NGTs: Inside the first European gene-edited wheat field trial | Euronews Tech Talks

In 2020, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Emmanuelle Charpentier and Jennifer Doudna for the development of a precision-based gene-editing technology with multiple applications ranging from medicine to agriculture. 

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR-Cas) enables scientists to target precise spots in the DNA and introduce small mutations that ultimately modify the features of the organism. 

CRISPR-Cas is an example of new genomic techniques (NGTs), often referred to as the next generation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). 

NGTs offer a wide range of potential applications across various fields, including agriculture and medicine. 

To better understand what NGTs are and how they work, Euronews Tech Talks went to Hertfordshire, a county just north of London, where a team of researchers is leading Europe’s first gene-edited wheat field trial. 

What are NGTs, and how are they different from GMOs?

The European Union is yet to adopt a comprehensive legal definition for NGTs. The current understanding is based on a draft proposed by the European Commission in 2023, which has since been the subject of ongoing discussions.

Based on this document, Vittoria Brambilla, associate professor in botany at the University of Milan, defines NGTs as plants which do not contain genes coming from sexually incompatible organisms. 

“They [NGTs] rather contain only small insertions or deletions that can modify the function of the endogenous gene itself,” she added. 

Just like GMOs, NGTs are often presented as technological tools designed to improve a crop.

However, while GMOs involve inserting genes from one organism into another, regardless of their origin, NGTs do not introduce DNA from sexually incompatible organisms.

There are several techniques to create NGTs, but there’s one that stands out more than the others. “Most of them [NGTs] now, they are made through the CRISPR-Cas9 system,” said Brambilla. 

Cas-9 is an enzyme, a type of protein that speeds up chemical reactions in the cell. In the most common uses of CRISPR, Cas-9 acts like molecular scissors, cutting an organism's DNA at a specific location to knock out a gene. When the cell tries to repair the break, it often introduces small mutations. 

The strength of CRISPR lies in its balance between relatively easy development and precise DNA modification. This precision is made possible by a guide RNA, a custom-designed molecule that directs the Cas9 enzyme to a specific location in the DNA sequence.

However, this technique can sometimes present technical challenges. 

“You want to have a plant that has, in every cell, the same mutation,” said Ania Lukasiewicz, a researcher in plant breeding at Wageningen University.

“Plants have the ability to grow into a whole new plant from just one cell. But the regeneration of plants after editing can still be a bit tricky,” she added.

The first gene-edited wheat field in Europe

An example of applied NGT in agriculture can be found near London in the town of Harpenden. Here, Nigel Halford and his team at Rothamsted Research are leading Europe’s first trial of gene-edited wheat. 

The project started in 2016, right after Brexit. The team used CRISPR-Cas9 to reduce the level of asparagine in the crop. Asparagine is an amino acid; the concern with it arises during food processing: when baked, fried, or toasted, it can convert into acrylamide, a potential carcinogen. 

“The experiment was successful,” said Halford, “We got big reductions in free asparagine concentration down to 10 per cent of the control in the grain”.

In this experiment, Rothamsted Research used CRISPR differently from the standard approach. 

Instead of introducing Cas9 and the guide RNA using particle bombardment or other direct delivery methods, the team incorporated a genetic modification step. This involved inserting genes encoding Cas9 and the guide RNA into the plant, temporarily classifying it as a GM crop. Once the edit is complete, the GM components are bred out, leaving a genome-edited but GMO-free plant.

Removing the GM elements, however, turned out to be challenging. 

The project was not initially designed with the removal of GM elements in mind. As a result, the team is now repeating the experiment in a different wheat cultivar and considering alternative transformation methods to simplify the removal process.

Despite these hurdles, Halford is hopeful. “I am optimistic that we're gonna continue to progress and we are gonna see things on the market, which is just fantastic,” he said.

EU regulations on NGTs

Currently, in the EU, NGTs are regulated under the GMO legislation. This means they undergo extensive checks and testing, making both their production and commercialisation complex. 

However, the Commission’s proposal of 2023 paves the way for less strict regulations for NGTs. 

According to the proposal, NGT products would be split into two categories: NGT 1 and NGT 2. While NGT 2 products would remain subject to GMO regulations, NGT 1 products would be exempt from the stricter risk assessments and labelling requirements.

Lukasiewicz explained that the primary difference between NGT 1 and NTG 2 lies in the number and type of genetic modifications allowed. NGT 1 category will allow only up to 20 small insertions and targeted additions of genes from crossable species, and all other products will fall under NGT 2. 

But not everyone is convinced

While this deregulation has sparked excitement among many scientists, others, such as Katja Tielbörger, a professor of plant ecology at the University of Tübingen in Germany, remain sceptical. 

She said she is not opposed to NGTs, but expressed serious concerns about the proposed EU regulation. She is particularly worried about the potential environmental and agricultural impacts of introducing new plant varieties, especially given our limited understanding of wild species.

“We cannot claim any equivalence of NGT 1 with normal breeding,” said Tielborger as she questioned the distinction between NGT 1 and NGT 2.

“And even molecular biologists would agree that this distinction between NGT 1 and NGT 2 is not based on scientific evidence. I mean it's just a random number and it doesn't make sense,” she added.  

She is also unconvinced about the ability of NGTs to save our food system, saying, “We don't need any new varieties to feed the world”.  

“Food security is not an issue of which varieties we have. It's an issue of how the food is distributed and what is happening with it,” Tielborger said.