Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

New traits in crops produced by genome editing techniques based on deletions

Abstract

One of the most promising New Plant Breeding Techniques is genome editing (also called gene editing) with the help of a programmable site-directed nuclease (SDN). In this review, we focus on SDN-1, which is the generation of small deletions or insertions (indels) at a precisely defined location in the genome with zinc finger nucleases (ZFN), TALENs, or CRISPR-Cas9. The programmable nuclease is used to induce a double-strand break in the DNA, while the repair is left to the plant cell itself, and mistakes are introduced, while the cell is repairing the double-strand break using the relatively error-prone NHEJ pathway. From a biological point of view, it could be considered as a form of targeted mutagenesis. We first discuss improvements and new technical variants for SDN-1, in particular employing CRISPR-Cas, and subsequently explore the effectiveness of targeted deletions that eliminate the function of a gene, as an approach to generate novel traits useful for improving agricultural sustainability, including disease resistances. We compare them with examples of deletions that resulted in novel functionality as known from crop domestication and classical mutation breeding (both using radiation and chemical mutagens). Finally, we touch upon regulatory and access and benefit sharing issues regarding the plants produced.

Introduction

New plant breeding techniques (NPBT) encompass a set of diverse techniques and concepts that all aim to improve efficiency and/or precision of plant breeding. Most make use of transgenic plant lines at some point in the breeding process, but the final product generally contains only small mutations and in specific cased no modifications at all, and is often indistinguishable from the conventional breeding products (Lusser et al. 2012; Schaart et al. 2016). One of the most promising among these, genome editing (also called gene editing or gene targeting) with the help of a programmable nuclease (SDN: Site-directed nuclease, or SSN: sequence-specific nuclease), recently has led to a deluge of creative applications with the introduction of the CRISPR-Cas9 system. While the thorough review of NPBT by Lusser et al. (2012) not yet mentioned CRISPR-Cas, 4 years later a search using CRISPR and plants as keywords provided 246 publications in Web of Science (on 31-10-2016). Similarly to zinc finger nucleases (ZFN) and TALENs, CRISPR-Cas is able to make a double-strand break (DSB) at a precisely specified location in the genome, but it is much more versatile and easy to use, because the specificity of the target sequence is achieved by a separate guide RNA (gRNA) that can be easily designed and readily synthesised rather than by the protein structure itself (ZFN, TALEN). The use in plants has recently been reviewed by Luo et al. (2016), Paul and Qi (2016), Hilscher et al. (2016), and Rani et al. (2016).

At an early stage of the development of genome editing, three types of uses based on the DSB repair mechanism have been distinguished for regulatory purposes (Lusser et al. 2011). In SDN-1, the DSB is repaired by the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) DNA repair machinery of the cell, during which small mistakes may be introduced, mostly consisting of small indels. Plants with such mistakes can be identified by screening. Indels in genes frequently lead to gene knockout as a result of reading frame shifts causing premature translational stops. In SDN-2, an oligonucleotide is provided to assist in the repair of the DSB that is identical to the sequence in which the DSB is made, except that a desired mutation is included. Some plants may use this oligo in an alternative cellular repair mechanism, homology-directed repair (HDR). This may lead to a higher frequency of plants with the desired change, e.g., a single amino-acid substitution. In SDN-3, the DSB is repaired in the same way, but the repair template is a longer sequence that may include a complete gene or a promoter. This will lead to the insertion of native or foreign sequences at a precisely specified location in the genome. SDN-3 is thus similar to genetic transformation and it generally results in transgenic plants, but they are produced with improved precision as the inserted sequence is targeted to a specific site in the genome, or exchanged with existing sequences at that site, e.g., in promoter swaps. Thus, SDN-3 holds much promise for diverse applications, including stacking desirable (transgenic) traits, so that they are passed on to progeny as a single block during breeding, which is desirable for efficient introgression into diverse elite materials (Kumar et al. 2016). HDR is still a relatively difficult to control mechanism. An alternative technique is called ODM (oligo-directed mutagenesis). It may produce results similar to SDN-2 but does not employ a nuclease to make a DSB. Combinations of both, improving efficiency, are also explored (Sauer et al. 2016).

Although SDN-1 is precise only in the targeted site and not in the resulting type of mutation, it appears presently to be the most frequently implemented, and is, therefore, the subject of this review. We first discuss improvements and new variants of SDN-1, in particular employing CRISPR-Cas, and subsequently explore the possibilities of targeted deletions that eliminate the function or part of the function of a gene, as an approach to generate novel traits useful for improvement of agricultural sustainability. We compare them with examples of deletions that resulted in novel functionality as known from crop domestication and classical mutation breeding. Finally, we touch upon regulatory and IP issues around the plants produced, as well as access and benefit sharing.

Improvements and new variants of the technology

Off-target effects

CRISPR-Cas genome editing has been reported to be accompanied by off-target effects, i.e., mutations arising from repairing DSBs induced elsewhere in the genome than the targeted sequence. Several research groups have made changes to the Cas protein and/or gRNA design to enhance the sequence target specificity (Kleinstiver et al. 2016; Slaymaker et al. 2016; Doench et al. 2016). In addition, alternative endonucleases (e.g. Cpf1) could increase specificity (e.g., Ran et al. 2015; Kim et al. 2016a). Schiml et al. (2014) turned Cas9 into a nickase, so that two adjacent gRNAs were required to make a DSB with sticky ends. This improved the specificity, alone and in combination with using truncated gRNAs (Fu et al. 2014). Tolerance for mismatches in the gRNA (actually off-target effects) may also be used to specifically target related genes from gene families (Endo et al. 2015).

Various methods for genome-wide detection of off-target mutations have been developed, including BLESS (Crosetto et al. 2013), GUIDE-seq (Tsai et al. 2015), Digenome-seq (Kim et al. 2015, 2016b), and END-seq (Canela et al. 2016). For the few plant species assessed so far, little off-target effects appear to occur using CRISPR-Cas, but this would need to be studied in more species (Peterson et al. 2016). For example, off-target effects could be limited using an optimal molar ratio of Cas9 to gRNAs by Woo et al. (2015), while Peterson et al. (2016) did not detect any in a multiplex approach by re-sequencing in Arabidopsis, including in computationally predicted sites.

Off-target mutations are considered a problem in, e.g., applications in humans, but they are less likely to pose a problem in plant breeding, as usually multiple plants are produced that are subsequently screened and selected. In many cases, there are multiple generations between the genome editing step and the variety produced, in which off-target mutations are selected against and in seed-propagated crops, segregate out. In addition, the frequency of off-target mutations made across the genome will be much lower than in classical mutagenesis. The type and frequency of mutations in classical mutagenesis depend on the method (chemical or ionizing radiation) used, type and concentration of chemical or type of radiation, and the duration of the treatment, which are generally adjusted case by case (Suprasanna et al. 2015). Polyploid crops, in general, tolerate a higher frequency than diploid crops (Uauy et al. 2009; Shu et al. 2011; Oladosu et al. 2016). A frequency of one mutation induced every 78 kb (what Tsuda et al. 2015 used in soybean) would in soybean or tomato mean that classical mutagenesis may introduce for every desired mutation more than 10,000 other mutations.

Delivery

Commonly plants are transformed using Agrobacterium or biolistic systems to introduce the Cas9- and gRNAs-encoding DNA stably into the plant genome. This may work best in tissue culture systems, as exemplified by the high success rate in rice (Paul and Qi 2016). When using floral dip, germline editing was shown to be improved in Arabidopsis by driving the expression of Cas9 with promoters specific for egg cells (Wang et al. 2015) or for actively dividing tissues, such as meristems and embryo sacs (Hyun et al. 2015; Yan et al. 2015). Alternatively, viral vectors for gRNA (Ali et al. 2015; Yin et al. 2015) may improve efficiency.

Clasen et al. (2016) used a temporary expression system, i.e., a TALEN transcribed from plasmids introduced into potato protoplasts. Regenerated plants with mutations were checked for the absence of plasmid sequence insertions in their genome. Woo et al. (2015) transfected protoplasts of Arabidopsis thaliana, tobacco, lettuce, and rice with ribonucleoprotein complexes containing Cas9 nuclease protein and appropriate gRNAs and obtained genome-edited regenerated plants. They called their approach “DNA free genome editing”. It has also been used in the unicellular green alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Baek et al. 2016) and it was also shown to work in Petunia hybrida protoplasts (Subburaj et al. 2016). The approach requires protocols for protoplasting and plant regeneration from protoplasts, which are not available for many crops, or, if existing, not for all varieties within a crop. The desire to use genome editing in research and in plant breeding urges for a surge of activity into transformation, protoplasting, and regeneration protocols for crops and model species that up to now have remained recalcitrant, such as wheat (Altpeter et al. 2016).

Multiplexing

CRISPR-Cas9 is particularly suitable to multiplexing because of the versatility of the gRNAs, but also TALENs have been multiplexed: four Nicotiana benthamiana genes involved in glycosylation were knocked out simultaneously using TALENs for the benefit of biopharmaceutical production of glycoproteins devoid of plant-specific residues (Li et al. 2016). Peterson et al. (2016) targeted 14 loci simultaneously in A. thaliana with CRISPR-Cas using stacked gRNA expression arrays (Peterson et al. 2016). Steinert et al. (2015) simultaneously used two alternative modified Cas proteins, and each was directed by its own gRNA.

Larger deletions

Using two gRNAs targeted to sites at some distance from each other on the same chromosome, larger deletions become possible based on annealing the distant sites through NHEJ. In this way, Zhou et al. (2014) managed to delete a cluster of up to 10 loci in the terpenoid synthesis pathway in rice. Deleting clusters of related genes is useful, e.g., for the removal of alpha- or gamma-gliadins, which are organized in gene repeats on different chromosomes, while trying to produce wheat that is safe for people with celiac disease (Jouanin et al., in preparation).

Generation of new traits for crop improvement through deletions

‘Classical’ genetic modification was developed to introduce genes into plants to obtain a gain of function, although it soon was also used to silence endogenous genes, e.g., using RNAi. The reason for this is that the loss of a gene or gene function may also result in a new plant phenotype that is useful for man. During crop domestication, many traits have been selected for that are inherited as recessive, so mostly loss-of-function (Lu et al. 2006; Hancock 2012; Martínez-Ainsworth and Tenaillon 2016). They often comprised knockouts of genes. Examples include loss of seed shattering, loss of seed dormancy, reduction of shoots improving the harvest index, reduction of chemical and physical defences, and loss of photoperiodicity and/or the vernalisation requirement (Nakamichi 2015). Similar mutations have been selected for independently in different crops (e.g., Cheng et al. 2016).

Since the 1930s, (knockout) mutagenesis has been used to generate new traits, boosted by increased knowledge on the effects of various sources of radiation (which mostly induce deletions) and chemical mutagens (for example, EMS induces C > T mutations). This had led to the development of more than 3000 crop varieties, and it is still popular, for instance, for generating new flower colours in ornamentals (it is a standard procedure in Chrysanthemum). Interestingly, mutation breeding also produces, at useable frequencies, gain of function traits, such as new disease resistances (Oladosu et al. 2015). Resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses is an important goal of breeding new varieties, as one of the elements to feed the world in a sustainable way.

The SDN-1 systems make it also easier to deal with the recessive nature of the mutations, which in classical mutagenesis generally means that mutations do not show a phenotype in the mutants themselves, only in their progeny. SDN-1 can mutate all alleles of the targeted locus simultaneously, which is a particularly significant improvement in mutating polyploids. Examples are deletions in the three homoeologues (six alleles) of MLO for powdery mildew resistance in hexaploid wheat using TALENs by Wang et al. (2014) and the four copies of GBSS for altering starch composition in tetraploid potato by Andersson et al. (2016).

Disease resistance

Increasing pathogen resistance in crops is an important way to improve agricultural sustainability. Resistance may be generated by deleting plant genes that are used (‘hijacked’) by pathogens and on which the pathogens depend for growth and development (Pavan et al. 2010). These are called S genes (for Susceptibility, in contrast to dominant R genes which confer Resistance through recognition of the pathogen). The classical example is mlo, a recessive mutant which has been effective for mildew resistance in barley for over 30 years (reviewed by Acevedo-Garcia et al. 2014).

Knocking out S genes generated disease resistance in multiple crop species, but this may be accompanied by poor plant performance. Precisely targeted deletions using SDN-1 can make it possible to generate specific pathogen resistance without fitness costs for the plant. Using TALENs, Li et al. (2012) were able to identify and delete a small part of the rice SWEET14 promoter that was targeted by an effector protein secreted by the causal agent of Bacterial Leaf Blight, Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae (Xoo), apparently without affecting adequate expression of the gene by the plant itself. Thus, a rice line was generated that was resistant to Xoo strains that use this effector. Later on, also CRISPR-Cas9 was implemented for mutating SWEET-type S genes (Zhou et al. 2014). S genes have been identified in a range of species, including Arabidopsis, rice, soybean, and potato and tomato (Sun et al. 2016a, 2016b; Zheng et al. 2016).

Resistance to viruses can also be generated following an S gene approach. Disrupting the functionality of eIF4E (eukaryotic translation initiation factor 4E) effected broad potyvirus resistance in cucumber (Chandrasekaran et al. 2016). Pyott et al. (2016) likewise achieved potyvirus resistance in Arabidopsis.

Product quality

In many crops, including legumes and cereals, phytate in seeds interferes with phosphorous uptake. Decreasing phytate content in feed will increase net uptake of P by livestock which may reduce losses of P to the environment. Liang et al. (2014) used both TALEN and CRISPR-Cas9 successfully in maize to obtain mutations in IPK, which is involved in phytate production. Reducing phytate comes with trade-offs for plant performance that may be addressed more precisely through genome editing. Recently, Yamaji et al. (2017) reported an alternative approach of reducing seed P content in rice using retrotransposon-insertional knockout mutants of SPDT, a P distribution transporter controlling the allocation of P to the grains. In these mutant plants, yield and seed performance were apparently not affected. An alternative TALEN-based approach was explored by Wendt et al. (2013): introducing small indels into the promoter of the most important barley grain phytase gene, HvPAPhy_a, which could be used to test for the possibilities of changing gene expression in the grain. Mutations were achieved in the targeted promoter site, but no further testing of plants was reported.

Clasen et al. (2016) used gene editing to knock out Vnvl to reduce acrylamide (a potential carcinogen) levels of potato products after heating. A similar result could be obtained by silencing asparagine synthetase genes, in this case using RNAi (Zhu et al. 2016). Some other examples of traits improving product quality targeted by SDN-1 are high amylopectin (“waxy”) maize (by Pioneer, https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology/downloads/reg_loi/15-352-01_air_response_signed.pdf) and potato (Andersson et al. 2016) based on knockout of GBSS, and high oleic acid oilseed crops soybean (Haun et al. 2014) and camelina (Jiang et al. 2016) based on knockouts of FAD2 and/or FAD3. Both traits had been addressed earlier using classical mutagenesis or RNAi. Rice fragrancy was improved by knockout of BADH2 (Shan et al. 2015). For bio-based crops, reducing lignin contents has been studied using a transgenic silencing method up to the level of field trials in poplar for improving biofuel production (Van Acker et al. 2014). Zhou et al. (2015) reported successful SDN-1 in two poplar 4CL genes, the knockout of one of which led to lower lignin levels in stem wood.

Allergens

Removing allergens through genome editing would benefit specific groups of consumers. Dubois et al. (2015) showed that silencing Mal d 1 reduced the allergenicity of apple, which, in most patients, is a mild allergy resulting from cross-reactivity of the birch pollen Bet v 1 allergens to PR-10 proteins in Rosaceous fruits, such as apple, cherry, and strawberry. PR-10 proteins are encoded by a large gene family. Apple has 31 Mal d 1 genes of which 20 may be expressed in the fruit (Pagliarani et al. 2013) and may be targeted by genome editing. Peanut allergy is a life-threatening food allergy. Dodo et al. (2008) managed to reduce the allergenicity of the immunodominant Ara h 2 protein in peanuts using RNAi. For hypoallergenic peanuts to be safe for consumption by many patients, all genes coding for allergens would need to be silenced or removed, and genome editing offers the tools to efficiently do this.

Sensitivity of individuals with coeliac disease to cereal gluten is particularly difficult to address as gluten comprises of large gene families, with several epitopes in mainly alpha-, gamma-, and omega-gliadins that can be recognised by human T cells (Van Herpen et al. 2006; Van den Broeck et al. 2009; Salentijn et al. 2012) and that all are targets for controlled deletion or modification (Smulders et al. 2015; Jouannin et al. in prep.). Barro et al. (2016) succeeded in removing highly immunogenic gliadin proteins from wheat using RNAi. Clinical trials using breads from these silenced wheat plants were planned in Spain. Silencing will in most cases not completely remove the gliadin, and a complete knockout approach by genome editing may be more effective, and possibly more easily accepted by consumers as no foreign DNA is introduced (Laursen 2016).

Hybrid varieties

Pivotal to successful production of high-quality hybrid varieties is the availability of reliably male-sterile maternal lines. Pioneer is using a male sterility system in maize involving mutants of the male fertility gene Ms45. Knockout of the Ms45 gene using CRISPR-Cas9 was recently reported by Svitashev et al. (2015).

Yield

Interestingly, a complex trait par excellence, yield, was also shown to be amenable to an SDN-1 approach. Li et al. (2017) used CRISPR-Cas9 in rice to mutate the regulatory genes Gna1, DEP1, and GS3 and obtained plants with increased grain numbers, dense erect panicles plus semi-dwarf phenotype, and larger grains, respectively.

Regulatory and IP issues

Currently, there is worldwide a discussion whether genome-edited plants should fall under existing regulatory systems that have been designed for transgenic (GM or GE) plants (for an overview, see Sprink et al. 2016). In the US, no regulatory oversight was deemed necessary by USDA-APHIS (e.g., waxy maize, high oleic acid soybean mentioned above under ‘Product quality’ and sweet14-based blight resistance in rice under ‘Disease resistance’, see for further examples Table 1 of Hilscher et al. 2016). In Europe, there is no definitive legal analysis yet. The EFSA GMO unit (2015) considered SDN-1 a form of mutagenesis; further analysis may be needed upon technological advancement. Among EU Member States, the German BVL (Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety) had a similar judgement, including for CRISPR, as gRNAs were not seen as recombinant DNA (i.e., no novel combination of genetic material) and the Swedish Board of Agriculture (SBA) saw CRISPR-Cas as equivalent to mutagenesis provided that no “foreign” DNA was left in plants. The German BfN (Federal Agency for Nature Conservation) held a different view, as were NGOs and organic farming organizations (see IFOAM 2015 statement): they consider the process as most relevant and the process involves molecules not occurring naturally (Sprink et al. 2016). Mutagenesis was exempted from regulation in EU Directive 2001/18/EC as having a history of safe use (see for detailed comparison with SDN-1, the off-targets section above).

The EU GM regulation is perceived as prohibitive to most applications and to small companies because of costs and uncertainties around timing and outcomes of the application procedure. When extensive GM regulation would be applicable to SDN-1 techniques, this may lead to a paradoxical result. Parties aiming at commercializing the plant products could produce a gene-edited plant with deletions to establish whether it generates the desired functionality, and then would “re-produce” a similar plant using classical mutagenesis. Companies would be able to do that also because the quickly increasing efficiency of next-generation DNA sequencing for mutation screening in recent times has stimulated them to (re)develop mutated populations in their crops (Van de Wiel et al. 2016). However, this would not be an efficient and optimal use of resources in breeding, and would give up on advantages hardly feasible by classical mutagenesis, such as the possibility of inducing recessive mutations in all alleles of a targeted gene in polyploid crops. There is a need for regulatory systems duly addressing biosafety that are balanced in terms of workability and costs, so that they do not unduly limit the benefits of producing innovative plant products with potential advantages to agricultural sustainability.

The possibilities offered by genome editing also have ramifications to IP, access, and benefit issues, even when it concerns deletions and loss-of-function mutations. It may also raise questions in the context of the use of genetic resources: can copying a mutation already existing in a genebank accession into elite material be considered use in the sense of the ‘Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity’? These ramifications may attract a lot of attention in the coming years when the possibilities of SDN-1 are realized in the form of improved crop varieties (or even varieties from underutilized or novel crops). These discussions are important for the realisation of the possibilities that SDN-1 using genome editing offers for increasing the sustainability of agriculture.

Change history

  • 27 September 2018

    In the original publication of the article, Li et al. has been incorrectly cited in the following sentence “Interestingly, a complex trait par excellence, yield, was also shown to be amenable to an SDN-1 approach. Li et al. (2017) used CRISPR-Cas9 in rice to mutate the regulatory genes Gna1, DEP1, and GS3 and obtained plants with increased grain numbers, dense erect panicles plus semi-dwarf phenotype, and larger grains, respectively.”

References

  1. Acevedo-García J, Kusch S, Panstruga R (2014) Magical mystery tour: MLO proteins in plant immunity and beyond. New Phytol 204:273–281

  2. Ali Z, Abul-faraj A, Li LX, Ghosh N, Piatek M, Mahjoub A, Aouida M, Piatek A, Baltes NJ, Voytas DF, Dinesh-Kumar S, Mahfouz MM (2015) Efficient virus-mediated genome editing in plants using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Mol Plant 8:1288–1291

  3. Altpeter F, Springer NM, Bartley LE, Blechl AE, Brutnell TP, Citovsky V, Conrad LJ, Gelvin SB, Jackson DP, Kausch AP, Lemaux PG, Medford JI, Orozco-Cardenas ML, Tricoli DM, Van Eck J, Voytas DF, Walbot V, Wang K, Zhang ZYJ, Stewart CN (2016) Advancing crop transformation in the era of genome editing. Plant Cell 28:1510–1520. doi:10.1105/tpc.16.00196

  4. Andersson M, Turesson H, Nicolia A, Fält AS, Samuelsson M, Hofvander P (2016) Efficient targeted multiallelic mutagenesis in tetraploid potato (Solanum tuberosum) by transient CRISPR-Cas9 expression in protoplasts. Plant Cell Rep. doi:10.1007/s00299-016-2062-3

  5. Baek K, Kim DH, Jeong J, Sim SJ, Melis A, Kim JS, Jin E, Bae S (2016) DNA-free two-gene knockout in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii via CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Sci Rep 6:30620

  6. Barro F, Iehisa JCM, Giménez MJ, García-Molina MD, Ozuna CV, Comino I, Sousa C, Gil-Humanes J (2016) Targeting of prolamins by RNAi in bread wheat: effectiveness of seven silencing-fragment combinations for obtaining lines devoid of coeliac disease epitopes from highly immunogenic gliadins. Plant Biotechnol J 14:986–996

  7. Canela A, Sridharan S, Sciascia N, Tubbs A, Meltzer P, Sleckman BP, Nussenzweig A (2016) DNA breaks and end resection measured genome-wide by end sequencing. Mol Cell 63:898–911

  8. Chandrasekaran J, Brumin M, Wolf D, Leibman D, Klap C, Pearlsman M, Sherman A, Arazi T, Gal-On A (2016) Development of broad virus resistance in non-transgenic cucumber using CRISPR/Cas9 technology. Mol Plant Pathol 17:1140–1153

  9. Cheng F, Sun R, Hou X, Zheng H, Zhang F, Zhang Y et al (2016) Subgenome parallel selection is associated with morphotype diversification and convergent crop domestication in Brassica rapa and Brassica oleracea. Nature Genet 48:1218–1224. doi:10.1038/ng.3634

  10. Clasen BM, Stoddard TJ, Luo S, Demorest ZL, Li J, Cedrone F, Tibebu R, Davison S, Ray EE, Daulhac A, Coffman A, Yabandith A, Retterath A, Haun W, Baltes NJ, Mathis L, Voytas DF, Zhang F (2016) Improving cold storage and processing traits in potato through targeted gene knockout. Plant Biotechnol J 14:169–176

  11. Crosetto N, A Mitra, MJ Silva, M Bienko, N Dojer, Q Wang, E Karaca, R Chiarle, M Skrzypczak, K Ginalski, P Pasero, M Rowicka, I Dikic (2013) Nucleotide-resolution DNA double-strand break mapping by next-generation sequencing. Nature Methods 10:361–365. doi:10.1038/nmeth.2408

  12. Dodo HW, Konan KN, Chen FC, Egnin M, Viquez OM (2008) Alleviating peanut allergy using genetic engineering: the silencing of the immunodominant allergen Ara h 2 leads to its significant reduction and a decrease in peanut allergenicity. Plant Biotechnol J 6:135–145

  13. Doench JG, Fusi N, Sullender M, Hegde M, Vaimberg EW, Donovan KF, Smith I, Tothova Z, Wilen C, Orchard R, Virgin HW, Listgarten J, Root DE (2016) Optimized sgRNA design to maximize activity and minimize off-target effects of CRISPR-Cas9. Nat Biotechnol 34:184–191

  14. Dubois AEJ, Pagliarani G, Brouwer RM, Kollen BJ, Dragsted LO, Eriksen FD, Callesen O, Gilissen LJWJ, Krens FA, Visser RGF, Smulders MJM, Vlieg-Boerstra BJ, Flokstra-de Blok BJ, van de Weg WE (2015) First successful reduction of clinical allergenicity of food by genetic modification: Mal d 1 silenced apples cause fewer allergy symptoms than the wild type cultivar. Allergy 70:1406–1412. doi:10.1111/all.12684

  15. EFSA GMO UNIT (2015) EFSA response to DG SANTE request to provide technical assistance on issues related to the legal analysis of new plant breeding techniques. Mandate Number: M-2015-0183. P 4. http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/ListOfQuestionsNoLogin?1

  16. 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

  17. Fu YF, Sander JD, Reyon D, Cascio VM, Joung JK (2014) Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nat Biotechnol 32:279–284

  18. Hancock JF (2012) Plant evolution and the origin of crop species. CABI, Wallingford

  19. Haun W, Coffman A, Clasen BM, Demorest ZL, Lowy A, Ray E, Retterath A, Stoddard T, Juillerat A, Cedrone F, Mathis L, Voytas DF, Zhang F (2014) Improved soybean oil quality by targeted mutagenesis of the fatty acid desaturase 2 gene family. Plant Biotechnol J 12:934–940

  20. Hilscher J, Bürstmayr H, Stoger E (2016) Targeted modification of plant genomes for precision crop breeding. Biotechnol J. doi:10.1002/biot.201600173

  21. IFOAM EU Group (2015) IFOAM EU position paper on New Plant Breeding Techniques. IFOAM EU Group, p 5. http://www.ifoam-eu.org/sites/default/files/ifoameu_policy_npbts_position_final_20151210.pdf

  22. Jiang WZ, Henry IM, Lynagh PG, Comai L, Cahoon EB, Weeks DP (2016) Significant enhancement of fatty acid composition in seeds of the allohexaploid, Camelina sativa, using CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. Plant Biotechnol J. doi:10.1111/pbi.12663

  23. Kim D, Bae S, Park J, Kim E, Kim S, Yu HR, Hwang J, Kim JI, Kim JS (2015) Digenome-seq: genome-wide profiling of CRISPR-Cas9 off-target effects in human cells. Nat Methods 12:237–243

  24. Kim D, Kim J, Hur JK, Been KW, Yoon S-H, Kim J-S (2016a) Genome-wide analysis reveals specificities of Cpf1 endonucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol 34:863–868. doi:10.1038/nbt.3609

  25. Kim D, Kim S, Kim S, Park J, Kim J-S (2016b) Genome-wide target specificities of CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases revealed by multiplex Digenome-sEq. Genome Res 26:406–415. doi:10.1101/gr.199588.115

  26. Kleinstiver BP, Pattanayak V, Prew MS, Tsai SQ, Nguyen NT, Zheng Z, Joung JK (2016) High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529:490–495

  27. Kumar S, Barone P, Smith M (2016) Gene targeting and transgene stacking using intra genomic homologous recombination in plants. Plant Methods 12:11

  28. Laursen L (2016) Will Europe toast GM wheat for gluten sufferers? Nat Biotechnol 34:369–371. doi:10.1038/nbt.3533

  29. Li T, Liu B, Spalding MH, Weeks DP, Yang B (2012) High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nat Biotechnol 30:390–392

  30. Li J, Stoddard TJ, Demorest ZL, Lavoie PO, Luo S, Clasen BM, Cedrone F, Ray EE, Coffman AP, Daulhac A, Yabandith A, Retterath AJ, Mathis L, Voytas DF, D’Aoust MA, Zhang F (2016) Multiplexed, targeted gene editing in Nicotiana benthamiana for glyco-engineering and monoclonal antibody production. Plant Biotechnol J 14:533–542

  31. Li J, Sun Y, Du J, Zhao Y, Xia L (2017) Generation of targeted point mutations in rice by a modified CRISPR/Cas9 system. Mol Plant. doi:10.1016/j.molp.2016.12.001

  32. Liang Z, Zhang K, Chen K, Gao C (2014) Targeted mutagenesis in Zea mays using TALENs and the CRISPR/Cas system. J Genet Genom 41:63–68

  33. Lu J, Tang T, Tang H, Huang JZ, Shi SH, Wu CI (2006) The accumulation of deleterious mutations in rice genomes: a hypothesis on the cost of domestication. Trends Genet 22:126–131

  34. Luo M, Gilbert B, Ayliffe M (2016) Applications of CRISPR/Cas9 technology for targeted mutagenesis, gene replacement and stacking of genes in higher plants. Plant Cell Rep 35:1439–1450

  35. Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2011) New plant breeding techniques. State-of-the-art and prospects for commercial development. European Commission, JRC-IPTS, p 218. doi:10.2791/54761

  36. Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D, Rodríguez-Cerezo E (2012) FEATURE—Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding. Nat Biotechnol 30:231–239

  37. Martinez-Ainsworth NE, Tenaillon MI (2016) Superheroes and masterminds of plant domestication. (Special issue: trajectories of genetics, 150 years after Mendel.). CR Biol 339:268–273

  38. Nakamichi N (2015) Adaptation to the local environment by modifications of the photoperiod response in crops. Plant Cell Physiol 56:594–604. doi:10.1093/pcp/pcu181

  39. Oladosu Y, Rafii MY, Abdullah N, Hussin G, Ramli A, Rahim HA, Miah G, Usman M (2016) Principle and application of plant mutagenesis in crop improvement: a review. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 30:1–16. doi:10.1080/13102818.2015.1087333

  40. Pagliarani G, Paris R, Arens P, Tartarini S, Ricci G, Smulders MJM, van de Weg WE (2013) A qRT-PCR assay for the expression of all Mal d 1 isoallergen genes. BMC Plant Biol 13: 51. DOI:10.1186/1471-2229-13-51

  41. Paul JW III, Qi Y (2016) CRISPR/Cas9 for plant genome editing: accomplishments, problems and prospects. Plant Cell Rep 35:1417–1427

  42. Pavan S, Jacobsen E, Visser RGF, Bai Y (2010) Loss of susceptibility as a novel breeding strategy for durable and broad-spectrum resistance. Mol Breed 25:1–12

  43. Peterson BA, Haak DC, Nishimura MT, Teixeira PJPL, James SR, Dangl JL et al (2016) Genome-Wide Assessment of efficiency and specificity in CRISPR/Cas9 mediated multiple site targeting in Arabidopsis. PLoS One 11:e0162169

  44. Pyott DE, Sheehan E, Molnar A (2016) Engineering of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated potyvirus resistance in transgene-free Arabidopsis plants. Mol Plant Pathol 17:1276–1288

  45. Ran FA, Cong L, Yan WX, Scott DA, Gootenberg JS, Kriz AJ, Zetsche B, Shalem O, Wu XB, Makarova KS, Koonin EV, Sharp PA, Zhang F (2015) In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature 520:186–191

  46. Rani R, Yadav P, Barbadikar KM, Baliyan N, Malhotra EV, Singh BK, Kumar A, Singh D (2016) CRISPR/Cas9: a promising way to exploit genetic variation in plants. Biotechnol Lett 38:1991–2006

  47. Salentijn EMJ, Mitea DC, Goryunova SV, Van der Meer IM, Padioleau I, Gilissen LJWJ, Koning F, Smulders MJM (2012) Celiac disease T cell epitopes from gamma-gliadins: immunoreactivity depends on the genome of origin, transcript frequency, and flanking protein variation. BMC Genom 13:277. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-13-277

  48. Sauer NJ, Mozoruk J, Miller RB, Warburg ZJ, Walker KA, Beetham PR, Schöpke CR, Gocal GFW (2016) Oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis for precision gene editing. Plant Biotechnology J 14:496–502

  49. Schaart JG, Van de Wiel CCM, Lotz LAP, Smulders MJM (2016) Opportunities for products of new plant breeding techniques. Trends Plant Sci 21:438–449

  50. 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 80:1139–1150

  51. Shan Q, Zhang Y, Chen K, Zhang K, Gao C (2015) Creation of fragrant rice by targeted knockout of the OsBADH2 gene using TALEN technology. Plant Biotechnol J 13:791–800

  52. Shu QY, BP Forster, H Nakagawa (eds) (2011) Plant Mutation breeding and biotechnology. FAO, Rome. ISBN 978-92-5-105000-0

  53. Slaymaker IM, Gao L, Zetsche B, Scott DA, Yan WX, Zhang F (2016) Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351:84–88

  54. Smulders MJM, Jouanin A, Schaart J, Visser RGF, Cockram J, Leigh F, Wallington E, Boyd LA, van den Broeck HC, van der Meer IM, Gilissen LJWJ (2015) Development of wheat varieties with reduced contents of celiac-immunogenic epitopes through conventional and GM strategies. Proceedings of the 28th meeting of the Working Group on Prolamin Analysis and Toxicity (Peter Koehler, ed.), 25–27 September 2014, Nantes, France, pp 47–56. http://www.wgpat.com/proceeding_28th.html; http://www.wgpat.com/proceeding_28th.pdf

  55. Sprink T, Eriksson D, Schiemann J, Hartung F (2016) Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts. Plant Cell Rep 35:1493–1506

  56. Steinert J, Schiml S, Fauser F, Puchta H (2015) Highly efficient heritable plant genome engineering using Cas9 orthologues from Streptococcus thermophilus and Staphylococcus aureus. Plant J 84:1295–1305

  57. Subburaj S, Chung SJ, Lee C, Ryu S-M, Kim DH, Kim J-S, Bae S, Lee G-J (2016) Site-directed mutagenesis in Petunia hybrida protoplast system using direct delivery of purified recombinant Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Plant Cell Rep 35:1535–1544. doi:10.1007/s00299-016-1937-7

  58. Sun K, Wolters AMA, Loonen AEHM, Huibers RP, Van de Vlugt R, Goverse A, Jacobsen E, Visser RGF, Bai Y (2016a) Down-regulation of Arabidopsis DND1 orthologs in potato and tomato leads to broad-spectrum resistance to late blight and powdery mildew. Transgenic Res 25:123–138

  59. Sun K, Wolters AMA, Vossen JH, Rouwet ME, Loonen AEHM, Jacobsen E, Visser RGF, Bai Y (2016b) Silencing of six susceptibility genes results in potato late blight resistance. Transgenic Res 25:731–742

  60. Suprasanna P, SJ Mirajkar, SG Bhagwat (2015) Induced mutations and crop improvement. Bahadur INB et al. (eds.), Plant biology and biotechnology: Volume I: plant diversity, 593 Organization, Function and Improvement, doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2286-6$423, pp 593–617

  61. Svitashev S, Young JK, Schwartz C, Gao HR, Falco SC, Cigan AM (2015) Targeted mutagenesis, precise gene editing, and site-specific gene insertion in maize using Cas9 and guide RNA. Plant Physiol 169:931–945

  62. Tsai SQ, Zheng Z, Nguyen NT, Liebers M, Topkar VV, Thapar V, et al. (2015) GUIDE-seq enables genome-wide profiling of off-target cleavage by CRISPR-Cas nucleases. Nat Biotechnol 33:187–197. doi:10.1038/nbt.3117

  63. Tsuda M, Kaga A, Anai T, Shimizu T, Sayama T, Takagi K, Machita K, Watanabe S, Nishimura M, Yamada N, Mori S, Sasaki H, Kanamori H, Katayose Y, Ishimoto M (2015) Construction of a high-density mutant library in soybean and development of a mutant retrieval method using amplicon sequencing. BMC Genom 16:1014. doi:10.1186/s12864-015-2079-y

  64. Uauy C, Paraiso F, Colasuonno P, Tran RK, Tsai H, Berardi S, Comai L, Dubcovsky J (2009) A modified TILLING approach to detect induced mutations in tetraploid and hexaploid wheat. BMC Plant Biol 9:115. doi:10.1186/1471-2229-9-115

  65. Van Acker R, Leple JC, Aerts D, Storme V, Goeminne G, Ivens B, Legee F, Lapierre C, Piens K, Van Montagu MCE, Santoro N, Foster CE, Ralph J, Soetaert W, Pilate G, Boerjan W (2014) Improved saccharification and ethanol yield from field-grown transgenic poplar deficient in cinnamoyl-CoA reductase. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:845–850

  66. Van de Wiel CCM, Smulders MJM, Visser RGF, Schaart JG (2016) New developments in green biotechnology—an inventory for RIVM. Report, Wageningen UR Plant Breeding, Wageningen, p 51. doi:10.18174/385481

  67. Van den Broeck HC, van Herpen TWJM, Schuit C, Salentijn EMJ, Dekking L, Bosch D, Hamer RJ, Smulders MJM, Gilissen LJWJ, van der Meer IM (2009) Removing celiac disease-related gluten proteins from bread wheat while retaining technological properties: a study with Chinese Spring deletion lines. BMC Plant Biol 9:41. doi:10.1186/1471-2229-9-41

  68. Van Herpen TWJM, SV Goryunova, J van der Schoot, M Mitreva, E Salentijn, O Vorst, MF Schenk, PA van Veelen, F Koning, LJM van Soest, B Vosman, D Bosch, RJ Hamer, LJWJ Gilissen, MJM Smulders (2006) Alpha-gliadin genes from the A, B, and D genomes of wheat contain different sets of celiac disease epitopes. BMC Genom 7:1. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-7-1

  69. Wang Y, Cheng X, Shan Q, Zhang Y, Liu J, Gao C, Qiu J-L (2014) Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nat Biotechnol 32:947–951

  70. Wang Z, Xing H, Dong L, Zhang H, Han C, Wang X, Chen Q (2015) Egg cell-specific promoter-controlled CRISPR/Cas9 efficiently generates homozygous mutants for multiple target genes in Arabidopsis in a single generation. Genome Biol 16:144

  71. Wendt T, Holm PB, Starker CG, Christian M, Voytas DF, Brinch-Pedersen H, Holme IB (2013) TAL effector nucleases induce mutations at a pre-selected location in the genome of primary barley transformants. Plant Mol Biol 83:279–285

  72. Woo J, Kim J, Kwon S, Corvalán C, Cho S, Kim H, Kim S, Kim S, Choe S, Kim J (2015) DNA-free genome editing in plants with preassembled CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Nat Biotechnol 33:1162–1164

  73. Yamaji N, Takemoto Y, Miyaji T, Mitani-Ueno N, Yoshida KT, JF Ma (2017) Reducing phosphorus accumulation in rice grains with an impaired transporter in the node. Nature 541:92–95. doi:10.1038/nature20610

  74. Yan LH, Wei SW, Wu YR, Hu RL, Li HJ, Yang WC, Xie Q (2015) High-efficiency genome editing in Arabidopsis using YAO promoter-driven CRISPR/Cas9 system. Mol Plant 8:1820–1823

  75. Zheng Z, Appiano M, Pavan S, Bracuto V, Ricciardi L, Visser RGF, Wolters AM, Bai Y (2016) Genome-wide study of the tomato SlMLO gene family and its functional characterization in response to the powdery mildew fungus Oidium neolycopersici. Front Plant Sci 7:380. doi:10.3389/fpls.2016.00380

  76. Zhou HB, Liu B, Weeks DP, Spalding MH, Yang B (2014) Large chromosomal deletions and heritable small genetic changes induced by CRISPR/Cas9 in rice. Nucl Acids Res 42:10903–10914

  77. Zhou XH, Jacobs TB, Xue LJ, Harding SA, Tsai CJ (2015) Exploiting SNPs for biallelic CRISPR mutations in the outcrossing woody perennial Populus reveals 4-coumarate: CoA ligase specificity and redundancy. New Phytol 208:298–301

  78. Zhu X, Gong H, He Q, Zeng Z, Busse JS, Jin W, Bethke PC, Jiang J (2016) Silencing of vacuolar invertase and asparagine synthetase genes and its impact on acrylamide formation of fried potato products. Plant Biotechnol J 14:709–718. doi:10.1111/pbi.12421

Download references

Acknowledgements

Writing of this review was supported by the Ministry of Economic Affairs of The Netherlands (BO-20-003-006). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information

Correspondence to M. J. M. Smulders.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

van de Wiel, C.C.M., Schaart, J.G., Lotz, L.A.P. et al. New traits in crops produced by genome editing techniques based on deletions. Plant Biotechnol Rep 11, 1–8 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11816-017-0425-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Nuclease
  • SDN
  • SSN
  • Precision breeding
  • Sustainable agriculture