1. Current situation within UPOV with regard to the possible use of molecular markers in the examination of DUS Ad hoc Subgroup of Technical and Legal Experts of Biochemical and Molecular Techniques (BMT Review Group) Current situation within UPOV with regard to the possible use of molecular markers in the examination of DUS Meeting Geneva, April 1, 2009

2. The options: Option 1:Option 1: Molecular Markers as predictors of Traditional Characteristics: (a) gene specific marker Option 2:Option 2: Calibration of Molecular Markers against Traditional Characteristics in the management of Reference collections Option 3:Option 3: New system

3. OPTION 1 (a) Molecular Markers as predictors of Traditional Characteristics: (a) gene specific marker

4. View of the BMT Review Group, Technical Committee, Administrative and Legal Committee was, on the basis of the assumptions in the proposal, acceptable within the terms of the UPOV Convention and would not undermine the effectiveness of protection offered under the UPOV system. Option 1(a) for a gene specific marker of a phenotypic characteristic: Proposal: gene specific marker for herbicide tolerance introduced by genetic modification

5. Assumptions for a gene specific marker: DUS examination (a) DUS examination: same no. of plants, growing cycles, DUS criteria; Linkage (b) Linkage: ensure that the marker is a reliable predictor; Different markers same characteristic (c) Different markers for same gene would be treated as different methods for examining the same characteristic; Different genes same characteristic (d) Different genes would be treated as different methods for examining the same characteristic; Different markersdifferent regulatory elementssame gene same characteristic (e) Different markers linked to different regulatory elements for the same gene would all be treated as different methods for examining the same characteristic. (further consideration would be given to this matter at a later stage)

6. OPTION 2 Calibration of Molecular Markers against Traditional Characteristics in the management of Reference collections

7. Option 2: Calibration of threshold levels Morphological Distance Molecular distance Perfect calibration Molecular threshold Morphology threshold

8. View of the BMT Review Group, Technical Committee, Administrative and Legal Committee where used for the management of reference collections was, on the basis of the assumptions in the proposals, acceptable within the terms of the UPOV Convention and would not undermine the effectiveness of protection offered under the UPOV system - whilst recognizing the need to improve the relationship between morphological and molecular distances. Option 2: Calibration of threshold levels for molecular characteristics against the minimum distance in traditional characteristics Proposal: Option 2 for Maize, Oilseed Rape and Rose

9. Assumptions for calibration of threshold levels : Uniformity and Stability (a) Uniformity and Stability: differences take into account the variation within varieties; (i) [molecular] differences calculated between varieties take into account the variation within varieties; uniformity standards without requiring varieties to be more uniform (ii) suitable uniformity standards could be developed for molecular markers without requiring varieties, in general, to be more uniform Distinctness plusmanagement of reference collections (b) would only be used for the establishment of a Distinctness plus threshold in the management of reference collections; normal requirements for any characteristic sufficiently consistent and repeatable (c) would meet all the normal requirements for any characteristic to be used in the DUS examination and, in particular, would be checked to ensure they are sufficiently consistent and repeatable.

10. Option 2: Oilseed Rape

11. Option 2: Calibration of threshold levels Morphological Distance Molecular distance Morphology threshold Molecular threshold Area of concern

12. Option 2: Management of Reference Collections (Distinctness plus) Morphological Distance Molecular distance Molecular threshold (D plus) Area of concern Morphology threshold

13. OPTION 3 New system

14. OPTION 3 for ROSE Step 1: Step 1: Use a fixed set of seven STMS markers (Set 1) to examine two plants of the candidate variety to see if it is clearly distinguishable from all other varieties. 3 band/peak differencesDISTINCT => at least 3 band/peak differences: DISTINCT if not, go to Step 2 Step 2: Step 2: Use a second, different set of seven STMS markers (Set 2). 3 band/peak differences DISTINCT => at least 3 band/peak differences (using both sets of markers): DISTINCT if not, go to Step 3 Step 3: growing trial Step 3: Such candidate varieties would be included in the growing trial to examine distinctness using non-molecular characteristics. (Note: in all cases, varieties would be grown in the field to examine Uniformity & Stability)

15. OPTION 3 for WHEAT 8 SSR markersDISTINCT (a)If the candidate variety can be clearly distinguished using set of 8 SSR markers, it is considered DISTINCT; (b)Candidates which are not sufficiently uniform for any of the 8 SSR markers will not undergo further testing and will not be protected; (c)If the candidate cannot be clearly distinguished from all varieties of common knowledge, then the varieties from which it is not distinct (according to an agreed criterion) are selected for inclusion in the field trial; (d)All candidates are sown in field trials, to check uniformity and stability of the relevant, non molecular characteristics.

16. View of the BMT Review Group, Technical Committee, Administrative and Legal Committee no consensus on the acceptability of the Option 3 proposals within the terms of the UPOV Convention and no consensus on whether they would undermine the effectiveness of protection offered under the UPOV system. - concerns were raised that, in these proposals, using this approach, it might be possible to use a limitless number of markers to find differences between varieties. The concern was also raised that differences would be found at the genetic level which were not reflected in morphological characteristics Option 3: New system Proposal: Option 3 for Rose and Wheat

17. THANK YOU