The streamlined genome of Phytomonas spp. relative to human pathogenic kinetoplastids reveals a parasite tailored for plants

Members of the family Trypanosomatidae infect many organisms, including animals, plants and humans. Plant-infecting trypanosomes are grouped under the single genus Phytomonas, failing to reflect the wide biological and pathological diversity of these protists. While some Phytomonas spp. multiply in the latex of plants, or in fruit or seeds without apparent pathogenicity, others colonize the phloem sap and afflict plants of substantial economic value, including the coffee tree, coconut and oil palms. Plant trypanosomes have not been studied extensively at the genome level, a major gap in understanding and controlling pathogenesis. We describe the genome sequences of two plant trypanosomatids, one pathogenic isolate from a Guianan coconut and one non-symptomatic isolate from Euphorbia collected in France. Although these parasites have extremely distinct pathogenic impacts, very few genes are unique to either, with the vast majority of genes shared by both isolates. Significantly, both Phytomonas spp. genomes consist essentially of single copy genes for the bulk of their metabolic enzymes, whereas other trypanosomatids e.g. Leishmania and Trypanosoma possess multiple paralogous genes or families. Indeed, comparison with other trypanosomatid genomes revealed a highly streamlined genome, encoding for a minimized metabolic system while conserving the major pathways, and with retention of a full complement of endomembrane organelles, but with no evidence for functional complexity. Identification of the metabolic genes of Phytomonas provides opportunities for establishing in vitro culturing of these fastidious parasites and new tools for the control of agricultural plant disease. © 2014 Porcel et al

Time to smoke out media Santas

The ACCC must take a tough line on recent moves by Rupert Murdoch and Kerry Stokes, write Allan Fels and Fred Brenchley JUDGING by Graeme Samuel’s remarks to a Senate committee, Rupert Murdoch’s 7.5 per cent share raid on competitor John Fairfax Holdings is exercising the mind of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission chairman. So it should. Indeed, there is a strong case for the ACCC to take court action forcing News Corp to divest. The ACCC should also be taking a very long spoon to Kerry Stokes’s Seven Network’s 14.9 per cent stake in the West Australian. Of the four “positioning” moves so far as players stake claims in the new media landscape expected after parliament passed the Howard government’s new media laws abolishing foreign and cross-ownership restrictions, only James Packer’s 50 per cent sale to foreign equity and Tony O’Reilly’s proposal to buy out minorities in APN pose few competition issues. The Murdoch and Stokes moves raise serious competition concerns. News’s 7.5 per cent in Fairfax is widely seen as positioning Murdoch at the table as Fairfax is either sold or its valuable mastheads, including the Age, the Sydney Morning Herald and the Australian Financial Review, are carved up among players. News has become one of the largest Fairfax shareholders, ensuring Murdoch a strong say in the future ownership and perhaps running of the company. That is an extraordinary prospect. Between the Age, SMH and AFR, Fairfax is News’s sole competitor in the big Sydney, Melbourne and national newspaper markets. The possibility of Murdoch influencing the future ownership of a competitor has obvious trade practices concerns. Section 50 of the Trade Practices Act recognised future events when it empowered the ACCC to police share acquisitions that “have the effect, or be likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition in a market.” “Likely” is the operative word here. A substantial lessening of competition does not have to be something that has already occurred. The ACCC opposed Tabcorp’s proposed acquisition of Unitab partially on the grounds that it would lessen competition in wagering markets. Sleight of hand has featured in the media asset game in the past. News Corp has form when it comes to directing future control and ownership of competitors. In 1989, it provided Kerry Stokes with a loan to buy the Canberra Times from Kerry Packer - with an option to later buy the newspaper itself. There is also an element of gamesmanship in News’s carefully selected 7.5 per cent figure. It is low enough to be flagged through, as it is less than formal views of control. Yet if the ACCC doesn’t move for divestment, it is then likely to face creeping increases that take News over 10 per cent to give it greater blocking power in Fairfax. Murdoch has already hinted the holding may increase. Kerry Stokes’s 14.9 per cent of WA Newspapers raises different competition issues. It appears to be an initial step to ownership once the cross-media restrictions are formally abolished. While the ACCC has traditionally taken the view that newspapers and television are in different markets - meaning that in theory it had no competition issues on joint ownership - Stokes’s move is new territory for the regulator. Seven is the top-rating Perth network. The West Australian is the only daily newspaper. As well, Samuel has been foreshadowing a new slant on media markets involving control of content, not just advertising. Combined, Seven and the West Australian would exercise considerable sway on Perth content, and possibly advertising. Stokes’s move also sets a tricky precedent. Any ACCC tick means it is blessing similar strong television-newspaper content and advertising tie-ups in the three single-newspaper markets of Perth, Adelaide and Brisbane under the new media rules. That means creeping media concentration in major capitals. Samuel rightly points out that despite all the fanfare about media mergers - two-out-of-three ownership of TV, radio and newspapers is allowed but there is a five “voices” test in metro markets - it is still the section 50 guard on any likely substantial lessening of competition that will be the ultimate determinant. He has also joked that when it comes to a company taking a claimed “friendly” position in a rival, he is no believer in Santa Claus either. It’s time for him to smoke out those media Santas coming down the chimneys of their rivals. • Allan Fels is dean of the Australia and New Zealand School of Government and a former chairman of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Fred Brenchley is a former editor of the Australian Financial Review, where this article first appeared. Photo: EPA/Everett Kennedy Brow

It's no time to be over a barrel

Australia’s year-old energy policy is already out of date, argue Allan Fels and Fred Brenchley IF AUSTRALIA were thrown back on its own oil resources tomorrow it would have enough supplies for just nine years and four months. Some time in 2014 the heavily transport-dependent economy would literally grind to a halt. The bare nine-and-a-bit years of self-sufficiency is the new figure from GeoScience Australia, based on known reserves. The previous figure was 11.1 years, but reserves are dwindling. In the post-9/11 world, such a sobering calculation should inject a note of urgency into energy policies. To be fair, the federal government is reviewing fuel emergency procedures, examining ideas to encourage dual-fuel conversion petrol with LPG of essential services such as police, ambulances and fire brigades, as well as part of the food-distribution system. But this is a sidelight. The main energy game - Australia’s reliance on imported oil, its petrol and diesel economy, and its failure to develop alternative and perhaps renewable fuels - remains largely ignored. Indeed, government policies are actually accentuating the problem. Take the idea now being refined by Treasury for a new fuel excise regime that will make all off-road diesel excise free, and hence very attractive to farmers, as opposed to local LPG. The farmers are happy, but it is poor public policy. Diesel is refined from imported oil. It is also a pollutant. The result is that we have a policy that disadvantages the local alternative fuel industry, accentuates environmental pollution and adds to the nation’s current account deficit. European governments are actively using excise as a lever to get users off diesel. Australia, in its wisdom, is going the other way. How such a triple whammy got past cabinet, and has since escaped the attention of the opposition, speaks volumes for the lack of concern about a serious energy policy. Only last June, Canberra produced an energy white paper, long on trumpeting the importance of the sector, $50 billion in consumption and$24 billion in exports, but short on fundamental reforms. The ‘major new actions’ included, unbelievably, the fuel excise reforms, some encouragement for cleaner and alternative energy via a ‘Solar City’ trial and a fund for private investment in low-emission technology, more regulation on business to manage energy use, and enhancing exploration incentives. Events of the past ten months have shot the ground out from under the white paper. It was premised on oil at $US35 a barrel. Since then oil has plateaued at about$US50 a barrel, and many expect it go higher. Rereading the white paper’s dismissal of alternative fuels in the light of the oil price super-spike, one cannot help but be struck at the head-in-the-sand attitude. ‘Australia is in the position of having access to potentially large reserves of alternative fuels, such as biofuels, or conventional fuels from new sources such as shale or natural gas,’ it said, at least acknowledging the vast national potential. ‘However, these fuels are more expensive than oil-derived petrol and diesel, and technical impediments exist to widespread use of some alternative fuels. ‘Pursuing these fuels now as a large-scale replacement for oil-derived petrol and diesel, even given currently high oil prices, would weaken Australia’s competitiveness and potentially weaken its energy security position.’ Pardon? How an alternative fuels industry would weaken energy security against the background of the war on terrorism, skyrocketing oil prices and dire warnings of our vulnerability beggars belief. It reads more like an extract from a Big Oil handbook than a government report. The white paper, however, achieved some saving grace when it noted: ‘The existence of these resources and of investors seeking to develop them gives substantial comfort that Australia will be well-placed to respond should world oil prices increase substantially in the longer term.’ Well, they have. But investors don’t wait around for new industry mirages. Australia should urgently revisit the white paper. US President George Bush wants Americans to kick their dependence on foreign oil and is heavily promoting new exploration as well as hydrogen energy and biofuels. Australia needs a more competitive energy market. That means not just supply-side development incentives for biofuels but actively encouraging a demand-side take-up by consumers as well as blending by oil companies. The International Energy Agency says that biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel not only cut harmful emissions but require time to develop and need government encouragement. That means white-hot action, not an outdated white paper. Allan Fels is dean of the Australia and New Zealand School of Government. Fred Brenchley is a Canberra journalist and former editor of the Australian Financial Review, where this article first appeared. Photo: David Freund/ iStockphoto.co