APPLICATION FORM Containment
To obtain approval for new organisms in containment
Send to Environmental Protection Authority preferably by email ([email protected]) or alternatively by post (Private Bag 63002, Wellington 6140) Payment must accompany final application; see our fees and charges schedule for details.
Application Number
Date
www.epa.govt.nz 2
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
Completing this application form
1. This form has been approved under section 40 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996. It only covers importing, development (production, fermentation or regeneration) or field test of any new organism (including genetically modified organisms (GMOs)) in containment. If you wish to make an application for another type of approval or for another use (such as an emergency, special emergency or release), a different form will have to be used. All forms are available on our website. 2. If your application is for a project approval for low-risk GMOs, please use the Containment – GMO Project application form. Low risk genetic modification is defined in the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/regulation/public/2003/0152/latest/DLM195215.html. 3. It is recommended that you contact an Advisor at the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) as early in the application process as possible. An Advisor can assist you with any questions you have during the preparation of your application including providing advice on any consultation requirements. 4. Unless otherwise indicated, all sections of this form must be completed for the application to be formally received and assessed. If a section is not relevant to your application, please provide a comprehensive explanation why this does not apply. If you choose not to provide the specific information, you will need to apply for a waiver under section 59(3)(a)(ii) of the HSNO Act. This can be done by completing the section on the last page of this form. 5. Any extra material that does not fit in the application form must be clearly labelled, cross- referenced, and included with the application form when it is submitted. 6. Please add extra rows/tables where needed. 7. You must sign the final form (the EPA will accept electronically signed forms) and pay the application fee (including GST) unless you are already an approved EPA customer. To be recognised by the EPA as an “approved customer”, you must have submitted more than one application per month over the preceding six months, and have no history of delay in making payments, at the time of presenting an application. 8. Information about application fees is available on the EPA website. 9. All application communications from the EPA will be provided electronically, unless you specifically request otherwise.
December 2013 EPA0324 3
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
Commercially sensitive information
10. Commercially sensitive information must be included in an appendix to this form and be identified as confidential. If you consider any information to be commercially sensitive, please show this in the relevant section of this form and cross reference to where that information is located in the confidential appendix. 11. Any information you supply to the EPA prior to formal lodgement of your application will not be publicly released. Following formal lodgement of your application any information in the body of this application form and any non-confidential appendices will become publicly available. 12. Once you have formally lodged your application with the EPA, any information you have supplied to the EPA about your application is subject to the Official Information Act 1982 (OIA). If a request is made for the release of information that you consider to be confidential, your view will be considered in a manner consistent with the OIA and with section 57 of the HSNO Act. You may be required to provide further justification for your claim of confidentiality. Definitions
Restricting an organism or substance to a secure location or facility to prevent Containment escape. In respect to genetically modified organisms, this includes field testing and large scale fermentation
Any obligation or restrictions imposed on any new organism, or any person in relation to any new organism, by the HSNO Act or any other Act or any Controls regulations, rules, codes, or other documents made in accordance with the provisions of the HSNO Act or any other Act for the purposes of controlling the adverse effects of that organism on people or the environment
Any organism in which any of the genes or other genetic material: Have been modified by in vitro techniques, or Genetically Modified Are inherited or otherwise derived, through any number of replications, from Organism (GMO) any genes or other genetic material which has been modified by in vitro techniques
A new organism is an organism that is any of the following: An organism belonging to a species that was not present in New Zealand immediately before 29 July 1998; An organism belonging to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar prescribed as a risk species, where that organism was not present in New Zealand at the time of promulgation of the relevant regulation; An organism for which a containment approval has been given under the New Organism HSNO Act; An organism for which a conditional release approval has been given under the HSNO Act; A qualifying organism approved for release with controls under the HSNO Act; A genetically modified organism; An organism belonging to a species, subspecies, infrasubspecies, variety, strain, or cultivar that has been eradicated from New Zealand;
December 2013 EPA0324 4
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
An organism present in New Zealand before 29 July 1998 in contravention of the Animals Act 1967 or the Plants Act 1970. This does not apply to the organism known as rabbit haemorrhagic disease virus, or rabbit calicivirus A new organism does not cease to be a new organism because: It is subject to a conditional release approval; or It is a qualifying organism approved for release with controls; or It is an incidentally imported new organism
An individual or collaborative endeavour that is planned to achieve a particular Project aim or research goal
December 2013 EPA0324 5
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
1. Applicant details
1.1. Applicant
Company Name: (if applicable) Scion
Contact Name: Beccy Ganley
Job Title: Research Leader, Forest Protection
Physical Address: 49 Sala Street, Rotorua, 3010
Postal Address (provide only if not the same as the physical): Private Bag 3020
Phone (office and/or mobile): 0212133876
Fax:
Email: [email protected]
1.2. New Zealand agent or consultant (if applicable)
Company Name:
Contact Name:
Job Title:
Physical Address:
Postal Address (provide only if not the same as the physical):
Phone (office and/or mobile):
Fax:
Email:
December 2013 EPA0324 6
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
2. Information about the application
2.1. Type of containment activity Tick the box(es) that best describe your application
Application type Type of new organism
☐ GMO Import into containment ☒ Non-GMO ☐ Develop in containment i.e. regeneration, fermentation GMO or genetic modification ☐ Non-GMO
☐ GMO Field test in containment ☐ Non-GMO
2.2. Brief application description Approximately 30 words about what you are applying to do
We would like to receive plants or plant material from MPI that is being intercepted in New Zealand borders and screen it to determine if it contains Phytophthora species.
2.3. Summary of application Provide a plain English, non-technical description of what you are applying to do and why you want to do it
International movement of plants, especially plants accompanied with soil or plant substrates, has been recognised as the main pathway for the spread and introduction of harmful plant pathogens into pathogen-free areas. The objective of this project is to test plants, plant material and any associated soil or debris that has been intercepted at the border by MPI and determine whether the material contains any Phytophthora species that could have inadvertently been introduced into New Zealand and could threaten our plant based economies. Phytophthora are oomycetes, which are fungal-like pathogens (also called ‘water moulds’) and are a high risk genus of plant pathogens as many cause devastating plant diseases world-wide such as kauri dieback, sudden oak death and potato blight.
We would like to screen material that has been intercepted at the border by MPI and use classical isolation and molecular techniques to determine if Phytophthora species are present in the material.
December 2013 EPA0324 7
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
This project will determine the biosecurity risk that illegal importation of plant germplasm poses to New Zealand and the importance of border biosecurity measures prevent entry of illegal plant importation. The main benefit of this project is the detection of possible unwanted Phytophthora species that could enter the country illegally and pose a significant biosecurity risk for the forestry and horticultural industry, and valuable ecosystems.
2.4. Background and aims of application This section is intended to put the new organism(s) in perspective of the wider activities that they will be used in. You may use more technical language but all technical words must be included in a glossary
Oomycete species belonging to the genus Phytophthora are recognised worldwide within the most harmful plant pathogens, and they might pose a high biosecurity risk to New Zealand flora (Erwin & Ribeiro, 1996; Jung et al., 2013). Some of them are already listed by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) as harmful and unwanted organisms (Ministry for Primary Industries, Unwanted Organism Register v. 02.01.02, 2018). Some Phytophthora species have a wide host range, able to cause numerous plant diseases, like P. cinnamomi, which is one of the most devastating species due to its virulence, able to infect more than 1,000 plant hosts (Burgess et al., 2017). P. ramorum, not present in New Zealand yet, is considered a quarantine species in Europe and is listed in the quarantine A2 list of the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO, version 2017-09) and is causing the ‘sudden oak death’ in the US and killing Japanese larch (Larix kaempferi) in the UK, along with many other plant species (especially Rhododendron and Viburnum plants in nurseries), (Brasier & Webber, 2010; Grünwald et al., 2012).
International plant movement, especially trade of plants or movement of plants accompanied with soil or plant substrates, has been recognised as the main pathway for the spread and introduction of harmful plant pathogens into pathogen-free areas (Westphal et al., 2008; Hulme, 2009; Pérez- Sierra & Jung, 2013; Maxwell et al., 2014). The main threat of Phytophthora species is their ability to remain asymptomatic in plant tissues, like P. ramorum (Grünwald et al., 2012), which facilitates their transport and dispersion through the plant trade chain and within different intermediate facilities, before causing any disease outbreak and posterior establishment in a territory. Although the existence of strong biosecurity measures in New Zealand borders, targeting key species to avoid their entrance, spread and stablishment, some pathogens might escape inadvertently and pose a risk. New Zealand, for its unique geographical situation due to its remoteness, is very sensitive to plant pathogen disruptions that might pose a threat to its native flora. A good example is kauri dieback, caused by P. agathidicida, which is undermining native forests of kauri (Agathis australis). The introduction of unwanted pests and diseases can lead to devastating consequences affecting different New Zealand economic (forestry, horticultural) and socio-cultural stratus.
December 2013 EPA0324 8
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
The aim of this project is to screen plants intercepted at New Zealand border for Phytophthora species. Different morphological and molecular techniques will be applied to obtain Phytophthora isolates and identify them. Morphological techniques will include floating plant material in water and using bait material such as rhododendron leaves, which will be then plated on selective media, or using apples for baits and plating necrotic tissue onto selective media. It is possible that Pythium species will also be isolated using these techniques as the media used is selective for Pythium and Phytophthora species. Phytophthora species isolated will be identified to species level through morphological features and DNA amplification of the internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region. Molecular techniques will also be used to detect Phytophthora from DNA extracted directly from plant or associated materials, using specific real-time PCR assays for a range of Phytophthora species.
We have discussed this project with the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), specifically with Shane Olsen (Team Manager, Facilities and Plant Products), Geoff Ridley (ex Manager Plant Exports) and Chris Denny (Team Manager – Freight & Mail). We have had approval to obtain this material from MPI subject to the following criteria:
The premises would have to be an approved Approved Transitional Facility (ATF), with an agreement that all work would be completed in containment and all material would be destroyed after testing.
HSNO approval from EPA to work on new organisms
The facility where this work will be undertaken, Scion’s PC2 Microorganism Containment Facility, is an ATF approved facility, registered under MPI/EPA standard ‘Facilities for Microorganisms and Cell Cultures: 2007a’. MPI will only send us specimens to analyse from plant species that are currently present in New Zealand. We have also discussed a process for reporting any organisms isolated with Brett Alexander and Wellcome Ho from the Plant Health and Environment Laboratory – any organisms isolated will be destroyed at the end of the project and will not enter New Zealand.
3. Information about the new organism(s)
3.1. Name of organism Identify the organism as fully as possible
Non-GMOs - Provide a taxonomic description of the new organism(s).
GMOs – Provide a taxonomic description of the host organism(s) and describe the genetic modification.
Both - Describe the biology and main features of the organism including if it has inseparable organisms.
December 2013 EPA0324 9
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
Describe if the organism has affinities (e.g. close taxonomic relationships) with other organisms in New Zealand. Could the organism form an undesirable self-sustaining population? If not, why not? How easily could the new organism be recovered or eradicated if it established an undesirable self- sustaining population?
Taxonomy of Phytophthora species:
Kingdom: Chromista
Phylum: Oomycota
Class: Oomycetes
Subclass: Peronosporomycetidae
Order: Peronosporales
Family: Peronosporaceae
Genus: Phytophthora
Phytophthora species are recognized as harmful plant pathogens around the world, affecting ecomomically important crops and natural ecosystems. Their mycelium is hyaline, non septated, and from smooth to coralloid shape. They can present chlamydospores, differentiated from other structures by a septa. Their life cycle occurs in environments with high water content, needed for their dispersal and reproduction through the release of swimming biflagellate zoospores, released from the sporangium (asexual reproduction) or through oospores enclosed in oogonium (sexual reproduction). They are mainly soil-borne organisms, although some species are foliar pathogens (Erwin & Ribeiro, 1996). The dispersal for soil-borne species occurs mainly by water movement, rain or floods, meanwhile aerial species, zoospores are dispersed when high humidity conditions occur, through fog, mist or rain (Erwin & Ribeiro, 1996). They can also be dispersed through movement of infested material in nurseries, such as tools, infested plant substrates or soil, plant tissues or even vehicles. Some species have a broad host range, like P. cinnamomi, included in the list of the 100 world’s worst invasive species due to its wide host range and virulence, or be specific to certain plant species (Erwin & Ribeiro, 1996; Lowe et al., 2000).
Many Phytophthora species are already present in New Zealand, however, some other, like P. ramorum or P. lateralis, are not present and their possible establishment could pose a risk to the native flora. The eradication of these plant pathogens is often difficult or impossible once they are established. Containment of infected areas to reduce their spread has been successfully reported. Eradiaction or control measures that are often used include phosphite trunk injections, fungicide applications, fumigation, cutting infected trees or plants and neighbouring plants and burning the plant material (Kanaskie et al., 2008; Dunstan et al., 2010; Scott et al., 2013).
Phytophthora species can cause significant economical loses, especially within the plant nursery industry of ornamentals. In Europe, the presence of P. ramorum in nurseries leads to the
December 2013 EPA0324 10
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
application of very restrictive quarantine measures and the destruction of all plant material infected and other host plants. In natural ecosystems and forest plantations, this species is causing a wide mortality of its hosts, from trees to shrubs, and minimizes the value of the ecosystem in terms of ecological, economical, recreational and cultural impacts (Rizzo & Garbelotto, 2003; Rizzo et al., 2005; Grunwald et al., 2012).
Another trait that makes Phytophthora species very harmful is their high ability to hybridize which has contribute to the appearance of new pathogens. The best example is Phytophthora alni and its variants: P. alni subsp. alni, P. alni subsp. uniformis and P. alni subsp. multiformis (renamed as P. alni, P. uniformis and P. multiformis, respectively). These species are damaging alder riparian ecosystems across Europe and are spreading very quickly through rivers and waterways and through nursery stock. It is believed that the hybridization event occurred within nursery facilities, where two possible parental species, P. cambivora and an unkown Phytophthora species hybridized when being put together by human actions (Brassier et al., 2004; Ersek & Man In’t Veld, 2013; Husson et al., 2015)
Taxonomy of Pythium species:
Kingdom: Chromista
Phylum: Oomycota
Class: Oomycetes
Subclass: Peronosporomycetidae
Order: Peronosporales
Family: Pythiaceae
Genus: Pythium
Pythium species are ubiquitous saprotrophs and plant pathogens. They share similar morphological features with Phytophthora species, but mainly differentiated by the way they release the zoospores from the sporangium, inside a vesicle, whereas Phytophthora species release them directly to the outer environment. These species are distributed across the globe and inhabit many different plant ecosystems, with a wider host range than Phytophthora spp. Some species in this genus can cause several diseases in plant crops, affecting root systems, fruits, stems or in seedlings, causing damping-off (van der Plaats-Niterink, 1981; Uzuhashi et al., 2010).
In 2010, a new genus was described by Bala et al. (2010), Phytopythium, according phylogenetic analysis of Pythium clade K, that shared hybrid morphological features between both genera Pythium and Phytophthora. Some species within this new genus are recognised as plant pathogens, like P. ultimum var. ultimum.
December 2013 EPA0324 11
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
Both Pythium and Phytopythium species, are able to settle and establish if they find the proper host to infect and remain if the environmental conditions are favourable and their eradication is quite difficult once they are established.
3.2. Regulatory status of the organism
Is the organism that is the subject of this application also the subject of:
An innovative medicine application as defined in section 23A of the Medicines Act 1981?
☐ Yes ☒ No
An innovative agricultural compound application as defined in Part 6 of the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Act 1997?
☐ Yes ☒ No
4. Information about the containment
4.1. For field tests: The nature and method of the field test Describe the nature and method of the field test and the experimental procedures to be used
There are no field tests for this project.
4.2. Proposed containment of the new organism(s) (physical and operational) Describe how you propose to contain the new organism(s) after taking into account its ability to escape from containment (i.e. the possible pathways for escape)
Any plant material sent to from the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to Scion will be packaged in a minimum of double containment and then in a hard outer shell container. The material will be sent to Scion by tracked courier. This is the same protocol used by Scion and MPI to send suspected or known new to New Zealand microorganisms between our registered Containment Facilities.
Plants received will be processed in Scion’s PC2 Microorganism Containment Facility registered under MPI/EPA standard ‘Facilities for Microorganisms and Cell Cultures: 2007a’. Plant material sent to Scion will be processed as soon as possible after it has arrived. Once processed (baited or DNA extracted from the material), any remaining material will be bagged and sealed, then double bagged and sealed before being destroyed by steam sterilization at high temperatures
December 2013 EPA0324 12
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
(autoclaving). Material to be baited will be placed in a plastic container and the container will be put inside a sealed ziplock bag. To isolate any Phytophthora species in the plant material, the bait material will be plated onto agar that is selective for Phytophthora and Pythium species. The plates will be sealed with film and double bagged in sealed ziplock bags before being placed into a growth contherm in the room. To sub any cultures that grow or remove any mycelium for DNA extraction, agar plates will be opened in a Class 2 Bio-hazard cabinet, then resealed and double-bagged. As Phytophthora are transmitted via water, the likelihood that Phytophthora or Pythium spores could become airborne from opening a petri dish is extremely minimal.
DNA will be extracted directly from plant material or from pure cultures. The DNA extractions will be undertaken in the room and only DNA extract that is inert and contains no plant or oomycete material will leave the containtment facilities. Tubes of extracted DNA to undergo PCR will be wiped with ethanol and doubled bagged. Each bag will be sprayed with ethanol once sealed and again before it is removed from the PC2 facilty. PCR amplification will not be performed in this PC2 microorganism containment facility.
Staff working in this project will follow all of the protocols described in Scion’s PC2 Microganism Containment Facility Quality Systems Manual . This will include users wearing full overalls with booties and gloves while working in the PC2 microorganism containment facility. Staff will gown overalls and booties before entering the PC2 microorganism containment facility in an airlock, and remove these garments in the airlock when leaving the PC2 microorganism containment facility. Once in the PC2 microorganism containment facility, staff will wear protective gloves while undertaking work; these will be removed in the PC2 microorganism containment facility and destroyed following the PC2 protocols for destruction of waste material. The overalls, booties and gloves will prevent any plant or oomycete material inadvertently being transmitted outside of the PC2 or wider X155 facility by staff on their clothes, shoes, skin or hair. Staff also have to walk over a sticky mat when they leave the inner sanctum of the X155 facility, which would capture any particles present on the soles of the footware they are required to wear in the containment areas. Staff are not allowed to wear their own footware while in the containment areas of this facility, instead they must remove their shoes and wear footware which stays within the containment area, including in the PC2 microorganism containment facility.
The PC2 microorganism containment facility has negative air pressure to prevent airborne particles from leaving the room. Once they have left the PC2 microorganism containment facility they will de-gown in the airlock. After leaving the airlock, they will pass through a set of doors (where the sticky mats are) which takes them from the inner sanctum of the X155 facility into a preparation room. The set of doors to leave the preparation room cannot be open at the same time the inner sanctum door is open. Another set of doors with swipcard and security code access are exited to leave the building. This means there is no directly airflow from the PC2 microorganism containment facility airlock through to outside of the building. The outside of the X155 is concrete and there is limited vegetation (grass) surrounding the building, so if any material should escape, the likelihood of finding
December 2013 EPA0324 13
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
susceptible host material is extremely low and thus, the ability to eradicate any organism would be high.
If any new to New Zealand oomycetes are isolated, MPI will be notified as outlined in the Biosecurity Act. All cultures and materials used in this experiment will be double-bagged as described above and autoclaved at the end of this project.
Access to building X155 is through a controlled swipecard system. Not until training has been conducted and users approved are swipecards active to allow entry. The alarm system is monitored offsite 24/7 with campus security patrolling outside of normal working hours.
Scion’s Pathology group has worked extensively on isolating and identifying new to New Zealand organisms as part of MPI’s High Risk Site Surveillance programme for over 25 years. The group has detailed processes and protocols in place to ensure containment of unwanted organisms. Scion’s Pathology group specialises in Phytophthora and Pythium research and researchers have worked at length on numerous Phytophthora and Pythium organisms, including those that cause high profile diseases such as P. agathadicida (kauri dieback), P. pluvialis (red needle cast), P. kernoviae and P. cinnamomi. Our group has a in depth understanding of the lifecycle of these organisms and the conditions required for infection on a wide array of hosts. Again, the group have detailed processes and protocols in place to ensure containment of Phytophthora and Pythium species researched in our facilities. Scion’s Pathology group also routinely provides advice to industry and government organisations on the most effective methods or best practices for managing Phytophthora and Pythium both in containment and field settings.
Currently Scion’s pathology group is working on Phytophthora and, to a lesser extent, Pythium research for a 5 year MBIE programme looking at future-proofing New Zealand trees against Phytophthora species, several projects for Better Border Biosecurity (B3) to help safeguard New Zealand’s border against unwanted Phytophthora, multiple projects for the Biological Heritage National Scion Challenge, projects with BioProtection centre of excellence, as well as programmes of Phytophthora research for the Forest Owners Association and nursery industry.
5. Māori engagement
Discuss any engagement or consultation with Māori undertaken and summarise the outcomes. Please refer to the EPA policy ‘Engaging with Māori for applications to the EPA’ on our website (www.epa.govt.nz) or contact the EPA for advice.
No specific engagement or consultation with Māori has been undertaken in regards to this project. The Te Papa Tipu Innovation Park where this work will be completed sits on Ngati Tuteata and Ngati Te Taeotu tribal whenua (lands). The marae, Hurunga Te Rangi, is located at Ngapuna, Rotorua and resident kaumatua, Mr George Mutu (Koro George) has an on-going and open
December 2013 EPA0324 14
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
relationship with Scion. Scion meets with their kaumatua Koro George and other hapu representatives on a regular basis in relation to Scion’s research activities.
6. Risks, costs and benefits
Provide information of the risks, costs and benefits of the new organism(s).
These are the positive and adverse effects referred to in the HSNO Act. It is easier to regard risks and costs as being adverse (or negative) and benefits as being positive. In considering risks, cost and benefits, it is important to look at both the likelihood of occurrence (probability) and the potential magnitude of the consequences, and to look at distribution effects (who bears the costs, benefits and risks).
Consider the adverse or positive effects in the context of this application on the environment (e.g. could the organism cause any significant displacement of any native species within its natural habitat, cause any significant deterioration of natural habitats or cause significant adverse effect to New Zealand’s inherent genetic diversity, or is the organism likely to cause disease, be parasitic, or become a vector for animal or plant disease?), human health and safety, the relationship of Māori to the environment, the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, society and the community, the market economy and New Zealand’s international obligations.
You must fully complete this section referencing supporting material. You will need to provide a description of where the information in the application has been sourced from, e.g. from in-house research, independent research, technical literature, community or other consultation, and provide that information with this application.
Potential risks and costs:
The main risk of this project is the escape of a harmful microorganism from containment and its establishment on a plant species of cultural or economic value. However, the probability of this occuring is extremely low. The Phytophthora isolated will be grown in sealed petri dishes, maintained in sealed ziplock bags, in closed incubators in Scion’s X155 PC2 microorganism containment facility. For Phytohthora species that are spread aerially or soil-borne, the spores require dispersal in water, for aerial dispersal this would be rain droplets, mist or fog (Erwin & Ribeiro, 1996). This significantly reduces the ability of these organisms to escape the PC2 microorganism containment facility, especially in comparison to many fungal species which are easily aerially spread.
Staff working in this project will follow all of the protocols described in Scion’s PC2 Microganism Containment Facility Quality Systems Manual. This will include users footware provided that does not leave the containment area; wearing full overalls with booties and gloves while working in the PC2 microorganism containment facility; sterile techniques to prevent contamination or spread or any organisms present in the material; cleaning of benches and equipment with ethanol and/or
December 2013 EPA0324 15
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
bleach; and all waste material will be double bagged before it is autoclaved or incinerated. No isolates or plant material will be removed from the PC2 microorganism containment facility and at the end of the project all isolates will be destroyed (autoclaved). Any plant material not processed or any plant waste will be autoclaved. DNA extraction will be completed within the containment facilities; DNA is inert and no able to reproduce. Tubes of extracted DNA to be processed will be wiped with ethanol and doubled bagged. Each bag will be sprayed with ethanol once sealed and again before it is removed from the PC2 microorganism containment facilty.
Should an organism escape from the PC2 microorganism containment facility where this work is being undertaken, there are many other layers of containment with the wider facility, that would further reduce spread of the organism. This includes sticky mats that staff walk over when leaving the inner sanctum of the facility, two sets of doors that cannot be opened at the same time, and final set of doors to leave the entire facility. If an organism should escape the entire facilty, the immediate area in front of the facility is concrete and there is limited vegetation (grass) surrounding the building, hence the likelihood that any organisms would be able to find a susceptible host is minimal and the ability to eradicate any organism that escaped would be very high.
We have no idea what Phytophthora (if any) we will find in the material. It is possible that we could find species that are already present in New Zealand and will pose no or little threat to plants in New Zealand. Conversely, we could isolate unwanted Phytophthora species, some of which could represent a major threat to New Zealand’s native and exotic flora. The ability to isolate Phytophthora from the material gives us valuable information on the viability of the organisms present and helps us understand the true biosecurity risk illegal plant importation poses to New Zealand.
Potential benefits:
This project will determine the biosecurity risk that illegal importation of plant germplasm poses to New Zealand and the importance of border biosecurity measures to prevent entry of illegal plant material. The main outcome of this project is determining whether Phytophthora are present in any of the material coming through, and if so, whether any unwanted Phytophthora species are present that could pose a significant biosecurity risk for the forestry and horticultural industry, and valuable ecosystems, if they should establish.
This work is important for understanding the risk of illegal plant import pathways and will allow the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) to invest appropriate resources into minimising the likelihood that unwanted organisms could enter the country or increase the penalties for individuals who breach the law. The results of this work can also be used to provide examples to the public of why it is important not to allow others overseas to send them plant material without proper permits and quarantine.
The increase in plant movement and movement of their associated pathogens worldwide has increased the chance that plant material infected with unwanted organisms could enter the country. If
December 2013 EPA0324 16
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
we do not do this research and the risk of this pathway is actually higher than has been anticipated, then current measures to prevent illegal introduction might not be sufficient and we risk establishment of unwanted organisms into New Zealand that could have devastating impacts on our plant-based economies and natural ecosystems.
7. Alternative methods and potential effects from the transfer of genetic elements This section is for developments of GMOs that take place outdoors and field tests of GMOs only
Discuss if there are alternative methods of achieving the research objective. Discuss whether there could be effects resulting from the transfer of genetic elements to other organisms in or around the site of the development or field test.
Not applicable
8. Pathway determination and rapid assessment This section is for the imports of GMOs only
Under section 42B of the HSNO Act your application may be eligible for a rapid assessment. The pathway for your application will be determined after its formal receipt, based on the data provided in this application form. If you would like your application to be considered for rapid assessment (as per the criteria below), we require you to complete this section.
8.1. Discuss whether the GMO(s) to be imported fulfil the criteria
The criteria are: The host organism(s) are Category 1 or 2 host organisms as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations The genetic modifications are Category A or B modifications as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations and the modifications are not listed in the Schedule of these Regulations The minimum containment of the GMO(s) will be as per the HSNO (Low Risk Genetic Modification) Regulations (PC1 or PC2 as per AS/NZS2243.3:2002)
9. Other information
Add here any further information you wish to include in this application including if there are any ethical considerations that you are aware of in relation to your application.
December 2013 EPA0324 17
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
10. Checklist This checklist is to be completed by the applicant
Application Comments/justifications
All sections of the application form completed ☒ Yes ☐ No or you have requested an information waiver (If No, please discuss with an under section 59 of the HSNO Act Advisor to enable your application to be further processed)
Confidential data as part of a separate, ☐ Yes ☒ No identified appendix
Supplementary optional information attached:
Copies of additional references ☐ Yes ☒ No References can be provided if required
Relevant correspondence ☐ Yes ☒ No
Administration Are you an approved EPA customer? ☐ Yes ☒ No If Yes are you an: Applicant: ☐ Agent: ☐
If you are not an approved customer, payment of fee will be by: Direct credit made to the EPA bank ☒ Yes ☐ No account (preferred method of payment) ☒ Payment to follow Date of direct credit:
Cheque for application fee enclosed ☐ Yes ☐ No ☐ Payment to follow
Electronic, signed copy of application e- ☒ Yes mailed to the EPA
December 2013 EPA0324 18
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
Signature of applicant or person authorised to sign on behalf of applicant
☒ I am making this application, or am authorised to sign on behalf of the applicant or applicant organisation.
☒ I have completed this application to the best of my ability and, as far as I am aware, the information I have provided in this application form is correct.
20th August 2018
Signature Date
Request for information waiver under section 59 of the HSNO Act
I request for the Authority to waive any legislative information requirements (i.e. concerning ☐ the information that has been supplied in my application) that my application does not meet (tick if applicable).
Please list below which section(s) of this form are relevant to the information waiver request:
December 2013 EPA0324 19
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
Appendices and referenced material (if any) and glossary (if required)
GLOSSARY
Hyaline: clear in color, translucent.
Chlamydospore: thick walled asexual spore that get used to appear intercalate in the mycellia. This structure is designed to survive under unfauvorable conditions.
Zoospore: asexual spore that is able to move in aquatic environments due to the presence of flagella (long filaments) attached to it.
Sporangium: asexual structure with the shape of a receptacle or vessel, where zoospores are formed and developed. Once they reach the maturity, zoospores are released to the outer environment.
Oogonium: round or globose structure containing the female sexual cell (oospore).
Antheridium: male sexual structure that get used to be close or attached to the oogonium.
PCR: from Polymerase Chain Reaction, is a laboratory tecnique of molecular biology that is used to amplifly a fragment of the DNA, generating millions of copies.
Real-time PCR: also known as quantitative PCR (qPCR), when PCR is monitored at the same time the DNA replication occurs, using fluorescent dyes. This technique is applied to quantify the amount of a target DNA on the study sample.
REFERENCES
Bala, K., Robideau, G.P. & Levesque, C.A. 2010. Phytopythium Abad, de Cock, Bala, Robideau, Lodhi & Levesque, gen. nov. and Phytopythium sindhum Lodhi, Shahzad & Levesque, sp. Nov. Persoonia 24: 136-137.
Brasier, C.M. & Webber, J. 2010. Plant pathology: Sudden larch death. Nature 466(7308): 824-825.
Brasier, C.M., Kirk, S.A., Delcan, J., Cooke, D.E.L., Jung, T. & Man In’t Veld, W.A. 2004. Phytophthora alni sp. nov. and its variants: designation of emerging heteroploid hybrid pathogens spreading on Alnus trees. Mycological Research 108: 1172-1184.
Burgess, T. I., Scott, J.K., Mcdougall, K.L., Stukely, M.J.C., Crane, C., Dunstan, W.A., Brigg, F., Andjic, V., White, D., Rudman, T., Arentz, F., Ota, N. & Hardy, G.E.S.J. 2017. Current and projected global distribution of Phytophthora cinnamomi, one of the world's worst plant pathogens. Global Change Biology 23(4): 1661-1674.
Dunstan, W.A., Rudman, T., Shearer, B.L., Moore, N.A., Paap, T., Calver, M.C., Dell, B. & Hardy, G.E.S.J. 2010. Containment and spot eradication of a highly destructive, invasive plant pathogen (Phytophthora cinnamomi) in natural ecosystems. Biological invasions 12(4): 913-925.
Ersek, T. & Man In’t Veld, W.A. 2013. Phytophthora species hybrids: a novel threat to crops and natural ecosystems. In: Lamour, K. Ed. Phytophthora. A global perspective. CAB International: 37-47.
Erwin, D.C. & Ribeiro, O.K. 1996. Phytophthora Diseases Worldwide. St. Paul, Minnesota, APS Press.
Grünwald, N.J., Garbelotto, M., Goss, E.M., Heungens, K. & Prospero, S. 2012. Emergence of the sudden oak death pathogen Phytophthora ramorum. Trends in Microbiology 20(3): 131-138.
December 2013 EPA0324 20
Application Form Approval for new organism in containment
Hulme, P.E. 2009. Trade, transport and trouble: Managing invasive species pathways in an era of globalization. Journal of Applied Ecology 46(1): 10-18.
Husson, C., Aguayo, J., Revellin, C., Frey, P., Ioos, R. & Marçais, B. 2015. Evidence for homoploid speciation in Phytophthora alni supports taxonomic reclassification in this species complex. Fungal Genetics and Biology 77: 12-21.
Jung, T., Vettraino, A.M., Cech, T. & Vannini, A. 2013. The impact of invasive Phytophthora species on European forests. In: Lamour, K. Ed. Phytophthora: A Global Perspective. CAB International: 146- 158.
Kanaskie, A., Goheen, E., Osterbauer, N., McWilliams, M., Hansen, E. & Sutton, W. 2008. Eradication of Phytophthora ramorum from Oregon forests: status after 6 years. In: Frankel, S., et al. tech. coords. 2008. Proceedings of the sudden oak death third science symposium. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- 214. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station: 15-17.
Lowe, S., Browne, M., Boudjelas, S. & De Poorter, M. 2000. 100 of the world’s worst invasive alien species: a selection from the Global Invasive Species Database. The Invasive Species Specialist Group, International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Gland, Switzerland. Available: https://www.iucn.org. Accessed August 2018.
Maxwell, A., Vettraino, A.M., Eschen, R. & Andjic, V. 2014. International plant trade and biosecurity. In: Horticulture: plants for people and places. Dixon, G.R.& Aldous, D.E., Eds. Springer 3: 1171-1195.
Ministry for Primary Industries. 2018. Unwanted organisms register (v. 02.01.02). Acessed June 2018. http://www1.maf.govt.nz/uor/searchframe.htm
Rizzo, D.M. & Garbelotto, M. 2003. Sudden oak death: endangering California and Oregon forest ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 1(4): 197-204.
Scott, P.M., Burgess, T.I. & Hardy, G.E.S.J. 2013. Globalization and Phytophthora. In: Lamour, K. Ed. Phytophthora: a global perspective. CAB International: 226-232.
Uzuhashi, S., Tojo, M. & Kakishima, M. 2010. Phylogeny of the genus Pythium and description of new genera. Mycoscience 51: 337-365.
Van der Plaats-Niterink, A.J. 1981. Monograph of the genus Pythium. Studies in Mycology 21: 1-242.
Westphal, M.I., Browne, M., MacKinnon, K. & Noble, I. 2008. The link between international trade and the global distribution of invasive alien species. Biological Invasions 10(4): 391-398.
December 2013 EPA0324