4.1 Article

Knockout of Cia5 gene using CRISPR/Cas9 technique in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and evaluating CO2 sequestration in control and mutant isolates

Journal

JOURNAL OF GENETICS
Volume 101, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

INDIAN ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1007/s12041-021-01350-x

Keywords

CRISPR; Cas9 technology; Cia5 gene; CO2 sequestration; Chlamydomonas reinhardtii

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study knocked out the Cia5 gene in algae using CRISPR/Cas9 technology and investigated its impact on the CO2 sequestration ability of C. reinhardtii. The results showed that the mutant species had lower CO2 removal efficiency compared to the control species.
CRISPR/Cas9 technology is one of the common methods of genome editing and targeted gene mutation, which has recently been used for manipulating microalgae such as Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Besides, this technology can play a role in the fight against greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide) production by studying genetic pathways to improve algal strains. Among several genes in algae that respond to CO2 and regulators control the expression of each; Cia5 is one of the most critical transcriptional regulators. In this research, we knocked out the Cia5 gene using the CRISPR/Cas9 technique and analysed the ability of C. reinhardtii to perform CO2 sequestration. Our results showed that C. reinhardtii has better performance (i.e., response to CO2 treatment) in both control and mutant species at 0.5% CO2 concentration than other concentrations. However, the difference between the control microalgae species and the mutant species was in the CO2 removal efficiency. Additionally, our findings revealed that the control type isolate in CO2 concentrations of 0.04%, 0.5% and 1% had removal efficiencies of 27%, 37% and 21%, respectively. Nevertheless, for mutant species in the same concentrations, the observed removal efficiencies were 16%, 23% and 9%.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available