ISSN 2410-7751 (Print)
ISSN 2410-776X (Online)
Biotechnologia Acta V. 14, No 2, 2021
Р. 19-27, Bibliography 41, English
Universal Decimal Classification: 575.174, 50.022, 633, 663.13
https://doi.org/10.15407/biotech14.02.019
P. R. Zubik, V. V. Motronenko, O.B. Besarab
National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”
In order to save money, some farms use the seed obtained in the process of cultivation not only for sale, but also for sowing, which has not found supporters among companies engaged in the production of genetically modified seed. To protect their rights, the latter have created technologies to limit the use of genetic material, which are intended to be used for protection the intellectual rights to reproduce plants with a changed genotype. However, these technologies contain also a commercial component and violate a number of moral principles and international acts.
Aim. To describe the types of terminator technologies, their genetic and molecular basis and purpose. To assess a correspondence of their compliance with the international documents and norms.
Method. Terminator technologies types, genetic bases and application and their analysis from the standpoint of international norms were studied. To achieve the goal, the methods of fact analysis, comparison and generalization were used.
Results. There are two types of terminator technologies (variety- and trait-specific), which are based on the interaction of three genes, which leads to the implementation of certain phenotypic manifestations. It was found that the technologies for limiting the use of genetic material are both contradictory and consistent with a number of international legal acts, which did not make it possible to determine clearly the appropriateness of their use in agriculture.
Conclusions. Terminator technologies application is still a controversial fact since they are based on the duality principle: to carry simultaneously a positive and a negative manifestation for people.
Key words: terminator technologies, transgenes, intellectual rights, bioethics.
© Palladin Institute of Biochemistry of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2021
References
1. Carroll M. Narrating technonatures: discourses of biotechnology in a neoliberal era. J. Polit. Ecol. 2018, 25 (1), 186?204. https://doi.org/10.2458/v25i1.22936
2. Yousuf N. Terminator Technology: Perception and Concerns for Seed Industry. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2017, 5 (1), 893–900. https://doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.2519
3. Kotyka B. E., Galkina O. Y., Gorchakova V. Y. Molecular-Biological Fundamentals of Terminatory Technologies. II. Featured Specific Genetic Technologies of Use Restrictions. Application for Obtaining Hybrid Varieties. Visn. ZNU. Bio. 2016, 1 (1), 7?14. http://irbis-nbuv.gov.ua/cgi-bin/irbis_nbuv/cgiirbis_64.exe?C21COM=2&I21DBN=UJRN&P21DBN=UJRN&IMAGE_FILE_DOWNLOAD=1&Image_file_name=PDF/Vznu_bio_2016_1_3.pdf
4. Mukherjee S., Kumar N. S. Terminator gene technology – their mechanism and consequences. Sci. Vis. 2014, 14 (1), 51–58.
5. Ashok Kumar M., Arpit G. Terminator Gene Technology and Its Application in Crop Improvement. Int. J. Curr. Res. Biosci. Plant Biol. 2017, 4 (5), 57–60. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcrbp.2017.405.007
6. Oliver M. J., Quisenberry J. E., Trolinder N. L., Keim D. L. Control of plant gene expression. U. S. Patent 5,723,765. March 3, 1998, P. 23.
7. Lombardo L. Genetic use restriction technologies: a review. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2014, 12 (8), 995–1005. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12242
8. Chandra A. K., Kumar S. Terminator Gene Technology: Perception and Concerns. Agriculture & Food: e-News letter. 2019, 1 (7), 16–20.
9. Hubicki S., Sherman B. The killing fields: intellectual property and genetic use restriction technologies. UNSW Law J. 2005, 28 (3), 17.
10. Meena V. K., Chand S., Indu, Singhal R. K., Alam B. K. Terminator Technology: Comprehensive Understanding of Seed Suicidal Technology. Biot. Res. Today. 2020, 2 (8), 775–777.
11. Chimakonam J. O. Terminator Technology: Appraising Biotechnologists’ Claim to Feed the World. Online J. Heal. Ethics. 2013, V. 9. https://doi.org/10.18785/ojhe.0901
12. Dalazen G., Merotto J?nior A. Genetic use restriction technologies and possible applications in the integrated pest management. Ci?ncia Rural. 2016, 46 (11), 1909–1916. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20160105
13. Wang B., Zhang Y., Zhao J., Dong M., Zhang J. Heat-Shock-Induced Removal of Transgenes Using the Gene-Deletor System in Hybrid Aspen (Populus tremula ? P. tremuloides). Genes. 2018, 9 (10), 484. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes9100484
14. Nern A., Pfeiffer B. D., Svoboda K., Rubin G. M. Multiple new site-specific recombinases for use in manipulating animal genomes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2011, 108 (34), 14198–14203. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1111704108
15. Ow D. W. Recombinase-mediated Gene Stacking as a Transformation Operating SystemF. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2011, 53 (7), 512–519. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2011.01061.x
16. Kasai Y., Harayama S. Construction of Marker-Free Transgenic Strains of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii Using a Cre/loxP-Mediated Recombinase System. Cooney A. J., editor. PLoS One. 2016, 11 (8). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0161733
17. Li Y. Gene deletor: a new tool to address gene flow and food safety concerns over transgenic crop plants. Front Biol. (Beijing). 2012, 7 (6), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11515-012-1195-1
18. Blakeney M., Siddique K. H. M. Local Knowledge, Intellectual Property and Agricultural Innovation. Singapore: Springer Singapore. 2020.
19. Mondal K., Raigar O. P. Molecular conviction behind the production of “suicide seeds”. Agri-India Today. 2021, 01 (1), 95–97.
20. De S. Strategies of Plant Biotechnology to Meet the Increasing Demand of Food and Nutrition in India. Int. Ann. Sci. 2020, 10 (1), 7–15. https://doi.org/10.21467/ias.10.1.7-15
21. Fischer K., Wennstr?m P., ?gren M. The Swedish media debate on GMO 1994?2017. 2019. https://www.slu.se/en/Collaborative-Centres-and-Projects/futurefood/publikationer/rapporter/the-swedish-media-debate-on-gmo-1994-2017/
22. McLellan M. A., Rosenthal N. A., Pinto A. R. Cre-loxP-Mediated Recombination: General Principles and Experimental Considerations. Curr. Protoc. Mouse Biol. 2017, 7 (1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpmo.22
23. Rizwan M. Gene flow from major genetically modified crops and strategies for containment and mitigation of transgene escape: a review. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2019, 17 (5), 11191?11208. https://doi.org/10.15666/aeer/1705_1119111208
24. Sang Y., Millwood R. J., Stewart N. Gene use restriction technologies for transgenic plant bioconfinement. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2013, 11 (6), 649–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12084
25. Peschard K. Seed wars and farmers’ rights: comparative perspectives from Brazil and India. J. Peasant Stud. 2017, 44 (1), 144–168. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2016.1191471
26. Deleury ?. An Ethical Examination of Genetic Use Restriction Technologies. 2008 Supplement to the Position Statement For the Ethical Management of GMOs. Quebec. 2009.
27. Turzi M. A Super-Seeding Business. The Political Economy of Agricultural Booms. 2017, P. 23–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45946-2_2
28. Shiva V. Defending Farmers’ Seed Freedom. ANTYAJAA Indian J. Women Soc. Chang. 2016, 1 (2), 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1177/2455632716674853
29. Islam R., Parvin A., Billah M. M., Islam M. Assessment of the Effects of Genetically Modified (GM) Foods: A Brief Study on Health and Environmental Concerns. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2020, 11 (10), 1676–1688.
30. Thomas G., De Tavernier J. Farmer-suicide in India: debating the role of biotechnology. Life Sci. Soc. Policy. 2017, 13 (1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-017-0052-z
31. Peschard K., Randeria S. ‘Keeping seeds in our hands’: the rise of seed activism. J. Peasant Stud. 2020, 47 (4), 613–647. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2020.1753705
32. GM Contamination in Canada: The failure to contain living modified organisms – Incidents and impacts. 2019. https://cban.ca/gm-contamination-in-canada/
33. Syngenta Ukraine. Available from: https://www.syngenta.ua/
34. Syngenta Global. Available from: https://www.syngenta.com/en
35. The Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_030#Text
36. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_042#Text
37. Position of the international union for the protection of new varieties of plants (upov) concerning decision vi/5 of the conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity (cbd). 2003, P. 5. Available from: https://www.upov.int/export/sites/upov/about/en/pdf/gurts_11april2003.pdf
38. Convention Establishing the World Intellectual Property Organization. 1967. Available from: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_250.pdf
39. Implementation of article 9, farmer`s rights. 2011. Available from: http://www.fao.org/3/be543e/be543e.pdf
40. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_015#Text
41. The European Social Charter. 1961. Available from: https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/994_062#Text