4.7 Review

CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology: a precise and efficient tool for crop quality improvement

Journal

PLANTA
Volume 258, Issue 2, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00425-023-04187-z

Keywords

CRISPR; Cas9; Gene editing; Crop; Quality improvement

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This review provides a direction for crop quality improvement and ideas for further research on the application of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology for crop improvement. It discusses the achievements of CRISPR/Cas9 gene technology in improving crop quality and the challenges and prospects of this technology.
Main conclusionThis review provides a direction for crop quality improvement and ideas for further research on the application of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology for crop improvement.Various important crops, such as wheat, rice, soybean and tomato, are among the main sources of food and energy for humans. Breeders have long attempted to improve crop yield and quality through traditional breeding methods such as crossbreeding. However, crop breeding progress has been slow due to the limitations of traditional breeding methods. In recent years, clustered regularly spaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas9 gene editing technology has been continuously developed. And with the refinement of crop genome data, CRISPR/Cas9 technology has enabled significant breakthroughs in editing specific genes of crops due to its accuracy and efficiency. Precise editing of certain key genes in crops by means of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has improved crop quality and yield and has become a popular strategy for many breeders to focus on and adopt. In this paper, the present status and achievements of CRISPR/Cas9 gene technology as applied to the improvement of quality in several crops are reviewed. In addition, the shortcomings, challenges and development prospects of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology are discussed.

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