Generation Challenge Programme
GCP website		Integrated Breeding
IBP website		Sunset Blog
Sunset blog		   Connect with us GCP on Facebook GCP on Twitter GCP on LinkedIn Subscribe to GCP Newsletter Subscribe to GCP RSS feeds

A bout with drought and disease: Beans that beat the heat and odds in Zimbabwe

 Africa, Beans, Capacity building, Genomics, Legumes  2 Responses »
Feb 282013
 

Drought stalks, some die
Despite the widespread cultivation of beans in Africa, yields are low, stagnating at between 20 and 30 percent of their potential. Drought brought about by climate change is the main culprit, afflicting 70 percent of Africa’s major bean-producing regions in Southern and Eastern Africa.Bean plant by R Okono

Today we turn the spotlight on Zimbabwe, where drought is a serious and recurrent problem. Crop failure is common at altitudes below 800 meters, and livestock death from shortage of fodder and water are all too common. In recent history, nearly every year is a drought year in these low-lying regions frequently plagued by delayed rains, as well as by intermittent and terminal drought.

The ‘battleground’ and ‘blend’
Zimbabwe is divided into five Natural Regions or agroecological zones. More than 70 percent of smallholder farmers live in Natural Region 3, 4 and 5, which jointly account for 65 percent of Zimbabwe’s total land area (293,000 km2). It is also here that the searing dual forces of drought and heat combine to ‘sizzle’  and whittle bean production.

The rains are insufficient for staple foods such as maize, and some of their complementary legumes such as groundnuts. In some areas where temperatures do not soar too high (less than 30oC), beans blend perfectly into the reduced rainfall regime that reigns during the growing season.

A deeper dig: the root of the matter

Godwill Makunde

Godwill Makunde

Research from Phase I of the Tropical Legumes I (TLI) project under GCP’s Legume Research Initiative showed that deep rooting is one of the ways to confer drought tolerance in common beans. High plant biomass at pod-filling stage also confers drought tolerance. “These important findings from TLI refined our breeding objectives, as we now focus on developing varieties combining deep roots and high plant biomass,” reveals Godwill Makunde (pictured), a bean breeder at Zimbabwe’s Crop Breeding Institute (CBI), which falls under the under the country’s Department of Research & Specialist Services. Zimbabwe is one the four target countries in Eastern and Southern Africa for GCP’s bean research (the other three being Ethiopia, Kenya and Malawi).

From America to Africa…the heat is on, so is the battle…

The battle is on to beat the heat: through the project, CBI received 202 Mesoamerican and Andean bean breeding lines from the reference set collection held by the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT, by its Spanish acronym). 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 Institute also embarked on bringing in more techniques to breed for heat tolerance.

Kennedy Simango

Kennedy Simango

Drought, pests and disease
“We embraced mutation breeding in collaboration with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and we primarily look for heat tolerance in small-seeded beans,” says Kennedy Simango (pictured right and below), a plant breeder at CBI. “Preliminary results suggested that just like drought, the reproductive stages of common bean are when the crop is most sensitive to heat. Flower- and pod-drop are common. Yield components and yields are severely reduced. In addition, we also focus on developing pest- and disease-resistant varieties.”

 

Kennedy Simango at work a the Crop Breeding Institute.
Kennedy Simango at work a the Crop Breeding Institute.

The CBI project’s primary diseases and pests of focus are angular leaf spot (ALS), common bacterial blight (CBB), rust and bean stem maggot, and aphids. “This came from our realisation that drought co-exists with heat, diseases and pests,” Kennedy adds. “So, a variety combining drought, heat, disease and pest tolerance all together would increase common bean productivity under harsh environments or drought-prone areas.”

At first glance, piling up all these vital survival traits may appear insurmountable, but it is all feasible, thanks to advances in plant science. “Breeding methods are changing rapidly, and it is vital that we keep up with the technology,” says Kennedy.

The CBI team is using molecular breeding to identify drought-tolerant parents, and then cross them into preferred bean varieties to confer to the ‘offspring’ the best of both worlds – drought tolerance and market appeal.

All-round capacity and competence
GCP’s support does not stop at enabling access to breeding lines alone, or introduction to molecular breeding. “We got a lyophiliser, which is specialised equipment that enables us to extract DNA and send it for genotyping,” says Kennedy. “From the genotyping exercise, we hope to be able to trace the relationships among breeding lines so that we design better crossing programmes, and thereby maximise the diversity of our breeding lines. In addition, we hope to select recombinants carrying desirable genes in a short period of time, and at times without even needing to test them in the target environment.” GCP assists with genotyping through its Genotyping Support Service offered through the Integrated Breeding Platform.

For phenotyping, CBI has benefitted from a mobile weather station, a SPAD meter (for measuring chlorophyll content), a leaf porometer (for measuring leaf stomatal conductance) and water-marks (probes for measuring soil moisture).

Human resources have not been forgotten either. Godwill Makunde, a CBI bean breeder, is studying for a TLII-funded PhD in Plant Breeding at the University of the Free State, South Africa. A group of four scientists (Godwill and Kenedy,  plus Charles Mutimaamba, and Munyaradzi Mativavarira) are in GCP’s three-year Integrated Breeding Multi-Year Course (IB–MYC). The curriculum includes design of experiments, data collection, analysis and interpretation, molecular breeding and data management techniques. In addition, GCP also trains research technicians. For CBI, Clever Zvarova, Anthony Kaseke, Mudzamiri and Chikambure have attended this training. Their course also includes phenotyping protocols (data collection and use of electronic tablets in designing field-books). To date, CBI has received five tablets for digital data collection , of which two are outstanding.

Photo: CBI

Godwill doing what he does best: bean breeding.

Bringing it all together, and on to farms
But how relevant are all these breeder-focused R&D efforts to the farmer? Let’s review this in proper context: in the words of Mr Denis Mwashita, a small-scale farmer at the Chinyika Resettlement Scheme in Bingaguru, Zimbabwe, “Beans have always carried disease, but from the little we harvest and eat, we and our children have developed stomachs.”

“What Mr Mwashita means is that despite the meagre harvests, farm families fare better in terms of health and nutrition for having grown beans,” explains Godwill.

With this solid all-round support in science, working partnerships, skills and infrastructure, the CBI bean team is well-geared to breed beans that beat both heat and disease, thereby boosting yields, while also meeting farmer and market needs. Trials are currently underway to select lines that match these critical needs which are the clincher for food security.

“The Zimbabwe market is used to the sugar type, which is however susceptible to drought. We hope to popularise other more drought-tolerant types,” says Kennedy. “We plan to selected a few lines in the coming season and test them with farmers prior to their release. Our goal is to have at the very least one variety released to farmers by mid-2013.”

A noble goal indeed, and we wish our Zimbabwe bean team well in their efforts to improve local food security.

VIDEO: The ABCs of bean breeding in Africa and South America, with particular focus on Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe

Related blogposts

Other links

 

 

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
 
Photo: IRRI

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.

Photo: IRRI

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

Sigrid’s presentation at the GCP General Research Meeting 2011

 

 

Beans: Sidestepping variety… to create varieties to combat drought, disease and pests

 Africa, Beans, Crop breeding, Genetics, Genomics, Legumes  No Responses »
Oct 302012
 

BREAK-TIME AND BRAKE-TIME from beans for a bit: Steve Beebe takes a pause to strike a pose in a bean field.

“These [molecular breeding] techniques, combined with conventional methods, shorten the time it takes to breed improved varieties  that simultaneoulsy combine several traits.

And this means that we also get them out to farmers more quickly compared to phenotypic selection alone.”
– Steve Beebe

THE NEAR-PERFECT FOOD: Common beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L) comprise the world’s most important food legume, feeding about 200 million people in sub-Saharan Africa alone. Their nutritional value is so high, they have been termed ‘a near-perfect food’. They are also easy to grow, adapting readily to different cropping systems and maturing quickly.

That said, this otherwise versatile, adaptable and dapper dicotyledon does have some inherent drawbacks and ailments that crop science seeks to cure….

Rains are rapidly retreating, and drought doggedly advancing
Despite the crop’s widespread cultivation in Africa, “yields are low, stagnating at between 20 and 30 percent of their potential,” remarks Steve Beebe, GCP’s Product Delivery Coordinator for beans, and a researcher at the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT, by its Spanish acronym).

“The main problem is drought, brought about by climate change,” he says. “And it’s spreading – it already affects 70 percent of Africa’s major bean-producing regions.”  Drought decimates bean harvests in most of Eastern Africa, but is particularly severe in the mid-altitudes of Ethiopia, Kenya, Tanzania, Malawi and Zimbabwe, as well as in southern Africa as a whole.

A myriad of forms and hues: bean diversity eloquently speaks for itself in this riot of colours.

Drought, doubt and duality − Diversity a double-edged sword
“Common beans can tolerate drought to some extent, using various mechanisms that differ from variety to variety,” explains Steve. But breeding for drought resistance is complicated by the thousands of bean varieties that are available. They differ considerably according to growth habit, seed colour, shape, size and cooking qualities, and cultivation characteristics.

“A variety might be fantastic in resisting drought,” says Steve, ‘but if its plant type demands extra work, the farmers won’t grow it,” he explains. “Likewise, if consumers don’t like the seed colour, or the beans take too long to cook, then they won’t buy.”

Molecular breeding deals a hand, waves a wand, and weaves a band
This is where molecular breeding techniques come in handy, deftly dealing with the complexities of breeding drought-resistant beans that also meet farmer and consumer preferences. No guesswork about it: molecular breeding rapidly and precisely gets to the heart of the matter, and helps weave all these different ‘strands’ together.

The bean research team has developed ‘genetic stocks’, or strains of beans that are crossed with the varieties favoured by farmers and consumers. The ‘crosses’ are made so that the gene or genes with the desired trait are incorporated into the preferred varieties.

The resulting new varieties are then evaluated for their performance in different environments throughout eastern and southern Africa, with particular focus on Ethiopia, Kenya, Malawi and Zimbabwe which are the target countries of the Tropical Legumes I (TLI) project.

Propping up the plant protein: a veritable tapestry of terraces of climbing beans.

GCP supported this foundation work to develop these molecular markers. This type of breeding – known in breeder parlance as marker-assisted selection (MAS) – was also successfully used to combine and aggregate resistance to drought; to pests such as bean stem maggot (BSM); and to diseases such as bean common mosaic necrosis potyvirus (BCNMV) and to bruchid or common bacterial blight (CBB). The resulting ‘combinations’ laden with all this good stuff were then bred into commercial-type bean lines.

“These techniques, combined with conventional methods, shorten the time it takes to breed improved varieties that simultaneoulsy combine several traits,” comments Steve. “This means that we also get them out to farmers more quickly compared to phenotypic selection alone.”

Informed by history and reality
Breeding new useful varieties is greatly aided by first understanding the crop’s genetic diversity, and by always staying connected with the reality on the ground: earlier foundation work facilitated by GCP surfaced the diversity in the bean varieties that farmers grow, and how that diversity could then be broadened with genes to resist drought, pests and disease.

What next?
Over the remaining two years of Phase II of the Tropical Legumes I (TLI) project, the bean team will use the genetic tools and breeding populations to incorporate drought tolerance into farmer- and market-preferred varieties. “Hence, productivity levels on smallholder farms are expected to increase significantly,” says Steve.

Partnerships
The work on beans is led by CIAT, working in partnership with Ethiopia’s South Agricultural Research Institute (SARI),  the Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI),  Malawi’s Department of Agricultural Research and Technical Services (DARTS) and  Zimbabwe’s Crop Breeding Institute (CBI) of the Department of Research and Specialist Services (DR&SS).

Other close collaborators include the eastern, central and southern Africa regional bean research networks (ECABREN and SABRN, their acronyms) which are components of the Pan-African Bean Research Alliance (PABRA). Cornell University (USA) is also involved.

VIDEO: Steve talks about what has been achieved so far in bean research, and what remains to be done

Links

 

Banana genetics: (not-so-)Easy as ♫ABC, 123♫

 Bananas, Genetics, Genomics  No Responses »
Sep 202012
 

Getting to the core of a world-favourite dessert by unravelling banana’s origin and genealogy

GCP has enabled us to lay a credible foundation, which gave us a leg-up in the intense competition that typifies the genome sequencing arena” – Angélique D’Hont, CIRAD researcher

‘A’ is also for Angélique, as you will see once you read on…

An ‘A’ to our banana team for ushering in a new era in banana genetics. But let soup precede dessert, and don’t let this worry you: stay with us because we’re still very much on the topic and focused on bananas, which offer the whole range from soup and starters, to main course and dessert, plus everything else in between, being central for the food security of more than 400 million people in the tropics: around a third each is produced in Africa, Asia-Pacific and Latin America, and the Caribbean. About 87  percent of all the bananas produced worldwide are grown by small-scale farmers.

Moving back then to soup for starters, we’re serving up our own unique blend of alphanumeric banana ‘soup’, spiced with ABCs, a pinch of 123s, plus a dash of alpha and omega. Curious about the ABCs? Look no further:‘C’ for getting to the core of ‘B’ for bananas, and an ‘A’ score for our ace genomics team that did it.

Read how GCP seeded … and succeeded, in helping open a new era in banana genetics. An achievement by itself, and an important milestone on the road to unlocking genetic diversity for the resource-poor, which is GCP’s raison d’être.

So get your travelling gear please, for time travel with a ‘midspace checkpoint’ in Malaysia.

We start in 2004, when GCP commissioned a survey of diversity with microsatellites (or SSRs, simple sequence repeats) for all mandate food crops in the CGIAR crop research Centres. The objective of that study was to make new genetic diversity from genebank accessions available to breeders.

The endpoint is opening new research avenues to incorporate genes for disease resistance, with the added bonus of an article published in Nature online on July 11 2012, entitled The banana (Musa acuminata) genome and the evolution of monocotyledonous plants.

It may not be quite as easy as the ABC and 123 that The Jacksons promise in song, but we promise you that the science is just as exciting, with practical implications for breeding hardy disease-resistant bananas. Onwards then to the first leg of this three-step journey!

(Prefer a shorter version of this story in pictures? We’ve got it! Choose your medium between Flickr and Facebook)

1) Let’s go Greek: the alpha and omega of it

Rewinding to the beginning

The proof of the pudding is in the eating: we imagine that Jean Christophe Glaszmann just has to be saying “Yummy!” as he samples this banana.

Start point, 2004: “At that time, several research groups had developed SSR markers for bananas, but there was no coordination and only sketchy germplasm studies,” recalls Jean Christophe Glaszmann (pictured), then the leader of what was GCP’s Subprogramme 1 (SP1) on Genetic Diversity on a joint appointment with CIRAD. He stepped down as SP1 Leader in March 2010, and is currently the Director of a multi-institutional research unit Genetic improvement and adaptation of Mediterranean and tropical plants (AGAP, by its French acronym) at France’s Centre de ccoopération internationale en recherche agronomique pour le développement (CIRAD) in Montpellier.

Jean Christophe continues, “The reference studies had been conducted with RFLP* markers, a very useful tool but far too cumbersome for undertaking large surveys. We mobilised Bioversity International, CIRAD and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture for the project. The process took time, but delivered critical products.” [*RFLP stands for restriction fragmented length polymorphism]

Fastforward to 2012, and gets just a little geeky…

Eight years down the road in 2012, the list of achievements is impressive, as evidenced by a suite of published papers which provide the details of the analysis of SSR diversity and describe how the data enabled the researchers to unravel the origin and genealogy of the most important dessert bananas. The origin of the predominant variety – Cavendish – suggested by the markers, involves two rounds of spontaneous hybridisation between three markedly differentiated subspecies. This scheme has been marvellously corroborated by linguistic patterns found in banana variety names as revealed in a paper published in 2011 in the proceedings of USA’s National Academy of Sciences.

But what else happened in between the start- and end-point? We now get to the really ‘sweet’ part of this bonanza for banana breeding!

It is now possible to conduct research to identify and incorporate genes for disease resistance within fertile populations that are close to the early progenitors, and then inter-cross them to re-establish sterility and obtain vigorous, disease-resistant and seedless progenies.

 2) Of bits, bananas, breeding and breadcrumbs

Threading all these bits together for breeding better bananas is akin to following a trail of breadcrumbs, in which GCP played an important facilitating role: where in the germplasm to undertake genetic recombination is one key; and then, how to expedite incorporation of disease resistance and how to control sterility – so as to first suppress it, then re-establish it – is another set of keys that are necessary for proficient breeding.

Hei Leung in the lab at IRRI.

In 2005, Hei Leung (pictured), then Leader of GCP’s Subprogramme 2 on Comparative Genomics (until June 2007) on a dual appointment with the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI), recognised that with GCP’s main focus being drought tolerance in crops, Musa (the banana and plantain botanical genus) was somewhat on the fringe. However, it was still important that GCP support the emergence of banana genomics.

Hei is currently Programme Leader of Genetic Diversity and Gene Discovery at IRRI. He remembers, “We had a highly motivated group of researchers willing to devote their efforts to Musa. Nicolas Roux at Bioversity was a passionate advocate for the partnership. The GCP community could offer a framework for novel interactions among banana-related actors and players working on other crops, such as rice. The team led by Takuji Sasaki of Japan’s National Institute of Agrobiological Science, which had vast experience in rice genome sequencing, added the scientific power. So, living up to its name as a Challenge Programme, GCP decided to take the gamble on banana genomics and help it fly.”

Angélique D’Hont, CIRAD researcher and lead author of the article published in ‘Nature’.

Through several projects, GCP helped consolidate Musa genomic resources, contributed to the establishment of medium-throughput DArT markers as well as the construction of the first saturated genetic map. Additional contributions included the first round of sequencing of large chromosome segments (BAC clones) and its comparison with the rice sequence and a detailed analysis of resistance gene analogues. All these findings have now been published in peer-reviewed journals. And while publication takes time, it still remains a high-premium benchmark for quality and validation of results, and for efficient sharing of information. It reinforces the value of collaboration, builds capacity and gives visibility to all partners, thereby providing potential new avenues for funding.

Such was the case with bananas: using a collaborative partnership framework established with the Global Musa Genomics Consortium, animated by Nicolas Roux and now chaired by Chris Town, the community developed a case for sequencing the genome. With the mentorship of Francis Quétier, contacts were made with various major players in genomics, which in the end formalised a project between France’s CIRAD and CEA–Genoscope, funded by the Agence Nationale de la Recherche and led by Angélique D’Hont (pictured) and Patrick Wincker.

GCP contributed DArT analysis for anchoring the sequence to the genetic map. But, as stressed by Angélique, CIRAD researcher and lead author of the Nature paper: “Above all, GCP has enabled us to lay a credible foundation, which gave us a leg-up in the intense competition that typifies the genome sequencing arena. We were delighted that France rolled the dice in our favour by funding this work.”

3) Musa musings on the road to and from Malaysia checkpoint

Three years down the road, the team published a description of the genome of a wild banana from Malaysia.

Jean Christophe communes with a Musa plant, perhaps musing “What’s your family history and when will you be fully grown?”

Let’s drill down to some technical facts and figures here: the Musa genome has some 520 million nucleotides distributed across 11 chromosomes, revealing traces of past duplications and bearing some 36,000 genes. While most genes derived from duplication tend to lose their function, some develop novel functions that are essential for evolution; bananas seem to have an outstanding range of transcription factors that could be involved in fruit maturity.

And while the road ahead remains long, we now have a good understanding of banana’s genetic diversity, we have genomic templates for functional studies (a whole-gene repertoire) as well as for structural studies (the chromosome arrangement in one subspecies) aimed at unraveling the genomic translocations that could control sterility in the species complex.

It is now possible to conduct research to identify and incorporate genes for disease resistance within fertile populations that are close to the early progenitors, and then inter-cross them to re-establish sterility and obtain vigorous, disease-resistant and seedless progenies.

This is undoubtedly an inspiring challenge towards unlocking the genetic diversity in this crop, which is central to food security for more than 400 million people in the tropics.

Links

 

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

♫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 8th 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

 

Rooting for the key to more phosphorus for rice

 Comparative genomics in cereals, Crop breeding, Genetics, Genomics, Rice  3 Responses »
Sep 072012
 

Preparing rice root samples (Photo: IRRI)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

Sigrid’s presentation at the GCP General Research Meeting 2011

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.”

Related blogposts

GCP website

External links

 

 

 

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

 Older Entries  Newer Entries
cheap ghd australia