In This Issue:
Report from Scientific Societies on EPA's Proposed Rule for Plant-Pesticides
Satellite Program to Highlight Biotechnology Issues
Modified Wheat May Yield More Versatile Flours
Enhanced Productivity by Phytochrome Overexpression
Autocidal Biological Control - or How to Make Pest Populations Kill Themselves
Direct Transfection of Animal Tissues
India's Emerging Biotechnology Scene
Agbiotech Firm Shows Positive Revenue Growth
Upcoming Meetings
A new report from a coalition of 11 scientific societies regarding the EPA's policy on genetically engineered plants and proposal to regulate "plant-pesticides" was announced in the following news release issued by the Institute of Food Technologists, which served to coordinate the report.
WASHINGTON (July 31, 1996) Pending federal regulations threaten to stifle the development of alternatives to chemical pesticides, and 11 scientific societies today urged the Environmental Protection Agency to reconsider its policy before it becomes final. The EPA currently regulates chemical pesticides that are externally applied to plants. Now the agency wants to expand its federal regulatory powers over the characteristics of plants that help plants resist diseases and pests. The agency has coined a new term for these characteristics, calling them "plant-pesticides."
"This policy, if adopted, will discourage the development of new pest-resistant crops, thereby prolonging the reliance solely on synthetic chemical pesticides," said Calvin O. Qualset Ph.D., head of the Genetic Resources Conservation Program at the University of California, and a spokesperson for the 11 societies. "Furthermore, it will erode public confidence in the safety of the food supply by sending the message that all plants contain pesticides."
Eleven scientific societies, representing more than 80,000 members who study plants, food, plant pests and diseases, and plant defense mechanisms, developed a 35-page report detailing their scientific concerns with the proposal and suggesting principles for appropriate oversight. The report was sent today to EPA Administrator Carol M. Browner.
The report, "Appropriate Oversight for Plants with Inherited Traits for Resistance to Pests," emphasizes that all plants are able to prevent, destroy, repel or mitigate pests or diseases. That ability occurs naturally, and some crops have been bred for resistance to specific pests. EPA proposes to single out for regulation those pest-resistant qualities that were transferred to the plant through recombinant DNA technology (genetic engineering).
"This proposal threatens to limit the use of a cutting-edge technology to those developers who can afford to pay the increased costs associated with additional regulation and deny the benefits of the technology to small companies and public plant breeding programs," Qualset said.
Food and environmental safety of plants developed through rDNA methods is already well regulated by the Food and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture, he added. FDA bases its regulations on the principle of risk posed by a particular plant, not on the method by which the plant was produced. The societies argue that EPA's oversight of pesticides should be based on the same scientific principles underlying FDA's regulations.
Eight of the 11 scientific societies signing on to the report submitted comments to EPA early in 1995 expressing their concerns with the policy. The 11 societies are the American Institute of Biological Sciences, American Phytopathological Society, American Society for Horticultural Science, American Society for Microbiology, American Society of Agronomy, American Society of Plant Physiologists, Crop Science Society of America, Entomological Society of America, Institute of Food Technologists, Society of Nematologists and the Weed Science Society of America.
Editor's Note: The full report is available at http://www.ift.org/sc/stat_tes/G-061.html. For a print copy, contact Joyce A. Nettleton or Ellen J. Sullivan at the Institute of Food Technologists; tel: 312-782-8424; fax: 312-782-8348; email: info@ift.org
Plant biotechnology is the focus of a three-part satellite symposium beginning in September. Designed for research faculty, graduate students, Extension professionals, and private-sector plant biotechnology professionals, this program brings together leading experts from education, industry and government. Participants will learn about important developments and issues in the biotechnology field. Satellite viewers will also have the opportunity to call in questions during the programs.
This series of two-hour video conferences is offered free of charge by a trio of major research universities, Texas A&M, the University of Illinois and the University of Maryland. Funding is provided by the USDA Agricultural Telecommunications Program and A*DEC, the distance education consortium of 50 universities in the United States and Canada. Broadcast time for each program is noon to 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
The first program on September 25 concentrates on plant transformation. Plant scientists, educators, private-industry researchers, and students will get a first-hand look at how Agrobacterium and the gene gun are used in the transformation of plants. Participants will see video-taped laboratory techniques, including processes shot through a microscope. Developed by Texas A&M University, this program features noted researchers Roberta Smith and Ron Newton. Smith conducts research in transformation of crop plants and teaches tissue culture courses at Texas A&M. Newton teaches plant physiology at Texas A&M. His research concentrates on the transformation of pine trees and other plants.
Commercialization is the focus of the second broadcast on October 9. Representatives from Monsanto, Mycogen Plant Sciences, DNA Plant Technology and Calgene will take participants through the commercialization process, from product development to sales. Developed by the University of Illinois, this program highlights the successes, challenges and lessons learned in the development of such new products as RoundupReady Soybeans, Mycogen NatureGard Corn, FreshWorld Farms Sweet Minipeppers, and FlavrSavr Tomatoes.
The final program in the series, set for November 6, addresses risk assessment. Developed by the University of Maryland, leading experts in the field will discuss protocols and methods for verifying molecular risk and safety data. Featured speakers include Alan Goldhammer of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, Rebecca Goldburg, head of the Environmental Defense Fund's Biotechnology Program, Elizabeth Milewski, special assistant for biotechnology at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Terry Medley, associate administrator of the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, and Morris Levin, research professor at the University of Maryland Biotechnology Institute.
Registration details and more information about the biotechnology satellite symposium are also on the A*DEC home page at: http://www.aces.uiuc.edu/~adec. Or, contact Annette Campbell at 618-242-9310 or campbella@idea.ag.uiuc.edu
MODIFIED WHEAT MAY YIELD MORE VERSATILE FLOURS
Better bread may be in the making if flour from a new transgenic wheat has the expected characteristics. Researchers Ann Blechl and Olin Anderson at the USDA Agricultural Research Service Lab in Albany, CA have engineered a wheat cultivar to accumulate high levels of glutenin, a seed storage protein that affects the physical properties of bread dough (Nature Biotechnology, July 1996). High-molecular-weight glutenin subunits (HMW-GS) are members of a family of seed storage proteins synthesized in developing wheat endosperm. Although they account for only 5-10% of total seed protein, they are major determinants of dough elasticity. Thus HMW-GS genes are promising targets for altering the properties of wheat flour.
To monitor expression of the transgene against a background of endogenous glutenin genes, researchers constructed a hybrid gene encoding a glutenin subunit which could be distinguished from native HMW-GS by its gel mobility in SDS-PAGE. Immature embryos were cotransformed with the hybrid gene construct and a selectable marker by microprojectile bombardment. Based on the ability of T1 progeny embryos to germinate in the presence of bialaphos, twenty-six independent transformed lines were selected. Of these, 18 expressed the hybrid subunit transgene in T1 generation seeds.
Preliminary assessment of seed proteins in transgenic lines indicated that additional gene copies raised the level of HMW-GS relative to other storage proteins, and resulted in an overall increase in HMW-GS compared to the parental cultivar. More complete analysis awaits the availability of sufficient homozygous seed.
After four successive generations in the greenhouse, where embryos were germinated in the presence of bialaphos, eight lines still exhibited transgene expression at or near original levels. In four other lines, the herbicide resistance trait was retained but HMW-GS expression declined or was lost. In the line with the highest transgene copy number, levels of endogenous HMW-GS declined; the authors are testing whether the decline is due to some type of transgene-mediated suppression.
How protein-altered flours will perform in the kitchen remains to be seen. Dough with elevated levels of HMW glutenins may be stronger and more pliable, yielding finer-textured baked goods. Flour from transgenic lines having reduced HMW glutenins may have applications where reduced dough elasticity is desired. The ARS researchers hope within a year to have enough flour to bake test loaves.
Pat Traynor
Information Systems for Biotechnology
traynor@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu
Evolutionary adaptations sometimes run counter to agricultural productivity. When forced to compete for light, for example, plants respond by growing taller. Resources are directed into stem elongation at the expense of assimilate storage, leaf expansion, or flower, fruit and seed development. Under the standard agricultural practice of high density monoculture cropping, the ecologically advantageous response can limit yield.
A genetic engineering strategy to overcome this "shade-avoidance response" by disrupting the photosensory system now has been validated in field studies. A report by Paul Robson and colleagues, working in Harry Smith's lab at the University of Leicester, appeared in the August issue of Nature Biotechnology. Smith has led a decades long effort to understand how environmental factors shape plant architecture and influence the allocation of photoassimilate into plant tissues and organs.
Plants' perception of light and shade is mediated by the phytochrome photoreceptor system. The phytochrome molecule exists in two interconvertible forms, red light absorbing (Pr) and far red light absorbing (Pfr); the ratio of the two forms is a function of the ratio of red to far red photons reaching the plant. Chlorophyll strongly absorbs red photons, thus light reflected from or filtered through leaves of neighboring vegetation is enriched in far red photons. A plant senses this aspect of light quality, a signal of competition, as the ratio of Pr to Pfr forms of phytochrome. This apparently simple mechanism is actually quite subtle and complex. Phytochromes constitute a small family of photoreceptors having discrete functions, differing light labilities, and various and in some cases antagonistic effects on stem growth.
The UK group engineered tobacco plants to express high levels of one member of the phytochrome family, phyA. When grown in the field under normal daylight, the plants did not exhibit shade avoidance. At high field densities, the plants were severely dwarfed and showed an enhanced allocation of assimilates to leaves. Encouraging results with the model system suggest that the architecture of crop plants could be similarly modified so that a greater proportion of resources are directed into harvestable components. The authors note that even if that promise should not be borne out, proximity-conditional dwarfing would nonetheless be useful for minimizing lodging and nutrient wastage, and the approach may have applications in ornamental and forest tree species.
Pat Traynor
Information Systems for Biotechnology
traynor@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu
Genetically modified insects are released into the field to breed with their wild counterparts. However, most offspring produced by the matings are unable to develop or to overwinter. Repeating this process eventually causes the population to crash and local eradication is achieved. A pest management fantasy? Think again. Using such a genetic control strategy is on the brink of reality now that researchers at the University of California, Riverside, and at the USDA-ARS lab in Wapato, WA, are on the case.
A report last fall in the Journal of Economic Entomology by Karl Fryxell and Tom Miller, UC-Riverside, described this concept named Autocidal Biological Control (ABC). Another article appeared in the Washington Post (December 18, 1995) about ABC and other high-tech ways to control insects. The technique was borne out of the work of Dr. E. F. Knipling and his colleagues in the 1960's. Knipling, in a 1970 paper published in the Annals of the Entomological Society of America, considered the potential for insect suppression by the introduction of mutant non-overwintering insects into the natural overwintering population. He determined mathematically that a field population of 100 insects per acre could be eradicated by three releases of 12 mutants to one native insect. Moreover, if the field was sprayed with insecticides intensively in the year before release so that the overwintering population is knocked down to two per acre, after a release of 1200 non-overwintering individuals per acre in the spring, the next spring there would be only eight insects per 10,000 acres, which is essentially eradication.
Decades have passed and recombinant DNA techniques have advanced to the point that we can now genetically engineer conditional lethal traits, such as the inability to overwinter, into an insect. According to Fryxell and Miller, in order for a gene to be an effective pest suppression tool, it must have the following characteristics:
Fryxell and Miller studied a gene mutation with all of the above characteristics. The mutation is in the Notch gene, an essential gene for normal embryonic development. This mutation is a cold-sensitive, dominant, conditional lethal mutation which is expressed at temperatures below 20°C. (68°F). Thus, a laboratory colony of mutant insects remains viable under permissive conditions (above 20°C). However, once released into the field, matings with wild moths would produce eggs that would die at temperatures below 20°C. Laboratory trials of this mutation in Drosophila led to the extinction of the population within three generations.
Autocidal Biological Control is a cheaper and less labor-intensive control alternative than the currently employed Sterile Insect Technique (SIT). SIT involves the mass sterilization of insects by irradiation and subsequent release of these insects into the field to mate with the wild of their species. However, an irradiated insect has numerous mutations as opposed to the single genetic mutation a genetically engineered insect would have. Also, the irradiation used to sterilize the insects results in reduced mating efficiency and viability. Thus, to make up for the deficit, SIT requires multiple releases of large numbers of irradiated insects during the growing season at a ratio of 40:1 or more. For ABC, in contrast, the release ratio of genetically transformed insects to insects in the field would be much lower, e.g., 12:1, because the transformed insects would be hardier and more competitive in mating with wild insects than are irradiated insects.
What kinds of effects would an Autocidal Biological Control agent have on the environment? Fryxell and Miller describe several potential effects of a release of a genetically engineered pest insect. The use of ABC would lead to the reduction in the use of pesticides and their resulting residues, especially when used for pests of crops which are kept pest-free with multiple calendar sprays. The ABC agent would not itself become a pest because the gene is lethal. ABC is species-specific and would pose a negligible risk of extinction of nontarget organisms. Because of its deleterious nature, there is very little chance that the gene would be perpetuated or that it would be transferred to nontarget species. Perhaps one could ensure that by making a transiently transformed strain of the pest insect, i.e., one that would have conditional lethal genes expressed only in the first generation.
Currently, ABC research programs are underway for the pink bollworm (University of California, Riverside) and for the codling moth (USDA-ARS, Wapato, WA). Certainly, other pest insects for which SIT is being used, such as the boll weevil and the medfly, could be potential targets for ABC as well.
Holly J. Ferguson
USDA-ARS Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory
fergie@yarl.gov
Clarification: In regards to the article "Transposons for Insect Transformation" which appeared in last month's News Report, there may have been an inadvertent implication that medfly research was being conducted in Florida. In fact, the hobo element research is a collaborative effort between the USDA-ARS lab in Gainesville, FL, and the University of Hawaii, with a number of the fly species, including the medfly, being studied in the Hawaii lab. We regret any confusion. --- H. J. Ferguson, Research Entomologist, USDA-ARS, Yakima Agricultural Research Laboratory.
The generation of transgenic animals is a powerful technology that has allowed the study of gene action in vivo and production of valuable pharmaceutical proteins. However, for some studies, such as the evaluation of gene regulatory elements or delivery of recombinant proteins to specific tissues, the time and expense of creating a transgenic animal is not necessary. Instead, only a method to transiently transfect DNA into animal tissues is needed.
Regulation of transgene expression is controlled by tissue-specific promoters and enhancers. One strategy that has been employed to test the efficacy of different promoter/enhancer combinations is the generation of transgenic animal lines for each combination. This is a laborious and costly approach that would not be feasible using livestock species. To test promoters for use in livestock, researchers have often performed the analysis in transgenic mice or cell lines established from livestock tissue. Both of these methods have limitations. Results from transgenic mouse studies are not always directly applicable to livestock species and many cell lines lose their in vivo characteristics during establishment in culture. Thus these approaches are less than ideal and may be unreliable predictors of transgene expression in livestock.
To overcome these limitations, an easy and efficient method to transfer DNA directly into livestock tissues would be desirable. This would allow the evaluation of a promoter/enhancer combination in vivo without the time and expense of generating a transgenic animal. A number of methods such as needle and syringe injection, microparticle bombardment or a jet-injection based gene gun have been successfully used to directly transfect a variety of animal tissues. Transgene expression is usually transient and persists for only days to weeks, but this length of time is often sufficient to complete the promoter analysis.
One of the most promising applications of direct transfection technology is its use as a method to produce foreign proteins in specific tissues in order to induce an immune response in the animal. This method has been termed "genetic immunization". Intramuscular injection of transgenes expressing bovine herpesvirus 1 glycoprotein in cattle or influenza virus hemagglutinin glycoprotein in chickens resulted in the induction of an immune response to the viral protein. In the latter case, the chickens were further found to be protected against a lethal influenza challenge.
Direct transfection technology represents a novel vaccination strategy that has clear advantages over standard immunization techniques, which rely on attenuated or killed virus. These viral vaccines are inadequate for reasons of efficacy, safety and cost effectiveness. To reduce the risk associated with viral vaccines, recombinant viral proteins are being produced to be used for immunization. The advantage of direct transfection technology is that it obviates the labor and expense associated with the production and purification of the recombinant protein. Although still in its experimental phase, direct transfection technology is showing some promise and may ultimately become a simple and cost-effective method of vaccination.
Eric A. Wong
Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences
Virginia Tech
ewong@vt.edu
India is a vast country with a large economic base in agriculture: two-thirds of the people are in farming. Biotechnology, with its promise to revolutionize agriculture around the world, is thus assuming an increasingly greater role in India's agricultural research. Traditionally an importer of food grains, India now has achieved reasonable self sufficiency and is even emerging as a recognizable exporter of agricultural produce. Abundant land and water, government subsidies, improved management practices, high-yielding varieties developed through mission-oriented research at agricultural universities, and strong outreach programs are helping India to achieve significant increases in crop and livestock productivity. Three decades after the "Green Revolution" brought about a sea change in agriculture, Indian administrators are hoping that the"Bio Revolution" may bring even more dramatic changes on the farm to help feed the country's 900 million people and contribute to export earnings.
India exported nearly $400 million worth of fruits, vegetables, seeds, processed food, ornamental plants and cut flowers during 1995-96, a jump of 20% from the previous year; pundits predict a doubling of exports in the next three years. Research in the commercial sector is thus focused on high value crops, especially those with export potential. Major commercial investment in biotechnology has been in the use of tissue culture to produce disease-free ornamental plants such as carnations, anthuriums, and geraniums, which are sold in international markets, primarily in the Netherlands. Tissue culture production of high value plants is ideally suited for India because of low labor costs, skilled manpower, and the 'low-tech' nature of this enterprise. Recent liberalization of government policies, characterized by a permissive attitude towards foreign investment, has catalyzed rapid growth in agricultural biotechnology ventures.
Nearly 10 million micropropagated plants were exported from India last year, and there is a capacity to produce 100 million such plants. Improved cold-storage facilities and refrigerated transportation may help India tap into a greater market share in the future. Indo-American Hybrid Seeds, Khoday Biotek, Godrej Biotech and A.V.Thomas are among the major tissue culture-based companies which also cater to the local market by mass producing planting material for banana, cardamom and pepper. Although India has a strong history of plant tissue culture research in academia, early on there was very little transfer of this technology to commercial ventures. Thus, many Indian companies set up their in vitro production facilities under technology transfer and 'buy-back' arrangements with companies from the Netherlands. More recently, however, many academic institutions have begun research programs that are more responsive to the local and commercial needs. For instance, micropropagation protocols for eucalyptus, bamboo, sandalwood, pomegranate, mango, neem and tamarind have been developed. As India has a large wealth of medicinal plants, developing bioreactor systems for plant cell culture production of secondary metabolites is of interest to the pharmaceutical industry.
Basic research in molecular biology is minimal in India, practiced only at a few elite institutions such as the Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore, the Indian Agricultural Research Institute at Delhi, and the Bose Institute in Calcutta. Applied research, however, is being conducted at many agricultural universities. Sophisticated genetic engineering techniques are being employed at many institutions to develop transgenic crops, diagnostic kits for plant and animal diseases, and to develop improved vaccines for livestock. Many universities around the country now offer undergraduate and graduate programs in biotechnology although very few provide advanced experiential training in molecular biology.
A number of local seed and chemical companies have formed partnerships with major biotechnology companies of the U.S. and Europe, including Monsanto, Pioneer Hi-Bred, Plant Genetic Systems, Cargill, and Asgrow. At many academic and corporate labs, transgenic plants have been developed in cowpea, mungbean and other vegetables; some of these have been field tested. Mahyco, a leading seed company, is producing pest-resistant cotton varieties while similar initiatives to incorporate Bt genes into vegetables is being attempted by Sun Seeds and Rallis India. Plant Genetic Systems, a Belgium company, is developing male sterile Brassicas through its subsidiary, Pro-Agro. Rearing silkworms to produce silk is a lucrative activity in South India, and recently a genetic map of silkworm using DNA markers has been developed at SeriBiotech, Bangalore. Development of animal vaccines and diagnostics against diseases such as foot and mouth disease and rhinderpest is the subject of research at many veterinary institutions. Pulse crops are being engineered for virus resistance. Bangalore Genei, a company started by a scientist couple is now a major supplier of restriction enzymes, DNA vectors and equipment needed for biotechnology research in South Asia. BioCon India, another start-up company, now produces valuable industrial enzymes such as alpha-amylase.
Annual funding for agbiotech research in India is around $10 million, primarily from the government's Department of Biotechnology but also from the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and the Department of Science and Technology. Rockefeller Foundation has also provided substantial grants to researchers at many institutions and state land-grant universities to conduct research on rice. Projects include the development of disease-resistant plants, cloning genes for floral meristem initiation and tagging genes of agronomic importance. National Chemical Laboratory in Pune has received funding from the McKnight Foundation of Minneapolis to conduct research on sorghum molecular biology. The ICRISAT, a CG institution, is developing transgenic peanut and chickpea, and locating DNA markers for disease resistance in sorghum and pearl millet. A private foundation headed by Dr. M.S. Swaminathan is employing DNA markers to characterize the genetic diversity of indigenous crops. A similar effort for major Indian crops is also underway at the national gene bank in New Delhi.
Biotechnology holds considerable promise in improving Indian agriculture and consequently in enhancing the quality of life. To realize this promise, there is a need for improved funding, better laboratories, better access to current information, "hands-on" training programs and greater co-operation and communication among scientists across institutions. Frequent power outages and high costs for subscriptions to international journals are often cited as constraints by Indian researchers. Lack of intellectual property rights for plant varieties and poor understanding and enforcement of patent laws often promote extreme secrecy among scientists, to the great detriment of science. Regulatory and biosafety issues need to be addressed constructively. There is a need for studies on social, economic and environmental issues related to the application of biotechnology in Indian agriculture. Public awareness and education to provide a balanced perspective on the relevance of biotechnology is also critical, as there is considerable apprehension in people's minds about this new technology. This concern is largely due to misinformation campaigns by certain interest groups with extreme ideology.
C. S. Prakash
Center for Plant Biotechnology Research
Tuskegee University
prakash@acd.tusk.edu
One late-1995 forecast for U.S. biotechnology products estimated an increase in sales from $285 million in 1996 to more than $1.7 billion by the year 2006. Although the estimate included a projected annual growth rate of 20% (the highest of any of the forecast biotech sectors), the total represents less than 10% of the over $24 billion in sales estimated for the human therapeutic market (1). In order for the agricultural biotechnology sector to continue to grow, it will need to sustain new product development and offer encouraging results to the various stakeholders in the commercialization process. Ecogen recently announced this type of positive news, furthering its mission to be a major player in the biopesticide market which includes corporations such as American Cynamid and Novartis and biotech firms such as Mycogen and AgrEvo.
Ecogen just announced a 3rd quarter increase in total revenue sales of 40% to over $5.5 million from 3rd quarter 1995 revenues of under $4 million. Product sales increased by 36% and operating expenses decreased by 32%. Although the firm still reported a loss of income of $710,000, the combined effect of increased revenues with decreased operating expenses allowed for a 77% reduction in the quarterly loss from the same quarter of 1995. Sales of newly released products accounted for much of the product revenue growth (2).
Ecogen product revenues are generated by sales of biological insecticides derived from Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), and various pest control and crop pollination products based on pheromone and related technologies. The company uses genetic engineering techniques to enhance the effectiveness of natural biopesticides. Ecogen has been a significant agbiotech presence, being the first company to sell genetically enhanced biological pesticide products that are registered with the EPA for commercial use, and the only company so far to receive EPA approval to sell a Bt insecticide based on a recombinant Bt strain (3).
As described in previous ISB News Report articles, agbiotech firms have adopted the partnering model that has been so instrumental to the growth of the biopharmaceutical sector. Ecogen, for example, entered into a strategic alliance with Monsanto Company for the joint development of Bt technology. As part of the deal, Monsanto agreed to purchase a 13% interest in Ecogen for $10 million, acquired certain rights with respect to Ecogen's Bt technology for $5 million, and agreed to fund a four-year $10 million research and development program (3).
Ecogen expects to see further gains in the coming fourth quarter as they begin to see sales from two new products - Aspire biofungicide for post-harvest rot and CRYMAX bioinsecticide for fruits and vegetables (2). This type of repeated quarterly revenue growth through product sales and the prospect of positive net income are nourishment for a growing agbiotech industry.
References
1. Shamel, R.E., and Keough, M. Double-digit growth predicted
for biotechnology products in next decade. Genetic Engineering News,
Dec. 6, 1995.
2. Ecogen Inc. Third Quarter Results. PR Newswire, August 29, 1996.
3. Ecogen 10-K filing with Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Bill Bullock
Institute for Biotechnology Information, LLC
Research Triangle Park, NC
http://www.biotechinfo.com
To request program details and registration information, available in November, contact Ms. Tanya Joce, RSBS, ANU, GPO Box 475, Canberra ACT 2601 Australia; email: joce@rsbs-central.anu.edu.au; fax: +61 6 2494437.
The material in this News Report is compiled by NBIAP's Information Systems for Biotechnology, a joint project of USDA/CSREES and the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. It does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or of Virginia Tech. The News Report may be freely photocopied or otherwise distributed without charge. P.L. Traynor, Editor.
Information Systems for Biotechnology, 120 Engel Hall, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061-0308, tel: 540-231-2620, fax: 540-231-2614, email: nbiap@vt.edu
For internet access to the News Report, textfiles, and databases use one of the following procedures.
1. Through WWW: http://www.isb.vt.edu/
2. Use telnet or gopher to connect to
3. Click here or use ftp to connect to ftp.nbiap.vt.edu.
Use "anonymous" as your user-id, your email address as your password. Type
"cd pub/nbiap".
To have the News Report automatically emailed, send an email message to
news@nbiap.biochem.vt.edu
and type only subscribe newsreport in the message section.
ISB News Report
120 Engel Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, VA 24061-0308