4.7 Review

Expanding Gene-Editing Potential in Crop Improvement with Pangenomes

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms23042276

关键词

pangenomes; CRISPR-Cas; structural variations; gene editing; genomes

资金

  1. Australia Research Council [DP210100296, DP200100762, DE210100398]
  2. Grains Research and Development Corporation [9177539, 9177591]
  3. Pawsey Supercomputing Centre
  4. Australian Government
  5. Government of Western Australia
  6. Australian Research Council [DE210100398] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pangenomes aim to represent the complete repertoire of the genomic diversity within a species or group of species, capturing the structural variance between individuals. They can be used to identify genes and alleles associated with abiotic stress tolerance, disease resistance, and other desirable traits when combined with phenotypic data.
Pangenomes aim to represent the complete repertoire of the genome diversity present within a species or cohort of species, capturing the genomic structural variance between individuals. This genomic information coupled with phenotypic data can be applied to identify genes and alleles involved with abiotic stress tolerance, disease resistance, and other desirable traits. The characterisation of novel structural variants from pangenomes can support genome editing approaches such as Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats and CRISPR associated protein Cas (CRISPR-Cas), providing functional information on gene sequences and new target sites in variant-specific genes with increased efficiency. This review discusses the application of pangenomes in genome editing and crop improvement, focusing on the potential of pangenomes to accurately identify target genes for CRISPR-Cas editing of plant genomes while avoiding adverse off-target effects. We consider the limitations of applying CRISPR-Cas editing with pangenome references and potential solutions to overcome these limitations.

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