4.7 Article

DNA-free genome editing in grapevine using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes followed by protoplast regeneration

期刊

HORTICULTURE RESEARCH
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/hr/uhac240

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology has great potential for crop improvement and food production. Researchers have developed an efficient method to obtain transgene-free edited grapevine plants by delivering preassembled Cas9-sgRNA RNP complexes into protoplasts.
CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology can overcome many limitations of traditional breeding, offering enormous potential for crop improvement and food production. Although the direct delivery of Cas9-single guide RNA (sgRNA) ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes to grapevine (Vitis vinifera) protoplasts has been shown before, the regeneration of edited protoplasts into whole plants has not been reported. Here, we describe an efficient approach to obtain transgene-free edited grapevine plants by the transfection and subsequent regeneration of protoplasts isolated from embryogenic callus. As proof of concept, a single-copy green fluorescent protein reporter gene (GFP) in the grapevine cultivar Thompson Seedless was targeted and knocked out by the direct delivery of RNPs to protoplasts. CRISPR/Cas9 activity, guided by two independent sgRNAs, was confirmed by the loss of GFP fluorescence. The regeneration of GFP(-) protoplasts into whole plants was monitored throughout development, confirming that the edited grapevine plants were comparable in morphology and growth habit to wild-type controls. We report the first highly efficient protocol for DNA-free genome editing in grapevine by the direct delivery of preassembled Cas9-sgRNA RNP complexes into protoplasts, helping to address the regulatory concerns related to genetically modified plants. This technology could encourage the application of genome editing for the genetic improvement of grapevine and other woody crop plants.

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