Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 487–501 | Cite as

Single and multiple gene knockouts by CRISPR–Cas9 in maize

  • Nicolas M. Doll
  • Laurine M. Gilles
  • Marie-France Gérentes
  • Christelle Richard
  • Jeremy Just
  • Yannick Fierlej
  • Virginia M. G. Borrelli
  • Ghislaine Gendrot
  • Gwyneth C. Ingram
  • Peter M. Rogowsky
  • Thomas WidiezEmail author
Original Article


Key message

The analysis of 93 mutant alleles in 18 genes demonstrated that CRISPR–Cas9 is a robust tool for targeted mutagenesis in maize, permitting efficient generation of single and multiple knockouts.


CRISPR–Cas9 technology is a simple and efficient tool for targeted mutagenesis of the genome. It has been implemented in many plant species, including crops such as maize. Here we report single- and multiple-gene mutagenesis via stably transformed maize plants. Two different CRISPR–Cas9 vectors were used allowing the expression of multiple guide RNAs and different strategies to knockout either independent or paralogous genes. A total of 12 plasmids, representing 28 different single guide RNAs (sgRNAs), were generated to target 20 genes. For 18 of these genes, at least one mutant allele was obtained, while two genes were recalcitrant to sequence editing. 19% (16/83) of mutant plants showed biallelic mutations. Small insertions or deletions of less than ten nucleotides were most frequently observed, regardless of whether the gene was targeted by one or more sgRNAs. Deletions of defined regions located between the target sites of two guide RNAs were also reported although the exact deletion size was variable. Double and triple mutants were created in a single step, which is especially valuable for functional analysis of genes with strong genetic linkage. Off-target effects were theoretically limited due to rigorous sgRNA design and random experimental checks at three potential off-target sites did not reveal any editing. Sanger chromatograms allowed to unambiguously class the primary transformants; the majority (85%) were fully edited plants transmitting systematically all detected mutations to the next generation, generally following Mendelian segregation.


CRISPR Gene editing Maize SDN1 Mutagenesis Zea mays 



Base pairs


CRISPR-associated protein 9


Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats


Double-strand break


Ethyl methanesulfonate


Embryo surrounding region


Homologous recombination


Microhomology-mediated end joining


Non-homologous end joining


Protospacer adjacent motif


Site-directed nuclease 1


Single guide RNA


Short hairpin RNA, also referring to scaffold RNA


Transfer DNA



We thank Bing Yang (Iowa State University) for sharing the Iowa vectors prior to publication, Jean-Philippe Pichon (Biogemma SA) for providing unpublished genomic sequences of genotype A188, Justin Berger, Patrice Bolland and Alexis Lacroix for maize culture, Isabelle Desbouchages and Hervé Leyral for buffers and media preparation, as well as Sandrine Chaignon, Jérôme Laplaige and Edwige Delahaye for technical assistance. We acknowledge support by the Investissement d’Avenir program of the French National Agency of Research for the project GENIUS (ANR-11-BTBR-0001_GENIUS) to PMR and by the INRA Plant Science and Breeding Division for the project SeedCom to TW. NMD is funded by a PhD fellowship from the Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche. LMG and YF are supported by CIFRE fellowships of the ANRT (Grants 2015/0777 and 2018/0480). VMGB is supported by the Doctoral School on the Agro-Food System (Agrisystem) of Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore (Italy).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

LMG is employed by Limagrain Europe. YF is employed by MAS seed. PMR is part of the GIS-BV (“Groupement d’Intérêt Scientifique Biotechnologies Vertes”).

Supplementary material

299_2019_2378_MOESM1_ESM.txt (1275 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TXT 1305600 KB)
299_2019_2378_MOESM2_ESM.pptx (56 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PPTX 55 KB)
299_2019_2378_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx (13 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (XLSX 12 KB)
299_2019_2378_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx (14 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (XLSX 13 KB)
299_2019_2378_MOESM5_ESM.pptx (207 kb)
Supplementary material 5 (PPTX 207 KB)


  1. Amano E (1968) Comparison of ethyl methanesulfonate- and radiation-induced waxy mutants in maize. Mutat Res Mol Mech Mutagen 5:41–46. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bibikova M, Beumer K, Trautman JK, Carroll D (2003) Enhancing gene targeting with designed zinc finger nucleases. Science 300:764. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bortesi L, Zhu C, Zischewski J et al (2016) Patterns of CRISPR/Cas9 activity in plants, animals and microbes. Plant Biotechnol J 14:2203–2216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Briggs RW, Amano E, Smith HH (1965) Genetic recombination with ethyl-methanesulphonate-induced waxy mutants in-maize. Nature 207:890–891. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Candela H, Hake S (2008) The art and design of genetic screens: maize. Nat Rev Genet 9:192–203. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Char SN, Unger-Wallace E, Frame B et al (2015) Heritable site-specific mutagenesis using TALENs in maize. Plant Biotechnol J 13:1002–1010. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Char SN, Neelakandan AK, Nahampun H et al (2017) An Agrobacterium-delivered CRISPR/Cas9 system for high-frequency targeted mutagenesis in maize. Plant Biotechnol J 15:257–268. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Choulika A, Perrin A, Dujon B, Nicolas JF (1994) The yeast I-SceI meganuclease induces site-directed chromosomal recombination in mammalian cells. C R Acad Sci III 317:1013–1019Google Scholar
  9. Christensen AH, Quail PH (1996) Ubiquitin promoter-based vectors for high-level expression of selectable and/or screenable marker genes in monocotyledonous plants. Transgenic Res 5:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Christian M, Cermak T, Doyle EL et al (2010) Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases. Genetics 186:757–761. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clarke R, Heler R, MacDougall MS et al (2018) Enhanced bacterial immunity and mammalian genome editing via RNA-polymerase-mediated dislodging of Cas9 from double-strand DNA breaks. Mol Cell 71:42–55.e8. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Collins GN (1909) A new type of Indian corn from China. US Dept Agric Cur Plant Indust Bull, pp 1–30Google Scholar
  13. Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D et al (2013) Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 339:819–823. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doll NM, Depège-Fargeix N, Rogowsky PM, Widiez T (2017) Signaling in early maize kernel development. Mol Plant 10:375–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Feng C, Yuan J, Wang R et al (2016) Efficient targeted genome modification in maize using CRISPR/Cas9 system. J Genet Genomics Yi Chuan Xue Bao 43:37–43. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gantner J, Ordon J, Ilse T et al (2018) Peripheral infrastructure vectors and an extended set of plant parts for the modular cloning system. PLoS One 13:e0197185. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gao H, Smith J, Yang M et al (2010) Heritable targeted mutagenesis in maize using a designed endonuclease. Plant J 61:176–187. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerdes JT, Tracy WF (1993) Pedigree diversity within the Lancaster Surecrop heterotic group of maize. Crop Sci 33:334–337. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilles LM, Khaled A, Laffaire J-B et al (2017) Loss of pollen-specific phospholipase NOT LIKE DAD triggers gynogenesis in maize. EMBO J 36:707–717. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Haeussler M, Schönig K, Eckert H et al (2016) Evaluation of off-target and on-target scoring algorithms and integration into the guide RNA selection tool CRISPOR. Genome Biol 17:148. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hsu PD, Scott DA, Weinstein JA et al (2013) DNA targeting specificity of RNA-guided Cas9 nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 31:827–832. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ishida Y, Saito H, Ohta S et al (1996) High efficiency transformation of maize (Zea mays L.) mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Nat Biotechnol 14:745–750. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ishida Y, Hiei Y, Komari T (2007) Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of maize. Nat Protoc 2:1614–1621. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jensen KT, Fløe L, Petersen TS et al (2017) Chromatin accessibility and guide sequence secondary structure affect CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing efficiency. FEBS Lett 591:1892–1901. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I et al (2012) A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337:816–821. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kosicki M, Tomberg K, Bradley A (2018) Repair of double-strand breaks induced by CRISPR–Cas9 leads to large deletions and complex rearrangements. Nat Biotechnol 36:765–771. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Labuhn M, Adams FF, Ng M et al (2018) Refined sgRNA efficacy prediction improves large- and small-scale CRISPR-Cas9 applications. Nucleic Acids Res 46:1375–1385. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lee K, Zhang Y, Kleinstiver BP et al (2018) Activities and specificities of CRISPR/Cas9 and Cas12a nucleases for targeted mutagenesis in maize. Plant Biotechnol J. Google Scholar
  29. Lei Y, Lu L, Liu H-Y et al (2014) CRISPR-P: a web tool for synthetic single-guide RNA design of CRISPR-system in plants. Mol Plant 7:1494–1496. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liang Z, Zhang K, Chen K, Gao C (2014) Targeted mutagenesis in Zea mays using TALENs and the CRISPR/Cas system. J Genet Genomics 41:63–68. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lieber MR (2010) The mechanism of double-strand DNA break repair by the nonhomologous DNA end-joining pathway. Annu Rev Biochem 79:181–211. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lin Y, Cradick TJ, Brown MT et al (2014) CRISPR/Cas9 systems have off-target activity with insertions or deletions between target DNA and guide RNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 42:7473–7485. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Liu X, Homma A, Sayadi J et al (2016) Sequence features associated with the cleavage efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep 6:19675. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ma X, Zhu Q, Chen Y, Liu Y-G (2016) CRISPR/Cas9 platforms for genome editing in plants: developments and applications. Mol Plant 9:961–974. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mali P, Aach J, Stranges PB et al (2013) CAS9 transcriptional activators for target specificity screening and paired nickases for cooperative genome engineering. Nat Biotechnol 31:833–838. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marçais G, Kingsford C (2011) A fast, lock-free approach for efficient parallel counting of occurrences of k-mers. Bioinformatics (Oxf, Engl) 27:764–770. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McVey M, Lee SE (2008) MMEJ repair of double-strand breaks (director’s cut): deleted sequences and alternative endings. Trends Genet TIG 24:529–538. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Miao J, Guo D, Zhang J, Huang Q, Qin G, Zhang X, Wan J, Gu H, Qu LJ (2013) Targeted mutagenesis in rice using CRISPR-Cas system. Cell Res 23(10):1233–1236. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nekrasov V, Staskawicz B, Weigel D et al (2013) Targeted mutagenesis in the model plant Nicotiana benthamiana using Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat Biotechnol 31:691–693. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Neuffer MG, Sheridan WF (1980) Defective kernel mutants of maize. I. Genetic and lethality studies. Genetics 95:929–944Google Scholar
  41. Opsahl-Ferstad H-G, Deunff EL, Dumas C, Rogowsky PM (1997) ZmEsr, a novel endosperm-specific gene expressed in a restricted region around the maize embryo. Plant J 12:235–246. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pattanayak V, Lin S, Guilinger JP et al (2013) High-throughput profiling of off-target DNA cleavage reveals RNA-programmed Cas9 nuclease specificity. Nat Biotechnol 31:839–843. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peterson BA, Haak DC, Nishimura MT et al (2016) Genome-wide assessment of efficiency and specificity in CRISPR/Cas9 mediated multiple site targeting in Arabidopsis. PLoS One 11:e0162169. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Porteus MH, Carroll D (2005) Gene targeting using zinc finger nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 23:967–973. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Puchta H, Fauser F (2014) Synthetic nucleases for genome engineering in plants: prospects for a bright future. Plant J 78:727–741. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Qi W, Zhu T, Tian Z et al (2016) High-efficiency CRISPR/Cas9 multiplex gene editing using the glycine tRNA-processing system-based strategy in maize. BMC Biotechnol 16:58. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ren X, Yang Z, Xu J et al (2014) Enhanced specificity and efficiency of the CRISPR/Cas9 system with optimized sgRNA parameters in Drosophila. Cell Rep 9:1151–1162. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Schnable PS, Ware D, Fulton RS et al (2009) The B73 maize genome: complexity, diversity, and dynamics. Science 326:1112–1115. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Settles AM, Holding DR, Tan BC et al (2007) Sequence-indexed mutations in maize using the UniformMu transposon-tagging population. BMC Genomics 8:116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shan Q, Wang Y, Li J et al (2013) Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nat Biotechnol 31:686–688. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Shi J, Gao H, Wang H et al (2017) ARGOS8 variants generated by CRISPR-Cas9 improve maize grain yield under field drought stress conditions. Plant Biotechnol J 15:207–216. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shukla VK, Doyon Y, Miller JC et al (2009) Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 459:437–441. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Shure M, Wessler S, Fedoroff N (1983) Molecular identification and isolation of the Waxy locus in maize. Cell 35:225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Siebert R, Puchta H (2002) Efficient repair of genomic double-strand breaks by homologous recombination between directly repeated sequences in the plant genome. Plant Cell 14:1121–1131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sinha S, Li F, Villarreal D et al (2017) Microhomology-mediated end joining induces hypermutagenesis at breakpoint junctions. PLoS Genet 13:e1006714. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Steinert J, Schiml S, Puchta H (2016) Homology-based double-strand break-induced genome engineering in plants. Plant Cell Rep 35:1429–1438. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Svitashev S, Young JK, Schwartz C et al (2015) Targeted mutagenesis, precise gene editing, and site-specific gene insertion in maize using Cas9 and guide RNA. Plant Physiol 169:931–945. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Svitashev S, Schwartz C, Lenderts B et al (2016) Genome editing in maize directed by CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat Commun 7:13274. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vollbrecht E, Duvick J, Schares JP et al (2010) Genome-wide distribution of transposed dissociation elements in maize. Plant Cell 22:1667–1685. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Waltz E (2016) CRISPR-edited crops free to enter market, skip regulation. Nat Biotechnol 34:582. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang H, Xu X (2017) Microhomology-mediated end joining: new players join the team. Cell Biosci 7:6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wu X, Scott DA, Kriz AJ et al (2014) Genome-wide binding of the CRISPR endonuclease Cas9 in mammalian cells. Nat Biotechnol 32:670–676. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Xing H-L, Dong L, Wang Z-P et al (2014) A CRISPR/Cas9 toolkit for multiplex genome editing in plants. BMC Plant Biol 14:.
  64. Zhu J, Song N, Sun S et al (2016) Efficiency and inheritance of targeted mutagenesis in maize using CRISPR-Cas9. J Genet Genomics Yi Chuan Xue Bao 43:25–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Zuo Z, Liu J (2016) Cas9-catalyzed DNA cleavage generates staggered ends: evidence from molecular dynamics simulations. Sci Rep 5:37584. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire Reproduction et Développement des PlantesUniv Lyon, ENS de Lyon, UCB Lyon 1, CNRS, INRALyonFrance
  2. 2.Limagrain Europe SAS, Research CentreChappesFrance
  3. 3.MAS SeedsHaut-MaucoFrance
  4. 4.Department of Sustainable Crop ProductionUniversità Cattolica del Sacro CuorePiacenzaItaly

Personalised recommendations