marker-assisted selection in wheat

432Marker-assisted selection – Current status and future perspectives in crops, livestock, forestry and fishtissue culture. Buijs (22) also felt that thecosts of MAS should be put in perspectivewith those from other related researchareas, pointing out that plant varieties oranimals bred by MAS do not require costlysafety regulations, in contrast to those bredusing genetic modification. Toro (50) andMuralidharan (74) suggested that MASwould become cheaper due to automation/robotics,and Varshney (82) reportedthat microsatellite marker development hasbecome cheaper as a result of bioinformatics.Many participants suggested thatdeveloping countries could make the bestuse of MAS through collaborative ventures(Olori, 21, 65; Acikgoz, 66; Saravanan,73), formation of multidisciplinary teams(Sridhar, 76; William, 70; Muchugi, 49) andwithin national and regional frameworks(Montaldo, 18). Collaboration wouldspread resources and reduce costs.Figures for the costs of genotyping mentionedin the conference ranged from US$4per marker for MAS in pigs (Toro, 79) tounder US$0.2 for durum wheat (El Ouafi,77). Discussion of such exact figures forcosts is at best indicative in the face of continuouschanges in the world economy,particularly in exchange rates and purchasingpower. Suffice to say that as costsare reduced, the value of MAS rises and itpossibly becomes more widely applicable.Putting MAS in contextAlthough MAS has generated a good deal ofexpectations, leading in some cases to overoptimismand in others to disappointmentbecause many of the expectations have notyet been realized, participants in the conferenceaimed to consider MAS rationallyand to put it in the context of the wholeagricultural picture. As Murphy (1) wrote,MAS “should be viewed dispassionately asa potential tool for crop improvement to beusefully deployed alongside conventionalphenotype selection for certain crops andfor certain characters”.Good genetic improvement strategieswere considered by many to be among themost important prerequisites for successfulimplementation of MAS. Montaldo (18)said that, with respect to livestock improvement,MAS would not substitute forchoosing the right breeding objectives andthe starting point of a programme incorporatingMAS should be a sound breedingstrategy founded on traditional selectionmethodology. Wallwork (59) thought thatmany of the criticisms of MAS (e.g. see DeLange, 57) stemmed from poor researchand development strategies and not necessarilyfrom shortcomings in the technology.El Ouafi (77) stated plainly that if a successfulconventional breeding programmecould not be established, MAS would nothelp, and Olori (21) suggested that theabsence of “any real sense of the needfor a genetic improvement programme” indeveloping countries would hinder applicationof MAS. Such practical strategicconsiderations balance the hyperbole andover-optimism that has sometimes beenassociated with MAS. De Lange (57) arguedthat because of its high costs and relativelymoderate results to date, MAS seemed to be“yet another over-hyped gene technology”and questioned, like Ackigoz (66), whetherMAS should be a primary considerationfor developing countries. Bhatia (8) wasamong several participants to comment onthis issue and believed that the hyperboleto some extent reflected fashion and vendorbias, as for all new technologies.MAS in relation to conventional breedingprogrammesThe need for an established breeding programmeto be in place for MAS to be