History and future of genetically engineered food animal regulation: an open request

Genetic Engineering of Livestock: The Opportunity Cost of Regulatory Delay

Genetically engineered (GE) livestock were first reported in 1985, and yet only a single GE food animal, the fast-growing AquAdvantage salmon, has been commercialized. There are myriad interconnected reasons for the slow progress in this once-promising field, including technical issues, the structure of livestock industries, lack of public research funding and investment, regulatory obstacles, and concern about public opinion. This review focuses on GE livestock that have been produced and documents the difficulties that researchers and developers have encountered en route. Additionally, the costs associated with delayed commercialization of GE livestock were modeled using three case studies: GE mastitis-resistant dairy cattle, genome-edited porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome virus-resistant pigs, and the AquAdvantage salmon. Delays of 5 or 10 years in the commercialization of GE livestock beyond the normative 10-year GE product evaluation period were associated with billions of dollars in opportunity costs and reduced global food security.

Genomic and phenotypic analyses of six offspring of a genome-edited hornless bull

Genome editing followed by reproductive cloning was previously used to produce two hornless dairy bulls. We crossed one genome-edited dairy bull, homozygous for the dominant PC Celtic POLLED allele, with horned cows (pp) and obtained six heterozygous (PCp) polled calves. The calves had no horns and were otherwise healthy and phenotypically unremarkable. We conducted whole-genome sequencing of all animals using an Illumina HiSeq4000 to achieve ~20× coverage. Bioinformatics analyses revealed the bull was a compound heterozygote, carrying one naturally occurring PC Celtic POLLED allele and an allele containing an additional introgression of the homology-directed repair donor plasmid along with the PC Celtic allele. These alleles segregated in the offspring of this bull, and inheritance of either allele produced polled calves. No other unintended genomic alterations were observed. These data can be used to inform conversations in the scientific community, with regulatory authorities and with the public around 'intentional genomic alterations' and future regulatory actions regarding genome-edited animals.

Genomic and phenotypic analyses of six offspring of a genome-edited hornless bull

Genome editing followed by reproductive cloning was previously used to produce two hornless dairy bulls. We crossed one genome-edited dairy bull, homozygous for the dominant P_C Celtic POLLED allele, with horned cows (pp) and obtained six heterozygous (P_Cp) polled calves. The calves had no horns and were otherwise healthy and phenotypically unremarkable. We conducted whole-genome sequencing of all animals using an Illumina HiSeq4000 to achieve ~20× coverage. Bioinformatics analyses revealed the bull was a compound heterozygote, carrying one naturally occurring P_C Celtic POLLED allele and an allele containing an additional introgression of the homology-directed repair donor plasmid along with the P_C Celtic allele. These alleles segregated in the offspring of this bull, and inheritance of either allele produced polled calves. No other unintended genomic alterations were observed. These data can be used to inform conversations in the scientific community, with regulatory authorities and with the public around 'intentional genomic alterations' and future regulatory actions regarding genome-edited animals.

Proposed U.S. regulation of gene-edited food animals is not fit for purpose

Dietary DNA is generally regarded as safe to consume, and is a routine ingredient of food obtained from any living organism. Millions of naturally-occurring DNA variations are observed when comparing the genomic sequence of any two healthy individuals of a given species. Breeders routinely select desired traits resulting from this DNA variation to develop new cultivars and varieties of food plants and animals. Regulatory agencies do not evaluate these new varieties prior to commercial release. Gene editing tools now allow plant and animal breeders to precisely introduce useful genetic variation into agricultural breeding programs. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that it has no plans to place additional regulations on gene-edited plants that could otherwise have been developed through traditional breeding prior to commercialization. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proposed mandatory premarket new animal drug regulatory evaluation for all food animals whose genomes have been intentionally altered using modern molecular technologies including gene editing technologies. This runs counter to U.S. biotechnology policy that regulatory oversight should be triggered by unreasonable risk, and not by the fact that an organism has been modified by a particular process or technique. Breeder intention is not associated with product risk. Harmonizing the regulations associated with gene editing in food species is imperative to allow both plant and animal breeders access to gene editing tools to introduce useful sustainability traits like disease resistance, climate adaptability, and food quality attributes into U.S. agricultural breeding programs.

Comparison of gene editing versus conventional breeding to introgress the POLLED allele into the US dairy cattle population

Disbudding and dehorning are commonly used cattle management practices to protect animals and humans from injury. They are unpleasant, costly processes subject to increased public scrutiny as an animal welfare issue. Horns are a recessively inherited trait, so one option to eliminate dehorning is to breed for polled (hornlessness). However, due to the low genetic merit and scarcity of polled dairy sires, this approach has not been widely adopted. In March 2018, only 3 Holstein and 0 Jersey active homozygous polled sires were registered with the National Association of Animal Breeders. Alternatively, gene editing to produce high-genetic-merit polled sires has been proposed. To further explore this concept, introgression of the POLLED allele into both the US Holstein and Jersey cattle populations via conventional breeding or gene editing (top 1% of bulls/year) was simulated for 3 polled mating schemes and compared with baseline selection on lifetime net merit (NM$) alone, over the course of 20 yr. Scenarios were replicated 10 times and the changes in HORNED allele frequency, inbreeding, genetic gain (NM$), and number of unique sires used were calculated. Gene editing decreased the frequency of the HORNED allele to <0.1 after 20 yr, which was as fast or faster than conventional breeding for both breeds. In the mating scheme that required the use of only existing homozygous polled sires, inbreeding reached 17% (Holstein) and 14% (Jersey), compared with less than 7% in the baseline scenarios. However, gene editing in the same mating scheme resulted in significantly less inbreeding, 9% (Holstein) and 8% (Jersey). Also, gene editing resulted in significantly higher NM$ after 20 yr compared with conventional breeding for both breeds. Additionally, the gene editing scenarios of both breeds used a significantly greater number of unique sires compared with either the conventional breeding or baseline scenarios. Overall, our simulations show that, given the current genetic merit of horned and polled dairy sires, the use of conventional breeding methods to decrease the frequency of the HORNED allele will increase inbreeding and slow genetic improvement. Furthermore, this study demonstrates how gene editing could be used to rapidly decrease the frequency of the HORNED allele in US dairy cattle populations while maintaining the rate of genetic gain, constraining inbreeding to acceptable levels, and simultaneously addressing an emerging animal welfare concern.