as well as other infrastructure they’ll need for the whole system to be sustainable. We’ll then provide training on how to use the pump most effectively.

It’s an investment in the people as much as in the products they are working on because we are trying to change the system of how science within partnerships is conducted and supported, as much as we are trying tap genetic diversity and breed resilient crops for the developing world.

Our successes have only been possible because of our ‘slim’ structure and the structural support we have enjoyed. With governance and advisory roles vested in an Executive Board and Consortium Committee, and with CIMMYT providing us with a legal and administrative home, we have minimal overheads and much flexibility. This agility has allowed us to adjust rapidly to changes when needed than, say, a classic research institute which would – quite rightly – have more rigid and elaborate obligatory steps, over a much longer time horizon.

…advocacy, persuasion and presenting a compelling business case are all necessary ingredients. Because we cannot be ‘directive’ with our partners in the manner their own institutes can be since they don’t ‘belong’ to us, we need to demonstrate success and convince people to adopt new business models.

How will GCP ensure sustainability?
Through our project Delivery Plans which link up a chain of users of our research products, and our Transition Strategy which shows how our research activities are embedded in the new CGIAR Research Programmes. We also hope to see our nascent communities of practice confer a sense of ownership to community members, and therefore sustainability. All that is on the ‘systematic’ and ‘documentation’ side of things.

Even more compelling is something I mentioned earlier, on the ‘organic’ and community side of things. Although it is completely outside our control, so to speak, it is wonderful to see that some of the partnerships we brought together have acquired a life of their own, and the teams we constituted are working together in other areas that have nothing to do with their GCP projects.

What are some of the lessons learnt so far?
The first one was focus. It’s very difficult to coordinate too many tasks, carried out by too many partners. Midstream in 2008, we had to review the way we were working and change course.

People management is the other. Cultivating relationships with people is critical. The trick is in balancing: by being cordial and friendly managers, we perhaps erode some of our authority over some of our project partners!

Another big lesson is that if it’s not working, don’t push it. Learn the lesson, cut your losses, and move on. Two main lessons have come from both our research and service aspects. For research, we invested in a massive fingerprinting exercise to characterise reference sets for all our 18 mandate crops at the time. [Editor’s note: A ‘reference set’ is a sub-sample of existing germplasm collections that facilitates and enables access to existing crop diversity for desired traits, such as drought tolerance or resistance to disease or pests]

The results were not great, the documentation was poor, and it was very difficult reconciling the different datasets from the work. We ended up incurring extra costs for genotyping, to salvage the investment. Then for building the Integrated Breeding Platform, we’d initially involved all major actors in developing the ‘middleware’ – the ‘invisible’ part that links the tools, services and resources IBP provides to breeders, with the respective crop databases. This did not work, and we subcontracted the work to an external service provider.

In both cases, we erred on the side of inclusiveness since we wanted to have all the players on board, and to also facilitate their capacity-building-by-engagement. We have learnt the need to strike a balance between inclusiveness and capacity building on the one hand, and outsourcing to get the job done on the other.

Then there is behaviour change – changing people’s mindsets to adopt technology, since people tend to be naturally conservative. We’ve learnt that developing the tools and techniques is the easy part. The human component – changing how people do business, getting them to adopt a corporative and cooperative over an institutional focus – is a real challenge, and needs to be strongly demand-driven with clear short-term benefits.

Data management and quality control, their documentation, publication and sharing continue to dog us and it’s probably the greatest challenge, although not unique to GCP.

Finally, advocacy, persuasion and presenting a compelling business case are all necessary ingredients. Because we cannot be ‘directive’ with our partners in the manner their own institutes can be since they don’t ‘belong’ to us, we need to demonstrate success and convince people to adopt new business models.

What is the most enjoyable aspect of your position at GCP?
More than one, actually.

We enable people, research teams and institutes to grow, thrive and stand on their own, and this is deeply gratifying; it is very rewarding to see people from developing countries growing and becoming leaders.

Working on different crops, with different partners, in different circumstances, and of different capacities is highly stimulating and brings a lot of diversity. My job is anything but boring!

I also appreciate being sheltered from the administrative burden our multi-institutional approach carries. The administrative load is ably borne by CIMMYT. This allows me to dedicate more of my time to supporting our research partnerships, institutional relationships and services to researchers.

I work with a small and dedicated team. As you can imagine, things are not always rosy, since a small team also means we operate in a ‘tight’ space and occasionally knock knuckles, and we also come from different cultures, but all these work to the good. This cultural diversity is actually a big plus, bringing a broader array of perspectives to the table. And the benefit of the ‘tight’ space is that, when there is a task to be done, the team spirit is incredible – everyone in the group, from management to office assistants, apply themselves to the task at hand. This is a fantastic experience!

Beyond the management and staff group, there is also the real GCP that is out there, which is highly stimulating, and I will end by sharing an excerpt from the external mid-term review report:

“Perhaps the most important value of GCP thus far, is the opportunities it has provided for people of diverse backgrounds to think collectively about solutions to complex problems, and, in the process, to learn from one another.”

Lessons learnt from the GCP experience – J-M Ribaut from CGIAR Generation Challenge Programme

Related blogposts

Generation next for plant breeding (What is GCP all about and why is its work important? Why was GCP created?)
GCP at its founding: What was the vision? (with Masa Iwanaga, former Director General, CIMMYT)
GCP now, then and after (with Dave Hoisington, Consortium Committee Chair)
Bird’s eye view from the Board (from Andrew Bennett, Board Chair)
On common ground – a longstanding association (with Carmen Thönnissen, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation)
Hitting the nail on the head: A nuts-and-bolts approach to capacity empowerment

GCP website

Profile – Jean-Marcel Ribaut
Research Initiatives
Product delivery strategy
Transition strategy, 2010 (GCP in CGIAR reform, and closing GCP)
Consortium Committee
Executive Board
Mid-term review (External Programme and Management Review, 2008 commissioned by CGIAR) (PDF)
Strategic framework, 2007 (PDF)

IBP website

External links

CGIAR Research Programmes

On common ground – A longstanding association

Funders, GCP, History No Responses »

Jul 082012

SDC and GCP

Today, we catch up with SDC’s Carmen Thönnissen (pictured). She walks us through the whys of Switzerland’s continued funding to GCP that has spanned nearly the Programme’s entire lifetime.

We were …drawn to GCP’s upstream–downstream connections, and its pre-conceived product delivery path. GCP produces global public goods, with a clear focus on strategic research for development, while also addressing important upstream research elements in crop science such as gene discovery and marker validation. In addition, GCP already had a Product Delivery Strategy to guarantee downstream application.

The way GCP uses and ‘bundles’ resources within and beyond CGIAR, then as now, is attractive to us as a meaningful approach, promising good value for money.”

GCP’s work is very results-oriented and pragmatic, forging partnerships followed by concrete actions to address bottlenecks in research for development in molecular crop breeding, without ruling out conventional breeding.

Carmen Thönnissen is Senior Advisor, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), Corporate Domain Global Cooperation of the Global Programme for Food Security. Through the years, SDC has been a consistent GCP funder. Today, Carmen gives us some insights into this longstanding relationship.

Tell us briefly about SDC and its funding to GCP
SDC is the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation, affiliated to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Swiss Government.

We’ve funded GCP since 2006 with an annual contribution of 450,000 Swiss francs – a total of 1.9 million so far.

SDC provides GCP core unrestricted funds at Programme level, meaning that SDC does not tie its funding to specific GCP projects, giving GCP discretion over these funds.

Why does SDC support GCP?
We share a long history with GCP, going as far back as the Programme’s ‘pre-birth’.

Starting in 2001, CGIAR adopted a more programmatic systemwide approach and endorsed the concept of Challenge Programmes. Between 2002 and 2005, SDC actively supported this process and the emerging Challenge Programmes.

In 2005, SDC reviewed its support to CGIAR and identified SDC priority regions, research priorities, and guiding principles for its unrestricted funding to the CGIAR system.

From this review, SDC decided to invest 30 percent of its core unrestricted funds to several CGIAR Systemwide and Challenge Programmes, one being GCP.

The Challenge Programmes were perceived as results-oriented, poverty-relevant and responsive to the CGIAR reform process of that time. They were also partnership-oriented, with transparent communication strategies.

Several points convinced SDC to invest in GCP, and I’ll mention just some of these. One was GCP’s focus on crops in marginal areas and on drought tolerance in sub-Saharan Africa, and South and Southeast Asia. These overlap with SDC’s own thematic and geographical priorities.

We were also drawn to GCP’s upstream–downstream connections, and its pre-conceived product delivery path. GCP produces global public goods, with a clear focus on strategic research for development, while also addressing important upstream research elements in crop science such as gene discovery and marker validation. In addition, GCP already had a Product Delivery Strategy to guarantee downstream application.

The way GCP uses and ‘bundles’ resources within and beyond CGIAR, then as now, is attractive to us as a meaningful approach, promising good value for money. Back then, SDC was interested in the exploration of plant diversity and the application of advanced genomics and comparative biology to advance breeding of the main staple crops grown by resource-poor farmers, which was the very objective of GCP.

Our funds were intended to be used to increase the exploratory implementation of new research tools in applied breeding programmes to produce improved drought-tolerant crop varieties.

We liked GCP’s structured approach of a Global Access Policy backed by guidelines on public–private sector partnerships and addressing intellectual property.

We also found the ‘suite approach’ proposed by GCP attractive, since at that time, very little was being done in these fields by CGIAR. We were drawn to the mix of a research component – on the impact of modern and integrated breeding approaches on productivity in developing countries, plus a service component aiming to disseminate knowledge, resources and technology, alongside lab services and capacity building.

GCP’s work is very results-oriented and pragmatic, forging partnerships followed by concrete actions to address bottlenecks in research for development in molecular crop breeding, without ruling out conventional breeding.

You mentioned common SDC–GCP thematic and geographic scope. Are there other areas where the missions of SDC and GCP overlap?
SDC has a focus on genetic resource improvement, and also supported the CGIAR Systemwide Programme on Genetic Resources, as well as the Global Crop Diversity Trust.

Supporting GCP is in line with SDC’s internal guidelines on Green Biotechnology. Among other things, we avoid single-donor initiatives, instead working within larger programmes that not only have a clear focus but also aim to strengthen developing-country capacity.

GCP’s work is very results-oriented and pragmatic. GCP plays a strong facilitating role in forging partnerships, which is followed by concrete actions, services, tools, methods, and so on, to address the bottlenecks identified by the research-for-development network with the aim of supporting molecular crop breeding for various crops, regions and partners, without ruling out conventional breeding.

SDC shares the view that Green Biotechnology, including genetic modification, can never fully replace conventional breeding, but it can be an important tool in improving plant-breeding programmes.

What outcomes are you expecting from this support?
To mention just a few, improved accessibility to modern breeding tools, methods and approaches for the developing world, plus enhanced capacity for developing-world partners on using these tools, as well as them knowing their rights and obligations regarding access to, and use of, plant genetic resources and related tools.

We also hope to see improved services for breeders, including learning materials and information on new resources for crop breeding. The long-term outcome we’d like to see is improved crop varieties, more resistant to abiotic and biotic stresses.

What are some of the lessons learnt from investing in GCP?
The importance of a strong programmatic orientation and the role of an honest broker in effective partnerships: GCP plays the role of enabler and facilitator, while its research partners are the actors.

Investing in GCP enables us to project a clear flow from upstream to applied research – with capacity building included – in the critical areas of food security and climate change.

Relevant links

Policies

Blogposts

Generation next for plant breeding (What is GCP all about and why is its work important? Why was GCP created?)
GCP at its founding: What was the vision? (with Masa Iwanaga, former Director General, CIMMYT)
GCP now, then and after (with Dave Hoisington, Consortium Committee Chair)
Bird’s eye view from the Board (from Andrew Bennett, Board Chair)
A chat with the Chief: Inside GCP today (with Jean-Marcel Ribaut, GCP Director)
Hitting the nail on the head: A nuts-and-bolts approach to capacity empowerment

Bird’s eye view from the Board

Closing GCP, GCP, History No Responses »

Jul 042012

The GCP community, its labours and joys

If tools and resources are not put to use, then we labour in vain...GCP contributes to food security by providing breeders with integrated tools, techniques and services to speed up the selection cycle, be this by conventional or molecular breeding. GCP focuses on developing new materials and new techniques and delivering these, and the appropriate breeding tools, technologies and services, to breeders. I think GCP has been one of the most successful builders of research and development partnerships.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme, and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.”

Seatbelts on please! Time to take a tour with Andrew, for an ‘aerial’ view of GCP from the very ‘top’.

Please meet Andrew Bennett (pictured), the Chair of GCP’s Executive Board. Among other responsibilities, he is also President of the Tropical Agricultural Association, UK, chairs the SciDev.Net Board, and previously chaired the CIFOR Board. He was formerly Executive Director of the Syngenta Foundation and Director of Rural Livelihoods and Environment at the Department for International Development (DFID, UK) where he was responsible for professional advice on policy and programmes on livelihoods, natural resources, environment, sustainable development and research. Andrew has worked on development programmes in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Pacific and the Caribbean.

Today, Andrew shares his perspectives on GCP’s work, its impact, the challenges, the community GCP has built, and the role of the Board. Please read on…

When was the GCP Board established, and what is its profile and role?
The Board was set up in mid-2008 towards the end of the first phase of the Programme. A review recommended that there be a fully independent Board, comprising people who had no conflict of interest with the Programme to facilitate decision-making.

Board members have between them a wide variety of skills and backgrounds, ranging from expertise in molecular biology to development assistance, socioeconomics, academia, finance, governance and change management.

We are committed to the role that can be played by science in development, and to the Programme. We have offered advice and helped the Programme’s Consortium Committee and management refocus the Programme. By all accounts, they seem happy with how things have evolved.

Because GCP is hosted by CIMMYT, the Board does not have to deal with any policy issues. That is the responsibility of the Consortium Committee. Our role is more to provide advice and to help with decision-making and implementation, which is great as we’ve been able to focus on the Programme’s science and people.

How long have you been involved with GCP?
Since the Board was established in 2008.

What does the GCP tagline – ‘Partnerships in modern crop breeding for food security’ – mean for you?
It means that all our undertakings are geared towards producing crop varieties that are tolerant to a range of environments, as well as being socially acceptable and appealing to farmers and markets.

How do you upgrade the planting material farmers have by fortifying it to combat the biotic and abiotic stresses? Half the challenge is breeding and selecting good material, and the other half is ensuring delivery of tools to breeders and new planting materials to farmers.

So GCP focuses on developing new materials and new techniques and delivering these, and the appropriate breeding tools, technologies and services, to breeders.

Why is GCP’s work important, and what does it mean for food security?
People who are food-secure have access to adequate food at all times to maintain healthy active lives. There are two sides to making this happen – access and availability.

GCP is increasing the number of varieties and lines tolerant to the conditions farmers are facing. What we cannot do is put money in the hands of poor people. If we supply people with the means to produce sustainable and healthy crops, they will have the means to produce food for themselves, and a means of making an income.

GCP contributes to food security by providing breeders with integrated tools, techniques and services to speed up the selection cycle, be this by conventional or molecular breeding.

For you, what have been the major outcomes of GCP so far?
GCP has shown that it is possible to form very productive partnerships across CGIAR institutes and advanced research establishments and those countries that have less scientific capacity. I think it has been one of the most successful builders of research and development partnerships. GCP has also shown public researchers can work very well with the private sector. The public sector has the means to build a lot of capacity.

I think GCP has demonstrated that it is possible to establish molecular breeding programmes in those parts of the world that do not have well-developed scientific infrastructure.

Just a little bit of money – relatively speaking of course – clear vision, and good leadership, can go very far, and produce tremendous benefits and progress.

GCP has also identified the constraints that we have to work within – the challenge of phenotyping and restrictions on the movement of genetic material to other parts of the world. GCP has paid particular attention to intellectual property [IP] because the information and materials GCP produces must remain in the public domain. IP in the international arena within which the Programme operates must span potentially conflicting national legislation regimes. It is a very complex area.

‘Challenge’ is in GCP’s name. What are the major challenges that the Programme has so far overcome?
Quite a number and more could be on the horizon. GCP has overcome some of these challenges. They include the problem of poor-quality phenotyping. This has been addressed through a comprehensive capacity-building programme, including laboratory and field infrastructure, and the training of research support staff in the developing-country field sites where GCP projects are being implemented.

Another challenge was focusing the Programme. At the start, the Programme was spread too thin, spanning too many crops and partners, but these have been progressively narrowed down in Phase II.

This narrowing is no mean feat in the public sector. In the private sector, you start with, say, a hundred projects, then after six months you halve them. After a year, you are down to 10 projects and you put all your resources into making those 10 ‘winners’ work. In the public sector, you keep the entire hundred going for three years, then you look for funding to keep them all running for another cycle. It’s a different culture: the private sector is product-oriented, while some aspects of the public sector emphasise contributing to the growth of knowledge and information, and to building or maintaining relationships, without necessarily asking about their usefulness and benefits to society.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.”

What are the future challenges that the Programme must overcome to remain sustainable?
There are many GCP activities that can be integrated into the new CGIAR Research Programmes. However, there may be other activities such as capacity building and IP management which – at this point in time – appear somewhat less easy to integrate into the new CGIAR Research Programmes.

There is also a danger – not unique to GCP but with all aid-assisted programmes – that when the money ends, everything will disappear into the archives. We have to make sure that doesn’t happen in this instance.

The Board’s focus is now on auditing the Programme and mapping a strategy to sustain its successful partnerships and systems, so that these can continue to deliver products and capacity to the developing world.

What are some of the lessons learnt so far?
GCP was born at a time when we thought molecular biology could solve all our problems quickly and efficiently. What I think we are finding is that molecular tools –while extremely useful – cannot entirely replace understanding the agronomy and phenotypic activities. Molecular biology alone is not a panacea or silver bullet for crop breeding; but it is a valuable tool.

Then there is capacity building: molecular breeding is a tool that you can only use if you have the capacity. Many parts of the world will require a lot of capacity building and support to be able to use the tools. GCP and its Integrated Breeding Platform can make a modest contribution to meeting this need through the proof-of-concept GCP Research Initiatives for selected crops and countries and establishing communities of practice.

If tools and resources are not put to use, then we labour in vain.

What has been the most enjoyable aspect of your position with GCP?
Without a doubt, attending the General Research Meetings has been the most enjoyable, meeting scientists from a wide range of institutes, backgrounds and countries.

These scientists come together because they share the same interests and a common goal. There’s a lively buzz of conversation. It is good to hear about what they are doing, what their aspirations are, and to learn from the knowledge and posters they bring to the meeting.

You don’t have to be a cutting-edge scientist to listen to these people whose enthusiasm is palpable. They are passionate, have a strong sense of community, enjoy what they are doing, and are just as keen to share this knowledge and enthusiasm. It’s all highly infectious!

Relevant links