Next Article in Journal
Positive Effects of Oral Antibiotic Administration in Murine Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease
Next Article in Special Issue
Agrobacterium-Mediated Capsicum annuum Gene Editing in Two Cultivars, Hot Pepper CM334 and Bell Pepper Dempsey
Previous Article in Journal
Disease-Induced Modulation of Drug Transporters at the Blood–Brain Barrier Level
Previous Article in Special Issue
CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Generation of Pathogen-Resistant Tomato against Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus and Powdery Mildew
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 22
Issue 7
10.3390/ijms22073743
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Application of Upstream Open Reading Frames (uORFs) Editing for the Development of Stress-Tolerant Crops

by
Taeyoung Um
1,
Taehyeon Park
2,
Jae Sung Shim
3,
Youn Shic Kim
1,
Gang-Seob Lee
4,
Ik-Young Choi
5,
Ju-Kon Kim
2,
Jun Sung Seo
2,* and
Soo Chul Park
4,*
1
Agriculture and Life Sciences Research Institute, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea
2
Crop Biotechnology Institute, GreenBio Science and Technology, Seoul National University, Pyeongchang 25354, Korea
3
School of Biological Sciences and Technology, Chonnam National University, Gwangju 61186, Korea
4
Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, National Academy of Agricultural Science, Rural Development Administration, Jeonju 54874, Korea
5
Department of Agricultural and Life Industry, Kangwon National University, Chuncheon 24341, Korea
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(7), 3743; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073743
Submission received: 24 February 2021 / Revised: 27 March 2021 / Accepted: 31 March 2021 / Published: 3 April 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Crop Improvement through Multi-Trait Gene Editing or Multiple Genes-Editing)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Global population growth and climate change are posing increasing challenges to the production of a stable crop supply using current agricultural practices. The generation of genetically modified (GM) crops has contributed to improving crop stress tolerance and productivity; however, many regulations are still in place that limit their commercialization. Recently, alternative biotechnology-based strategies, such as gene-edited (GE) crops, have been in the spotlight. Gene-editing technology, based on the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) platform, has emerged as a revolutionary tool for targeted gene mutation, and has received attention as a game changer in the global biotechnology market. Here, we briefly introduce the concept of upstream open reading frames (uORFs) editing, which allows for control of the translation of downstream ORFs, and outline the potential for enhancing target gene expression by mutating uORFs. We discuss the current status of developing stress-tolerant crops, and discuss uORF targets associated with salt stress-responsive genes in rice that have already been verified by transgenic research. Finally, we overview the strategy for developing GE crops using uORF editing via the CRISPR-Cas9 system. A case is therefore made that the mutation of uORFs represents an efficient method for developing GE crops and an expansion of the scope of application of genome editing technology.

1. Introduction

Crop productivity is increasingly threatened by climate change, and this issue is exacerbated by the growing global population. For example, climate change is causing environmental stress, as exemplified by elevated temperatures, drought, and flooding. On the other hand, global population growth and urbanization has resulted in the loss of agriculturally viable land. According to a study of the correlation between crop yields and global warming, an increase of 1 degree Celsius in global temperatures could result in a reduction of the global production of wheat by 6.0%, rice (Oryza sativa) by 3.2 %, corn (Zea mays) by 7.4 %, and soybeans (Glycine max) by 3.1% [1]. Additionally, it is expected that the global population will reach almost 9 billion by 2050, and the expansion of urbanization will result in an 80% loss of agricultural land by 2030 in Asia and Africa. Consequently, an increase of more than 70% of current crop production will be required to maintain food security [2,3,4].
Genetically modified (GM) crops provide a strategy to increase stress resistance and crop productivity through genetic improvement in relatively short time frames compared to traditional breeding approaches [5]. Furthermore, their generation can enhance the understanding of molecular mechanisms that affect plant development and defense, and this information has provided opportunities to improve crop yield [6,7,8]. However, regulatory hurdles for GM crop commercialization, including safety evaluation, have necessitated the development of alternative strategies involving gene-editing (GE), such as the use of zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), TAL effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) tools [9]. As an example, Calyxt has developed a TALEN-based genome-edited soybean with modified oil composition and commercialized the derived product, high oleic soybean oil, on the US market [10]. In contrast to the previous GM techniques, which randomly introduce changes, GE allows for precise modification and is identical to those derived from conventional breeding [11,12]. Thus, it is anticipated that many GE crops could be a more acceptable product than GM crops [13].
Messenger RNA (mRNA) is a transcript of the gene, and generally composed of an untranslated region (UTR and intron) and a translated coding region (exon). Upstream open reading frames (uORFs) are a cis-element in the 5’ untranslated regions (UTRs) of mRNAs that induce ribosome stalling and dissociation during the translation of mRNAs [14,15]. Most uORFs negatively regulate the expression of protein encoding main ORF (mORF) of mRNA (Figure 1A). During the translation process, the uORF in the 5’UTR is translated to short peptides, and most uORFs have a start codon (AUG), although some exceptions have been identified [14,16]. It has been predicted by sequence analysis that 49% and 44% of the total transcripts of humans and mice, respectively, have uORFs, as have 20%~40% of the total transcripts of plants such as rice, Arabidopsis thaliana, and corn [17,18]. Most stress-responsive transcripts harboring uORF are induced by specific environmental conditions, and it is known that mutations of uORF sequences reduce their capacity for negative regulation [19,20].
This review describes the strategic application of uORF sequences for developing salt stress-tolerant crops, focusing on the enhancement of the target gene expression by the mutation of uORF using CRISPR-Cas9 (Figure 1B), and discusses a general approach for developing GE crops using uORF editing.

2. Upstream Open Reading Frames (uORF)

2.1. The Process of Translation of mRNA Mediated by uORF

During mRNA translation, uORF translation causes ribosome stalling, leading to repressed translation of the mORF. This process can be divided into three stages: initiation, elongation, and termination [15,21,22,23,24]. First, the start codon in uORF is recognized by scanning the 40S ribosomal subunit and eukaryotic initiation factors (eIFs), then, in the second stage, the 60S and 80S ribosomal complexes bind to the 40S, allowing for the elongation of the polypeptide chain. Finally, the third stage involves the termination of translation in the uORF, which results in repressed translation of the mORF (Figure 2A). The detailed process can be described in the following steps: (1) ribosome stalling, physical interaction between the peptide encoded by the uORF and ribosomes; (2) the translational machinery dissociates from the mRNA after uORF translation and the mORF is not translated; (3) trigger mRNA decay, nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) is induced due to the presence of the stop codons in uORF and the recognition as premature transcript; and (4) decreasing mORF translation, after uORF translation elongation, the 40S and 60S dissociate from the uORF, and the 40S unit remains associated with the mRNA. Translation of the mORF is then re-initiated.

2.2. The Classification of uORF

The uORFs are classified by the position of the uORF stop codon [25]. Type 1: the location of the stop codon of the uORF is independent of the mORF. Type 2: the stop codon of the uORF overlaps with the mORF. Type 3: the stop codon of the uORF is the same as that of the stop codon of the mORF (Figure 2B). In rice, it was expected that uORF containing genes are 20.65% of the total genes. Type 1 and Type 2 account for 87.63% and 12.17% of the total uORFs, respectively, and there are only 41 examples of Type 3 uORFs [18,25].

2.3. Stress-Responsive uORF-Mediated Transcripts in Rice

Drought and the salinization of soils are accelerated by climate change and lead to a significant reduction in crop yield [26,27]. These environmental phenomena cause cellular dehydration by reducing the water content of the cytoplasm, leading to substantial physiological and cytological changes [28,29,30]. To survive under such stressful conditions, plants have developed a range of mechanisms to reduce the effects of drought stress, many of which are associated with extensive changes in gene expression [31,32]. Notably, it was reported that most stress-responsive transcripts harbor uORFs in plants [21,25]. Rice is an excellent model to study the significance of uORFs in stress-related gene expression since its genome has been extensively characterized, it is a major crop, and it is sensitive to drought and salt stress [33,34]. As part of a mechanism associated with salt stress, members of the chloride channel protein (CLC) family, which is found in prokaryotes and eukaryotes, play an important role in ion homeostasis [35,36]. A characterized example in rice is the OsCLC1 protein, which is located at the tonoplast in the cell [37], and overexpression of OsCLC1 in rice was found to enhance drought stress tolerance through modulating jasmonic acid (JA) signaling [38]. We predicted the uORF in OsCLC1 transcripts using uORFFlight (http://uorflight.whu.edu.cn accessed on 20 February 2021) and identified a type 1 uORF in the 5’UTR. The uORF is comprised of 33 nucleotides, including the start codon (ATG) and stop codon (TGG). We also analyzed the uORFs in the 5’UTRs of the salt stress-responsive rice genes (Table 1) through the identification of 107 salt stress-responsive genes reported in the literature, and predicted 393 uORFs in the 46 transcripts related to the transporter, transcription factor, and kinase functional categories. Of these, type 1 uORFs accounted for 91%, while only 8.7% were of type 2, and type 3 uORFs were not represented.

2.4. Avoidance of uORF-Mediated Repression of Gene Expression during Stress Responses

Under stressful conditions, plants activate their defense systems and limit their growth, which is associated with resource restrictions [39,40]. The interaction between defense and growth mechanisms in plants involves in a well-documented tradeoff system. Antagonistic interactions between JA- and gibberellic acid (GA)-regulated processes are one of the cases [41,42,43]. uORF-mediated translational control represents another instance of a tradeoff system. For example, the expression of uORF-associated transcripts is down-regulated by uORF translation under normal conditions to facilitate plant growth. To upregulate their expression under stress conditions, strategies are employed to avoid uORF-mediated translation. These include leaky scanning of the uORF and the reinitiation of the translation process, and the alternative splicing and selection of the transcription start site during the transcription process [14,43,44,45,46,47]. (1) Leaky scanning of uORF: 40S ribosome subunits initiate the translation on the mRNA 5’ cap and recognize the uORF before the mORF (Figure 1A). Unlike regular scanning, 40S ribosome subunits do not scan the uORF start codon, and recognize the mORF start codon through leaky scanning. (2) Reinitiation of translation: After translation of the uORF, the 60S ribosome subunits are released, and only 40S ribosome subunits bind to the mORF (Figure 2A). When mORF translation is required, the remaining 40S ribosome subunits in mRNA recognize the mORF start codon and associate with the 60S subunits again. (3) Alternative slicing: the uORF start codon or uORF sequences in the intron are removed by the splicing of pre-mRNA. The transcript without the uORF is generated from pre-mRNA (Figure 3A). (4) Selection of the transcription start sites: the transcripts of numerous genes are determined by multiple transcription start sites (TSSs). Under normal conditions, transcripts with a uORF are produced from TSSs located upstream of the uORF, whereas under stress conditions, transcripts without a uORF are produced from TSSs located downstream of the uORF (Figure 3B).
Table
Table 1. Analysis of uORF in salt stress responsive genes.
Table 1. Analysis of uORF in salt stress responsive genes.
GeneGene ID
(Rap-DB)		Transcript ID
(MSU)		uORF TypeExpression ResponseReference
123
HAK1Os04g0401700LOC_Os04g32920.2100down[48]
LOC_Os04g32920.4400
HAK10Os06g0625900LOC_Os06g42030.1100up[49]
HKT4Os04g0607500LOC_Os04g51820.1200up[49]
LOC_Os04g51820.2200
LOC_Os04g51820.33120
HKT6Os02g0175000LOC_Os02g07830.1210down[49]
HKT8Os01g0307500LOC_Os01g20160.1100down[49]
NHX1Os07g0666900LOC_Os07g47100.1100up[50]
LOC_Os07g47100.2100
LOC_Os07g47100.3100
SOS1Os12g0641100LOC_Os12g44360.1930up[50]
LOC_Os12g44360.2010
LOC_Os12g44360.3010
LOC_Os12g44360.4010
CAX3Os04g0653200LOC_Os04g55940.1200up[51]
LOC_Os04g55940.2100
IDS1Os03g0818800LOC_Os03g60430.1200down[52]
LOC_Os03g60430.2200
NAC6Os01g0884300LOC_Os01g66120.1100up[53]
LOC_Os01g66120.2300
EIL2Os07g0685700LOC_Os07g48630.1100down[54]
LOC_Os07g48630.21200
bHLH035Os01g0159800LOC_Os01g06640.1300up[55]
LOC_Os01g06640.2200
LOC_Os01g06640.31400
LEA5Os05g0584200LOC_Os05g50710.1100up[56]
JAZ9Os03g0180800LOC_Os03g08310.1100down[57]
RSS3Os11g0446000LOC_Os03g08310.1100up[58]
ACA6Os01g0939100LOC_Os01g71240.1300up[59]
RLCK3Os01g0113300LOC_Os01g02300.1100up[60]
RLCK5Os01g0114100LOC_Os01g02390.1010up[60]
LOC_Os01g02390.2010
RLCK6Os01g0114300LOC_Os01g02400.1000up[60]
LOC_Os01g02400.21710
LOC_Os01g02400.33900
RLCK27Os01g0247500LOC_Os01g14510.1800up[60]
RLCK42Os01g0602800LOC_Os01g41870.1100down[60]
LOC_Os01g41870.2100
RLCK48Os01g0852100LOC_Os01g63280.12030down[60]
LOC_Os01g63280.2110
LOC_Os01g63280.31430
RLCK57Os01g0973500LOC_Os01g74200.1100up[60]
RLCK72Os02g0513000LOC_Os02g30900.1200up[60]
RLCK80Os02g0650500LOC_Os02g43430.1100up[60]
RLCK85 (ER2)Os02g0777400LOC_Os02g53720.1100down[60]
LOC_Os02g53720.2100
RLCK95Os03g0113000LOC_Os03g02190.1010down[60]
RLCK101 (PTK3)Os03g0159100LOC_Os03g06330.1900up[60]
RLCK106Os03g0264300LOC_Os03g15770.1400up[60]
LOC_Os03g15770.2110
LOC_Os03g15770.3500
RLCK110 (PTK5)Os03g0407900LOC_Os03g29410.1200up[60]
RLCK167Os04g0654600LOC_Os04g56060.1300down[60]
RLCK168Os04g0655300LOC_Os04g56110.1600up[60]
LOC_Os04g56110.22300
LOC_Os04g56110.3500
RLCK191Os05g0589700LOC_Os05g51190.2100down[60]
LOC_Os05g51190.3100
RLCK194 (PUB5)Os06g0140800LOC_Os06g04880.1200up[60]
RLCK204Os06g0203800LOC_Os06g10230.1110down[60]
RLCK216 (RRK1)Os06g0693200LOC_Os06g47820.1100up[60]
RLCK218Os06g0714900LOC_Os06g50100.1600up[60]
RLCK223Os07g0159700LOC_Os07g06570.1100down[60]
RLCK242Os07g0693000LOC_Os07g49240.1100down[60]
RLCK249 (ER1)Os06g0203800LOC_Os06g10230.1110down[60]
RLCK301Os10g0442800LOC_Os10g30600.1100up[60]
LOC_Os10g30600.2500
RLCK334Os11g0556400LOC_Os11g35274.1100down[60]
RLCK373Os12g0611100LOC_Os12g41710.1400down[60]
LOC_Os12g41710.23000
LOC_Os12g41710.31600
LOC_Os12g41710.42900
RLCK375Os12g0615300LOC_Os12g42070.1700down[60]
Aldh2aOs02g0730000LOC_Os02g49720.6710up[61]
ABA2Os03g0810800LOC_Os03g59610.1100up[55]

3. Genetically Modified (GM) Crops

Various strategies have been used to develop biotech crops, including GM crops, which are projected to be important for meeting crop yield targets and food security goals [62,63]. The development of GM crops began in the 1980s and focused on the insertion of useful genes into plant genomes or the suppressed expression of undesirable genes through genetic engineering coupled with innovative plant transformation techniques [64,65,66]. Plant genetic engineering was further accelerated by discovery-based studies of model experimental species, such as Arabidopsis thaliana [67]. The alteration or introduction of agronomically important traits, such as insect resistance or herbicide tolerance, can be achieved through the insertion of a foreign gene into the plant genome. Indeed, the first generation of transgenic crops included corn, soybean, and cotton lines, into which bacterial genes were introduced to confer herbicide resistance or pest resistance [68,69,70]. The development of such crops’ tolerance has led to reductions in the application of pesticides and an expansion of weed management options [71,72].

3.1. Development of the First GM Crops

In 1994, the Flavr SavrTM tomato became the first commercial GM crop to have food and environmental safety approval. This commercial variety harbored a native gene encoding the cell wall degrading enzyme polygalacturonase that had been inserted in the antisense direction, with the intent of delaying fruit softening, and thus extending shelf life. To date, GM crops have been developed for at least 403 varieties of 29 crops targeting multiple traits, including herbicides and pest resistance, and while the worldwide area cultivated with GM crops was only 1.7 million hectares in 1996, it reached 190.4 million hectares by 2019 [73]. This area continues to increase annually; the United States cultivates the greatest area of GM crops (71.5 million hectares), followed by Brazil (52.8 million), Argentina (24.0 million), Canada (12.5 million), and India (11.9 million). Between 1996 and 2019, herbicide tolerance and insect resistance were the principal target traits, but a more recent focus has been on the development of stacked traits, including increased yield and tolerance to abiotic and biotic stresses. The cultivation area of GM crops with stacked traits increased from 58.5 million hectares in 2015 to 85.1 million hectares in 2019 [73].
Since the development of the first GM crops, a variety of genes and hormone regulated pathways that affect plant stress response have been identified, and GM crops have been developed to improve traits such as yield and tolerance to abiotic stresses, including drought and high salinity [74]. Thus, elucidation of the molecular mechanisms of hormone biosynthesis and signaling pathways are providing new genes to target for developing GE crops [7,8].

3.2. Hormone Regulation in Plant Salt Stress Response

Many details of the molecular mechanisms by which the phytohormones abscisic acid (ABA) and JA regulate salt and drought stress responses have been uncovered. It has been shown that JA signal transduction is propagated by the degradation of the jasmonate ZIM domain (JAZ) repressor proteins. This degradation allows transcription factors (TFs) to bind to the promoter of JA response genes, which include salt-responsive genes, inducing their transcription [75,76]. As an example, it was reported that, in rice, OsJAZ9 regulates transcription of the TF OsbHLH062, which is involved in salt stress tolerance in rice [57]. ABA belongs to a class of metabolites known as isoprenoids, also called terpenoids [77], and conjugated forms of ABA play an important role in ABA homeostasis. Examples include phaseic acid, a catabolite of ABA that is generated through the action of an ABA 8′-hydroxylase (ABA8ox), and an inactivated glucose-conjugated form, mediated by ABA glucosyltransferase (AOG). Accordingly, loss of function mutants of ABA8ox accumulate more ABA than transgenic Arabidopsis plants overexpressing ABA biosynthetic genes [78]. Under salt stress conditions, ABA concentrations in rice are significantly higher, and the expression of ABA biosynthesis genes, including OsABA2 and OsAAO3, is induced [55]. Genes involved in regulating ABA levels are therefore of interest as targets for the development of salt-tolerant crops. Moreover, ion homeostasis in the cell is essential for tolerance to salt stress, and high-affinity potassium transporters (HKTs), Na+/H+ exchangers (NHXs), and salt overly sensitive (SOS) have all been shown to regulate salt stress tolerance in the plant through the balance of intracellular sodium levels [79,80]. Knowledge of these hormone synthesis pathways and salt stress signaling pathways has guided the utilization of plant genetic engineering tools for improving salt stress resistance in crops.

4. Enhancing Gene Expression in Crops by Editing uORFs Using the CRISPR System as an Alternative to GM Approaches

Over the last few decades, GM crops have been developed based on the functional study of individual genes. However, the average time and cost for developing GM crops is 13 years and $130 million, respectively, and in many countries, regulatory obstacles still block the commercial cultivation of GM crops [81]. Recently, GE technology, which involves the precise modification of the target genome locus, has enabled the development of bio-engineered crops at a lower cost and in a shorter time period [82,83]. However, this approach has inherent limitations in terms of target gene selection compared to GM technology. GM technology was applied for both overexpression and repression of the target genes. However, GE technology has mainly been applied so far for generating the mutants of target genes by mutation and deletion. Here, we highlight the potential for editing uORFs using GE technology to enhance the expression of target genes associated with various crop traits, thereby expanding the scope of target gene selection and allowing for precise control of target gene expression. For example, editing of the uORF of LsGGP2, which encodes an enzyme involved in vitamin C biosynthesis, using the CRISPR-Cas9 system conferred enhanced oxidative stress tolerance and elevated ascorbate levels [84]. In addition, editing the conserved uORF of FvebZIP1.1, which fine-tunes carbon–nitrogen metabolism, resulted in enhanced sugar content in strawberries compared to wild-type [85]
Generally, elevated expression of stress-related genes inhibits plant growth due to the tradeoff between growth and defense. For example, overexpression of AtJMT in rice led to drought tolerance but decreased growth and yield [86]. Many salt stress-responsive genes, including HAK1, NHX1, SOS1, IDS1, NAC6, EIL2, bHLH035, JAZ9, RSS3, ACA6, and ABA2 (Table 1), have been identified and functionally characterized by transgenic research. The editing of uORFs in crops using GE technology to target such genes with a verified function associated with stress resistance would be expected to save time and incur less financial cost than traditional breeding or GM approaches, and this strategy is of growing interest [87].
We summarize the process of gene editing of uORFs with the CRISPR system for the development of GE crops (Figure 4): (1) screening mutants or genes for improving the crop traits of interest, such as salt stress-resistance; (2) investigating the gene function and traits, then isolating the candidate genes; (3) analysis and prediction of uORFs in the 5’UTR of the selected gene; (4) investigating the predicted uORFs using a dual-luciferase assay in protoplasts; (5) constructing a CRISPR vector for targeting uORFs and generating the uORF mutant; (6) assessing altered expression of the target gene by uORF mutation and selecting the homozygous mutants without transgene by genotyping; and (7) characterizing the GE crop traits under field conditions.

5. Future Prospects

A second ‘green revolution’ is required to support the growing global population and to mitigate negative environmental impacts. To develop biotech crops, it is necessary to identify genes’ underlying quality traits involved in plant defense and growth. The function of stress-responsive genes has been long been characterized in plants using transgenic plant technologies, and recent GE technologies, such as CRISPR and TALEN, are becoming increasingly widespread. The application of uORF mutations via GE has great potential to expand the diversity and global market of GE crops, and will likely be an important factor in stabilizing the food supply and supporting future sustainable agricultural systems.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.U., J.S.S. (Jun Sung Seo), and S.C.P.; investigation, T.U., J.S.S. (Jun Sung Seo), T.P., J.S.S. (Jae Sung Shim), Y.S.K., G.-S.L., I.-Y.C., J.-K.K., and S.C.P.; writing-original draft preparation, T.U.; writing-review and editing, J.S.S. (Jun Sung Seo); visualization, T.U.; funding acquition, S.C.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a grant from the New Breeding Technologies Development Program (Project No. PJ01479303), Rural Development Administration, Republic of Korea.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to an anonymous reviewer for their comments and critical reading of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhao, C.; Liu, B.; Piao, S.; Wang, X.; Lobell, D.B.; Huang, Y.; Huang, M.; Yao, Y.; Bassu, S.; Ciais, P.; et al. Temperature increase reduces global yields of major crops in four independent estimates. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 9326–9331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. d’Amour, C.B.; Reitsma, F.; Baiocchi, G.; Barthel, S.; Güneralp, B.; Erb, K.-H.; Haberl, H.; Creutzig, F.; Seto, K.C. Future urban land expansion and implications for global croplands. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 8939–8944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Ray, D.K.; Mueller, N.D.; West, P.C.; Foley, J.A. Yield trends are insufficient to double global crop production by 2050. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e66428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Röös, E.; Bajželj, B.; Smith, P.; Patel, M.; Little, D.; Garnett, T. Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050 under different livestock futures. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 47, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kamthan, A.; Chaudhuri, A.; Kamthan, M.; Datta, A. Genetically modified (GM) crops: Milestones and new advances in crop improvement. Theor. Appl. Genet. 2016, 129, 1639–1655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Sakamoto, T. Phytohormones and rice crop yield: Strategies and opportunities for genetic improvement. Transgenic Res. 2006, 15, 399–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. McSteen, P.; Zhao, Y. Plant hormones and signaling: Common themes and new developments. Dev. Cell 2008, 14, 467–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Spartz, A.K.; Gray, W.M. Plant hormone receptors: New perceptions. Genes Dev. 2008, 22, 2139–2148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Gaj, T.; Gersbach, C.A.; Barbas, C.F., III. ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering. Trends Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 397–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Calyxt Inc. First Commercial Sale of Calyxt High Oleic Soybean Oil on the U.S. Market; Calyxt Inc.: St. Paul, MN, USA, 2019; Available online: https://calyxt.com/first-commercial-sale-of-calyxt-high-oleic-soybean-oil-on-the-u-s-market (accessed on 26 February 2019).
  11. Sikora, P.; Chawade, A.; Larsson, M.; Olsson, J.; Olsson, O. Mutagenesis as a tool in plant genetics, functional genomics, and breeding. Int. J. Plant Genom. 2011, 2011, 314829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Grohmann, L.; Keilwagen, J.; Duensing, N.; Dagand, E.; Hartung, F.; Wilhelm, R.; Bendiek, J.; Sprink, T. Detection and identification of genome editing in plants: Challenges and opportunities. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  13. Menz, J.; Modrzejewski, D.; Hartung, F.; Wilhelm, R.; Sprink, T. Genome edited crops touch the market: A view on the global development and regulatory environment. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 586027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kurihara, Y. uORF Shuffling Fine-Tunes Gene Expression at a Deep Level of the Process. Plants 2020, 9, 608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Morris, D.R.; Geballe, A.P. Upstream open reading frames as regulators of mRNA translation. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2000, 20, 8635–8642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Bazin, J.; Baerenfaller, K.; Gosai, S.J.; Gregory, B.D.; Crespi, M.; Bailey-Serres, J. Global analysis of ribosome-associated noncoding RNAs unveils new modes of translational regulation. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, E10018–E10027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Calvo, S.E.; Pagliarini, D.J.; Mootha, V.K. Upstream open reading frames cause widespread reduction of protein expression and are polymorphic among humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 7507–7512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Von Arnim, A.G.; Jia, Q.; Vaughn, J.N. Regulation of plant translation by upstream open reading frames. Plant Sci. 2014, 214, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Ebina, I.; Takemoto-Tsutsumi, M.; Watanabe, S.; Koyama, H.; Endo, Y.; Kimata, K.; Igarashi, T.; Murakami, K.; Kudo, R.; Ohsumi, A. Identification of novel Arabidopsis thaliana upstream open reading frames that control expression of the main coding sequences in a peptide sequence-dependent manner. Nucleic Acids Res. 2015, 43, 1562–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Hayashi, N.; Sasaki, S.; Takahashi, H.; Yamashita, Y.; Naito, S.; Onouchi, H. Identification of Arabidopsis thaliana upstream open reading frames encoding peptide sequences that cause ribosomal arrest. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017, 45, 8844–8858. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Barbosa, C.; Peixeiro, I.; Romão, L. Gene expression regulation by upstream open reading frames and human disease. PLoS Genet. 2013, 9, e1003529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Wittmann, J.; Hol, E.M.; Jäck, H.-M. hUPF2 silencing identifies physiologic substrates of mammalian nonsense-mediated mRNA decay. Mol. Cell. Biol. 2006, 26, 1272–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Yepiskoposyan, H.; Aeschimann, F.; Nilsson, D.; Okoniewski, M.; Mühlemann, O. Autoregulation of the nonsense-mediated mRNA decay pathway in human cells. RNA 2011, 17, 2108–2118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Spriggs, K.A.; Bushell, M.; Willis, A.E. Translational regulation of gene expression during conditions of cell stress. Mol. Cell 2010, 40, 228–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Niu, R.; Zhou, Y.; Zhang, Y.; Mou, R.; Tang, Z.; Wang, Z.; Zhou, G.; Guo, S.; Yuan, M.; Xu, G. uORFlight: A vehicle toward uORF-mediated translational regulation mechanisms in eukaryotes. Database (Oxford) 2020, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Mittler, R. Abiotic stress, the field environment and stress combination. Trends Plant Sci. 2006, 11, 15–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Peet, M.; Kramer, P. Effects of decreasing source/sink ratio in soybeans on photosynthesis, photorespiration, transpiration and yield. Plant Cell Environ. 1980, 3, 201–206. [Google Scholar]
  28. Munns, R. Comparative physiology of salt and water stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2002, 25, 239–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Bartels, D.; Sunkar, R. Drought and salt tolerance in plants. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 23–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Verslues, P.E.; Agarwal, M.; Katiyar-Agarwal, S.; Zhu, J.; Zhu, J.K. Methods and concepts in quantifying resistance to drought, salt and freezing, abiotic stresses that affect plant water status. Plant J. 2006, 45, 523–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Wellman, C.H.; Gray, J. The microfossil record of early land plants. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2000, 355, 717–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Wellman, C.H.; Osterloff, P.L.; Mohiuddin, U. Fragments of the earliest land plants. Nature 2003, 425, 282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Eckardt, N.A. Sequencing the rice genome. Am. Soc. Plant Biol. 2000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Fairhurst, T.; Dobermann, A. Rice in the global food supply. World 2002, 5, 454, 349–511, 675. [Google Scholar]
  35. Mindell, J.; Maduke, M. ClC chloride channels. Genome Biol. 2001, 2, reviews3003.1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Jentsch, T.J. CLC chloride channels and transporters: From genes to protein structure, pathology and physiology. Crit. Rev. Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2008, 43, 3–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Nakamura, A.; Fukuda, A.; Sakai, S.; Tanaka, Y. Molecular cloning, functional expression and subcellular localization of two putative vacuolar voltage-gated chloride channels in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Cell Physiol. 2006, 47, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Um, T.Y.; Lee, S.; Kim, J.-K.; Jang, G.; Do Choi, Y. CHLORIDE CHANNEL 1 promotes drought tolerance in rice, leading to increased grain yield. Plant Biotechnol. Rep. 2018, 12, 283–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Huot, B.; Yao, J.; Montgomery, B.L.; He, S.Y. Growth–defense tradeoffs in plants: A balancing act to optimize fitness. Mol. Plant 2014, 7, 1267–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Züst, T.; Agrawal, A.A. Trade-offs between plant growth and defense against insect herbivory: An emerging mechanistic synthesis. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2017, 68, 513–534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Hou, X.; Ding, L.; Yu, H. Crosstalk between GA and JA signaling mediates plant growth and defense. Plant Cell Rep. 2013, 32, 1067–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yang, D.-L.; Yao, J.; Mei, C.-S.; Tong, X.-H.; Zeng, L.-J.; Li, Q.; Xiao, L.-T.; Sun, T.-P.; Li, J.; Deng, X.-W. Plant hormone jasmonate prioritizes defense over growth by interfering with gibberellin signaling cascade. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E1192–E1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Um, T.Y.; Lee, H.Y.; Lee, S.; Chang, S.H.; Chung, P.J.; Oh, K.-B.; Kim, J.-K.; Jang, G.; Choi, Y.D. JASMONATE ZIM-DOMAIN PROTEIN 9 interacts with SLENDER RICE 1 to mediate the antagonistic interaction between jasmonic and gibberellic acid signals in rice. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1866. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. van der Horst, S.; Filipovska, T.; Hanson, J.; Smeekens, S. Metabolite control of translation by conserved peptide uORFs: The ribosome as a metabolite multisensor. Plant Physiol. 2020, 182, 110–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Kozak, M. Effects of intercistronic length on the efficiency of reinitiation by eucaryotic ribosomes. Mol. Cell. Biol. 1987, 7, 3438–3445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Srivastava, A.K.; Lu, Y.; Zinta, G.; Lang, Z.; Zhu, J.-K. UTR-dependent control of gene expression in plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2018, 23, 248–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Tokizawa, M.; Kusunoki, K.; Koyama, H.; Kurotani, A.; Sakurai, T.; Suzuki, Y.; Sakamoto, T.; Kurata, T.; Yamamoto, Y.Y. Identification of Arabidopsis genic and non-genic promoters by paired-end sequencing of TSS tags. Plant J. 2017, 90, 587–605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Chen, G.; Hu, Q.; Luo, L.; Yang, T.; Zhang, S.; Hu, Y.; Yu, L.; Xu, G. Rice potassium transporter O s HAK 1 is essential for maintaining potassium-mediated growth and functions in salt tolerance over low and high potassium concentration ranges. Plant Cell Environ. 2015, 38, 2747–2765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, H.; Zhang, M.; Guo, R.; Shi, D.; Liu, B.; Lin, X.; Yang, C. Effects of salt stress on ion balance and nitrogen metabolism of old and young leaves in rice (Oryza sativa L.). BMC Plant Biol. 2012, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  50. Hossain, M.M.; Imran, S.; Islam, M.A.; Abdul, M. Expressional analysis of OsNHX1, OsNHX2, OsSOS1 and Os DREB transporters in salt tolerant (FR13A) and salt sensitive rice (brri dhan29) induced by salinity stress. IOSR J. Agric. Vet. Sci. 2017, 10, 64–70. [Google Scholar]
  51. Yamada, N.; Theerawitaya, C.; Cha-um, S.; Kirdmanee, C.; Takabe, T. Expression and functional analysis of putative vacuolar Ca 2+-transporters (CAXs and ACAs) in roots of salt tolerant and sensitive rice cultivars. Protoplasma 2014, 251, 1067–1075. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Cheng, X.; Zhang, S.; Tao, W.; Zhang, X.; Liu, J.; Sun, J.; Zhang, H.; Pu, L.; Huang, R.; Chen, T. INDETERMINATE SPIKELET1 recruits histone deacetylase and a transcriptional repression complex to regulate rice salt tolerance. Plant Physiol. 2018, 178, 824–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Nakashima, K.; Tran, L.S.P.; Van Nguyen, D.; Fujita, M.; Maruyama, K.; Todaka, D.; Ito, Y.; Hayashi, N.; Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Functional analysis of a NAC-type transcription factor OsNAC6 involved in abiotic and biotic stress-responsive gene expression in rice. Plant J. 2007, 51, 617–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Yang, C.; Ma, B.; He, S.-J.; Xiong, Q.; Duan, K.-X.; Yin, C.-C.; Chen, H.; Lu, X.; Chen, S.-Y.; Zhang, J.-S. MAOHUZI6/ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE3-LIKE1 and ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE3-LIKE2 regulate ethylene response of roots and coleoptiles and negatively affect salt tolerance in rice. Plant Physiol. 2015, 169, 148–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Chen, H.-C.; Cheng, W.-H.; Hong, C.-Y.; Chang, Y.-S.; Chang, M.-C. The transcription factor OsbHLH035 mediates seed germination and enables seedling recovery from salt stress through ABA-dependent and ABA-independent pathways, respectively. Rice 2018, 11, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Wang, X.-S.; Zhu, H.-B.; Jin, G.-L.; Liu, H.-L.; Wu, W.-R.; Zhu, J. Genome-scale identification and analysis of LEA genes in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Sci. 2007, 172, 414–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, H.; Ye, H.; Yao, R.; Zhang, T.; Xiong, L. OsJAZ9 acts as a transcriptional regulator in jasmonate signaling and modulates salt stress tolerance in rice. Plant Sci. 2015, 232, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Toda, Y.; Tanaka, M.; Ogawa, D.; Kurata, K.; Kurotani, K.-I.; Habu, Y.; Ando, T.; Sugimoto, K.; Mitsuda, N.; Katoh, E. RICE SALT SENSITIVE3 forms a ternary complex with JAZ and class-C bHLH factors and regulates jasmonate-induced gene expression and root cell elongation. Plant Cell 2013, 25, 1709–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Huda, K.M.; Banu, M.S.A.; Garg, B.; Tula, S.; Tuteja, R.; Tuteja, N. Os ACA 6, a P-type IIB Ca2+ ATP ase promotes salinity and drought stress tolerance in tobacco by ROS scavenging and enhancing the expression of stress-responsive genes. Plant J. 2013, 76, 997–1015. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Vij, S.; Giri, J.; Dansana, P.K.; Kapoor, S.; Tyagi, A.K. The receptor-like cytoplasmic kinase (OsRLCK) gene family in rice: Organization, phylogenetic relationship, and expression during development and stress. Mol. Plant 2008, 1, 732–750. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Ranawake, A.L.; Mori, N.; Nakamura, C. Expression profiles of stress responsive genes in rice (Oryza sativa L.) under abiotic stresses. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2012, 26, 2838–2843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ahmad, P.; Ashraf, M.; Younis, M.; Hu, X.; Kumar, A.; Akram, N.A.; Al-Qurainy, F. Role of transgenic plants in agriculture and biopharming. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 524–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. He, Z.; Xia, X.; Peng, S.; Lumpkin, T.A. Meeting demands for increased cereal production in China. J. Cereal Sci. 2014, 59, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Barton, K.A.; Binns, A.N.; Matzke, A.J.; Chilton, M.-D. Regeneration of intact tobacco plants containing full length copies of genetically engineered T-DNA, and transmission of T-DNA to R1 progeny. Cell 1983, 32, 1033–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gatehouse, J.A. Biotechnological prospects for engineering insect-resistant plants. Plant Physiol. 2008, 146, 881–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  66. Herrera-Estrella, L.; Depicker, A.; Van Montagu, M.; Schell, J. Expression of chimaeric genes transferred into plant cells using a Ti-plasmid-derived vector. Nature 1983, 303, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Meinke, D.W.; Cherry, J.M.; Dean, C.; Rounsley, S.D.; Koornneef, M. Arabidopsis thaliana: A model plant for genome analysis. Science 1998, 282, 662–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Gordon-Kamm, W.J.; Spencer, T.M.; Mangano, M.L.; Adams, T.R.; Daines, R.J.; Start, W.G.; O’Brien, J.V.; Chambers, S.A.; Adams, W.R.; Willetts, N.G. Transformation of maize cells and regeneration of fertile transgenic plants. Plant Cell 1990, 2, 603–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. McCabe, D.E.; Swain, W.F.; Martinell, B.J.; Christou, P. Stable transformation of soybean (Glycine max) by particle acceleration. Bio/Technology 1988, 6, 923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Umbeck, P.; Johnson, G.; Barton, K.; Swain, W. Genetically transformed cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) plants. Bio/Technology 1987, 5, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Cerdeira, A.L.; Duke, S.O. The current status and environmental impacts of glyphosate-resistant crops. J. Environ. Qual. 2006, 35, 1633–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Raven, P.H. Does the use of transgenic plants diminish or promote biodiversity? New Biotechnol. 2010, 27, 528–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. ISAAA. Global Status of Commercialized Biotech/GM Crops in 2019: Biotech Crops Drive Socio-Economic Development and Sustainable Environment in the New Frontier; ISAAA Brief No. 55; ISAAA Ithaca: New York, NY, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  74. Wang, W.; Vinocur, B.; Altman, A. Plant responses to drought, salinity and extreme temperatures: Towards genetic engineering for stress tolerance. Planta 2003, 218, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Boter, M.; Ruíz-Rivero, O.; Abdeen, A.; Prat, S. Conserved MYC transcription factors play a key role in jasmonate signaling both in tomato and Arabidopsis. Genes Dev. 2004, 18, 1577–1591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  76. Seo, J.-S.; Joo, J.; Kim, M.-J.; Kim, Y.-K.; Nahm, B.H.; Song, S.I.; Cheong, J.-J.; Lee, J.S.; Kim, J.-K.; Choi, Y.D. OsbHLH148, a basic helix-loop-helix protein, interacts with OsJAZ proteins in a jasmonate signaling pathway leading to drought tolerance in rice. Plant J. 2011, 65, 907–921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Nambara, E.; Marion-Poll, A. Abscisic Acid Biosynthesis and Catabolism. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2005, 56, 165–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Finkelstein, R. Abscisic Acid synthesis and response. Arab. Book 2013, 11, e0166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  79. Deinlein, U.; Stephan, A.B.; Horie, T.; Luo, W.; Xu, G.; Schroeder, J.I. Plant salt-tolerance mechanisms. Trends Plant Sci. 2014, 19, 371–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  80. Hamamoto, S.; Horie, T.; Hauser, F.; Deinlein, U.; Schroeder, J.I.; Uozumi, N. HKT transporters mediate salt stress resistance in plants: From structure and function to the field. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2015, 32, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Le Page, M. The second great food war. New Sci. 2018, 239, 22–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Gaj, T.; Sirk, S.J.; Shui, S.-L.; Liu, J. Genome-editing technologies: Principles and applications. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2016, 8, a023754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  83. Ahmar, S.; Saeed, S.; Khan, M.H.U.; Ullah Khan, S.; Mora-Poblete, F.; Kamran, M.; Faheem, A.; Maqsood, A.; Rauf, M.; Saleem, S. A Revolution toward Gene-Editing Technology and Its Application to Crop Improvement. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 5665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Zhang, H.; Si, X.; Ji, X.; Fan, R.; Liu, J.; Chen, K.; Wang, D.; Gao, C. Genome editing of upstream open reading frames enables translational control in plants. Nat. Biotechnol. 2018, 36, 894–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Xing, S.; Chen, K.; Zhu, H.; Zhang, R.; Zhang, H.; Li, B.; Gao, C. Fine-tuning sugar content in strawberry. BMC Genome Biol. 2020, 21, 230. [Google Scholar]
  86. Kim, E.H.; Kim, Y.S.; Park, S.-H.; Koo, Y.J.; Do Choi, Y.; Chung, Y.-Y.; Lee, I.-J.; Kim, J.-K. Methyl jasmonate reduces grain yield by mediating stress signals to alter spikelet development in rice. Plant Physiol. 2009, 149, 1751–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Si, X.; Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Chen, K.; Gao, C. Manipulating gene translation in plants by CRISPR–Cas9-mediated genome editing of upstream open reading frames. Nat. Protoc. 2020, 15, 338–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 22 03743 g001 550
Figure 1. Overview of CRISPR-Cas9-mediated regulation of the repression of translation, as discussed in this review. (A) The mRNA (black rectangle) with uORF (gray rectangle) induces ribosome (yellow ovals) stalling in the uORF, which represses translation of the main ORF (mORF). Polypeptide: gray circle. (B) Mutation of the start codon region (green or red rectangle) in uORF using CRISPR-Cas9 inhibits ribosome stalling, leading to induced translation of mORF.
Figure 1. Overview of CRISPR-Cas9-mediated regulation of the repression of translation, as discussed in this review. (A) The mRNA (black rectangle) with uORF (gray rectangle) induces ribosome (yellow ovals) stalling in the uORF, which represses translation of the main ORF (mORF). Polypeptide: gray circle. (B) Mutation of the start codon region (green or red rectangle) in uORF using CRISPR-Cas9 inhibits ribosome stalling, leading to induced translation of mORF.
Ijms 22 03743 g001
Ijms 22 03743 g002 550
Figure 2. Regulation of uORF-mediated translation and types of uORF. (A) The various mechanism of translational repression. (B) Types of uORFs. uORFs are classified multiple type and type 1–3. Blue, gray and black rectangles indicate regions of the mRNA, yellow ovals indicate the ribosome complex, and orange circles indicate the exosome.
Figure 2. Regulation of uORF-mediated translation and types of uORF. (A) The various mechanism of translational repression. (B) Types of uORFs. uORFs are classified multiple type and type 1–3. Blue, gray and black rectangles indicate regions of the mRNA, yellow ovals indicate the ribosome complex, and orange circles indicate the exosome.
Ijms 22 03743 g002
Ijms 22 03743 g003 550
Figure 3. Mechanism of avoiding uORF-mediated repression of gene expression. Alternative splicing (A) and alternative transcription start site (TSS) (B) to exclude a uORF from mRNA.
Figure 3. Mechanism of avoiding uORF-mediated repression of gene expression. Alternative splicing (A) and alternative transcription start site (TSS) (B) to exclude a uORF from mRNA.
Ijms 22 03743 g003
Ijms 22 03743 g004 550
Figure 4. Overview of the process of gene editing of uORFs with the CRISPR system for the development of GE crops.
Figure 4. Overview of the process of gene editing of uORFs with the CRISPR system for the development of GE crops.
Ijms 22 03743 g004
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Um, T.; Park, T.; Shim, J.S.; Kim, Y.S.; Lee, G.-S.; Choi, I.-Y.; Kim, J.-K.; Seo, J.S.; Park, S.C. Application of Upstream Open Reading Frames (uORFs) Editing for the Development of Stress-Tolerant Crops. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3743. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073743

AMA Style

Um T, Park T, Shim JS, Kim YS, Lee G-S, Choi I-Y, Kim J-K, Seo JS, Park SC. Application of Upstream Open Reading Frames (uORFs) Editing for the Development of Stress-Tolerant Crops. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(7):3743. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073743

Chicago/Turabian Style

Um, Taeyoung, Taehyeon Park, Jae Sung Shim, Youn Shic Kim, Gang-Seob Lee, Ik-Young Choi, Ju-Kon Kim, Jun Sung Seo, and Soo Chul Park. 2021. "Application of Upstream Open Reading Frames (uORFs) Editing for the Development of Stress-Tolerant Crops" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, no. 7: 3743. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22073743

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop