Researchers and scientists around the world have been working for years to engineer photosynthesis as a means to safely enhance crop productivity and improve the global food supply, and just this week, significant progress towards that objective occurred.

On Thursday, researchers at the University of Illinois announced they were successful in producing tobacco plants that were 40 percent larger.

Now, the goal of this endeavor is not to produce more tobacco. Instead, they are aiming to apply the technique to staple crops – such as tomatoes, soybeans and black-eyed peas – in an effort to meet the growing demand for food.

According to AFP News:

The scientists at the university’s Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology say they have found a way to make the process of photosynthesis, the process by which plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into energy, inherently more efficient.

An enzyme called Rubisco is key to the process of converting atmospheric carbon into an organic compound the plant consumes, a process known as “carbon fixation.”

But the enzyme also acts to “fix” atmospheric oxygen, converting it into toxic compounds that the plant expends considerable energy eliminating – energy that could otherwise be spent in growing. This competing process is known as photorespiration.

The Illinois team came up with the idea of implanting bits of algae DNA into the tobacco plant’s cells to create a type of biological shortcut that would speed up photorespiration.

Lead author Donald Ort told AFP: “If you take a shortcut, when you’re driving your car, you travel less distance, and you use less fuel.”

When a plant uses less energy on photorespiration, it “is able to take that energy and put it into plant growth and plant productivity, rather than using it to metabolize this toxic compound.”

Other techniques had tried to limit photorespiration, but have often led to negative impacts on the plant’s other functions.

“What’s cool about this is that they’ve been very clever in targeting the pathway in a way that doesn’t cause side effects,” David Stern, president of the Boyce Thompson Institute, which was not a part of the study, told AFP.

Maureen Hanson, a professor of molecular biology and genetics at Cornell University, said this is “really the first major breakthrough showing that one can indeed engineer photosynthesis and achieve a major increase in crop productivity.”

The University of Illinois project is being funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has been very active  in developing ways to utilize genetics as a means to transform global development, combat the looming food crisis, and fight deadly diseases.

Researchers and scientists around the world have been working for years to engineer photosynthesis as a means to safely enhance crop productivity and improve the global food supply, and just this week, significant progress towards that objective occurred.

On Thursday, researchers at the University of Illinois announced they were successful in producing tobacco plants that were 40 percent larger.

Now, the goal of this endeavor is not to produce more tobacco. Instead, they are aiming to apply the technique to staple crops – such as tomatoes, soybeans and black-eyed peas – in an effort to meet the growing demand for food.

According to AFP News:

The scientists at the university’s Carl R. Woese Institute for Genomic Biology say they have found a way to make the process of photosynthesis, the process by which plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into energy, inherently more efficient.

An enzyme called Rubisco is key to the process of converting atmospheric carbon into an organic compound the plant consumes, a process known as “carbon fixation.”

But the enzyme also acts to “fix” atmospheric oxygen, converting it into toxic compounds that the plant expends considerable energy eliminating – energy that could otherwise be spent in growing. This competing process is known as photorespiration.

The Illinois team came up with the idea of implanting bits of algae DNA into the tobacco plant’s cells to create a type of biological shortcut that would speed up photorespiration.

Lead author Donald Ort told AFP: “If you take a shortcut, when you’re driving your car, you travel less distance, and you use less fuel.”

When a plant uses less energy on photorespiration, it “is able to take that energy and put it into plant growth and plant productivity, rather than using it to metabolize this toxic compound.”

Other techniques had tried to limit photorespiration, but have often led to negative impacts on the plant’s other functions.

“What’s cool about this is that they’ve been very clever in targeting the pathway in a way that doesn’t cause side effects,” David Stern, president of the Boyce Thompson Institute, which was not a part of the study, told AFP.

Maureen Hanson, a professor of molecular biology and genetics at Cornell University, said this is “really the first major breakthrough showing that one can indeed engineer photosynthesis and achieve a major increase in crop productivity.”

The University of Illinois project is being funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has been very active  in developing ways to utilize genetics as a means to transform global development, combat the looming food crisis, and fight deadly diseases.

In October of 2018, the Trump Administration outlined a proposal that would import foreign price controls for medicines covered under Medicare Part B. Despite warnings from BIO and dozens of other industry experts and patient advocates, the administration continues to defend its flawed plan and with equally flawed rhetoric.

In a recent blog for Vital Transformation, author Duane Schulthess examines a claim made by Secretary Azar at a Brookings Institute briefing where he touts the plan – known as the International Pricing Index Model or IPI – but fails to acknowledge its full impact on biomedical innovation.

“[A]t most [the IPI] model could pull around $700 million out of the entire pharmaceutical industry’s annual R&D budget, which they boast is more than $70 billion a year right now.  These savings, while very substantial for American patients and American taxpayers, cannot, therefore, possibly pull out more than 1 percent of R&D,” Azar purported.

But not so fast. As Schulthess points out in his analysis:

“[T]o assume that a good solution is targeting the most successful and needed new therapies with mandated price ceilings, often for drugs coming from innovative US companies, and then state that it will only impact 1% of R&D is sky-high rhetoric untethered from reality. … In fact, the impact on R&D and innovation globally will be devastating.”

He continued, “targeting only the most new, successful, and cutting-edge technologies for arbitrary price ceilings will have a debilitating impact on U.S. innovation and likely drive biotech firms to move to other markets. … [We] could easily see US companies having to move to Korea or Singapore if price ceilings that radically impact an innovative company’s ability to price new products are enacted.”

BIO echoed Schulthess assessment of the IPI in a recent comment letter to the administration expressing strong opposition to the model.

“[M]oving Part B from a market-based payment formula, to one based on artificially low and government-controlled foreign prices that largely ignore impacts on patient access and the development of new cures. … We support efforts aimed at improving the value of overall healthcare spending, but believe that the IPI model would do nothing to further this objective, or to foster a marketplace of enhanced choice, quality, and competition, which includes both generic and biosimilar options for beneficiaries.”

Among specific concerns, BIO warns in its letter that the administration’s draconian drug pricing proposal:

• Jeopardizes access to new medicines for Medicare’s vulnerable beneficiaries;
• Introduces new middlemen and complexity into providers’ delivery of critical medicines, potentially jeopardizing care to patients without reducing beneficiary costs;
• Is inconsistent with the charge of CMS’ Innovation Center, and does not appropriately consider benefit to the patient; and
• Reflects a broader effort to erode the value of the Medicare benefit for seniors and put patient access to care at risk.

For these reasons, the administration should withdraw the International Pricing Index model and “work with stakeholders on solutions that address the issues facing patients, including healthcare costs, without placing access to critical medical innovations at risk.”

To read BIO’s full comment letter, click here.

To read the full analysis by Schulthess, click here.

In October of 2018, the Trump Administration outlined a proposal that would import foreign price controls for medicines covered under Medicare Part B. Despite warnings from BIO and dozens of other industry experts and patient advocates, the administration continues to defend its flawed plan and with equally flawed rhetoric.

In a recent blog for Vital Transformation, author Duane Schulthess examines a claim made by Secretary Azar at a Brookings Institute briefing where he touts the plan – known as the International Pricing Index Model or IPI – but fails to acknowledge its full impact on biomedical innovation.

“[A]t most [the IPI] model could pull around $700 million out of the entire pharmaceutical industry’s annual R&D budget, which they boast is more than $70 billion a year right now.  These savings, while very substantial for American patients and American taxpayers, cannot, therefore, possibly pull out more than 1 percent of R&D,” Azar purported.

But not so fast. As Schulthess points out in his analysis:

“[T]o assume that a good solution is targeting the most successful and needed new therapies with mandated price ceilings, often for drugs coming from innovative US companies, and then state that it will only impact 1% of R&D is sky-high rhetoric untethered from reality. … In fact, the impact on R&D and innovation globally will be devastating.”

He continued, “targeting only the most new, successful, and cutting-edge technologies for arbitrary price ceilings will have a debilitating impact on U.S. innovation and likely drive biotech firms to move to other markets. … [We] could easily see US companies having to move to Korea or Singapore if price ceilings that radically impact an innovative company’s ability to price new products are enacted.”

BIO echoed Schulthess assessment of the IPI in a recent comment letter to the administration expressing strong opposition to the model.

“[M]oving Part B from a market-based payment formula, to one based on artificially low and government-controlled foreign prices that largely ignore impacts on patient access and the development of new cures. … We support efforts aimed at improving the value of overall healthcare spending, but believe that the IPI model would do nothing to further this objective, or to foster a marketplace of enhanced choice, quality, and competition, which includes both generic and biosimilar options for beneficiaries.”

Among specific concerns, BIO warns in its letter that the administration’s draconian drug pricing proposal:

• Jeopardizes access to new medicines for Medicare’s vulnerable beneficiaries;
• Introduces new middlemen and complexity into providers’ delivery of critical medicines, potentially jeopardizing care to patients without reducing beneficiary costs;
• Is inconsistent with the charge of CMS’ Innovation Center, and does not appropriately consider benefit to the patient; and
• Reflects a broader effort to erode the value of the Medicare benefit for seniors and put patient access to care at risk.

For these reasons, the administration should withdraw the International Pricing Index model and “work with stakeholders on solutions that address the issues facing patients, including healthcare costs, without placing access to critical medical innovations at risk.”

To read BIO’s full comment letter, click here.

To read the full analysis by Schulthess, click here.

What will your Christmas gifts be placed under this year? A Fraser fir? A Douglas fir? An artificial tree?

While some individuals love the look and smell of a real Christmas tree, others prefer the low upkeep and longevity of an artificial tree.

But what if we could use genetics to improve the Christmas tree? Would you trade in the fake tree for a fir that loses less needles and requires less upkeep?

Here are four facts about using genetics in pursuit of a more perfect Christmas tree:

1) Very little has been known about the genomes of Christmas trees. Megan Molteni of Wired reported last year:

“…the conifer genome is not just enormous-20 billion base pairs compared to your 3 billion-but also pretty weird. At some point in their deep past, spruces, pines, firs, and their relatives acquired a complete second set of genes. Scientists think this genome-wide duplication likely helped shape these species into the tallest, hardiest plants in the world. But it’s also made sequencing them an incredibly daunting challenge. And unlike corn and soybean, there hasn’t been much money available to even try. So far scientists have managed to put together partial DNA blueprints for only a handful of conifers, not including the most popular Christmas tree species.”

2) Scientists and researchers are studying genetic data taken from Christmas trees around the world to better understand the DNA of these trees and increase the potential for genetic improvement. For example, North Carolina State University’s Christmas Tree Genetics Program has been working since 1996 to advance the state’s Christmas tree industry through the application of genetic principles.

“We are doing DNA sequencing to understand the DNA of Christmas trees, and in the long term, this may lead in the future to genetic engineering.” – John Frampton, professor in the department of Forestry and Environmental Resources at North Carolina State University

3) Genetics research could lead to the development of Fraser firs that are resistant to pests like Phytophthora root rot and the balsam woolly adelgid. A Christmas tree spends six to 10 years growing before it is cut to be sold, and such pests can kill a tree before that time.

Phytophthora is a fungus-like organism that can infect a Fraser fir and cause yellow-green needles, wilting, dead branches, and eventually tree death.

Balsam woolly adelgid is a small insect that feeds on Fraser firs and kills the trees after several years of infestation.

4) Genetics research is also exploring what separates the best needle-holders from the worst. Using branches from different trees, Gary Chastenger, a plant pathologist at Washington State University, has been researching the genetic variations of trees and needle retention. Via Wired:

Today, Chastagner’s team hangs the branches on racks or wire clotheslines strung across a temperature-controlled concrete cistern, where they rest without water for seven to 10 days. Then, a few well-trained technicians gently rub each branch and rate the needle retention on a scale of one (1 percent of needles fall off) to seven (91 to 100 percent loss).

Chastagner is only interested in the extremes on both sides of the spectrum. Over the years, he’s taken any cuttings that rate zero to one, or six to seven and grafted little bits of them onto rootstocks his lab manages on 15 acres in Puyallup. This process converts each outlying specimen into an isolated stand of genetically identical trees, preserving their unique DNA in what’s called a clonal holding block.

Now, those trees are part of a massive effort to pinpoint the tiny genetic variations that determine why some trees turn out better than others.

Six years ago, Chastagner and researchers at Washington State University, North Carolina State University and University of California, Davis jointly secured $1.3 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to find genetic markers for Phytophthora root rot resistance and needle retention.

Chastagner’s graduate student, Katie McKeever, is collecting isolates of Phytophthora in various growing areas. By sequencing these samples and conducting pathogenicity trials, McKeever will contribute critical information to the team’s search for mechanisms of resistance in trees. Once the researchers find the relevant genetic markers, they can screen adult trees and select the most promising as seed sources for viable Christmas tree plantations.

The team will use similar techniques to resolve the matter of needle shedding. Chastagner’s multi-decade cataloging of Christmas trees with varying degrees of postharvest needle retention will give this part of the project a jump-start. By using these and other trees, scientists will be able to quickly identify needle-retentive gene sources so growers can produce desirable Christmas trees.

Through genetics research we can improve firs that are used for Christmas trees and ensure the genetic conservation of firs. There is much more to learn about conifer genetics, but as Chastagner said in the interview with Wired, “the potential for genetic improvement in these species is huge.”

What will your Christmas gifts be placed under this year? A Fraser fir? A Douglas fir? An artificial tree?

While some individuals love the look and smell of a real Christmas tree, others prefer the low upkeep and longevity of an artificial tree.

But what if we could use genetics to improve the Christmas tree? Would you trade in the fake tree for a fir that loses less needles and requires less upkeep?

Here are four facts about using genetics in pursuit of a more perfect Christmas tree:

1) Very little has been known about the genomes of Christmas trees. Megan Molteni of Wired reported last year:

“…the conifer genome is not just enormous-20 billion base pairs compared to your 3 billion-but also pretty weird. At some point in their deep past, spruces, pines, firs, and their relatives acquired a complete second set of genes. Scientists think this genome-wide duplication likely helped shape these species into the tallest, hardiest plants in the world. But it’s also made sequencing them an incredibly daunting challenge. And unlike corn and soybean, there hasn’t been much money available to even try. So far scientists have managed to put together partial DNA blueprints for only a handful of conifers, not including the most popular Christmas tree species.”

2) Scientists and researchers are studying genetic data taken from Christmas trees around the world to better understand the DNA of these trees and increase the potential for genetic improvement. For example, North Carolina State University’s Christmas Tree Genetics Program has been working since 1996 to advance the state’s Christmas tree industry through the application of genetic principles.

“We are doing DNA sequencing to understand the DNA of Christmas trees, and in the long term, this may lead in the future to genetic engineering.” – John Frampton, professor in the department of Forestry and Environmental Resources at North Carolina State University

3) Genetics research could lead to the development of Fraser firs that are resistant to pests like Phytophthora root rot and the balsam woolly adelgid. A Christmas tree spends six to 10 years growing before it is cut to be sold, and such pests can kill a tree before that time.

Phytophthora is a fungus-like organism that can infect a Fraser fir and cause yellow-green needles, wilting, dead branches, and eventually tree death.

Balsam woolly adelgid is a small insect that feeds on Fraser firs and kills the trees after several years of infestation.

4) Genetics research is also exploring what separates the best needle-holders from the worst. Using branches from different trees, Gary Chastenger, a plant pathologist at Washington State University, has been researching the genetic variations of trees and needle retention. Via Wired:

Today, Chastagner’s team hangs the branches on racks or wire clotheslines strung across a temperature-controlled concrete cistern, where they rest without water for seven to 10 days. Then, a few well-trained technicians gently rub each branch and rate the needle retention on a scale of one (1 percent of needles fall off) to seven (91 to 100 percent loss).

Chastagner is only interested in the extremes on both sides of the spectrum. Over the years, he’s taken any cuttings that rate zero to one, or six to seven and grafted little bits of them onto rootstocks his lab manages on 15 acres in Puyallup. This process converts each outlying specimen into an isolated stand of genetically identical trees, preserving their unique DNA in what’s called a clonal holding block.

Now, those trees are part of a massive effort to pinpoint the tiny genetic variations that determine why some trees turn out better than others.

Six years ago, Chastagner and researchers at Washington State University, North Carolina State University and University of California, Davis jointly secured $1.3 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to find genetic markers for Phytophthora root rot resistance and needle retention.

Chastagner’s graduate student, Katie McKeever, is collecting isolates of Phytophthora in various growing areas. By sequencing these samples and conducting pathogenicity trials, McKeever will contribute critical information to the team’s search for mechanisms of resistance in trees. Once the researchers find the relevant genetic markers, they can screen adult trees and select the most promising as seed sources for viable Christmas tree plantations.

The team will use similar techniques to resolve the matter of needle shedding. Chastagner’s multi-decade cataloging of Christmas trees with varying degrees of postharvest needle retention will give this part of the project a jump-start. By using these and other trees, scientists will be able to quickly identify needle-retentive gene sources so growers can produce desirable Christmas trees.

Through genetics research we can improve firs that are used for Christmas trees and ensure the genetic conservation of firs. There is much more to learn about conifer genetics, but as Chastagner said in the interview with Wired, “the potential for genetic improvement in these species is huge.”

In a world hooked on instant gratification, one of the worst things a brand can do is not give their audience what they want. If your website visitors sees a 504 Gateway Timeout Error page when they’re looking for help or information to do their jobs better, they could get annoyed and lose trust in your brand, permanently damaging your reputation.

Unfortunately, 504 Gateway Timeout Errors are rather mysterious. They indicate what happened to your website, but they don’t tell you why it happened, making it challenging for you to pinpoint its cause and ultimately correct the issue.

To help you fix your 504 Gateway Timeout Error and avoid losing brand sentiment and trust, we’ve fleshed out exactly what the issue is and its most common solutions.

Image Credit: Cloudflare

Fortunately, there are five common and effective solutions for fixing most 504 Gateway Timeout Errors’ causes.

1. Look for server connectivity issues.

Most websites live on multiple servers or third-party hosting providers. If your server is down for maintenance or any other reason, your website could serve visitors a 504 Gateway Timeout Error page. The only way to troubleshoot this issue is to wait for your server to finish maintenance or fix the problem causing the error.

2. Check for any DNS changes.

If you’ve recently changed host servers or moved your website to a different IP address, it’ll make changes to your website’s DNS server. This could cause your website to serve its visitors a 504 Gateway Timeout Error page. Your website won’t be up and running until these DNS changes take full effect, which can take a few hours.

3. Sift through your logs.

Server logs will provide details about your server’s health and status. Sift through them to uncover any alarming information.

4. Fix faulty firewall configurations.

Your firewall is your website’s gatekeeper, protecting your site from malicious visitors or distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks. Sometimes, a faulty firewall configuration will cause your firewall to deem requests from a content delivery network as an attack on your server and reject them, resulting in a 504 Gateway Timeout Error. Check your firewall configuration to pinpoint and fix the issue.

5. Comb through your website’s code to find bugs.

If there’s a mistake in your website’s code, your server might not be able to correctly answer requests from a content delivery network. Comb through your code to find bugs or copy your code into a development machine. It’ll perform a thorough debug process that will simulate the situation that your 504 Gateway Timeout Error occurred in and allow you to see the exact moment where things went wrong.

What will your Christmas gifts be placed under this year? A Fraser fir? A Douglas fir? An artificial tree?

While some individuals love the look and smell of a real Christmas tree, others prefer the low upkeep and longevity of an artificial tree.

But what if we could use genetics to improve the Christmas tree? Would you trade in the fake tree for a fir that loses less needles and requires less upkeep?

Here are four facts about using genetics in pursuit of a more perfect Christmas tree:

1) Very little has been known about the genomes of Christmas trees. Megan Molteni of Wired reported last year:

“…the conifer genome is not just enormous-20 billion base pairs compared to your 3 billion-but also pretty weird. At some point in their deep past, spruces, pines, firs, and their relatives acquired a complete second set of genes. Scientists think this genome-wide duplication likely helped shape these species into the tallest, hardiest plants in the world. But it’s also made sequencing them an incredibly daunting challenge. And unlike corn and soybean, there hasn’t been much money available to even try. So far scientists have managed to put together partial DNA blueprints for only a handful of conifers, not including the most popular Christmas tree species.”

2) Scientists and researchers are studying genetic data taken from Christmas trees around the world to better understand the DNA of these trees and increase the potential for genetic improvement. For example, North Carolina State University’s Christmas Tree Genetics Program has been working since 1996 to advance the state’s Christmas tree industry through the application of genetic principles.

“We are doing DNA sequencing to understand the DNA of Christmas trees, and in the long term, this may lead in the future to genetic engineering.” – John Frampton, professor in the department of Forestry and Environmental Resources at North Carolina State University

3) Genetics research could lead to the development of Fraser firs that are resistant to pests like Phytophthora root rot and the balsam woolly adelgid. A Christmas tree spends six to 10 years growing before it is cut to be sold, and such pests can kill a tree before that time.

Phytophthora is a fungus-like organism that can infect a Fraser fir and cause yellow-green needles, wilting, dead branches, and eventually tree death.

Balsam woolly adelgid is a small insect that feeds on Fraser firs and kills the trees after several years of infestation.

4) Genetics research is also exploring what separates the best needle-holders from the worst. Using branches from different trees, Gary Chastenger, a plant pathologist at Washington State University, has been researching the genetic variations of trees and needle retention. Via Wired:

Today, Chastagner’s team hangs the branches on racks or wire clotheslines strung across a temperature-controlled concrete cistern, where they rest without water for seven to 10 days. Then, a few well-trained technicians gently rub each branch and rate the needle retention on a scale of one (1 percent of needles fall off) to seven (91 to 100 percent loss).

Chastagner is only interested in the extremes on both sides of the spectrum. Over the years, he’s taken any cuttings that rate zero to one, or six to seven and grafted little bits of them onto rootstocks his lab manages on 15 acres in Puyallup. This process converts each outlying specimen into an isolated stand of genetically identical trees, preserving their unique DNA in what’s called a clonal holding block.

Now, those trees are part of a massive effort to pinpoint the tiny genetic variations that determine why some trees turn out better than others.

Six years ago, Chastagner and researchers at Washington State University, North Carolina State University and University of California, Davis jointly secured $1.3 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to find genetic markers for Phytophthora root rot resistance and needle retention.

Chastagner’s graduate student, Katie McKeever, is collecting isolates of Phytophthora in various growing areas. By sequencing these samples and conducting pathogenicity trials, McKeever will contribute critical information to the team’s search for mechanisms of resistance in trees. Once the researchers find the relevant genetic markers, they can screen adult trees and select the most promising as seed sources for viable Christmas tree plantations.

The team will use similar techniques to resolve the matter of needle shedding. Chastagner’s multi-decade cataloging of Christmas trees with varying degrees of postharvest needle retention will give this part of the project a jump-start. By using these and other trees, scientists will be able to quickly identify needle-retentive gene sources so growers can produce desirable Christmas trees.

Through genetics research we can improve firs that are used for Christmas trees and ensure the genetic conservation of firs. There is much more to learn about conifer genetics, but as Chastagner said in the interview with Wired, “the potential for genetic improvement in these species is huge.”

What will your Christmas gifts be placed under this year? A Fraser fir? A Douglas fir? An artificial tree?

While some individuals love the look and smell of a real Christmas tree, others prefer the low upkeep and longevity of an artificial tree.

But what if we could use genetics to improve the Christmas tree? Would you trade in the fake tree for a fir that loses less needles and requires less upkeep?

Here are four facts about using genetics in pursuit of a more perfect Christmas tree:

1) Very little has been known about the genomes of Christmas trees. Megan Molteni of Wired reported last year:

“…the conifer genome is not just enormous-20 billion base pairs compared to your 3 billion-but also pretty weird. At some point in their deep past, spruces, pines, firs, and their relatives acquired a complete second set of genes. Scientists think this genome-wide duplication likely helped shape these species into the tallest, hardiest plants in the world. But it’s also made sequencing them an incredibly daunting challenge. And unlike corn and soybean, there hasn’t been much money available to even try. So far scientists have managed to put together partial DNA blueprints for only a handful of conifers, not including the most popular Christmas tree species.”

2) Scientists and researchers are studying genetic data taken from Christmas trees around the world to better understand the DNA of these trees and increase the potential for genetic improvement. For example, North Carolina State University’s Christmas Tree Genetics Program has been working since 1996 to advance the state’s Christmas tree industry through the application of genetic principles.

“We are doing DNA sequencing to understand the DNA of Christmas trees, and in the long term, this may lead in the future to genetic engineering.” – John Frampton, professor in the department of Forestry and Environmental Resources at North Carolina State University

3) Genetics research could lead to the development of Fraser firs that are resistant to pests like Phytophthora root rot and the balsam woolly adelgid. A Christmas tree spends six to 10 years growing before it is cut to be sold, and such pests can kill a tree before that time.

Phytophthora is a fungus-like organism that can infect a Fraser fir and cause yellow-green needles, wilting, dead branches, and eventually tree death.

Balsam woolly adelgid is a small insect that feeds on Fraser firs and kills the trees after several years of infestation.

4) Genetics research is also exploring what separates the best needle-holders from the worst. Using branches from different trees, Gary Chastenger, a plant pathologist at Washington State University, has been researching the genetic variations of trees and needle retention. Via Wired:

Today, Chastagner’s team hangs the branches on racks or wire clotheslines strung across a temperature-controlled concrete cistern, where they rest without water for seven to 10 days. Then, a few well-trained technicians gently rub each branch and rate the needle retention on a scale of one (1 percent of needles fall off) to seven (91 to 100 percent loss).

Chastagner is only interested in the extremes on both sides of the spectrum. Over the years, he’s taken any cuttings that rate zero to one, or six to seven and grafted little bits of them onto rootstocks his lab manages on 15 acres in Puyallup. This process converts each outlying specimen into an isolated stand of genetically identical trees, preserving their unique DNA in what’s called a clonal holding block.

Now, those trees are part of a massive effort to pinpoint the tiny genetic variations that determine why some trees turn out better than others.

Six years ago, Chastagner and researchers at Washington State University, North Carolina State University and University of California, Davis jointly secured $1.3 million in funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to find genetic markers for Phytophthora root rot resistance and needle retention.

Chastagner’s graduate student, Katie McKeever, is collecting isolates of Phytophthora in various growing areas. By sequencing these samples and conducting pathogenicity trials, McKeever will contribute critical information to the team’s search for mechanisms of resistance in trees. Once the researchers find the relevant genetic markers, they can screen adult trees and select the most promising as seed sources for viable Christmas tree plantations.

The team will use similar techniques to resolve the matter of needle shedding. Chastagner’s multi-decade cataloging of Christmas trees with varying degrees of postharvest needle retention will give this part of the project a jump-start. By using these and other trees, scientists will be able to quickly identify needle-retentive gene sources so growers can produce desirable Christmas trees.

Through genetics research we can improve firs that are used for Christmas trees and ensure the genetic conservation of firs. There is much more to learn about conifer genetics, but as Chastagner said in the interview with Wired, “the potential for genetic improvement in these species is huge.”

submitted by /u/pen1210
[link] [comments]