3 Biotech

, 8:336 | Cite as

New breeding technique “genome editing” for crop improvement: applications, potentials and challenges

  • Supriya B. Aglawe
  • Kalyani M. Barbadikar
  • Satendra K. Mangrauthia
  • M. Sheshu Madhav
Review Article


Crop improvement is a continuous process in agriculture which ensures ample supply of food, fodder and fiber to burgeoning world population. Despite tremendous success in plant breeding and transgenesis to improve the yield-related traits, there have been several limitations primarily with the specificity in genetic modifications and incompatibility of host species. Because of this, new breeding techniques (NBTs) are gaining worldwide attention for crop improvement programs. Among the NBTs, genome editing (GE) using site-directed nucleases (SDNs) is an important and potential technique that overcomes limitations associated with classical breeding and transgenesis. These SDNs specifically target a compatible region in the gene/genome. The meganucleases (MgN), zinc finger nucleases (ZFN), transcription activator-like effectors nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated endonuclease (Cas) are being successfully employed for GE. These can be used for desired or targeted modifications of the native endogenous gene(s) or targeted insertion of cis/trans elements in the genomes of recipient organisms. Applications of these techniques appear to be endless ever since their discovery and several modifications in original technologies have further brought precision and accuracy in these methods. In this review, we present an overview of GE using SDNs with an emphasis on CRISPR/Cas system, their advantages, limitations and also practical considerations while designing experiments have been discussed. The review also emphasizes on the possible applications of CRISPR for improving economic traits in crop plants.


New breeding technique (NBT) Site-directed nucleases (SDNs) Zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) Transcription activator-like effectors nucleases (TALENs) Cluster regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR/Cas) 



Authors are thankful to Director, ICAR-IIRR for encouragement and support.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Authors declare that there is no conflict of interests.


  1. Ainley WM, Sastry-Dent L, Welter ME et al (2013) Trait stacking via targeted genome editing. Plant Biotechnol J 11(9):1126–1134Google Scholar
  2. Akagi A, Fukushima S, Okada K et al (2014) WRKY45-dependent priming of diterpenoid phytoalexin biosynthesis in rice and the role of cytokinin in triggering the reaction. Plant Mol Biol 86(1–2):171–183Google Scholar
  3. Ali Z, Abulfaraj A, Idris A et al (2015) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated viral interference in plants. Genome Biol 16:238Google Scholar
  4. Anderson JE, Kantar MB, Kono TY et al (2014) A roadmap for functional structural variants in the soybean genome. G3 4(7):1307–1318Google Scholar
  5. Antunes MS, Smith JJ, Jantz D, Medford JI et al (2012) Targeted DNA excision in Arabidopsis by a re-engineered homing endonuclease. BMC Biotechnol 12(1):86Google Scholar
  6. Barakate A, Stephens J (2016) An overview of CRISPR-based tools and their improvements: new opportunities in understanding plant–pathogen interactions for better crop protection. Front Plant Sci 7:765Google Scholar
  7. Begemann MB, Gray BN, January E et al (2017) Precise insertion and guided editing of higher plant genomes using Cpf1 CRISPR nucleases. Sci Rep 7(1):11606Google Scholar
  8. Belhaj K, Chaparro-Garcia A, Kamoun S et al (2013) Plant genome editing made easy: targeted mutagenesis in model and crop plants using the CRISPR/Cas system. Plant Methods 9:39Google Scholar
  9. Bhaya D, Davison M, Barrangou R et al (2011) CRISPR-Cas systems in bacteria and archaea: versatile small RNAs for adaptive defence and regulation. Ann Rev Genet 45:273–297Google Scholar
  10. Bibikova M, Beumer K, Trautman JK et al (2003) Enhancing gene targeting with designed zinc finger nucleases. Science 300:764–764Google Scholar
  11. Blanvillain-Baufumé S, Reschke M, Solé M et al (2017) Targeted promoter editing for rice resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae reveals differential activities for SWEET14-inducing TAL effectors. Plant Biotechnol J 15(3):306–317Google Scholar
  12. Braun CJ, Bruno PM, Horlbeck MA et al (2016) Versatile in vivo regulation of tumor phenotypes by dCas9-mediated transcriptional perturbation. Proc Natl Acad Sci 113(27):E3892–E3900Google Scholar
  13. Butterbach P, Verlaan MG, Dullemans A et al (2014) Tomato yellow leaf curl virus resistance by Ty-1 involves increased cytosine methylation of viral genomes and is compromised by cucumber mosaic virus infection. PNAS 111(35):12942–12947Google Scholar
  14. Chang Z, Chen Z, Wang N et al (2016) Construction of a male sterility system for hybrid rice breeding and seed production using a nuclear male sterility gene. PNAS 113(49):14145–14150Google Scholar
  15. Chawla R, Shakya R, Rommens CM et al (2012) Tuber-specific silencing of asparagine synthetase-1 reduces the acrylamide-forming potential of potatoes grown in the field without affecting tuber shape and yield. Plant Biotechnol Commun 5:3352Google Scholar
  16. Chen X, Lu X, Shu N, Wang S, Wang J, Wang D, Guo L, Ye W (2017) Targeted mutagenesis in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep 7:44304Google Scholar
  17. Chou WL, Huang LF, Fang JC et al (2014) Divergence of the expression and subcellular localization of CCR4-associated factor 1 (CAF1) deadenylase proteins in Oryza sativa. Plant Mol Biol 85:443–458Google Scholar
  18. Christian M, Cermak T, Doyle EL et al (2010) Targeting DNA double-strand breaks with TAL effector nucleases. Genet 186(2):757–761Google Scholar
  19. Christian M, Qi Y, Zhang Y et al (2013) Targeted mutagenesis of Arabidopsis thaliana using engineered TAL effector nucleases. G3: Genes|. Genomes| Genet 3:1697–1705Google Scholar
  20. Clasen BM, Stoddard TJ, Luo S et al (2016) Improving cold storage and processing traits in potato through targeted gene knockout. Plant Biotechnol J 14(1):169–176Google Scholar
  21. Curtin SJ, Zhang F, Sander JD et al (2011) Targeted mutagenesis of duplicated genes in soybean with zinc-finger nucleases. Plant Physiol 156(2):466–473Google Scholar
  22. Curtin SJ, Voytas DF, Stupar RM (2012) Genome engineering of crops with designer nucleases. Plant Genome 5(2):42–50Google Scholar
  23. Dahlem TJ, Hoshijima K, Jurynec MJ et al (2012) Simple methods for generating and detecting locus-specific mutations induced with TALENs in the zebrafish genome. PLoS Genet 8(8):e1002861Google Scholar
  24. Daspute A, Fakrudin B, Bhairappanavar SB et al (2014) Inheritance of pigeonpea sterility mosaic disease resistance in pigeonpea. Plant Pathol J 30(2):188Google Scholar
  25. DeFrancesco L (2012) Erratum: Move over ZFNs. Nat Biotechnol 30(1):112–112Google Scholar
  26. Deng D, Yan C, Pan X et al (2012) Structural basis for sequence-specific recognition of DNA by TAL effectors. Science 335(6069):720–723Google Scholar
  27. Ding SL, Liu W, Iliuk A et al (2010) The tig1 histone deacetylase complex regulates infectious growth in the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae. Plant Cell 22(7):2495–2508Google Scholar
  28. Dominguez AA, Lim WA, Qi LS (2015) Beyond editing: repurposing CRISPR-Cas9 for precision genome regulation and interrogation. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 17(1):5Google Scholar
  29. Dong X, Wang X, Zhang L et al (2013) Identification and characterization of OsEBS, a gene involved in enhanced plant biomass and spikelet number in rice. Plant Biotechnol J 11(9):1044–1057Google Scholar
  30. Dong Y, Yang X, Liu J et al (2014) Pod shattering resistance associated with domestication is mediated by a NAC gene in soybean. Nat commun 5:3352Google Scholar
  31. Esvelt KM, Mali P, Braff JL et al (2013) Orthogonal Cas9 proteins for RNA-guided gene regulation and editing. Nat Methods 10:1116–1121Google Scholar
  32. Fan Y, Yang J, Mathioni SM et al (2016) PMS1T, producing phased small-interfering RNAs, regulates photoperiod-sensitive male sterility in rice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 13:15144–15149Google Scholar
  33. Fang Y, Xie K, Xiong L (2014) Conserved miR164-targeted NAC genes negatively regulate drought resistance in rice. J Exp Bot 65:2119–2135Google Scholar
  34. Fauser F, Schiml S, Puchta H (2014) Both CRISPR/Cas-based nucleases and nickases can be used efficiently for genome engineering in Arabidopsis thaliana. The Plant J 79:348–359Google Scholar
  35. Fondevilla S, Carver TLW, Moreno MT, Rubiales D (2006) Macroscopic and histological characterisation of genes er1 and er2 for powdery mildew resistance in pea. Eur J Plant Pathol 115(3):309–321Google Scholar
  36. Fu Y, Foden JA, Khayter C et al (2013) High-frequency off-target mutagenesis induced by CRISPR-Cas nucleases in human cells. Nat Biotechnol 31(9):822–826Google Scholar
  37. Fu Y, Sander JD, Reyon D et al (2014) Improving CRISPR-Cas nuclease specificity using truncated guide RNAs. Nat Biotechnol 32:279–284Google Scholar
  38. Gilchrist E, Haughn G (2010) Reverse genetics techniques: engineering loss and gain of gene function in plants. Brief Funct Genomics 9(2):103–110Google Scholar
  39. Haun W, Coffman A, Clasen BM et al (2014) Improved soybean oil quality by targeted mutagenesis of the fatty acid desaturase 2 gene family. Plant Biotechnol J 12(7):934–940Google Scholar
  40. Hou Z, Zhang Y, Propson NE et al (2013) Efficient genome engineering in human pluripotent stem cells using Cas9 from Neisseria meningitidis. PNAS USA 110:15644–15649Google Scholar
  41. Hu B, Zhu C, Li F et al (2011) LEAF TIP NECROSIS1 plays a pivotal role in the regulation of multiple phosphate starvation responses in rice. Plant Physiol 156:1101–1115Google Scholar
  42. Hu B, Wang W, Deng K et al (2015) microRNA399 is involved in multiple nutrient responses in rice. Front Plant Sci 6:188Google Scholar
  43. Humphry M, Consonni C, Panstruga R (2006) MLO-based powdery mildew immunity: silver bullet or simply non-host resistance? Mol Plant Pathol 7(6):605–610Google Scholar
  44. Hurni S, Scheuermann D, Krattinger SG et al (2015) The maize disease resistance gene Htn1 against northern corn leaf blight encodes a wall-associated receptor-like kinase. PNAS 112(28):8780–8785Google Scholar
  45. Janila P, Pandey MK, Shasidhar Y et al (2016) Molecular breeding for introgression of fatty acid desaturase mutant alleles (ahFAD2A and ahFAD2B) enhances oil quality in high and low oil containing peanut genotypes. Plant Sci 242:203–213Google Scholar
  46. Jao LE, Wente SR, Chen W (2013) Efficient multiplex biallelic zebrafish genome editing using a CRISPR nuclease system. PNAS 110:13904–13909Google Scholar
  47. Jaskula-Ranga V, Zack DJ (2016) grID: a CRISPR-Cas9 guide RNA database and resource for genome-editing. bioRxiv 097352Google Scholar
  48. Jenko J, Gorjanc G, Cleveland MA (2015) Potential of promotion of alleles by genome editing to improve quantitative traits in livestock breeding programs. Genet Select Evol 47(1):55Google Scholar
  49. Ji H, Kim SR, Kim YH et al (2016) Map-based cloning and characterization of the BPH18 gene from wild rice conferring resistance to brown plant hopper (BPH) insect pest. Sci Rep 6:34376Google Scholar
  50. Jia H, Wang N 2(014) Targeted genome editing of sweet orange using Cas9/sgRNA. PloS one 9:e93806Google Scholar
  51. Jinek M, Chylinski K, Fonfara I et al (2012) A programmable dual-RNA—guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 337:816–821Google Scholar
  52. Jo KR, Visser RG, Jacobsen E et al (2015) Characterisation of the late blight resistance in potato differential MaR9 reveals a qualitative resistance gene, R9a, residing in a cluster of Tm-2 2 homologs on chromosome IX. Theor Applied Genet 128(5):931–941Google Scholar
  53. Juillerat A, Dubois G, Valton J et al (2014) Comprehensive analysis of the specificity of transcription activator-like effector nucleases. Nucleic Acids Res 42(8):5390–5402Google Scholar
  54. Katayama S, Moriguchi T, Ohtsu N et al (2016) A powerful CRISPR/Cas9 based method for targeted transcriptional activation. Angew Chem 128:6562–6566Google Scholar
  55. Khatodia S, Bhatotia K, Passricha N et al (2016) The CRISPR/Cas genome-editing tool: application in improvement of crops. Front Plant Sci 7: 506Google Scholar
  56. Kim YG, Cha J, Chandrasegaran S (1996) Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. PNAS 93:1156–1160Google Scholar
  57. Kim H, Kim ST, Ryu J et al (2017) CRISPR/Cpf1-mediated DNA-free plant genome editing. Nat Commun 8:14406Google Scholar
  58. Kim D, Alptekin B, Budak H (2018) CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in wheat. Funct Integr Genom 18(1):31–41Google Scholar
  59. Kleinstiver BP, Prew MS, Tsai SQ et al (2015) Engineered CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with altered PAM specificities. Nature 523(7561):481Google Scholar
  60. Kleinstiver BP, Pattanayak V, Prew MS et al (2016) High-fidelity CRISPR-Cas9 nucleases with no detectable genome-wide off-target effects. Nature 529(7587):490Google Scholar
  61. Krattinger SG, Sucher J, Selter LL et al (2016) The wheat durable, multipathogen resistance gene Lr34 confers partial blast resistance in rice. Plant Biotechnol J 14(5):1261–1268Google Scholar
  62. Lee YW, Gould BA, Stinchcombe JR (2014) Identifying the genes underlying quantitative traits: a rationale for the QTN programme. AoB Plants. Google Scholar
  63. Li T, Liu B, Spalding MH et al (2012) High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nat Biotechnol 30:390–392Google Scholar
  64. Li JF, Norville JE, Aach J et al (2013) Multiplex and homologous recombination-mediated genome editing in Arabidopsis and Nicotiana benthamiana using guide RNA and Cas9. Nat Biotechnol 31(8):688–691Google Scholar
  65. Li M, Li X, Zhou Z et al (2016) Reassessment of the four yield-related genes Gn1a, DEP1, GS3, and IPA1 in rice using a CRISPR/Cas9 system. Front Plant Sci 7:377Google Scholar
  66. Liang Z, Zhang K, Chen K et al (2014) Targeted mutagenesis in Zea mays using TALENs and the CRISPR/Cas system. J Genet Genom 41:63–68Google Scholar
  67. Liang G, Zhang H, Lou D et al (2016) Selection of highly efficient sgRNAs for CRISPR/Cas9-based plant genome editing. Sci Rep 6:21451Google Scholar
  68. Liang Z, Chen K, Li T et al (2017) Efficient DNA-free genome editing of bread wheat using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat Commun 8:14261Google Scholar
  69. Lioyd A, Plaisier CL, Carroll D et al (2005) Targeted mutagenesis using zinc-finger nucleases in Arabidopsis. PNAS USA 102:2232–2237Google Scholar
  70. Liu XHCWQ, Wang YFK (2017) Targeted mutagenesis in rice using CRISPR-Cpf1 system. J Genet Genomics 44(1):71–73Google Scholar
  71. Liu D, Chen X, Liu J et al (2012) The rice ERF transcription factor OsERF922 negatively regulates resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae and salt tolerance. J Exp Bot 63:3899–3911Google Scholar
  72. Liu H, Soyars C, Li J et al (2017) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated resistance to cauliflower mosaic virus. Plant Direct 2(3):00047Google Scholar
  73. Lor VS, Starker CG, Voytas DF, Weiss D, Olszewski NE (2014) Targeted mutagenesis of the tomato PROCERA gene using transcription activator-like effector nucleases. Plant Physiol 166(3):1288–1291Google Scholar
  74. Lowder LG, Zhang D, Baltes NJ et al (2015) A CRISPR/Cas9 toolbox for multiplexed plant genome editing and transcriptional regulation. Plant Physiol 169(2):971–985Google Scholar
  75. Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D et al (2012) Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding. Nat Biotechnol 30(3):231Google Scholar
  76. Maeder ML, Thibodeau-Beganny S, Osiak A et al (2008) Rapid “open-source” engineering of customized zinc-finger nucleases for highly efficient gene modification. Mol cell 31(2):294–301Google Scholar
  77. Mahfouz MM, Li L, Shamimuzzaman M et al (2011) De novo-engineered transcription activator-like effector (TALE) hybrid nuclease with novel DNA binding specificity creates double-strand breaks. PNAS 108:2623–2628Google Scholar
  78. Makarova KS, Wolf YI, Alkhnbashi OS et al (2015) An updated evolutionary classification of CRISPR-Cas systems. Nat Rev Microbiol 13:722–736Google Scholar
  79. 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 31:833–838Google Scholar
  80. Mangrauthia SK, Maliha A, Prathi NB et al (2017a) MicroRNAs: potential target for genome editing in plants for traits improvement. Indian J Plant Physiol 22(4):530–548Google Scholar
  81. Mangrauthia SK, Bhogireddy S, Agarwal S et al (2017b) Genome-wide changes in microRNA expression during short and prolonged heat stress and recovery in contrasting rice cultivars. J Exp Bot 68:2399–2412Google Scholar
  82. Mao Y, Zhang H, Xu N et al (2013) Application of the CRISPR–Cas system for efficient genome engineering in plants. Mol Plant 6:2008Google Scholar
  83. Marraffini LA, Sontheimer EJ (2008) CRISPR interference limits horizontal gene transfer in staphylococci by targeting DNA. Science 322:1843–1845Google Scholar
  84. Mertz E, Bates L, Nelson OE et al (1964) Mutant gene that changes protein composition and increases lysine content of maize endosperm. Science 145:279–280Google Scholar
  85. Mojica FJ, Diez-Villasenor C, Garcia-Martinez J et al (2009) Short motif sequences determines the targets of the prokaryotic CRISPR defense system. Microbiology 155:733–740Google Scholar
  86. Nekrasov V, Staskawicz B, Weigel D et al (2013) Targeted mutagenesis in the model plant Nicotiana benthamiana using Cas9 RNA-guided endonuclease. Nat Biotechnol 31:691–693Google Scholar
  87. Osakabe K, Osakabe Y, Toki S (2010) Site-directed mutagenesis in Arabidopsis using custom-designed zinc finger nucleases. PNAS 107:12034–12039Google Scholar
  88. Osakabe Y, Watanabe T, Sugano SS et al (2016) Optimization of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to modify abiotic stress responses in plants. Sci Rep 6:26685Google Scholar
  89. Padaria JC, Vishwakarma H, Biswas K et al (2014) Molecular cloning and in silico characterization of high temperature stress responsive pAPX gene isolated from heat tolerant Indian wheat cv. Raj 3765. BMC Rese Notes 7(1):713Google Scholar
  90. Pardo B, Gómez-González B, Aguilera A (2009) DNA repair in mammalian cells. Cell Mol Life Sci 66:1039–1056Google Scholar
  91. Paszkowski J, Baur M, Bogucki et al (1988) Gene targeting in plants. EMBO J 7:4021Google Scholar
  92. Pater S, Pinas JE, Hooykaas PJ et al (2013) ZFN-mediated gene targeting of the Arabidopsis protoporphyrinogen oxidase gene through Agrobacterium-mediated floral dip transformation. Plant Biotechnol J 11:510–515Google Scholar
  93. Pattanayak V, Lin S, Guilinger JP et al (2014) High-throughput profiling of off-target DNA cleavage reveals RNA-programmed Cas9 nuclease specificity. Nat Biotechnol 31:839–843Google Scholar
  94. Pavan S, Zheng Z, Borisova M et al (2008) Map-vs. homology-based cloning for the recessive gene ol-2 conferring resistance to tomato powdery mildew. Euphytica 162(1):91–98Google Scholar
  95. Petolino JF, Worden A, Curlee K et al (2010) Zinc finger nuclease-mediated transgene deletion. Plant Mol Biol 73(6):617–628Google Scholar
  96. Piatek A, Mahfouz MM (2017) Targeted genome regulation via synthetic programmable transcriptional regulators. Crit Rev Biotechnol 37(4):429–440Google Scholar
  97. Piffanelli P, Ramsay L, Waugh R et al (2004) A barley cultivation-associated polymorphism conveys resistance to powdery mildew. Nature 430(7002):887Google Scholar
  98. Puchta H, Fauser F (2013) Gene targeting in plants: 25 years later. Int J Dev Biol 57:629–637Google Scholar
  99. Ramirez CL, Certo MT, Mussolino C et al (2012) Engineered zinc finger nickases induce homology-directed repair with reduced mutagenic effects. Nucleic Acids Res 40(12):5560–5568Google Scholar
  100. Ran FA, Hsu PD, Lin CY et al (2013) Double nicking by RNA-guided CRISPR Cas9 for enhanced genome editing specificity. Cell 154:1380–1389Google Scholar
  101. Ran FA, Cong L, Yan WX et al (2015) In vivo genome editing using Staphylococcus aureus Cas9. Nature 520(7546):186–191Google Scholar
  102. Rani R, Yadav P, Barbadikar KM et al (2016) CRISPR/Cas9: a promising way to exploit genetic variation in plants. Biotechnol Lett 38(12):1991–2006Google Scholar
  103. Sailaja B, Anjum N, Prasanth VV et al (2014) Comparative study of susceptible and tolerant genotype reveals efficient recovery and root system contributes to heat stress tolerance in rice. Plant Mol Biol Rep 32(6):1228–1240Google Scholar
  104. Sakuma T, Ochiai H, Kaneko T et al (2013) Repeating pattern of non-RVD variations in DNA-binding modules enhances TALEN activity. Sci Rep 3:3379Google Scholar
  105. Sánchez-León S, Gil-Humanes J, Ozuna CV et al (2017) Low-gluten, non-transgenic wheat engineered with CRISPR/Cas9. Plant Biotechnol J 16(4):902–910Google Scholar
  106. Sarrion-Perdigones A, Vazquez-Vilar M, Palací J et al (2013) GoldenBraid 2.0: a comprehensive DNA assembly framework for plant synthetic biology. Plant Physiol 162(3):1618–1631Google Scholar
  107. Schunder E, Rydzewski K, Grunow R et al (2013) First indication for a functional CRISPR/Cas system in Francisella tularensis. Int J Med Microbiol 303:51Google Scholar
  108. Selin C, de Kievit TR, Belmonte MF et al (2016) Elucidating the role of effectors in plant–fungal interactions: progress and challenges. Front Microbiol 7:600Google Scholar
  109. Shan Q, Wang Y, Chen K et al (2013a) Rapid and efficient gene modification in rice and Brachypodium using TALENs. Mol Plant 6(4):1365–1368Google Scholar
  110. Shan Q, Wang Y, Li J et al (2013b) Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nat Biotechnol 31(8):686–688Google Scholar
  111. Shan Q, Zhang Y, Chen K et al (2015) Creation of fragrant rice by targeted knockout of the OsBADH2 gene using TALEN technology. Plant Biotechnol J 13:791–800Google Scholar
  112. Shukla VK, Doyon Y, Miller JC et al (2009) Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 459(7245):437Google Scholar
  113. Slaymaker IM, Gao L, Zetsche B et al (2016) Rationally engineered Cas9 nucleases with improved specificity. Science 351:84–88Google Scholar
  114. Sood R, Carrington B, Bishop K et al (2013) Efficient methods for targeted mutagenesis in zebrafish using zinc-finger nucleases: data from targeting of nine genes using CompoZr or CoDA ZFNs. PloS one 8(2):e57239Google Scholar
  115. Springer NM (2013) Epigenetics and crop improvement. Trends Genet 29(4):241–247Google Scholar
  116. Stoddard BL (2011) Homing endonucleases: from microbial genetic invaders to reagents for targeted DNA modification. Structure 19:7–15Google Scholar
  117. Sun Y, Jiao G, Liu Z et al (2017) Generation of high-amylose rice through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis of starch branching enzymes. Front Plant Sci 8:298Google Scholar
  118. Svitashev S, Schwartz C, Lenderts B et al (2016) Genome editing in Maize directed by CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat Commun 7:13274Google Scholar
  119. Sweat TA, Lorang JM, Bakker EG et al (2008) Characterization of natural and induced variation in the LOV1 gene, a CC-NB-LRR gene conferring victorin sensitivity and disease susceptibility in Arabidopsis. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 21:7–19Google Scholar
  120. Tang X, Lowder LG, Zhang T et al (2017) A CRISPR–Cpf1 system for efficient genome editing and transcriptional repression in plants. Nat Plants 3(3):17018Google Scholar
  121. Tian C, Zuo Z, Qiu JL (2015) Identification and characterization of ABA-responsive microRNAs in rice. J Genet Genom 42:393–402Google Scholar
  122. Townsend JA, Wright DA, Winfrey RJ et al (2009) High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 459:442–445Google Scholar
  123. Tyler AM, Bhandari DG, Poole M et al (2015) Gluten quality of bread wheat is associated with activity of RabD GTPases. Plant Biotechnol J 13(2):63–176Google Scholar
  124. Ueta R, Abe C, Watanabe T, Sugano SS et al (2017) Rapid breeding of parthenocarpic tomato plants using CRISPR/Cas9. Sci Rep 7:507Google Scholar
  125. van de Wiel CCM, Schaart JG, Lotz LAP et al (2017) New traits in crops produced by genome editing techniques based on deletions. Plant Biotechnol Rep 11(1):1–8Google Scholar
  126. Varshney RK, Mir RR, Bhatia S et al (2014) Integrated physical. Genet J 10(8):913–924Google Scholar
  127. Vinoth A, Ravindhran R (2017) Biofortification in millets: a sustainable approach for nutritional security. Front Plant Sci 8:29Google Scholar
  128. Vora S, Tuttle M, Cheng J, Church G (2016) Next stop for the CRISPR revolution: RNA guided epigenetic regulators. FEBS J 283:3181–3193Google Scholar
  129. Voytas DF (2013) Plant genome engineering with sequence-specific nucleases. Plant Biol 64:327Google Scholar
  130. Wang Y, Cheng X, Shan Q et al (2014) Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nat Biotechnol 32(9):947–951Google Scholar
  131. Wang F, Wang C, Liu P et al (2016) Enhanced rice blast resistance by CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the ERF transcription factor gene OsERF922. PloS one 11(4):0154027Google Scholar
  132. Wang P, Zhang J, Sun L et al (2017) High efficient multi-sites genome editing in allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) using CRISPR/Cas9 system. Plant Biotechnol J 16(1):137–150Google Scholar
  133. Wendt T, Holm PB, Starker CG et al (2013) TAL effector nucleases induce mutations at a pre-selected location in the genome of primary barley transformants. Plant Mol Biol 83(3):279–285Google Scholar
  134. Wissuwa M, Yano M, Ae N (1998) Mapping of QTLs for phosphorus deficiency tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Theor Appl Genet 97:777–783Google Scholar
  135. Wissuwa M, Wegner J, Ae N et al (2002) Substitution mapping of Pup1: a major QTL increasing phosphorus uptake of rice from a phosphorus deficient soil. Theor Appl Genet 105:890–897Google Scholar
  136. Wolt JD, Wang K, Yang B (2016a) The regulatory status of genome-edited crops. Plant Biotechnol J 14:510–518Google Scholar
  137. Wolt JD, Wang K, Sashital D et al (2016b) Achieving plant CRISPR targeting that limits off-target effects. Plant Genome 9(3):1–8Google Scholar
  138. Wolter F, Puchta H (2017) Knocking out consumer concerns and regulator’s rules: efficient use of CRISPR/Cas ribonucleoprotein complexes for genome editing in cereals. Genome biol 18(1):43Google Scholar
  139. Woo JW, Kim J, Kwon SI et al (2015) DNA-free genome editing in plants with preassembled CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Nat Biotechnol 33(11):1162–1164Google Scholar
  140. Xie K, Yang Y (2013) RNA-guided genome editing in plants using a CRISPR–Cas system. Mol Plant 6:1975–1983Google Scholar
  141. Xie K, Zhang J, Yang Y (2014) Genome-wide prediction of highly specific guide RNA spacers for CRISPR–Cas9-mediated genome editing in model plants and major crops. Mol Plant 7(5):923–926Google Scholar
  142. Xing HL, Dong L, Wang ZP et al (2014) A CRISPR/Cas9 toolkit for multiplex genome editing in plants. BMC Plant Biol 14(1):327Google Scholar
  143. Zaidi SSEA, Mahfouz MM, Mansoor S (2017) CRISPR-Cpf1: A new tool for plant genome editing. Trends Plant Sci 22(7):550–553Google Scholar
  144. Zentner GE, Henikoff S (2014) High-resolution digital profiling of the epigenome. Nat Rev Genet 15:814–827Google Scholar
  145. Zetsche B, Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO et al (2015) Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 163(3):759–771Google Scholar
  146. Zhang F, Maeder ML, Unger-Wallace E et al (2010) High frequency targeted mutagenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana using zinc finger nucleases. PNAS 107(26):12028–12033Google Scholar
  147. Zhang Y, Zhang F, Li X et al (2013a) Transcription activator-like effector nucleases enable efficient plant genome engineering. Plant Physiol 161:20–27Google Scholar
  148. Zhang YC, Yu Y, Wang CY et al (2013b) Overexpression of microRNA OsmiR397 improves rice yield by increasing grain size and promoting panicle branching. Nat Biotechnol 31:848–852Google Scholar
  149. Zhang D, Wang Z, Wang N et al (2014) Tissue culture-induced heritable genomic variation in rice, and their phenotypic implications. PloS one 9(5):96879Google Scholar
  150. Zhou H, Liu B, Weeks DP et al (2014) Large chromosomal deletions and heritable small genetic changes induced by CRISPR/Cas9 in rice. Nucleic Acids Res 42(17):10903–10914Google Scholar
  151. Zhou H, He M, Li J et al (2016) Development of commercial thermo-sensitive genic male sterile rice accelerates hybrid rice breeding using the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated TMS5 editing system. Sci Rep 6:37395Google Scholar
  152. Zhou J, Deng K, Cheng Y et al (2017) CRISPR-Cas9 Based Genome Editing Reveals New Insights into MicroRNA Function and Regulation in Rice. Front Plant Sci 8:1598Google Scholar
  153. Zimin A, Stevens KA, Crepeau (2014) Sequencing and assembly of the 22-Gb loblolly pine genome. Genet 196(3):875–890Google Scholar
  154. Zentner GE, Henikoff S (2015) Epigenome editing made easy. Nat Biotechnol 33(6):606–607Google Scholar
  155. Zhang Y, Liang Z, Zong Y, Wang Y, Liu J, Chen K, Qiu J-L, Gao C (2016) Efficient and transgene-free genome editing in wheat through transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 DNA or RNA. Nat Commun 7:12617Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biotechnology SectionICAR-Indian Institute of Rice Research (IIRR)HyderabadIndia

Personalised recommendations