Back

Two-Year Field Testing of Genetically Engineered American Chestnut Reveals Fungal Blight Tolerance

Klak, T.; Travis, S.; May, V. G.; Tan, E. H.; Chatfield, M. W.; Wheeler, M.

2026-01-15 synthetic biology
10.1101/2025.11.07.687213 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The American chestnut (Castanea dentata [Marsh.] Borkh.) was a foundational forest canopy species in eastern North America until an accidentally imported fungal blight (caused by Cryphonectria parasitica [Murr.] Barr.) rendered it functionally extinct across its native range. Biotechnological approaches, such as the bioengineered Darling 54 line, have potential for future restoration of American chestnut, but field-based evaluations of blight tolerance have been limited. Progress has been slowed by the many years it takes for seedlings to grow to saplings, then to full-fledged trees. Current regulatory restrictions also constrain the testing of transgenic chestnuts to within permitted orchards. This research reports on a two-year field trial of Darling 54, their non-transgenic wild-type siblings and Chinese chestnut (Castanea mollissima Blume) controls deployed a randomized block design to test for blight tolerance. In the two years, three replicates each of 261 trees were branch-inoculated with EP-155, a highly virulent isolate of the fungal blight. Based on canker length, Darling 54 trees consistently outperformed their non-transgenic wild-type siblings and Chinese chestnut. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a multi-year field trial of fungal blight inoculations comparing advanced generation Darling 54 families. This field-based evaluation suggests that reintroduction programs using Darling 54 American chestnuts, which can commence after federal approval, may offer a promising path to success.

Published in New Forests · not in our set (fewer than 10 published preprints to learn from) · training set

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.