Wheat EARLY FLOWERING 3 affects heading date without disrupting circadian oscillations.

Plant breeders have indirectly selected for variation at circadian-associated loci in many of the world's major crops, when breeding to increase yield and improve crop performance. Using an eight-parent Multiparent Advanced Generation Inter-Cross (MAGIC) population, we investigated how variation in circadian clock-associated genes contributes to the regulation of heading date in UK and European winter wheat (Triticum aestivum) varieties. We identified homoeologues of EARLY FLOWERING 3 (ELF3) as candidates for the Earliness per se (Eps) D1 and B1 loci under field conditions. We then confirmed a single-nucleotide polymorphism within the coding region of TaELF3-B1 as a candidate polymorphism underlying the Eps-B1 locus. We found that a reported deletion at the Eps-D1 locus encompassing TaELF3-D1 is, instead, an allele that lies within an introgression region containing an inversion relative to the Chinese Spring D genome. Using Triticum turgidum cv. Kronos carrying loss-of-function alleles of TtELF3, we showed that ELF3 regulates heading, with loss of a single ELF3 homoeologue sufficient to alter heading date. These studies demonstrated that ELF3 forms part of the circadian oscillator; however, the loss of all homoeologues was required to affect circadian rhythms. Similarly, loss of functional LUX ARRHYTHMO (LUX) in T. aestivum, an orthologue of a protein partner of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) ELF3, severely disrupted circadian rhythms. ELF3 and LUX transcripts are not co-expressed at dusk, suggesting that the structure of the wheat circadian oscillator might differ from that of Arabidopsis. Our demonstration that alterations to ELF3 homoeologues can affect heading date separately from effects on the circadian oscillator suggests a role for ELF3 in cereal photoperiodic responses that could be selected for without pleiotropic deleterious alterations to circadian rhythms.

Selective herbicide safening in dicot plants: a case study in Arabidopsis.

Safeners are agrochemicals co-applied with herbicides that facilitate selective control of weeds by protecting monocot crops from chemical injury through enhancing the expression of detoxifying enzymes such as glutathione transferases (GSTs). Even though the application of safeners causes the induction of genes encoding GSTs in model dicots such as Arabidopsis thaliana, safeners do not protect broadleaf crops from herbicide injury. In this study, we proposed that the localized induction of Arabidopsis GSTs and the fundamental differences in their detoxifying activity between dicot and monocot species, underpin the failure of safeners to protect Arabidopsis from herbicide toxicity. Using the herbicide safener, isoxadifen-ethyl, we showed that three tau (U) family GSTs namely AtGSTU7, AtGSTU19 and AtGSTU24 were induced with different magnitude by isoxadifen treatment in root and rosette tissues. The higher magnitude of inducibility of these AtGSTUs in the root tissues coincided with the enhanced metabolism of flufenacet, a herbicide that is active in root tissue, protecting Arabidopsis plants from chemical injury. Assay of the recombinant enzyme activities and the significant reduction in flufenacet metabolism determined in the T-DNA insertion mutant of AtGSTU7 (gstu7) in Arabidopsis plants identified an important function for AtGSTU7 protein in flufenacet detoxification. In-silico structural modeling of AtGSTU7, suggested the unique high activity of this enzyme toward flufenacet was due to a less constrained active site compared to AtGSTU19 and AtGSTU24. We demonstrate here that it is possible to induce herbicide detoxification in dicotyledonous plants by safener treatment, albeit with this activity being restricted to very specific combinations of herbicide chemistry, and the localized induction of enzymes with specific detoxifying activities.

Risk perception associated with an emerging agri-food risk in Europe: plant viruses in agriculture.

Background: Research into public risk perceptions associated with emerging risks in agriculture and supply chains has focused on technological risks, zoonotic diseases, and food integrity, but infrequently on naturally occurring diseases in plants. Plant virus infections account for global economic losses estimated at $30 billion annually and are responsible for nearly 50% of plant diseases worldwide, threatening global food security. This research aimed to understand public perceptions of emerging risks and benefits associated with plant viruses in agriculture in Belgium, Slovenia, Spain, and the UK. Methods: Online qualitative semi-structured interviews with 80 European consumers were conducted, including 20 participants in each of Belgium, Slovenia, the UK, and Spain. Microsoft Streams was used to transcribe the interview data, and NVivo was utilized to code the transcripts and analyze the data. Results: The results indicate that, while study participants were relatively unfamiliar with the plant viruses and their potential impacts, plant viruses evoked perceived risks in a similar way to other emerging risks in the agri-food sector. These included risks to environment and human health, and the economic functioning of the relevant supply chain. Some participants perceived both risks and benefits to be associated with plant viruses. Benefits were perceived to be associated with improved plant resistance to viruses. Conclusions: The results provide the basis for risk regulation, policy, and communication developments. Risk communication needs to take account of both risk and benefit perceptions, as well as the observation that plant viruses are perceived as an emerging, rather than an established, understood, and controlled risk. Some participants indicated the need for risk-benefit communication strategies to be developed, including information about the impacts of the risks, and associated mitigation strategies. Participants perceived that responsibility for control of plant viruses should be conferred on actors within the supply chain, in particular primary producers, although policy support (for example, financial incentivization) should be provided to improve their motivation to instigate risk mitigation activities.