Published in New Phytologist, 2012
Under One Leaf.
A Historical Perspective on the UK Plant Science Federation
Authors:
Sabina Leonelli, ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society, Department of Sociology and
Philosophy, University of Exeter, tel. 0044 1392 725137 . Email:
s.leonelli@exeter.ac.uk [corresponding author]
Berris Charnley, ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society, University of Exeter
Alex Webb, Department of Plant Sciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
Ruth Bastow, GARNet, School of Life Sciences, University of Warwick
Abstract
The UK Plant Science Federation was established at the end of 2011. This article
explores the significance of this venture through a lens based on the history of plant
genetics throughout the 20th century. We illustrate the advantages and difficulties in
building and maintaining collaborative links between researchers working with crops
and model species and the significance of such collaborations for the future of plant
science in the UK and further afield. In particular, we explore how the success and
failures in the plant molecular genetics and genomics sector can help inform the
activities of the UKPSF and, conversely, how the UKPSF can help unite the many and
various plant science spheres in the UK in order to tackle current global challenges.
Keywords: plant science, plant genetics, history of biology, crops, breeding practices,
model organisms, laboratory research
1. Introduction
The UK Plant Science Federation (UKPSF) was launched on the 23rd November
2011 and will see its first annual gathering in April 2012. UKPSF is a special interest
group of the Society of Biology, which aims to bring together the plant science
community in the UK and create a coordinated approach to research, industry,
funding and education in this vital sector of the biosciences.
We explore the circumstances that led to the foundation of the UKPSF and reflect on
its significance in relation to the history of plant science. In particular, we focus on
the case of plant genetics as exemplary of (1) the variety of approaches and settings
involved in advancing plant science, (2) the importance of maintaining cooperation
between different communities and (3) the work needed to nurture and develop
cooperative links, especially within the increasingly complex and fragmented
scientific research landscape. As we show, plant genetics has also a history of direct
links to plant breeding for crop development. Our perspective is informed by our
scientific and historical expertise in this area of research, as well as the involvement
of two of the authors in the establishment of the UKPSF itself.
We show that collaborations between plant breeders and laboratory scientists in the
first half of the 20th century were fundamental to the establishment of plant genetics
as a discipline and to its explosive development. We explore how the advent of
molecular biology in the second half of the 20th century increased the use of model
organisms such as Arabidopsis thaliana and furthered our understanding of plant
growth and development, as well as the creation of a wealth of tools and resources
such as stock centres and genome databases. Although focusing efforts on model
organisms has been extremely useful, in the case of Arabidopsis, it can also be viewed
as having the unfortunate consequence of fostering a temporary separation of basic
and applied plant genetics,. Today, in the 21st century, these two spheres are being
brought back together as a result of new technologies. For example, advances in
genomic scale technologies have allowed the sequencing of complex crop genomes
and within the next decade resources currently available only in model plants will be
extended to a wider variety of plant species. This will allow the expertise and
knowledge of molecular mechanisms accrued through the use of model plants to be
fully exploited by other approaches and disciplines in plant science.
We analyse how the area of plant genetics has reflected the changes in the research
landscape and to what extent the history of this sector can help inform the activities of
the UKPSF and inspire other plant science organisations around the globe to help
unite the sector and provide one voice for plant science in the UK and beyond.
2. Plant genetics and plant breeding before World War II: A model for
interdisciplinary, cross-species research
Plant science has long roots, stretching back through Arthur Tansley (1871-1955)
Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817 – 1911), Joseph Banks (1743 –1820) and Carl Linnaeus
(1707 – 1778), to name just a few ‘heroes’ of botany (Roberts 1929). Even in the
early modern period, botany was an international endeavour in which flows of
knowledge, as well as plant and seed material, circulated across globally distributed
networks. For example, in the UK centres such as the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew
provided a window on the exotic world of botany and played a crucial role in
developing the field of ‘economic botany’ and botanical conservation.
The family tree of plant genetics and plant breeding has an equally prestigious history.
When coining the term ‘genetics’ in 1905, the UK scientist and inaugural director of
the John Innes Institute William Bateson derived his main inspiration from Gregor
Mendel (1822-1884), who is widely recognised as the father of the field of genetics.
Mendel used a plant model, Psium sativum (the edible pea), to conduct the majority of
his work on patterns of inheritance. Every student of genetics will at some point have
learnt about Mendel’s peas and the famous ‘A’s and ‘B’s of his combinatorial
mathematical approach, which inspired the complex experimental strategies
characteristic of genetic studies in the first two decades of the twentieth century
One might think that the very first geneticists had little to offer to those interested in
crop improvement. Or, that the discipline was somewhat cloistered away from
practical applications.
Remarkably, however, early plant geneticists did not
distinguish between basic and applied science in their day to day operations. Mendel,
who was a monk and later Abbot at the Abbey of St Thomas in Brno, Moravia (the
current-day Czech Republic), was also deeply interested in the practical applications
of his work in the agro-industrial context (e.g. Orel and Matalova 1983, Müller-Wille
and Rheinberger 2012). Far from being a backwater, Mendel’s Moravia was an
agricultural powerhouse. We now know that his attendance at the local agricultural
society’s meetings was not a coincidence but the result of a strong influence on his
work (Müller-Wille 2007, with Orel 2007). The re-discoverers and popularisers of
Mendel’s work were equally committed to the coordinated use of basic and applied
research. Hugo Marie de Vries (1848 –1935), Carl Correns (1864 – 1933) and Erich
von Tschermak-Seysenegg (1871 – 1962) were as much concerned with crop
improvement as they were with basic science. All were situated in a crop
experimental context and actively sought out collaborations with plant breeders
interested in crop improvement. In de Vries’ case this meant long trips to Sweden,
where the Svalöf Experimental Station was conducting the leading crop improvement
research in Europe, and to California, visiting Luther Burbank’s (1849 –1926) world
famous nurseries (DeVries 1908, Harwood 2000, Rheinberger 2010).
Similarly in the UK agricultural improvement and basic research went hand in hand,
leading to a number of fundamental discoveries (Charnley and Radick 2010). For
example the world’s oldest agriculture research station was established in Rothamsted
in 1843 by John Lawes and Joseph Gilbert, providing the foundations of modern
scientific agriculture and establishing the principles of crop nutrition. In1910 the John
Innes Horticultural Research Institution was founded at Merton South London and,
under the directorships of Bateson, Daniel Hall and C. D. Darlington, went on to
support pathbreaking work on segregation and rogues in plants . In 1912 the Plant
Breeding Institute in Cambridge was established and its director Rowland Biffen was
the first scientist to demonstrate that Mendelian ratios could be applied to crop traits
through his research on wheat yellow rust resistance.
Centres of excellence were also established at other locations across the UK including
East Mailing, Long Ashton, the Welsh Plant Breeding Institute and the Scottish Plant
Breeding Station to name but a few. In each case there was a strong cooperation
between laboratory and field research, which constituted the backbone for most plant
science in the UK and Europe until well after the Second World War.
3. Plant molecular genetics in the second half of the 20th century:
specialisation and the contested role of model organisms
The relationship between plant genetics and crop improvement began to take a new
shape with the advent of molecular biology and the increasing focus, starting from the
late 1970s, on individual model species. In the three post-war decades, the primary
discoveries in plant science were essentially biochemical, founded on new analytical
technologies alongside biometrical genetics and various application of tissue culture.
A multitude of different species were deployed in these fundamental studies,
including petunia, snapdragon and tobacco (Gerats and Strommer 2009, Koorneef and
Meinke 2010). Many early advances in molecular plant science were also obtained
through research on crops, one of the most famous examples being Barbara
McClintock’s work on transposons in maize (Comfort 2001). Research on tomato and
cereals played an important role in the development of molecular approaches to plant
genetics, physiology and ecology, for instance by uncovering the effects of nitrogen
source and other environmental and nutritional factors on plant growth (e.g. Kirby and
Knight 1977). In the 1970s an ambitious research programme began to emerge, which
aimed at elucidating the molecular mechanisms for basic plant traits and was based
around the model organism Arabidopsis thaliana, widely known also as the ‘botanical
Drosophila’ (Sommerville and Koorneef 2002, Koorneef and Meinke 2010, Leonelli
2007). Large-scale funding programmes in Europe and the US, in the 1980s and
especially the 1990s, focused on Arabidopsis research, arguably at the expense of
more economically relevant but less tractable crops. As a result of this concentrated
funding, Arabidopsis research has been relatively insulated and disconnected from
applied research over the last three decades (as evidenced by publication trends, e.g.
Jonkers 2009). In addition it can be argued that this funding imbalance may have
contributed to temporarily slowing down advances in crop development and breeding.
However, the knowledge acquired by focusing efforts on a single tractable system has
been critical to our current understanding of plant biology, for example the
identification of the major plant hormone receptors (Lumba, Cultler and McCourt
2010, Spartz and Gray 2008) and the identification of small RNAs (Hamilton and
Baulcombe, 1999; Baulcombe, 2004).
Indeed, investment in the Arabidopsis community has ended up playing an important
role in building infrastructures and collaborative links in plant science across the
globe, thus fostering integration and co-operation well beyond genetic research on one
species. Examples of this are the Arabidopsis stock centres (Rosenthal and Ashburner
2002, Meinke and Scholl 2003) and The Arabidopsis Information Resource (Rhee et
al 2003), which continue to provide key materials, data and information to the plant
community at large. On the institutional side Arabidopsis community networks and
groupings such as the Multinational Arabidopsis Steering Committee (MASC;
http://www.arabidopsis.org/portals/masc/index.jsp) and GARNet (UK network for
Arabidopsis researchers; http://www.garnetcommunity.org.uk/) have encouraged
collaboration and networking among plant scientists interested in molecular and
genomics research, thus fostering a ‘share and survive’ ethos within plant science as a
whole (Rhee 2004). The Arabidopsis community also continues to provide an
important reference point for the development of other model species, including
animals such as zebrafish and mouse (Leonelli and Ankeny 2012). Plant genetics and
genomics now face the substantial challenge of exploiting those resources to foster
interdisciplinary research across plant species, so as to further plant biology as a
whole and translate laboratory results to into widely useful agricultural and bioenergy
resources (e.g. Chew and Halliday 2012, Carroll and Somerville 2009).
4. One Voice for UK Plant Science: The UK Plant Science Federation
As plant genetics, genomics and plant breeding move into the 21st century, the two
spheres of basic and applied research are being brought back together as a result of
technological advancements. For example developments in genome scale
technologies have lowered the technological barrier to research in complex crop
plants and less studied plants. Soon, technologies and data resources currently only
available in model plants will be extended to a variety of plant species, thus making it
easier to use genomic resources to examine hitherto understudied plants as well as
plant communities, biodiversity and environmental effects.
This step change in data generation and analysis has opened up new possibilities for
this community to help provide solutions to current global problems. However, fully
exploiting the wealth of expertise and information in this sector of UK plant science
will require an increase in investment and efforts in basic research whilst
simultaneously ensuring that this knowledge is translated into practical advances and
applications in the field. The community will thus need to overcome the current
fragmentation into model species and over-specialised research areas. In the UK, this
fragmentation has been perceived as a barrier to building a viable research pipeline
from the lab to the field (BBSRC 2004).
To try and help the community overcome these many barriers and fulfil its potential,
during 2010 and 2011 GARNet initiated discussion amongst numerous stakeholders
from plant breeding industry, plant molecular and genomic research networks,
education and learned societies to explore the possibilities of forming ‘one voice for
UK Plant Science’. This initiative was welcomed by all present and the concept of a
‘federation’ of UK plant science groupings was viewed as a necessary development to
bring the community together in order to pool knowledge, share expertise and identify
mechanisms whereby plant scientists could work together for the benefit of all.
Although the concept of a forming a federation was initiated by individuals and
networks involved in molecular, genetic and genomic plant research, these account
for only a few areas within the vast array of plant science. The development of long
lasting and sustainable solutions to worldwide issues such as food security and
climate change will require not only to build bridges between basic applied research
in this specific community, but also to look beyond molecular plant sciences and work
towards spanning the gulf that currently exists between this area and the spheres of
plant ecology, diversity and conservation.
Therefore to ensure that the federation encompasses the breadth of UK plant science,
the UKPSF was established within the Society of Biology in November 2011. To date
29 organisations have joined the Federation, including research networks, plant
breeders, industry groupings, botanical gardens and plant science educators (Table 1).
Although similar groupings exist elsewhere in the world (the American Society of
Plant Biologists provides membership for a range of plant researchers and the
European Plant Science Organisation encompasses research and industry), the UKPSF
is unique in providing an umbrella organisation that covers such a diverse range of the
plant science sector. By providing a common voice for UK plant science and
education, the formation of the UKPSF will help to strengthen research outputs,
improve collaboration at the national and international level, create a coordinated
approach amongst this vital area of the biosciences and provide a forum for debate,
dissemination and exchange that is not limited to specific sub-disciplines or model
organism communities.
5. Conclusion
The UK Plant Science Federation will be instrumental to coordinating new forms of
collaboration and integrated research in plant biology at both the national and
international levels.
Despite the fact that plant genetics was born in an agricultural context, the progress of
plant science throughout the 20th century has been marked by a progressive separation
of basic research on model organisms from applied and field based work. As a result,
plant scientists in this sphere are still strongly committed to working on specific
species, and research communities formed around different plants have very different
levels and types of resources at their service. Social, methodological and economic
divides between groups working on different plant species are very large in some
areas and unlikely to disappear rapidly.
As the UKPSF develops in the future we would recommend that it considers the
history of successes and failures of the plant genetics community. Lessons learnt from
this history will help the UKPSF become a productive organisation. For example, it
will be essential that it takes account of the pre-existing diversity in commitments,
research contexts, interests and funding sources characterising the plant scientists
involved. It will also need to maintain a broad perspective of plant science so that is
does not become too focused in one area at the expense of others (for instance, by
favouring genetics over ecology). Finally, it will need to promote an open and
collegiate atmosphere across the sector and encourage the sharing of knowledge, data
and skills.
This brief overview of the historical background for starting a federation of plant
sciences has focused on plant genetics and the contemporary UK context, thus leaving
aside the history of other branches of plant science in other national contexts.
Nevertheless, many of the developments we examined have strong parallels in the
North-American and European contexts, and the centres and initiatives we reviewed
here all have international prominence. Thus, even a narrow focus on the UK
experience provides significant insight about the difficulties to be encountered when
engaging in such a co-operative exercise, and we would envisage that UKPSF will
provide a useful template for developing integrative plant research across the globe.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge the ESRC, which funds Sabina Leonelli and Berris
Charnley through the ESRC Centre for Genomics in Society; and the BBSRC, which
funds GARNet and Ruth Bastow through BBSRC grant BBG0214811 and Alex
Webb through BBSRC grant BB/H0068261.
Bibliography
Bastow R, Beynon J, Estelle M, Friesner J, Grotewold E, Lavagi I, Lindsey K,
Meyers B, Provart N, Benfey P et al. 2010. An international bioinformatics
infrastructure to underpin the Arabidopsis community. Plant Cell 22: 2530–2536.
Baulcombe D. 2004. RNA silencing in plants. Nature 431: 356–363.
BBSRC. 2004. Review of BBSRC-funded Research Relevant to Crop Science: A
Report for BBSRC Council April 2004.
http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/organisation/policies/reviews/scientific-areas/0404-crop-
science.aspx .
Carroll A, Somerville CR. 2009. Cellulosic biofuels. Annual Review of Plant
Biology 60: 165–182.
Charnley B, Radick G. 2010. Plant breeding and intellectual property before and
after the rise of Mendelism: the case of Britain. In Kevles DJ et al. eds. Living
Properties: Making knowledge and controlling ownership in modern biology. Berlin:
MPIWG Preprint. pp. 51–55.
Chew YH, Halliday KJ. 2011. A stress-free walk from Arabidopsis to crops. Current
Opinion in Biotechnology 22: 281–286.
Comfort NC. 2001. The tangled field: Barbara McClintock’s search for the patterns
of genetic control. Harvard University Press.
Gerats T, Strommer J. 2009. Petunia: Evolutionary, Developmental and
Physiological Genetics. Springer.
Hamilton A, Baulcombe DC. 1999. A species of small antisense RNA in
posttranscriptional gene silencing in plants. Science 286: 950–952.
Harwood J. 2000. The rediscovery of Mendelism in agricultural context: Erich von
Tschermak as plant-breeder. Comptes Rendus de l'Académie des Sciences - Series III -
Sciences de la Vie 323: 1061–1067.
Jonkers K. 2010. Models and orphans; concentration of the plant molecular life
science research agenda. Scientometrics 83: 167–179.
Kirkby EA, Knight AH. 1977. Influence of the level of nitrate nutrition on ion
uptake and assimilation, organic acid accumulation, and cation-anion balance in
whole tomato plants. Plant Physiology 60: 349-353
Koornneef M, Meinke D. 2010. The development of Arabidopsis as a model plant.
The Plant Journal 61: 909–921.
Leonelli S. 2007. Growing weed, producing knowledge. An epistemic history of
Arabidopsis thaliana. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 29(2): 55–87.
Leonelli S, Ankeny RA. 2012. Re-thinking organisms: The impact of databases on
model organism biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 43: 29–36.
Lumba S, Cutler S, McCourt P. 2010. Plant nuclear hormone receptors: a role for
small molecules in protein-protein interactions. Annual Review of Cell and
Developmental Biology 26: 445–469.
Meinke D, Scholl R. 2003. The preservation of plant genetic resources. Experiences
with Arabidopsis. Plant Physiology 133: 1046–1050.
Müller-Wille S. 2007. Hybrids, pure cultures, and pure lines: from nineteenth-century
biology to twentieth-century genetics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science
Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 38:
796–806.
Müller-Wille S, Orel V. 2007. From Linnaean species to Mendelian factors:
Elements of Hybridism, 1751-1870. Annals of Science 64: 171–215.
Müller-Wille S, Rheinberger H-J. 2012. A Cultural History of Heredity. University
of Chicago Press.
Orel V, Matalova A, eds. 1983. Gregor Mendel and the Foundation of Genetics.
Brno: Mendelianum/Czechoslovak Society for the History of Science. pp. 57–75.
Rhee SY, Beavis W, Berardini TZ, Chen G, Dixon D, Doyle A, Garcia-
Hernandez M, Huala E, Lander G, Montoya M, et al. 2003. The Arabidopsis
Information Resource (TAIR): a model organism database providing a centralized,
curated gateway to Arabidopsis biology, research materials and community. Nucleic
Acids Research 31(1): 224–228
Rhee SY. 2004. Carpe diem: Retooling the “publish or perish” model into the “share
and survive” model. Plant Physiology 134: 543–547.
Rheinberger H-J. 2010. An Epistemology of the Concrete: Twentieth-Century
Histories of Life. Durham & London: Duke University Press.
Roberts HF. 1929. Plant Hybridisation before Mendel. Princeton University Press:
Princeton.
Rosenthal N, Ashburner M. 2002. Taking stock of our models: The function and
future of stock centres. Nature Reviews Genetics 3: 711–717.
Sommerville C, Koornneef M. 2002. A fortunate choice: the history of Arabidopsis
as a model plant. Nature Reviews Genetics 3: 883–889.
Spartz AK, Gray WM. 2008. Plant hormone receptors: new perceptions.
Genes and Development 22: 2139–2148.
de Vries H. 1907. Plant Breeding: Comments on the Experiments of Nilson and
Burbank. London: The Open Court Publishing Company.
Table 1 – UKPSF Member Organisations as of Febuary 2012
Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board
Association of Applied Biologists
BASIC
Bayer
Bioscencecs KTN
British Ecological Society
Biochemical Society
British Crop Production Council
British Society of Plant Breeders
Forest Products Research Institute
GARNet – UK Arabidopsis Research Network
Gastby Plants Science Sumer School
Genetics Society
Institute of Horticulture
Linnean Society
MONOGRAM – UK Cereal and Grasses Research Network
Oxford University Press
Rosaceae Research Network
The Royal Microscopical Society
The Royal Botanical Gardens Kew
SCI Horticultural Group
Science and Plants for Schools
Society of Experimental of Biology
Syngenta
The British Society for Plant Pathology
UK-BRC - UK Brassica Research Community
UK-SOL – UK Solanaceae Research Community
Unliever
VEGIN – Network of Researchers and Industrialist to promote improved vegetable
varieties
