4.7 Article

CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the tomato susceptibility gene PMR4 for resistance against powdery mildew

期刊

BMC PLANT BIOLOGY
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12870-020-02497-y

关键词

CRISPR; Cas9; Targeted mutagenesis; PMR4; Powdery mildew; Susceptibility gene

资金

  1. National Council for Science and Technology CONACYT, Mexico

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background The development of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has facilitated targeted mutagenesis in an efficient and precise way. Previously, RNAi silencing of the susceptibility (S) genePowderyMildewResistance 4(PMR4) in tomato has been shown to enhance resistance against the powdery mildew pathogenOidium neolycopersici(On). Results To study whether full knock-out of the tomatoPMR4gene would result in a higher level of resistance than in the RNAi-silenced transgenic plants we generated tomatoPMR4CRISPR mutants. We used a CRISPR/Cas9 construct containing four single-guide RNAs (sgRNAs) targeting the tomatoPMR4gene to increase the possibility of large deletions in the mutants. After PCR-based selection and sequencing of transformants, we identified five different mutation events, including deletions from 4 to 900-bp, a 1-bp insertion and a 892-bp inversion. These mutants all showed reduced susceptibility toOnbased on visual scoring of disease symptoms and quantification of relative fungal biomass. Histological observations revealed a significantly higher occurrence of hypersensitive response-like cell death at sites of fungal infection in thepmr4mutants compared to wild-type plants. Both haustorial formation and hyphal growth were diminished but not completely inhibited in the mutants. Conclusion CRISPR/Cas-9 targeted mutagenesis of the tomatoPMR4gene resulted in mutants with reduced but not complete loss of susceptibility to the PM pathogenOn.Our study demonstrates the efficiency and versatility of the CRISPR/Cas9 system as a powerful tool to study and characterizeS-genes by generating different types of mutations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据