From: samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu (S. A. Modena)
Subject: Re: plant phys use in breeding
Organization: Crop Science Dept., NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695-7620
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 22:12:56 GMT

In article <dangold1.715877144@pv1414.vincent.iastate.edu> dangold1@iastate.edu (Daniel M Goldman) writes:
>After many years, research workers are finding some ways of
>putting the tools of plant physiology to use in the service
>of plant breeding, which are, finally, escaping attacks from the
>worst critics.  I've been reading both sides of the debate to
>see what the arguments are all about, and of course find some
>truth on both sides, something the extremists seem to have 
>missed (or simply won't admit).  Is anyone else interested in
>this area? 

Let's move away from ambiguity.  Do you think the CONTRA group felt
that the "physiologists" were offering techniques that were not
practical in terms of the number of plants that could be sampled,
especially where multiple measurements were involved?  Or do you think
that the resistance lay/lies else where? 

>            The topics span everying from hormone (and other
>compound) monitoring, to carbohydrate partitioning/growth 
>analysis (a pet interest of mine) to chlorophyll fluoresecence.

Chlorophyll fluorescence is a good example: name a good field
fluorometer....that can record the fluorescence frequency/time
domain characteristics of maize, of spruce or pine...and how many
can be done in a day...and how much does it cost to do many
plants simultaneously?  (Dan: pick your favorite area and build
a parallel critique if fluorescence is not that familiar to you.)

>It seems to me there are some useful tools which could be 
>developed more, and perhaps *will* be now that there have been 
>a few small sucesses.  Maybe the scientific mental block which
>has pervaded this topic for so long is finally breaking down.
>Partly, this may be due to some of the genetic technology which
>allows us to look at chromosomes and trait loci more precisely.

I'm not impressed that RFLP analyses or RAPD's are the solution to
much....and I've said so previously in this forum.  Again it's
the numbers: what does it cost to do the gels, what are the start up
costs, and picking probes (or primers, in the case of RAPDs) is a
problem in maize (maybe it's easy in alfalpha or whatever).  If
anyone is interested in this topic: I could give a little exposition
on a service-lab-solution to overcome costs/technical expertise
availability that takes advantage of UseNet.  Anyone care to argue
the specifics of the opposite position?

>
>Anyone with any interest or thoughts on this, please post.  I'm
>still trying to learn more about this.  I work with some of the
>best plant breeders around, and I see some opportunities developing.
>Thanks -DmG 

I think the problem lies here:  to bring "technology" to bear requires
an interdisciplinary approach.  Translation: bring one or more people on
board and support them to make a time/frequency domain fluorometer that
is suited to the objective at hand.  In particular, recognise that this
requires considerable technical expertise in breadboarding of optical
and electronic components....and be willing to pay the price....
On the other hand, this would require two things that might break with
tradition: 1) evaluating what the economic payoff might be for a 
particular measurement technology in terms of breeding progress and
2) a commitment to doing more than semi-technology innovation.

Argument against: traditional quantitative techniques (plant height;
harvest index; etc) plus better exploitation of untested germplasm
will make more progress sooner for "less money" while retaining a traditional
breeding regime and work atmosphere that is well respected and not
quite so dangerous to one's career and maeger budget allotment.  

Well?  :^)

Here's one to gnaw on.  Recently I read an article in "FiberOptic
Product News" about upcoming industrial applications of fiberoptic
communications technology.  In a few years, most of the "copper" is
going to disappear from under the dash.  Automobiles are going to be
"wired" with off-the-self, inexpensive fiberoptic systems that will
link glued on "chip" modules in many parts of the car's mechanical
systems that will allow sophisticated monitoring of the auto's
performance in "real time" by a number of on-board computers that will
"fly" the car.  Fly the car?  Well, in the sense that an F-15 has
computers that read lots of sensors and accelerometers and adjusts
all the trim tabs and modifies stick response......'cuz, Folks,
those jets are NOT aerodynamic in the sense that a glider is...
and would and do crash forthwith when those computers go to "sleep."
(Don't believe it?  Remember how the back-seater died in Top Gun?)
So the challange is: who and how will advantage be taken of off-the-
shelf "cheap parts" that will come available when the auto industry
goes full bore on optical fiber technology?  And if you can't think
of a single way that that would move a breeding program into high gear,
let me know and we can discuss that.

Steve
---
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
|     In person:  Steve Modena     AB4EL                           |
|     On phone:   (919) 515-5328                                   |
|     At e-mail:  nmodena@unity.ncsu.edu                           | 
|                 samodena@csemail.cropsci.ncsu.edu                |
|                 [ either email address is read each day ]        |
|     By snail:   Crop Sci Dept, Box 7620, NCSU, Raleigh, NC 27695 |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
         Lighten UP!  It's just a computer doing that to you.
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO