Connect with us

Nanotechnology for Plant Genetic Engineering

Plant genetic engineering will become increasingly important because of growing population and increased demand for food, medicine, and materials. Greater collaborations between nanotechnologists and plant biologists will help expand the existing plant…

Published

on

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly disrupted food supply chains, intensifying the need for biotechnological solutions for achieving food security. Crops and vegetables are a significant source for food, materials, and medicine. Thus, there is great incentive to genetically engineer crops that possess desirable traits like greater biomass production and resistance to pathogens while requiring less resources including space and labor.1

Seeds and cereals in food safety laboratory
There is great incentive to genetically engineer crops that possess desirable traits like greater biomass production and resistance to pathogens while requiring less resources, including space and labor.
[WLADIMIR BULGAR/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images]
In order to generate genetically engineered plants, oligonucleotides encoding the gene of interest must be delivered into the intracellular spaces or target organelles like nuclei and chloroplasts of plant cells efficiently with minimal biological perturbations. Yet, technological process in this area has been limited.

Traditional plant transfection methods

One of the most commonly used tools for gene delivery in plants is Agrobacterium, a Gram-negative bacterium, that can transfect both plant protoplasts (cells without cell walls) and tissues (such as leaves). However, this method is unsuitable for stable, long-term integration of DNA cargo and it requires repeated and tedious plant transformation each time transient gene expression ends. Agrobacterium also randomly integrate with DNA, which may disrupt endogenous gene expressions and limit uniform control over target gene expression. Notably, Agrobacterium has also been reported to cause plant tissue necrosis.

 The other popular technique is biolistic particle delivery or gene gun. This method utilizes high energy to deliver biomolecule-coated gold particles directly into plant cells through physical disruption of the plant cell wall and membrane.2 However, particle-bombarded sites can be severely injured from high pressures and can then no longer be cultured. In addition, the throughput of this technique is extremely low.

Tobacco mosaic virus, illustration
Viral vectors, such as tobacco mosaic virus (shown here) cowpea mosaic virus, are useful for oligonucleotide delivery. [PIXOLOGICSTUDIO/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY/Getty Images]
Viral vectors, such as tobacco mosaic virus-based Geneware technology and cowpea mosaic virus, are useful for oligonucleotide delivery.3 Nevertheless, viral vectors have a limited expression cassette size and may not be able to deliver large and complex cargo that are more valuable for plant biotechnology.4 Furthermore, viral vectors are unable to deliver proteins directly, which make them incompatible with popular gene editing techniques like CRISPR, which typically make use of Cas protein.5 Finally, viral vectors manufacturing is subject to strict regulations due to their pathogenic origins and capabilities to integrate a portion of their genetic elements into the plant host genome.

 

Plant magnetofection

In recent years, a number of nanotechnological tools have been developed to overcome the limitations of traditional techniques for plant genetic engineering. One such emerging technique is the use of magnetic iron-oxide nanoparticles conjugated with DNA. This method has been extensively used for mammalian cell transfection but it is challenging to adapt it for plant engineering due to the presence of the plant cell wall which, unlike the cell membrane, does not undergo endocytosis.6 Haixin Cui, professor, and his team from the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, first showed that the apertures of cotton pollens have no cell wall and then made use of magnetic nanoparticles as carriers to deliver genes through these cell-wall-free apertures.7 Magnetic fields were also applied to provide directional forces to transport the nanoparticle gene carriers into pollens. They found that their magnetofection method provided >80% viability in pollens and was minimally perturbative. Making use of confocal fluorescence imaging and energy-dispersive spectroscopy, the team also confirmed that fluorescently-labeled nanoparticle gene carriers were delivered into pollens. Finally, using PCR, the team showed that they were able to integrate the BTΔα-CPTI gene into the genome of transgenic cotton plant to confer resistance on insects,8 with stable inheritance in offspring. The team also reported that their magnetofection method works for other plant species including pumpkin and lily.

Despite the promising results from Cui and team, it may be still too early to conclude that magnetofection is effective for gene delivery in different plant species. In a recent paper, a team led by John Fowler, PhD, professor at Oregon State University, screened more than 50,000 pollen grains and reported that magnetofection using magnetic nanoparticles does not work as well as for monocot plant species such as lily as claimed by Cui and colleagues.9 The authors also argued that the ~90% transfection efficiency in lily pollen reported by Cui and team was likely due to an erroneous use of the biomarker, β-glucuronidase, to demonstrate transfection success as there is significant endogenous β-glucuronidase activity.

“Pollen is an attractive biological target to transfect because pollen grains carry the male gametes, and so could generate a complete genetically modified plant after fertilization in the plant ovules. Jenny Mortimer at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and I were excited about the paper from Zhao et al. because it presented a potentially useful and convenient way to create transgenic plants. If the magnetofection method works, it would allow us to avoid using time-consuming tissue culture based on regenerable tissues. Regeneration is feasible but technically very challenging for both sorghum and maize, monocot species that are the foci of our research programs,” says Fowler.

“The paper from Zhao et al. primarily focused on dicot species like cotton and pumpkin, but they also provided data suggesting that their method could work for lily, a monocot species. In our paper, we tested magnetofection on pollen from maize, sorghum, and lily, and found that we never observed the transient expression of a genetic reporter that would indicate successful transfection. Although we were disappointed by the findings, our work indicates that magnetofection is likely not a simple, universal pollen transfection method.”

Carbon nanotubes-mediated plant transfection

Besides the use of magnetic nanoparticles, carbon nanotubes are also an increasingly popular nano-tool for plant transfection. Markita Landry, PhD, professor, and her team at the University of California, Berkeley, reported the use of carbon nanotubes that rely on passive delivery as a plant transformation tool. As a proof-of-concept, her team physically adsorbed and electrostatically grafted DNA encoding for green fluorescent protein (GFP) onto single-walled carbon nanotubes, and showed that their technique can effectively deliver DNA into the leaves of a variety of plant species including wheat, cotton, and arugula for transient gene expressions.10 The nanotubes were also found to protect DNA from degradation by endogenous nucleases. Landry and her team also demonstrated that their carbon nanotube technology did not result in significant toxicity in mature leaves by performing quantitative PCR analysis of NbrbohB, a known stress gene in tobacco plants, and relative to the housekeeping gene Elongation Factor 1 (EF1).

To further demonstrate the utility of their method, the team also tested their nanotube technology on protoplasts which are extensively used in biotechnology for high through plant genetic screens and synthesis of recombinant proteins. Protoplasts isolated from arugula leaves were able to internalize carbon nanotubes and stably expressed the GFP plasmid with 80%.

 siRNA is a useful material for transient plant genetic engineering. Using single-walled carbon nanotubes, Landry and her team successfully showed the transfection of siRNA to inhibit and silence expressions of GFP in the leaves of tobacco plant for up to a week.11 The carbon nanotubes also protected the siRNA from degradation and were biocompatible for use in plants.

“The impact of using nanoparticles for plant genetic engineering is that delivery of DNA and RNA can be accomplished without pathogens such as Agrobacterium or without the use of biolistic force that disrupts the plant tissue. Another advantage is that nanoparticle delivery of siRNA can be a green alternative to the use of chemical pesticides, or the delivery of mRNA for DNA-free genetic manipulation of plants. Overall, nanoparticles could increase the throughput, precision, and ease of plant genetic engineering,” says Landry.

Unresolved problems

Nanotechnology has significantly enhanced genetic reprogramming of mammalian cells and it is a promising tool for plant engineering too. Nevertheless, to move this field forward, several important questions have to be addressed.

First, unlike mammalian cells, plant cells have rigid cell walls which exclude particles larger than approximately 5–20 nm,12 and there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to support that nanoparticles are able to diffuse through the multi-layered cell wall and then cell membrane easily. Systematic characterization on how nanoparticle properties affect their interactions with plant cells and tissues is crucial for mechanistic understanding.13 For instance, the team led by Michael Strano, PhD, professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, found that the transport of single-walled carbon nanotubes across pollen cell membrane is mainly controlled by their surface zeta potential.14 Complex biological differences among plant species and the types of biological materials from plants (protoplasts, leaves, pollens, and regenerable tissues like root hairs) also mean that systematic characterization of plant-nanoparticle interactions are needed to enhance transfection outcomes.

Second, the size of the DNA cargo that can be delivered into plant cells is directly correlated to the surface area of the nanoparticles. Thus far, only small (<20 nm) spherical nanoparticles and single-walled cylindrical carbon nanotubes (0.8–1.2 nm in diameter and 500–1000 nm in length) had shown utility to transfect plant cells through passive diffusion and/or with the use of mechanical aid such as a gene gun. Unfortunately, this means that only small gene cargo load (~4 kbp) with zero to limited physiological, economic and agricultural value can be delivered.10 In order to be a useful tool for industrial-scale plant biotechnology, it is useful to improve the complexity of cargo that can be delivered with nanoparticles.

Third, it has been shown that nanoparticles like carbon nanotubes can adversely inhibit the root elongation of important crops like tomato and lettuce but there is still insufficient cytotoxicity characterization in literature when new plant transfection methods are reported.15 More work is warranted to ensure that plants continue to grow healthily after nanoparticle transfection so that the engineered plants can be used as resources.

Finally, most of the nanotechnology technique for plant transfection offers transient gene expression. While this is useful for biological studies, it may not be as impactful for crop engineering where long-term gene expressions are needed to provided stable phenotypes.

Plant genetic engineering will become increasingly important because of growing population and increased demand for food, medicine, and materials. Greater collaborations between nanotechnologists and plant biologists will help expand the existing plant transformation toolkit using nanotechnology to generate positive societal impact.

 

References

1.      Baltes, N. J.; Gil-Humanes, J.; Voytas, D. F. Genome Engineering and Agriculture: Opportunities and Challenges. In Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science; Elsevier B.V., 2017; Vol. 149, pp 1–26.

2.      Klein, T. M.; Sanford, J. C.; Wolf, E. D.; Wu, R. High-Velocity Microprojectiles for Delivering Nucleic Acids into Living Cells. Nature 1987, 327 (6117), 70–73.

3.      Gleba, Y.; Klimyuk, V.; Marillonnet, S. Viral Vectors for the Expression of Proteins in Plants. Current Opinion in Biotechnology. Elsevier Current Trends April 1, 2007, pp 134–141.

4.      Gleba, Y.; Marillonnet, S.; Klimyuk, V. Engineering Viral Expression Vectors for Plants: The “full Virus” and the “Deconstructed Virus” Strategies. Current Opinion in Plant Biology. Elsevier Current Trends April 1, 2004, pp 182–188.

5.      Bortesi, L.; Fischer, R. The CRISPR/Cas9 System for Plant Genome Editing and Beyond. Biotechnol. Adv. 2014, 33 (1), 41–52.

6.      Wang, P.; Lombi, E.; Zhao, F. J.; Kopittke, P. M. Nanotechnology: A New Opportunity in Plant Sciences. Trends in Plant Science. Elsevier Ltd August 1, 2016, pp 699–712.

7.      Zhao, X.; Meng, Z.; Wang, Y.; Chen, W.; Sun, C.; Cui, B.; Cui, J.; Yu, M.; Zeng, Z.; Guo, S.; et al. Pollen Magnetofection for Genetic Modification with Magnetic Nanoparticles as Gene Carriers. Nat. Plants 2017, 3 (12), 956–964.

8.      Cui, J.; Luo, J.; Van Der Werf, W.; Ma, Y.; Xia, J. Effect of Pyramiding Bt and CpTI Genes on Resistance of Cotton to Helicoverpa Armigera (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) under Laboratory and Field Conditions. J. Econ. Entomol. 2011, 104 (2), 673–684.

9.      Vejlupkova, Z. E.; Warman, C.; Sharma, R.; Scheller, H.; Mortimer, J.; Fowler, J. E. No Evidence for Transient Transformation via Pollen Magnetofection in Several Monocot Species. bioRxiv 2020, 2020.05.01.071266.

10.    Demirer, G. S.; Zhang, H.; Matos, J. L.; Goh, N. S.; Cunningham, F. J.; Sung, Y.; Chang, R.; Aditham, A. J.; Chio, L.; Cho, M. J.; et al. High Aspect Ratio Nanomaterials Enable Delivery of Functional Genetic Material without DNA Integration in Mature Plants. Nat. Nanotechnol. 2019, 14 (5), 456–464.

11.    Demirer, G. S.; Zhang, H.; Goh, N. S.; Pinals, R. L.; Chang, R.; Landry, M. P. Carbon Nanocarriers Deliver SiRNA to Intact Plant Cells for Efficient Gene Knockdown. Sci. Adv. 2020, 6 (26), eaaz0495.

12.    Cunningham, F. J.; Goh, N. S.; Demirer, G. S.; Matos, J. L.; Landry, M. P. Nanoparticle-Mediated Delivery towards Advancing Plant Genetic Engineering. Trends in Biotechnology. Elsevier Ltd September 1, 2018, pp 882–897.

13.    Hu, P.; An, J.; Faulkner, M. M.; Wu, H.; Li, Z.; Tian, X.; Giraldo, J. P. Nanoparticle Charge and Size Control Foliar Delivery Efficiency to Plant Cells and Organelles. ACS Nano 2020, 14 (7), 7970–7986.

14.    Lew, T. T. S.; Park, M.; Wang, Y.; Gordiichuk, P.; Yeap, W. C.; Mohd Rais, S. K.; Kulaveerasingam, H.; Strano, M. S. Nanocarriers for Transgene Expression in Pollen as a Plant Biotechnology Tool. ACS Mater. Lett. 2020, 2 (9), 1057–1066.

15.    Cañas, J. E.; Long, M.; Nations, S.; Vadan, R.; Dai, L.; Luo, M.; Ambikapathi, R.; Lee, E. H.; Olszyk, D. Effects of Functionalized and Nonfunctionalized Single-Walled Carbon Nanotubes on Root Elongation of Select Crop Species. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2008, 27 (9), 1922–1931.

The post Nanotechnology for Plant Genetic Engineering appeared first on GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Mike Pompeo Doesn’t Rule Out Serving In 2nd Trump Administration

Mike Pompeo Doesn’t Rule Out Serving In 2nd Trump Administration

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former Secretary…

Published

on

Mike Pompeo Doesn't Rule Out Serving In 2nd Trump Administration

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in a new interview that he’s not ruling out accepting a White House position if former President Donald Trump is reelected in November.

“If I get a chance to serve and think that I can make a difference ... I’m almost certainly going to say yes to that opportunity to try and deliver on behalf of the American people,” he told Fox News, when asked during a interview if he would work for President Trump again.

I’m confident President Trump will be looking for people who will faithfully execute what it is he asked them to do,” Mr. Pompeo said during the interview, which aired on March 8. “I think as a president, you should always want that from everyone.”

Then-President Donald Trump (C), then- Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (L), and then-Vice President Mike Pence, take a question during the daily briefing on the novel coronavirus at the White House in Washington on April 8, 2020. (Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images)

He said that as a former secretary of state, “I certainly wanted my team to do what I was asking them to do and was enormously frustrated when I found that I couldn’t get them to do that.”

Mr. Pompeo, a former U.S. representative from Kansas, served as Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director in the Trump administration from 2017 to 2018 before he was secretary of state from 2018 to 2021. After he left office, there was speculation that he could mount a Republican presidential bid in 2024, but announced that he wouldn’t be running.

President Trump hasn’t publicly commented about Mr. Pompeo’s remarks.

In 2023, amid speculation that he would make a run for the White House, Mr. Pompeo took a swipe at his former boss, telling Fox News at the time that “the Trump administration spent $6 trillion more than it took in, adding to the deficit.”

“That’s never the right direction for the country,” he said.

In a public appearance last year, Mr. Pompeo also appeared to take a shot at the 45th president by criticizing “celebrity leaders” when urging GOP voters to choose ahead of the 2024 election.

2024 Race

Mr. Pompeo’s interview comes as the former president was named the “presumptive nominee” by the Republican National Committee (RNC) last week after his last major Republican challenger, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, dropped out of the 2024 race after failing to secure enough delegates. President Trump won 14 out of 15 states on Super Tuesday, with only Vermont—which notably has an open primary—going for Ms. Haley, who served as President Trump’s U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

On March 8, the RNC held a meeting in Houston during which committee members voted in favor of President Trump’s nomination.

“Congratulations to President Donald J. Trump on his huge primary victory!” the organization said in a statement last week. “I’d also like to congratulate Nikki Haley for running a hard-fought campaign and becoming the first woman to win a Republican presidential contest.”

Earlier this year, the former president criticized the idea of being named the presumptive nominee after reports suggested that the RNC would do so before the Super Tuesday contests and while Ms. Haley was still in the race.

Also on March 8, the RNC voted to name Trump-endorsed officials to head the organization. Michael Whatley, a North Carolina Republican, was elected the party’s new national chairman in a vote in Houston, and Lara Trump, the former president’s daughter-in-law, was voted in as co-chair.

“The RNC is going to be the vanguard of a movement that will work tirelessly every single day to elect our nominee, Donald J. Trump, as the 47th President of the United States,” Mr. Whatley told RNC members in a speech after being elected, replacing former chair Ronna McDaniel. Ms. Trump is expected to focus largely on fundraising and media appearances.

President Trump hasn’t signaled whom he would appoint to various federal agencies if he’s reelected in November. He also hasn’t said who his pick for a running mate would be, but has offered several suggestions in recent interviews.

In various interviews, the former president has mentioned Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.), Vivek Ramaswamy, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, among others.

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 17:00

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Riley Gaines Explains How Women’s Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and…

Published

on

Riley Gaines Explains How Women's Sports Are Rigged To Promote The Trans Agenda

Is there a light forming when it comes to the long, dark and bewildering tunnel of social justice cultism?  Global events have been so frenetic that many people might not remember, but only a couple years ago Big Tech companies and numerous governments were openly aligned in favor of mass censorship.  Not just to prevent the public from investigating the facts surrounding the pandemic farce, but to silence anyone questioning the validity of woke concepts like trans ideology. 

From 2020-2022 was the closest the west has come in a long time to a complete erasure of freedom of speech.  Even today there are still countries and Europe and places like Canada or Australia that are charging forward with draconian speech laws.  The phrase "radical speech" is starting to circulate within pro-censorship circles in reference to any platform where people are allowed to talk critically.  What is radical speech?  Basically, it's any discussion that runs contrary to the beliefs of the political left.

Open hatred of moderate or conservative ideals is perfectly acceptable, but don't ever shine a negative light on woke activism, or you might be a terrorist.

Riley Gaines has experienced this double standard first hand.  She was even assaulted and taken hostage at an event in 2023 at San Francisco State University when leftists protester tried to trap her in a room and demanded she "pay them to let her go."  Campus police allegedly witnessed the incident but charges were never filed and surveillance footage from the college was never released.  

It's probably the last thing a champion female swimmer ever expects, but her head-on collision with the trans movement and the institutional conspiracy to push it on the public forced her to become a counter-culture voice of reason rather than just an athlete.

For years the independent media argued that no matter how much we expose the insanity of men posing as women to compete and dominate women's sports, nothing will really change until the real female athletes speak up and fight back.  Riley Gaines and those like her represent that necessary rebellion and a desperately needed return to common sense and reason.

In a recent interview on the Joe Rogan Podcast, Gaines related some interesting information on the inner workings of the NCAA and the subversive schemes surrounding trans athletes.  Not only were women participants essentially strong-armed by colleges and officials into quietly going along with the program, there was also a concerted propaganda effort.  Competition ceremonies were rigged as vehicles for promoting trans athletes over everyone else. 

The bottom line?  The competitions didn't matter.  The real women and their achievements didn't matter.  The only thing that mattered to officials were the photo ops; dudes pretending to be chicks posing with awards for the gushing corporate media.  The agenda took precedence.

Lia Thomas, formerly known as William Thomas, was more than an activist invading female sports, he was also apparently a science project fostered and protected by the athletic establishment.  It's important to understand that the political left does not care about female athletes.  They do not care about women's sports.  They don't care about the integrity of the environments they co-opt.  Their only goal is to identify viable platforms with social impact and take control of them.  Women's sports are seen as a vehicle for public indoctrination, nothing more.

The reasons why they covet women's sports are varied, but a primary motive is the desire to assert the fallacy that men and women are "the same" psychologically as well as physically.  They want the deconstruction of biological sex and identity as nothing more than "social constructs" subject to personal preference.  If they can destroy what it means to be a man or a woman, they can destroy the very foundations of relationships, families and even procreation.  

For now it seems as though the trans agenda is hitting a wall with much of the public aware of it and less afraid to criticize it.  Social media companies might be able to silence some people, but they can't silence everyone.  However, there is still a significant threat as the movement continues to target children through the public education system and women's sports are not out of the woods yet.   

The ultimate solution is for women athletes around the world to organize and widely refuse to participate in any competitions in which biological men are allowed.  The only way to save women's sports is for women to be willing to end them, at least until institutions that put doctrine ahead of logic are made irrelevant.          

Tyler Durden Wed, 03/13/2024 - 17:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Part 1: Current State of the Housing Market; Overview for mid-March 2024

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Part 1: Current State of the Housing Market; Overview for mid-March 2024
A brief excerpt: This 2-part overview for mid-March provides a snapshot of the current housing market.

I always like to star…

Published

on

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Part 1: Current State of the Housing Market; Overview for mid-March 2024

A brief excerpt:
This 2-part overview for mid-March provides a snapshot of the current housing market.

I always like to start with inventory, since inventory usually tells the tale!
...
Here is a graph of new listing from Realtor.com’s February 2024 Monthly Housing Market Trends Report showing new listings were up 11.3% year-over-year in February. This is still well below pre-pandemic levels. From Realtor.com:

However, providing a boost to overall inventory, sellers turned out in higher numbers this February as newly listed homes were 11.3% above last year’s levels. This marked the fourth month of increasing listing activity after a 17-month streak of decline.
Note the seasonality for new listings. December and January are seasonally the weakest months of the year for new listings, followed by February and November. New listings will be up year-over-year in 2024, but we will have to wait for the March and April data to see how close new listings are to normal levels.

There are always people that need to sell due to the so-called 3 D’s: Death, Divorce, and Disease. Also, in certain times, some homeowners will need to sell due to unemployment or excessive debt (neither is much of an issue right now).

And there are homeowners who want to sell for a number of reasons: upsizing (more babies), downsizing, moving for a new job, or moving to a nicer home or location (move-up buyers). It is some of the “want to sell” group that has been locked in with the golden handcuffs over the last couple of years, since it is financially difficult to move when your current mortgage rate is around 3%, and your new mortgage rate will be in the 6 1/2% to 7% range.

But time is a factor for this “want to sell” group, and eventually some of them will take the plunge. That is probably why we are seeing more new listings now.
There is much more in the article.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending