Advertisement

Functional & Integrative Genomics

, Volume 18, Issue 1, pp 31–41 | Cite as

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in wheat

  • Dongjin Kim
  • Burcu Alptekin
  • Hikmet Budak
Original Article

Abstract

Genome editing has been a long-term challenge for molecular biology research, particularly for plants possess complex genome. The recently discovered Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) system is a versatile tool for genome editing which enables editing of multiple genes based on the guidance of small RNAs. Even though the efficiency of CRISPR/Cas9 system has been shown with several studies from diploid plants, its application remains a challenge for plants with polyploid and complex genome. Here, we applied CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system in wheat protoplast to conduct the targeted editing of stress-responsive transcription factor genes, wheat dehydration responsive element binding protein 2 (TaDREB2) and wheat ethylene responsive factor 3 (TaERF3). Targeted genome editing of TaDREB2 and TaERF3 was achieved with transient expression of small guide RNA and Cas9 protein in wheat protoplast.  The effectiveness of mutagenesis in wheat protoplast was confirmed with restriction enzyme digestion assay, T7 endonuclease assay, and sequencing. Furthermore, several off-target regions for designed sgRNAs were analyzed, and the specificity of genome editing was confirmed with amplicon sequencing. Overall results suggested that CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system can easily be established on wheat protoplast and it has a huge potentiality for targeted manipulation of wheat genome for crop improvement purposes.

Keywords

Wheat Genome editing CRISPR/Cas9 TaDREB2 TaERF3 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge Montana Wheat and Barley Committee Grant #MDA/MWBC CY5416-462 and Winifred-Asbjornson Plant Science Endowment. The authors also thank the International Wheat Genome Sequencing Consortium (IWGSC) for pre-publication access to the wheat genome RefSeq v1.0.

Supplementary material

10142_2017_572_Fig6_ESM.jpg (616 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1

The TaDREB2 gene sequence and structure. A. TaDREB2 consists one exon and 1122 bases long in length. B. The sequence of TaDREB2 CDS is from GeneBank (ID# DQ353852). The target sequence is shown in blue bold letters together with PAM sequence in the red bold letter. Yellow highlighted sites show the primers for amplification of 500 bases region for detection of mutation. Red highlights show the start and stop codons inside gene. (JPEG 616 kb).

10142_2017_572_MOESM1_ESM.tif (505 kb)
High resolution image (TIFF 504 kb).
10142_2017_572_Fig7_ESM.jpg (774 kb)
Supplementary Figure 2

The TaERF3 gene structure and sequences. A. TaERF3 consists three exons and 2139 bases long in length. B. The sequence of TaERF3 CDS is from GeneBank (ID# EF570122). The target sequence is shown in blue bold letters together with PAM sequence in the red bold letter. Yellow highlighted sites show the primers for amplification of 500 bases region for detection of mutation. Red highlights show the start and stop codons inside gene. (JPEG 773 kb).

10142_2017_572_MOESM2_ESM.tif (644 kb)
High resolution image (TIFF 644 kb).
10142_2017_572_Fig8_ESM.jpg (358 kb)
Supplementary Figure 3

Isolation of protoplasts from the wheat tissue. A. Representative fresh 15-day-old wheat (v. Chinese spring) seedling used for protoplast isolation. B. After 2 weeks of growth on ½ MS solid medium containing 3% sucrose and 0.01% inositol, plants were collected. C. Red circle indicates the best part of seedlings for high yield protoplast preparation. D. Selected part of plant was cut into strips of shorter than 0.5 mm with a sharp razor blade. E. The strips digested with cell wall dissolving enzyme for 5–6 h under dark. F. Protoplast cells were harvested by low speed (80 g) centrifuge and washed with the W5 solution. G & H. The final protoplast cell was observed and counted. The observed final concentration of protoplast solution was around 1 × 106 cells. (JPEG 358 kb).

10142_2017_572_MOESM3_ESM.tif (2 mb)
High resolution image (TIFF 2013 kb).

References

  1. Agarwal PK, Agarwal P, Reddy MK, Sopory SK (2006) Role of DREB transcription factors in abiotic and biotic stress tolerance in plants. Plant Cell Rep 25:1263–1274CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Araus JL, Slafer GA, Royo C, Serret MD (2008) Breeding for yield potential and stress adaptation in cereals. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci 27:377–412.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07352680802467736 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldoni E, Genga A, Cominelli E et al (2015) Tolerance to drought and salt stress in plants: unraveling the signaling networks. Front Plant Sci 5:1–16.  https://doi.org/10.1089/omi.2013.0177 Google Scholar
  4. Barrangou R, Fremaux C, Deveau H et al (2007) CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes. Science 315:1709–1712.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138140 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Belhaj K, Chaparro-Garcia A, Kamoun S et al (2015) Editing plant genomes with CRISPR/Cas9. Curr Opin Biotechnol 32:76–84.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2014.11.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bortesi L, Fischer R (2014) The CRISPR/Cas9 system for plant genome editing and beyond. Biotechnol Adv 33:41–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.12.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Budak H, Hussain B, Khan Z, Ozturk NZ, Ullah N (2015) From genetics to fucntional genomics: improvement in doruhgt signalling and tolerance in wheat. Front Plant Sci.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.01012
  8. Camacho C, Coulouris G, Avagyan V et al (2009) BLAST+: architecture and applications. BMC Bioinformatics 10:421.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-10-421 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheng S, Zhou D-X, Zhao Y (2016) WUSCHEL-related homeobox gene WOX11 increases rice drought resistance by controlling root hair formation and root system development. Plant Signal Behav 11:e1130198.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15592324.2015.1130198 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Choulet F, Alberti A, Theil S et al (2014) Structural and functional partitioning of bread wheat chromosome 3B. Science 345:1249721.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1249721 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Dolferus R, Ji X, Richards RA (2011) Abiotic stress and control of grain number in cereals. Plant Sci 181:331–341.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2011.05.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2014) The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346:1258096.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1258096 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Endo M, Mikami M, Toki S (2015) Multigene knockout utilizing off-target mutations of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in rice. Plant Cell Physiol 56:41–47.  https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcu154 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Gaj T, Gersbach CA, Barbas CF (2013) ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol 31:397–405.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.004 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Gao J, Wang G, Ma S et al (2014) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in Nicotiana tabacum. Plant Mol Biol 87(1–2):99–110.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-014-0263-0
  16. Güell M, Yang L, Church GM (2014) Genome editing assessment using CRISPR genome analyzer (CRISPR-GA). Bioinformatics 30:2968–2970.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btu427 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Ishino Y, Shinagawa H, Makino K et al (1987) Nucleotide sequence of the iap gene, responsible for alkaline phosphatase isozyme conversion in Escherichia coli, and identification of the gene product. J Bacteriol 169:5429–5433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Jiang W, Zhou H, Bi H et al (2013) Demonstration of CRISPR/Cas9/sgRNA-mediated targeted gene modification in Arabidopsis, tobacco, sorghum and rice. Nucleic Acids Res 41:e188.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt780 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Kim HJ, Lee HJ, Kim H et al (2009) Targeted genome editing in human cells with zinc finger nucleases constructed via modular assembly. Genome Res 19:1279–1288.  https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.089417.108 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Kuzuoglu-Ozturk D, Cebeci Yalcinkaya O, Akpinar BA, Mitou G, Korkmaz G, Gozuacik D, Budak H (2012) Autophagy-related gene, TdAtg8, in wild emmer wheat plays a role in drought and osmotic stress response. Planta 236(4):1081–1092CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Lata C, Prasad M (2011) Role of DREBs in regulation of abiotic stress responses in plants. J Exp Bot 62:4731–4748CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Li JF, Zhang D, Sheen J (2014) Cas9-based genome editing in Arabidopsis and tobacco. Methods Enzymol 546:459–472.  https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-801185-0.00022-2
  23. Li JF, Zhang D, Sheen J (2015) Targeted plant genome editing via the CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Methods Mol Bio 1284:239–55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2444-8_12
  24. Ling H-Q, Zhao S, Liu D et al (2013) Draft genome of the wheat A-genome progenitor Triticum urartu. Nature 496:87–90.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11997 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCT method. Methods 25:402–408.  https://doi.org/10.1006/meth.2001.1262 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Lucas S, Durmaz E, Akpnar BA, Budak H (2011) The drought response displayed by a DRE-binding protein from Triticum dicoccoides. Plant Physiol Biochem 49:346–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2011.01.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Mizoi J, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2012a) AP2/ERF family transcription factors in plant abiotic stress responses. Biochim Biophys Acta 1819:86–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagrm.2011.08.004\r10.1016/j.bbagrm.2011.08.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Mizoi J, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K (2012b) AP2/ERF family transcription factors in plant abiotic stress responses. Biochim Biophys Acta - Gene Regul Mech 1819:86–96.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbagrm.2011.08.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morran S, Eini O, Pyvovarenko T et al (2011) Improvement of stress tolerance of wheat and barley by modulation of expression of DREB/CBF factors. Plant Biotechnol J 9:230–249.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7652.2010.00547.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Nakashima K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K (2014) The transcriptional regulatory network in the drought response and its crosstalk in abiotic stress responses including drought, cold, and heat. Front Plant Sci 5:170.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00170 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. Park J, Lim K, Kim J-S, Bae S (2016) Cas-analyzer: an online tool for assessing genome editing results using NGS data. Bioinformatics 33:btw561.  https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btw561 Google Scholar
  32. Peng R, Lin G, Li J (2015) Potential pitfalls of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing. FEBS J n/a-n/a.  https://doi.org/10.1111/febs.13586
  33. Ran FA, Hsu PD, Lin CY et al (2013) Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 154:1380–1389.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2013.08.021 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Schaefer KA, Wu W-H, Colgan DF, et al (2017) Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo. Nat Methods 14:547–548. doi:  10.1038/nmeth.4293
  35. Schiml S, Puchta H (2016) Revolutionizing plant biology: multiple ways of genome engineering by CRISPR/Cas. Plant Methods 12:8.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-016-0103-0 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Schiml S, Fauser F, Puchta H (2014) The CRISPR/Cas system can be used as nuclease for in planta gene targeting and as paired nickases for directed mutagenesis in Arabidopsis resulting in heritable progeny. Plant J n/a-n/a.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.12704
  37. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2650 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Shan Q, Wang Y, Li J, Gao C (2014) Genome editing in rice and wheat using the CRISPR/Cas system. Nat Protoc 9:2395–2410.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nprot.2014.157 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Sharpe JJ, Cooper TA (2017) Unexpected consequences: exon skipping caused by CRISPR-generated mutations. Genome Biol 18:109. doi: 10.1186/s13059-017-1240-0
  40. Singh KB, Foley RC, Oñate-Sánchez L (2002) Transcription factors in plant defense and stress responses. Curr Opin Plant Biol 5:430–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Sun H, Lang Z, Zhu L, Huang D (2013) Optimized condition for protoplast isolation from maize, wheat and rice leaves. Chin J Biotechnol 29:224–234Google Scholar
  42. Xie K, Yang Y (2013) RNA-guided genome editing in plants using a CRISPR–Cas system. Mol Plant 6:1975–1983.  https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/sst119 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Yue J, Sun H, Zhang W et al (2015) Wheat homologs of yeast ATG6 function in autophagy and are implicated in powdery mildew immunity. BMC Plant Biol 15:1–15.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-015-0472-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zhao Y, Cheng S, Song Y et al (2015) The interaction between rice ERF3 and WOX11 promotes crown root development by regulating gene expression involved in cytokinin signaling. Plant Cell 27:2469–2483.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.15.00227 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cereal Genomics Lab, Department of Plant Sciences and Plant PathologyMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations