4.7 Review

Mutant Resources for the Functional Analysis of the Rice Genome

Journal

MOLECULAR PLANT
Volume 6, Issue 3, Pages 596-604

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/mp/sss142

Keywords

functional genomics; mutagenesis; mutants; rice

Funding

  1. 863 Project Grant [2012AA10A304]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31171441]
  3. Program for New Century Excellent Talents in University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Rice is one of the most important crops worldwide, both as a staple food and as a model system for genomic research. In order to systematically assign functions to all predicted genes in the rice genome, a large number of rice mutant lines, including those created by T-DNA insertion, Ds/dSpm tagging, Tos17 tagging, and chemical/irradiation mutagenesis, have been generated by groups around the world. In this study, we have reviewed the current status of mutant resources for functional analysis of the rice genome. A total of 246 566 flanking sequence tags from rice mutant libraries with T-DNA, Ds/dSpm, or Tos17 insertion have been collected and analyzed. The results show that, among 211 470 unique hits, inserts located in the genic region account for 68.16%, and 60.49% of nuclear genes contain at least one insertion. Currently, 57% of non-transposable-element-related genes in rice have insertional tags. In addition, chemical/irradiation-induced rice mutant libraries have contributed a lot to both gene identification and new technology for the identification of mutant sites. In this review, we summarize how these tools have been used to generate a large collection of mutants. In addition, we discuss the merits of classic mutation strategies. In order to achieve saturation of mutagenesis in rice, DNA targeting, and new resources like RiceFox for gene functional identification are reviewed from a perspective of the future generation of rice mutant resources.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available