4.7 Review

Haploid Induction in Indica Rice: Exploring New Opportunities

期刊

PLANTS-BASEL
卷 12, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/plants12173118

关键词

indica rice; doubled haploids; androgenesis; haploid inducer lines; genome editing

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Haploid plants are of great interest to crop breeders due to their ability to accelerate breeding. In vitro and in vivo methods are being explored to improve the success rate of haploid induction in indica rice and other cereals. In particular, in vivo methods that utilize mutants are promising and do not require tissue culture. These methods, combined with gene editing technologies, offer a pragmatic approach to improving indica rice cultivars.
Haploid plants are of significant interest to crop breeders due to their ability to expedite the development of inbred lines. Chromosome-doubling of haploids, produced by either in vitro or in vivo methods, results in fully homozygous doubled haploids. For nearly five decades, in vitro methods of anther and microspore culture have been attempted in many crops. In rice, in vitro methods are used with some success in japonica cultivars, although indica types have remained recalcitrant to a large extent. This review aims to explore the reasons for the lack of success of in vitro methods in indica rice and discuss new advancements in in vivo haploid induction protocols in other cereals and their relevance to rice. In particular, the current level of understanding of in vivo haploid inducer systems that utilize MTL and CENH3 mutants is analyzed in detail. One notable advantage of in vivo haploid induction systems is that they do not require tissue culture competence. This makes these methods more accessible and potentially transformative for research, offering a pragmatic approach to improving indica rice cultivars. By embracing these in vivo methods and harnessing the power of gene editing technologies like CRISPR/Cas9 systems, breeders can reshape their approach to indica rice improvement.

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