Monsanto (United Kingdom)

This paper reports the results of a 'cost-of-illness' study of the socio-economic costs of back pain in the UK. It estimates the direct health care cost of back pain in 1998 to be pound1632 million. Approximately 35% of this cost relates to services provided in the private sector and thus is most likely paid for directly by patients and their families. With respect to the distribution of cost across different providers, 37% relates to care provided by physiotherapists and allied specialists, 31% is incurred in the hospital sector, 14% relates to primary care, 7% to medication, 6% to community care and 5% to radiology and imaging used for investigation purposes. However, the direct cost of back pain is insignificant compared to the cost of informal care and the production losses related to it, which total pound10668 million. Overall, back pain is one of the most costly conditions for which an economic analysis has been carried out in the UK and this is in line with findings in other countries. Further research is needed to establish the cost-effectiveness of alternative back pain treatments, so as to minimise cost and maximise the health benefit from the resources used in this area.

The fungal pathogens Fusarium graminearum and F. culmorum cause ear blight disease on cereal crops worldwide. The disease lowers both grain quality and grain safety. Disease prevalence is increasing due to changes in cropping practices and the difficulties encountered by plant breeders when trying to introgress the polygene-based resistance. The molecular basis of resistance to Fusarium ear blight in cereal species is poorly understood. This is primarily due to the large size of cereal genomes and the expensive resources required to undertake gene function studies in cereals. We therefore explored the possibility of developing various model floral infection systems that would be more amenable to experimental manipulation and high-throughput gene function studies. The floral tissues of tobacco, tomato, soybean and Arabidopsis were inoculated with Fusarium conidia and this resulted in disease symptoms on anthers, anther filaments and petals in each plant species. However, only in Arabidopsis did this initial infection then spread into the developing siliques and seeds. A survey of 236 Arabidopsis ecotypes failed to identify a single genotype that was extremely resistant or susceptible to Fusarium floral infections. Three Arabidopsis floral mutants that failed to develop anthers and/or functional pollen (i.e. agamous-1, apetala1-3 and dad1) were significantly less susceptible to Fusarium floral infection than wild type. Deoxynivalenol (DON) mycotoxin production was also detected in Fusarium-infected flowers at >1 ppm. This novel floral pathosystem for Arabidopsis appears to be highly representative of a serious cereal crop disease.

Plant science has never been more important. The growing and increasingly prosperous human population needs abundant safe and nutritious food, shelter, clothes, fibre, and renewable energy, and needs to address the problems generated by climate change, while preserving habitats. These global challenges can only be met in the context of a strong fundamental understanding of plant biology and ecology, and translation of this knowledge into field-based solutions. Plant science is beginning to address these grand challenges, but it is not clear that the full range of challenges facing plant science is known or has been assessed. What questions should the next generation of plant biologists be addressing? To start to answer this question we set out to compile a list of 100 important questions facing plant science research. We had three main goals. We aimed to stimulate discussion amongst the plant science and related communities, and identify areas of research that would have a substantial impact. We hoped to encourage plant scientists to think beyond the limits of their own sphere of research and consider the most important research that could possibly be carried out. We sought to illustrate the importance and potential of plant science to the broader public. This paper addresses aims 1 and 2, but questions were selected with all three aims in mind. This is intended to be a starting point. Research priorities and challenges change continuously and unpredictably as new concerns and needs arise, and new knowledge is revealed, and it will be important to review and reassess this list in the future. Here we present, with brief explanations of their significance, our list of the important questions facing plant science research today. Questions were invited online over a 3-month period at http://www.100plantsciencequestions.org.uk/index.php. The website was publicized by email using distribution lists of plant scientists in the UK and abroad, on websites aimed at plant scientists and farmers, and in a press release, which led to coverage by some news websites and newspapers. The questions submitted to the website are listed in full at http://www.100plantsciencequestions.org.uk/viewquestions.php, along with the names of the people who submitted them, apart from a few cases where submitters chose to be anonymous. The online consultation process allowed input from contributors with a range of nationalities and experience. The full list of 350 questions was provided in advance to a panel of 15 individuals (Steve Barnes, Ruth Bastow, Mark Chase, Matthew Clarke, Claire Grierson, Alastair Fitter, Don Grierson, Keith Edwards, Graham Jellis, Jonathan Jones, Sandy Knapp, Giles Oldroyd, Guy Poppy, Paul Temple and Roger Williams) representing the academic, commercial and public service communities that produce or benefit from plant science research, and able to take part in a 2-d workshop at Bristol (UK) in 2009. During the process the list was reduced to 96 questions by mutual agreement, which we hope will stimulate more local variants particularly adapted to research and societal priorities in both the developing and developed world. Before the panel meeting the full list of 350 submitted questions was roughly organized into groups according to topic. Each panel member independently selected their top 20 questions and these lists were combined. During this process other possible questions under each topic were suggested and considered for inclusion. Each question selected by a panel member was discussed by the whole panel, along with other questions that addressed similar issues. The most important question on each topic was agreed upon by the whole panel and a final wording chosen. In some cases the panel decided that a new question was required, and the panel worked together to produce the wordings for these new questions. As plant science is a broad and diverse field, we provide brief explanations of the background, context and prospects for addressing each question with the aim of making the questions accessible to the broadest possible audience. There is no ideal way to divide the questions into topic areas. Many questions inevitably and desirably span more than one category, and some particularly substantial topics merit multiple questions. For the purposes of this paper, the panel decided to categorize the questions into five broad areas that reflect the breadth and depth of plant research discussed during the 2-d workshop: Society, Environment and adaptation, Species interactions, Understanding and utilizing plant cells, and Diversity. Here we consider the overall significance of plants and plant science to human society in general. We open with 10 questions that the panel felt encapsulated the most burning societal issues that should be addressed by plant science, followed by other societal questions selected by the panel. More specific biological questions in plant science follow in later sections. The 10 questions most important to society How do we feed our children’s children? By 2050 the world population will have reached c. 9 billion people. This will represent a tripling of the world population within the average lifetime of a single human being. The population is not only expanding, but also becoming more discerning, with greater demands for energy-intensive foods such as meat and dairy. Meeting these increasing food demands over the years to come requires a doubling of food production from existing levels. How are we going to achieve this? Through the cultivation of land currently covered in rainforests, through enhanced production from existing arable land or by changing people’s habits to change food consumption patterns and reduce food waste? The reality is probably a combination of all three. However, if we are to reduce the impact of food production on the remaining wilderness areas of the planet then we need significant investment in agricultural science and innovation to ensure maximum productivity on existing arable land. Which crops must be grown and which sacrificed, to feed the billions? The majority of agricultural land is used to cultivate the staple food crops wheat (Triticum aestivum), maize (Zea mays) and rice (Oryza sativa), the oil-rich crops soy (Glycine max), canola (Brassica napus), sunflower (Helianthus spp.) and oil palm (Elaeis guineensis) and commodity crops such as cotton (Gossypium spp.), tea (Camellia sinensis) and coffee (Coffea spp.). As the world population expands and meat consumption increases, there is a growing demand for staples and oil-rich crops for both human needs and animal feed. Without significant improvements in yields of these basic crop plants, we will experience a squeeze on agricultural land. It is therefore essential that we address the yield gap; the difference between future yield requirements and yields available with current technologies, management and gene pools. Otherwise we may be forced to choose between production of staple food crops to feed the world population and the production of luxury crops, such as tea, coffee, cocoa (Theobroma cacao), cotton, fruits and vegetables. When and how can we simultaneously deliver increased yields and reduce the environmental impact of agriculture? The first green revolution of the late 1950s and early 1960s generated unprecedented growth in food production. However, these achievements have come at some cost to the environment, and they will not keep pace with future growth in the world population. We need creative and energetic plant breeding programmes for the major crops world-wide, with a strong public sector component. We need to explore all options for better agronomic practice, including better soil management and smarter intercropping, especially in the tropics. Finally, we need to be able to deploy existing methods of genetic modification that reduce losses to pests, disease and weeds, improve the efficiency of fertilizer use and increase drought tolerance. We also need to devise methods to improve photosynthetic efficiency, and move the capacity for nitrogen fixation from legumes to other crops. These are all desirable and, with public support, feasible goals. What are the best ways to control invasive species including plants, pests and pathogens? Invasive species are an increasingly significant threat to our environment, economy, health and well-being. Most are nonindigenous (evolved elsewhere and accidentally introduced) and have been removed from the constraints regulating growth in their native habitat. The best method of control is to prevent establishment in the first place or to quickly identify establishment and adopt an eradication programme. However, if an invasive species becomes established many of the options for removal can cause environmental damage, for example chemical control or mechanical excavation. Biological control (introduction of a natural predator/pathogen) can work well as long as the control organism targets only the invasive species. Otherwise there is a risk that the control organism might also become an invasive species. Alternatives, such as manipulating existing natural enemies and/or the environment to enhance biological control, are also being developed. Sustainable solutions are required if we are to deal with the continually growing problem of invasive species. Considering two plants obtained for the same trait, one by genetic modification and one by traditional plant breeding techniques, are there differences between those two plants that justify special regulation? The products of traditional plant breeding are subject to no special regulations, even though the wild sources of germplasm often used by breeders may contain new components that have not been assessed before. A plant derived by genetic modification, however, is highly regulated, even though the target genotype and the modification itself may both be highly characterized and accepted as innocuous for their intended use. This is a major exception to the norm for safety regulation in food and other areas, which is normally based on the properties of the object being regulated. It is important for food safety and for the public’s perception of science and technology in general to establish whether there are any objective differences between these groups of products that justify the different approaches to their regulation. How can plants contribute to solving the energy crisis and ameliorating global warming? Plants use solar energy to power the conversion of CO2 into plant materials such as starch and cell walls. Plant material can be burnt or fermented to release heat energy or make fuels such as ethanol or diesel. There is interest in using algae (unicellular aquatic plants) to capture CO2 emissions from power stations at source. Biomass cellulose crops such as Miscanthus × giganteus (Poaceae) are already being burnt with coal at power stations. There is understandable distaste for using food crops such as wheat and maize for fuel, but currently 30% of the US maize crop is used for ethanol production, and sustainable solutions are being found. Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) significantly reduces Brazil’s imports of fossil fuels. Agave (Agavea fourcroydes) in hot arid regions can provide very high yields (> 30 T ha−1) of dry matter with low water inputs compared with other crops. To ameliorate global warming, CO2 must be taken out of the air and not put back. There is considerable interest in ‘biochar’ in which plant material is heated without air to convert the carbon into charcoal. In this form, carbon cannot readily re-enter the air, and, if added to the soil, can increase fertility. Carbon markets do not currently provide sufficient incentive for farmers to grow crops simply to take CO2 out of the air. How do plants contribute to the ecosystem services upon which humanity depends? Ecosystem services are those benefits we human beings derive from nature. They can be loosely divided into supporting (e.g. primary production and soil formation), provisioning (e.g. food, fibre and fuel), regulating (e.g. climate regulation and disease regulation) and cultural (e.g. aesthetic and recreational) services. Plants are largely responsible for primary production and therefore are critical for maintaining human well-being, but they also contribute in many other ways. The Earth receives virtually no external inputs apart from sunlight, and the regenerative processes of biological and geochemical recycling of matter are essential for life to be sustained. Plants drive much of the recycling of carbon, nitrogen, water, oxygen, and much more. They are the source of virtually all the in the and they are also responsible for at of carbon of of The efficiency with which plants take major such as nitrogen and has major on agricultural production, but the of which Plants are already as important for sustainable (e.g. plants for but there are many other ways that plants might A of understanding both the services provided by and how plants contribute to the of such will between plant and What new approaches will be to plant biology in the have a general understanding of the of cell and biology and and how plants change, and to their the questions in this including those related to crops that can deal with future challenges, will knowledge of many more processes and species. for and the of can provide with more in a than has been available a organism or This is a of that is both and The is to ways of and this of to answer questions and deliver new The required to make full use of the new beyond those from There is general that we need a new of between all of plant and other biologists to new and and make understanding and with the environment, and using to how different will with in the How do we ensure that society the full importance of Plants are fundamental to all life on They provide with food, fuel, fibre, and They our They of and provide food and for much of the life on our However, we take plants and the benefits they for their should we not plants greater and to our understanding of could be increased through the and public understanding of science but a major in will be required to make a substantial How can we the best to plant science that they can address humanity such as climate change, food and fossil that we need and the that our best and should into is in our However, even more important than is the to from to this requires food, shelter, clothes, and energy, all of which on these plants are the source of many other important As is clear from the other questions on this plant scientists are many of the most important challenges facing humanity in the including climate change, food and fossil the best possible will people. We need to change our that if we can the can and in the list of top to which our most people How do we ensure that science It is important that that can for example environmental are based on and objective by Without the risk of is between and scientists is therefore How do we and this How do we ensure that and scientists are able to What new are to scientists to to the needs of and The for the remaining questions. How can we our knowledge of plant science into food Which plants have the potential for use as with the carbon and food crop production move from being on How can we use plant science to prevent How can we use knowledge of plants and their properties to improve human How do plants and plant communities human How can we use plants and plant science to improve the How do we encourage and the that is to achieve the which address and the Plants have to with in their environment but their has not been as crops have been developed from wild species. and utilizing the capacity of plants to should to increase the use of more land for and enhance agricultural production in How can we if a is What is the of processes in to the environment during the life span of an there potential benefits to developing of currently we a in crop yield through of a or or How do plants the of in plant What is the of productivity of crops and are the major this being What and How can we control How do and between the different plant we crops without invasive plants be better for and on and/or How can we our knowledge of plants and into to be without plants be to dry land or even we crops that are more to climate without yield we and the of plant species in any and crop in any under climate To are the of plants for current and future plant to keep with the pace of environmental How can we improve our plants to make better use of How do we grow plants in without How can we use the growing of crops to plants with other including pests, and are can cause agricultural It a to control species without significant environmental damage, and there is potential in developing with such as What are the best ways to control invasive species including plants, pests and pathogens? we provide a to plant problems in to increasingly it desirable to all pests and in What is the most sustainable way to control How can we simultaneously and How can we move into is nitrogen fixation to few plant How can the of plants and be or better plant and ecosystem How do plants with each How can we use our knowledge of the biology of disease to approaches to disease What are the for to pathogens? When a plant a the How do plant disease and is it What are the for and of we use to deliver more in Plant and on the and of plant A of has been components cell components and and understanding how they contribute to specific processes as and The early questions in this address in our understanding of plant cells, and are How do plant and how can we use this knowledge to improve and How are growth and of to with specific and How do different in the plant to one to the of How and in How can we improve our understanding of gene regulation from a How do plants multiple environmental and How do plants on environmental and To do of are there of in plants and do they What is the of plant How do plant their in the organism and How do plant and to specific regions of the there a cell in How are plant cell and how are their and we new biological in To can plant biology become What is the of How do we achieve in What control the and distribution of genetic during How can we use our knowledge and to better the energy of the we improve algae to better capture produce yields of oil or for How can we use our knowledge of carbon fixation at the and to address the What is the of the breadth of How can we use plants as the chemical of the How do we knowledge of plant cell to produce food, and fibre more and It is currently that there are at a of a species of plant in the the majority of which have not been for Questions in this address the need to identify plants with potential for human benefit that have to be and to do in a sustainable and responsible The knowledge and natural could then be used to new challenges as they How much do we plant How can we better a more understanding of plant we increase crop productivity without we objective to and where or are How do plants contribute to ecosystem How can we ensure the of genetic within gene How do specific genetic differences in the diverse of different plant is an an and a wheat plant a wheat Which should we and how can we best from the What is the significance of in What is the and of and can plant life be is the range of life in the plant much greater than in What is a plant are some of plants more than What is the answer to of the and of How has to the of What are the fossil of the How do we best in to Plant science is to addressing many of the most important questions facing food production and issues for the world in the and the importance of plants well beyond and as we fossil climate change, and a need for more sustainable methods to produce fuel, fibre, and There is also potential in the properties of and in plant products such as these will new methods and as existing approaches are Many of the most important questions that we have can only be addressed by the of scientists with diverse For many between scientists to improve crops and those on environmental and ecosystem services. and could be more in supporting and the of knowledge between different areas of plant science and this should be In the to may be required to ensure that future have the most knowledge and to address the research challenges that they are to As plant science becomes increasingly we need to the and best to in plant research. not the most or of plant science, and people from the subject at This is in a world with such a strong for plant and should be taken to put it Research and our questions and the ways that they might be will but in the we hope that they will stimulate and encourage plant scientists to think beyond the limits of their own specific the most important research that can be carried the most approaches that can be developed and and the most significant that can possibly be The 100 questions workshop and website were by from the the of The and the plant science The who submitted a question to the Alastair Fitter, the and the for and and for for questions are not responsible for the or of any supporting by the than should be to the The is not responsible for the or of any supporting by the than should be to the for the

This chapter contains section titled: Introduction Era 1: Domestication and phenotypic mass selection Era 2: Replicated progeny testing Era 3: Direct genotypic selection Acknowledgments

(2003). The safety assessment of Novel Foods and concepts to determine their safety in use. International Journal of Food Sciences and Nutrition: Vol. 54, No. 5, pp. 1-32.

Abstract Lettuce discolouration is a key post-harvest trait. The major enzyme controlling oxidative discolouration has long been considered to be polyphenol oxidase (PPO) however, levels of PPO and subsequent development of discolouration symptoms have not always correlated. The predominance of a latent state of the enzyme in plant tissues combined with substrate activation and contemporaneous suicide inactivation mechanisms are considered as potential explanations for this phenomenon. Leaf tissue physical properties have been associated with subsequent discolouration and these may be influenced by variation in nutrient availability, especially excess nitrogen and head maturity at harvest. Mild calcium and irrigation stress has also been associated with a reduction in subsequent discolouration, although excess irrigation has been linked to increased discolouration potentially through leaf physical properties. These environmental factors, including high temperature and UV light intensities, often have impacts on levels of phenolic compounds linking the environmental responses to the biochemistry of the PPO pathway. Breeding strategies targeting the PAL and PPO pathway biochemistry and environmental response genes are discussed as a more cost-effective method of mitigating oxidative discolouration then either modified atmosphere packaging or post-harvest treatments, although current understanding of the biochemistry means that such programs are likely to be limited in nature and it is likely that they will need to be deployed alongside other methods for the foreseeable future.

Morpholine can be completely degraded microbiologically, and two organisms have been isolated, each capable of growth in a simple mineral salts medium with morpholine as the sole source of carbon, nitrogen and energy. Excess nitrogen is liberated as ammonia. The enzymes responsible for the oxidation of morpholine are inducible and, in organism Mor G, will also oxidize piperidine, piperazine and pyrrolidine, which are not growth substrates. Ethanolamine is a likely intermediate, though the metabolic steps in morpholine degradation do not give rise solely to acetyl‐CoA. After a period of acclimation, a laboratory scale activated sludge plant effectively removed morpholine over the long period it was operated; the sludge was also capable of nitrification. The possible effects of other chemicals in trade wastes containing morpholine on nitrification and morpholine oxidation are described.

In Europe, glyphosate resistant populations have developed in some weed species in perennial crops, including three species of the genus Conyza documented by the International Survey of Herbicide Resistant Weeds. Conyza spp. biology is reviewed in this paper and related to population dynamics and the development of resistant populations. Suboptimal growth stage at application, improper agricultural practices such as overreliance on glyphosate and long-term use of sublethal doses are identified as the most important factors of resistance development. Current control methods in perennial crops including mixtures of glyphosate with other active ingredients are discussed and effective weed management strategies are described to manage the development and spread of glyphosate resistant Conyza spp. in Europe.

The partial pressure of O2 in milk from normal cows and from cows with mastitis was measured and the concentrations of O2 calculated. Oxygen levels of milk from normal cows were similar to those in venous plasma, but inflammation of the mammary gland led to a dramatic drop in O2 concentration to less than 10% of control values. Intracellular survival of Staphylococcus aureus strain M60 in bovine neutrophils was greater under anaerobic than aerobic conditions. The implications of low O2 concentrations in milk from infected mammary glands for the bactericidal activity of bovine neutrophils is discussed.

(1990). Making Strategic Alliances Work. Research-Technology Management: Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 12-15.

Fluorescein-labelled Staphylococcus aureus were used to follow changes in phagolysosome (PL) pH of bovine and human neutrophils following phagocytosis. Under aerobic conditions there was an alkalinisation of the PL followed by a slow decline. Under anaerobic conditions no alkalinisation of the PL was seen, and pharmacological inhibition of the NADPH oxidase with diphenyleneiodonium (DPI) resulted in a rapid acidification of the PL following phagocytosis. The inclusion of amiloride, an inhibitor of Na+/H+ antiporter activity, produced a more rapid alkalinisation phase following phagocytosis under aerobic conditions and reduced, but did not abolish, the acidification phases seen under anaerobic conditions or following treatment of neutrophils with DPI. The results suggest that PL pH is influenced by NADPH oxidase activity and to a lesser extent by a Na+/H+ antiporter. The antibacterial effectiveness of neutrophil granule proteins may be affected under conditions that influence the functioning of these two systems.

Experimental results from previous studies were analyzed in order to separate the dynamic mechanical properties of high sugar/polysaccharide mixtures into a basic function of temperature alone and a basic function of time alone. In doing so, the energy of vitrification as derived from the Williams, Landel, and Ferry equation, and the distribution function of relaxation times were used. It was found that the temperature course of vitrification depends on the nature of the polymer and the composition of the mixture. Thus, at the same level of cosolute, the glass transition temperature of the mixture is determined by the structural behavior of the macromolecule and, it appears, that cation-mediated associations--for example, of kappa-carrageenan--are more efficient "vitrifiers" than the neutral associations of agarose. Regardless of the glass transition temperature, vitrification requires five times the activation energy of elementary flow in the melt or of the viscoelastic relaxation in the rubbery state. In the region of long time scales of measurement, the time function is determined by the molecular weight distribution and the ability of the polysaccharide to form a three-dimensional network. In the area of short times, free volume effects leading to vitrification are similar for all materials.

Of all of humankind’s endeavours, agriculture has led to the most pressure on land, its resources and biodiversity. Over the past 50 years, the need to increase food production has resulted in the loss of one-fifth of the world’s topsoil, one-fifth of its agricultural land and onethird of its forests. To slow down, and ideally reverse, this trend in the face of a predicted population increase of 50 per cent, a water shortage and climate change, new approaches will be needed. In this context, crop biotechnology and genomics have a major contributory role to play in the sustainable improvement of crop and livestock productivity, human and animal health and the development of renewable resources such as fibres, plastics, biofuels and plantmade pharmaceuticals. Manifestly, this will require both political will and international agreement.

AIMS: A new formulation, low dose microencapsulated aspirin, permits slow absorption of aspirin and presystemic acetylation of platelet cyclo-oxygenase within the portal circulation, potentially avoiding deleterious effects on gastric and systemic prostaglandin synthesis. The objective of this study was to determine whether the administration of microencapsulated aspirin was as effective as enteric coated (EC) aspirin as an inhibitor of platelet function in patients with atherosclerosis. METHODS: One hundred and four patients were enrolled and randomised after a run in period of at least 14 days on aspirin EC 75 mg (day 0), to receive either microencapsulated aspirin 162.5 mg (n=34), aspirin EC 150 mg (n=36) or continue on aspirin EC 75 mg (n=34) for 28 days. Serum thromboxane B2 and collagen-induced platelet aggregation and release of 5-hydroxytryptamine (EC50 values) were measured on days 0 and 28. Aggregation/release EC50s were then repeated in the presence of a large dose of aspirin added in vitro to determine the EC50 at the maximum level of platelet inhibition. RESULTS: Median thromboxane B2 levels were low after 14 days run-in therapy with aspirin EC 75 mg, but significant further reductions were seen on day 28 in patients randomised to microencapsulated aspirin 162.5 mg (P=0.0368) and aspirin EC 150 mg (P=0.0004) compared with those remaining on aspirin EC 75 mg. Median EC50 s on day 28 showed small but significant increases from baseline (day 0) in aggregation in patients randomised to microencapsulated aspirin 162.5 mg (0.62-0.85, P=0.0482) and in both aggregation and release in patients randomised to aspirin EC 150 mg (0.95-1.20, P=0.0002, 8.4-11.7, P<0. 0001, respectively) signifying enhanced antiplatelet activity. No changes were seen in patients continuing on aspirin EC 75 mg. Results following addition of high dose aspirin in vitro suggest that mechanisms other than thromboxane synthesis may be operative in the long term effects of microencapsulated aspirin 162.5 mg and aspirin EC 150 mg over aspirin EC 75 mg. CONCLUSIONS: The results show good inhibition of thromboxane B2 synthesis and subsequent platelet activity by all preparations of aspirin, although both microencapsulated aspirin 162.5 mg and aspirin EC 150 mg are slightly more effective than aspirin EC 75 mg. A randomised trial is now required to determine whether microencapsulated aspirin is associated with fewer gastric side-effects.

Abstract The application of infra‐red spectroscopy to the analysis of the crude products obtained in the manufacture of organic substances is discussed with special reference to the chlorination products of phenol and the preparation of 2: 4‐dichlorophenoxyacetic acid and of p ‐phenetidine.

Abstract Examination of the stress-strain curves of vuloanizates containing up to 60 per cent by volume of mineral filler of particle size greater than 1 µ has led to the discovery of a plateau at which the elongation increases several hundred-fold at constant stress. This has been demonstrated for a number of fillers with several rubbers, natural and synthetic. The effect of filler content, particle size, and degree of cure on the stress at which the plateau occurs, and its length, have been investigated. An explanation is suggested and the significance of the observations for the experimental verification of equations relating modulus to filler content is pointed out. The volume changes accompanying the elongation of these vulcanizates have also been investigated at varying filler contents, particle sizes, and degrees of cure, and shown to correlate with the stress-strain curves. The possible bearing of these results on the nature of the rubber-filler bonds, and hence on the reinforcing action of fillers, is briefly discussed.

The seed yield potential established at anthesis in grass seed crops is usually 5-10 times greater than actual seed yields realised at harvest. Losses in seed yield between anthesis and harvest result primarily from the death of fertile tillers and poor seed site utilisation. Lodging has been identified as one of the most important factors reducing seed yields, and the use of growth retardants has significantly increased seed yield in perennial ryegrass and tall fescue. The effects of the growth retardant paclobutrazol on the growth, development and seed yield of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) are presented and discussed. Little is known of the effects of leaf and stem diseases on grass seed yields. Recent research has found that fungicide application can substantially increase seed yield in perennial ryegrass through delaying senescence of leaf tissue. Increased leaf area duration is associated with a reduction in seed abortion, resulting in more seeds per spikelet at harvest. The possibilities for fungicide use in the crop are discussed. Keywords: Seed production, grasses, fertile tillers, seed abortion, growth retardants, paclobutrazol, fungicide, senescence.

Abstract Three dust explosion incidents that occurred within Monsanto Europe are discussed. The company carries out a wide range of operations involving powdered solids, and the incidents illustrate the range of situations that can cause dust explosions. The design approaches used now, covered by guides such as the NFPA 68 and 69 usually prevent major losses, but there are some lessons to be learned from the three incidents described. The most basic one is that there are so many different ways of igniting flammable dusts that we should never use elimination of ignition sources as the sole method of protection. The other lesson is a very old one: the need to maintain all our equipment and safety systems in operational condition at all times. This is particularly difficult in practice because these systems are not required for day‐to‐day production, but still must operate effectively when they are needed.

In 2011, we published 100 important questions for plant science research pertaining to (A) society, (B) environment and adaptation, (C) species interactions, (D) understanding and utilising plant cells, and (E) diversity (Grierson et al., 2011). The original publication became one of the most read articles in New Phytologist, demonstrating wide interest in identifying priorities for plant research. Here, we reflect on developments in plant science since our 2011 paper, with our original questions in mind. Horizon scanning can identify and prioritise gaps in knowledge, but both researchers and funders are interested in how predictable this research can be. Looking back as well as forward can illuminate the trajectory of our field. It also provides context for a new paper identifying the current most important 100 questions in plant science research (Armstrong et al., 2023). Our questions in 2011 were not designed to enable a quantitative study of research predictability/outcomes and space constraints mean that it is not possible to mention all the excellent work that contributed to advancing plant science in the past decade. Connections between our five categories mean cross-referencing between sections is unavoidable. A full list of questions with their descriptions from Grierson et al. (2011) is provided as supplementary data. Questions are referenced (A6) where A is section A and 6 is question 6. The past 10 years brought much greater awareness of the climate change and biodiversity crises and the importance of plants for human survival. Despite this, continued destruction of tropical forests and peat bogs has caused significant losses in biodiversity and climate stability (Holden, 2005; Barlow et al., 2016; Seidl et al., 2017; Kitson & Bell, 2020; Qin et al., 2021), jeopardising global agreement goals (A12, A13, C5, D22, E3). Urgent and radical action is now needed to prevent increasingly catastrophic outcomes (WEF, 2022). In 2016 in Paris, countries agreed to minimise the rise in global average temperature and achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050 (UNFCCC, 2015) (A6) and in 2021 at COP26 in Glasgow, 45 world leaders committed to accelerate innovation and deployment of clean technologies this decade, with annual progress assessed in Breakthrough Agenda Reports (IEA, 2022). A noticeable increase in climate activism and rethinking of food systems, including moves to more plant-based diets (Poppy & Baverstock, 2019; Bhunnoo & Poppy, 2020; Raducu et al., 2020), plus international poll results, have indicated strong, global, public support for action to tackle climate change (Flynn et al., 2021; Gaffney et al., 2021) (A1, A3, A14, B6, C5). Plant science has made important contributions to improving models of climate change and its consequences (Ikeda et al., 2017; Rötter et al., 2018; Merganičová et al., 2019; Kawamiya et al., 2020) (A6, D22). There is evidence that serious consequences of climate change, including drought-related conflict and migration, are happening (Abel et al., 2019). As we and many others acknowledged, there are major risks to food security. Despite significant advances, such as speed breeding protocols (Watson et al., 2018), acceptance of technologies that could accelerate the development of new crops is patchy. Genetically modified (GM) crops (29 cultivating countries, 72 have issued regulatory approvals) occupy c. 1.4% of global arable land and a few are grown in many regions (ISAAA, 2019), including the EU and Africa (James, 2015) (A5), but there are signs of change. For example, a survey of how Britons engage with science reported the public ‘feel aware of plant science and accept GM organisms, particularly those with health benefits’ (Department for Business, Energy, & Industrial Strategy, 2020) (A10, A11, A14, A15). Gene editing regulations around the world range from regulated as a GMO to unregulated (ISAAA, 2021). The UK government has outlined how gene edited crops will make plant breeding faster and more precise (DEFRA, 2021) and the first CRISPR-edited wheat crop was planted in the UK in October 2021 – a European first (Peplow, 2021) (A8, A9a). Despite advances in weed and pest control, reducing fertiliser application and land use, cultural change towards more sustainable models for food production and land use has been patchy and sporadic (A3, A4). Despite relevance to urgent challenges including climate change prediction, adaptation, mitigation, food security and human health, plant science has received far less funding than fields such as health research (e.g. £50 M for plant science vs £4.8 B for health research in the UK in 2018). Many plant researchers and projects struggle to find funding, leaving plant-related industries without realistic and affordable solutions. Global investment in research for resilient and sustainable agriculture has not grown sufficiently to meet globally agreed climate change goals (IEA, 2022). Also, the preference of publishers, funders and academic employers for high-impact publications and novel discoveries over well-founded incremental knowledge has limited who contributes to research (B7, B8, B9). In response to this, the DORA declaration (Alberts, 2013; DORA, 2013), eminent bodies (e.g. The Royal Society) (Catlow, 2019) and public funders (UKRI, 2019) have recognised other ways to measure merit, impact and fundability. Plant science provides crucial information that humanity needs to improve our prospects, but an effective response requires political, social and commercial action. As we highlighted 10 years ago, interdisciplinary collaboration is essential (A18), and it is exciting to reflect on an increasingly diverse and integrated research community. Plant scientists have increasingly collaborated with experts in other fields, including commerce, social science, policy and communication and engaged via broadcasters (e.g. the BBC Studios Natural History Unit documentary ‘The Green Planet’) and popular science books (e.g. In Defence of Plants by Matt Candeias, 2021, and Wainwright Prize for Conservation Writing winner Entangled Life by Merlin Sheldrake, 2021). In frustration at inadequate action on climate change and collapsing biodiversity, some scientists have become political activists (Pancost, 2022; Racimo et al., 2022) (A9a, A9b, A10). We did not imagine 10 years ago that a television programme would influence the political landscape the way Blue Planet II did for plastic pollution (May, 2018) (A10, A18). Equally, we did not appreciate how important social media would be for democratising access to scientific information, but also for propagating dangerous misinformation as simple and ‘shareable’ content. Plant science education has also changed (A9b). Many university degrees now incorporate ‘sustainability’ or ‘entrepreneurship’, including economic, business, ecological and social perspectives (Nordén & Avery, 2021). The diversity of students and the wider plant science community is increasing with steps taken to educate, consult, collaborate with and recognise the contributions of people with an increasingly diverse range of backgrounds. The increasing societal importance and tightly interlinked relationship of the climate and biodiversity crises (B14–20) has been reflected in research, but sustainable solutions have not come quickly enough (IEA, 2022). We underemphasised the importance of collaborations (A18) between countries with different economic profiles to solve climate, biodiversity and food security crises, which disproportionately affect countries in the Global South (Ebi & Del Barrio, 2017; Kunert et al., 2020; Mazhin et al., 2020). However, international programs like CGIAR, Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security, and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA), which aim to support greener agriculture and sustainability at community levels, are growing around the world (B16–B21). We expected to see more investment in genetic advancements within plant science (B1, B3–B6, B16, B19, E6), for example, improving hybrid wheat, which should have better resilience to climate change, and domesticating new plant species (Davis et al., 2020), but neither has gained much traction. Research centres have continued to apply plant genetics to challenges (Henry, 2020; Mayer et al., 2020) (B10–B15), while vertical and soil-free farming increasingly aim to produce sustainable crops less reliant on environmental stability (Eldridge et al., 2020) (B12). Successful attempts to reclaim deserts by regreening (Kaptué et al., 2015; Maclean, 2018) were not mentioned in our paper, although we knew this was an important area to investigate (B21). We identified questions around how plants interact with their living environment and how this relates to nutrition, ecosystem health and diversity. The International Year of Soils in 2015 highlighted the importance of soil preservation and health (C6–C8, C14) and the benefits of plant microbiomes, soil biodiversity (C6–C8) and plant communities (C9) (Berendsen et al., 2012; Thiele-Bruhn et al., 2012; Liu et al., 2016; Rillig et al., 2018; Cheng et al., 2019; Olanrewaju et al., 2019). Work on socially focused weed management and technology-led pest and disease solutions continued (C1–C4, C10–C13, C15) (Bagavathiannan et al., 2019; Graham et al., 2019; J. Zhang et al., 2019). The use of neonicotinoids as a pesticide is an example of the potential benefits of closer interactions between agricultural and ecological sciences, which could reduce commercial risks by identifying potential impacts, for example, on pollinator populations (C1, C4, C5, C10) (Tsvetkov et al., 2017; Woodcock et al., 2017), and drive exploration of better alternatives (C2) (Jactel et al., 2019). While we recognised these tensions (C1, C2, C5), we did not emphasise how climate change might accelerate pest growth and behaviour (Juroszek et al., 2020). Plant scientists have increasingly worked on global challenges, but the impacts of scientific advancement remain difficult to predict. For example, the discovery of small RNAs in plants (D9) (Molnar et al., 2011) and fundamental mechanisms of chromatin regulation (B2, B8, D7) (Whittaker & Dean, 2017) received the Wolf Prize for agriculture even though they did not have direct agricultural goals. The literature on some topics, such as algal biofuels (D20, D21), has grown less than we anticipated. Model plants continue to support fundamental research; laboratory staples like Arabidopsis (Parry et al., 2020) and Nicotiana advance our understanding of epigenetic, plant cell and molecular biology (D7, D8, D11, D12), allowing foundational questions to be addressed (D3, D13, D14, D16, D17). The importance of negative results is increasingly recognised (Nature Editorial, 2017) and there have been significant improvements in statistical literacy. Major advances in both efficiency and affordability of gene editing tools, notably CRISPR-Cas9 (A8) (Jinek et al., 2012; Ray & Satya, 2014), are facilitating fundamental research in a range of species, for example, to increase meiotic recombination and hence novelty for plant breeding (Li et al., 2021) (D18, D19). Biosensors and optobiology are among the newest tools for investigating the dynamics of molecular interactions that regulate hormone signalling or cellular kinetics (Papanatsiou et al., 2019; Herud-Sikimić et al., 2021) (D15). Structural biology using CryoEM provides information about plant immune system complexes (Ma et al., 2020; Martin et al., 2020), and whole plant transcriptional landscapes and complex cell fates can be resolved through ultra-high-resolution single-cell RNA sequencing, which was first developed in plants (Denyer et al., 2019; T. Q. Zhang et al., 2019). Collectively, these novel technical and experimental capabilities mean previously unknown mechanisms, networks and pathways are now easier to capture in multiple model organisms. Reflecting on our questions highlights exciting innovations, from using plant systems to screen for bioreactive molecules with medicinal relevance in humans (D24) to applications in industry (D25) (Drakakaki et al., 2011; Espinosa-Leal et al., 2018; Chandran et al., 2020). The IPBES Global Assessment (Brondizio et al., 2019) estimated more than a million species are now threatened with extinction, meaning the documentation of plant diversity is more important than ever (E1, E2, E6, E17), especially in the species-rich tropics (Kaptué et al., 2015; Maclean, 2018; Brummitt et al., 2021). The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, has been coordinating a periodic assessment of the threats facing plant diversity and sustainable use of plant resources, both domesticated and wild, through its State of the World's Plants (Antonelli et al., 2020). While we recognised the increased amount of arable land used for livestock and feed, we understated the direct impact of livestock on the environment and the potential contribution to climate change. The need to preserve native plant genetic diversity (E1–E6, E8, E17, A7) while working with primary food producers of the Global South is even more urgent (A1–A3, A11). New organisations, from local entities like the Crop Science Centre, an alliance between the University of Cambridge and NIAB, to international associations like AIRCA have joined established programmes, such as CIMMYT, CGIAR and the FAO to integrate plant diversity, sustainability, equity and climate adaptability into global agriculture (E3). Insights have also been gained into the origins of plant diversity, plant histories and phylogenetics (Pellicer et al., 2018; Carta et al., 2020; González et al., 2020; Donoghue et al., 2021) (E9–E17, D4). Scientists advanced genomic knowledge on a larger range of species (Edwards & Batley, 2010; Uauy, 2017; Bayer et al., 2020; Yang & Yan, 2021) and, together with new plant transformation and breeding techniques, increased the range of species available to fundamental and applied research (E7, E8) (Eck, 2018; Watson et al., 2018; Borrill, 2020; Thudi et al., 2021; Varshney et al., 2021), including within-species genome comparisons that revealed novel and exciting mechanisms of plant development, physiology and evolution. A new iteration of the 100 Questions project has just been completed (Armstrong et al., 2023) that includes some quantitative comparisons with our original questions. Both the BBSRC (Langdale, 2021) and ASPB (Henkhaus, 2020) recently published decadal visions for plant science, confirming the need for strategic investment in plant science. The Breakthrough Agenda Report (IEA, 2022) emphasises the urgent need for investment in research to reduce agricultural greenhouse gas emissions while securing food supplies. We cannot overstate the importance of continued engagement between plant scientists and the range and breadth of plant science topics, from fundamental discoveries to urgent issues affecting daily lives. The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that, with the freedom to rapidly deploy funding, diverse research areas can rapidly deliver powerful solutions to global challenges (e.g. Harper et al., 2021). Plant scientists need to work collaboratively with the broad forces of economics, politics, policy and disciplines so that benefits can be identified and delivered. We celebrate plant research advances over the past decade and look forward to increasing recognition of the importance of plant science and its potential to solve crucial global problems. EMA and HH were supported by the Bristol Centre for Agricultural Innovation. ERL was supported by the School of Biological Sciences at the University of Bristol. None declared. CSG initiated and led the project. ERL coordinated the project and wrote initial drafts. All authors contributed the content. EMA and CSG restructured and rewrote the paper in response to editorial and referee comments. EMA, HH, ERL, MWC and CSG added details and examples. ERL, EMA, HH, DG, SK, MWC and CSG edited the final draft, which was approved by all authors. ERL and EMA contributed equally to this work.

Study of the uptake of sulphate and methionine by an ale yeast from a range of media showed that utilisation of sulphate was fairly strictly controlled but assimilation of methionine was not. Cells never took up more than about 0.3 mMol sulphate per litre whilst methionine, up to an initial concentration of 10 mMol per litre, was completely absorbed. Sulphate-grown cells had low intracellular pools of amino acids and methinonine was never detected. Methionine-grown cells contained methionine in both cytosol and vacuole and the concentration of several other amino acids also increased in such a way to suggest that methionine catabolism was occurring. With mixed sulphur sources methionine prevented uptake of sulphate when the concentration of sulphate was high but not when it was low suggesting the presence of two sulphate transporters with different control properties. Sulphate did not influence uptake of methionine. Addition of other amino acids to the medium did reduce the rate and extent of methionine uptake but not the intracellular pool sizes. Pilot plant studies suggested that SO2 production in a brewery is more likely to be a reflection of the overall nutritive status of the wort rather than be connected to the initial methionine concentration.