Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
AgronomyAgronomy
  • Review
  • Open Access

10 January 2022

Research Trends and Challenges of Using CRISPR/Cas9 for Improving Rice Productivity

,
,
,
and
1
College of Agriculture and Life & Environment Sciences, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju 28644, Korea
2
Division of Horticultural Biotechnology, Hankyong National University, Anseong 17579, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
These authors contributed equally to this work.
This article belongs to the Special Issue Rice Genetics: Trends and Challenges for the Future Crops Production

Abstract

Nowadays, rice production faces significant challenges due to population pressure, global climate change, and outbreak of various pests and diseases. Breeding techniques used to improve rice traits include mutant breeding, cross breeding, heterogeneity, transformation, molecular markers, genome-wide association study (GWAS), and so on. Since the recently developed CRISPR/Cas9 technology can directly target a specific part of a desired gene to induce mutation, it can be used as a powerful means to expand genetic diversity of crops and develop new varieties. So far, CRISPR/Cas9 technology has been used for improving rice characteristics such as high yield, good quality, abundant nutrition, pest and disease resistance, herbicide resistance, and biotic and abiotic stress resistance. This review highlights the mechanisms and optimization of the CRISPR system and its application to rice crop, including resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses, and improved rice quality and yield.

1. Introduction

Rice is one of the most important food crops in the world. It is consumed by half of the world’s population [1]. In 2019, total rice output surpassed 755 million tons [2]. By 2050, the world’s population is projected to rise by 34% to nearly 10 billion [3]. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations has estimated that worldwide grain yields would need to rise by 70% to satisfy global demand [4]. Furthermore, climate change is also projected to increase global temperatures by 2 degrees Celsius over the next 30 years. [5]. Simiarly, soil salinity has the potential to decrease global rice output by 50% [6]. Cold stress also has the potential to diminish rice yield and quality [7]. Climate change, arable land loss, water shortages, biotic and abiotic stressors, and other factors pose new challenges to global food security, threatening crop output and causing massive losses [8]. To solve these challenges, scientists and plant breeders have been working hard to create new crop types that are not only high yielding but also resistant to abiotic and biotic stresses, including drought stress, salt stress, floods, insects, and diseases [9]. Innovative techniques and methods have emerged in the field of plant molecular breeding to increase yields, improve quality, and resist pests and diseases against the effects of adverse environmental conditions.
In the past 10 years, new techniques for site-directed mutagenesis, commonly referred to as “genome editing”, have been introduced to plant breeding programs. CRISPR/Cas9 is an effective and reliable gene-editing technique for plant breeding [10,11]. It is the most efficient and the easiest gene-editing technique to apply to plant breeding [12]. With CRISPR/Cas9 technology, DNA is cleaved by a nuclease precisely at a target site where a mutation is likely to be beneficial. The DNA is healed by the cellular repair system either through error-prone, non-homologous end joining or homologous recombination, by which small DNA fragments can be inserted at the target site [13,14]. Genome editing provides information for creating new alleles, fixing faulty alleles, and pyramiding alleles to obtain the desired phenotype by eliminating the generic drug [15].
New CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technologies have led to significant advancements in life sciences [16]. The success of plant breeding is determined by phenotypic variability and total genetic diversity across populations. Genome editing has been recently used to improve yield performance and a variety of quality-related characteristics. CRISPR/Cas9 has been shown to be effective in improving agricultural disease resistance, yield, nutrition, and domestication [17]. To develop new varieties by CRISPR/Cas9 technology, breeders should firstly identify genes that act as negative regulators in yield increase, quality improvement, abiotic stress tolerance, and biotic stress resistance, as shown in Tables 1 and 2. These genes can be applied to produce specific mutations for developing new varieties. In the near future, breeders should use the technique of homology directed repair (HDR) to facilitate their breeding strategies for specific genes of interest. In this review, the current application and future prospects are discussed.

2. CRISPR/Cas9 System and How It Works

CRISPR stands for Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats. CRISPR sequences were originally discovered as short genomic DNA sequences downstream of the alkaline isozyme phosphatase (iap) gene in E. coli [18]. They were discovered in the genomes of bacteria and archaea [19,20]. CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing is based on a natural immune system defense mechanism employed by bacteria to resist invading viruses. However, it is currently recognized as part of an adaptive defensive system that includes Cas enzymes associated with CRISPR/Cas9 [21]. CRISPR/Cas9 functions were not initially linked to microbial cellular immunity until 2003 [22]. CRISPR/Cas9 systems can detect and cut complementary DNA sequences, enabling bacteria to recall and eliminate viral intruders [23,24].
The CRISPR/Cas9 system, which is most often utilized in plant genome editing, can adapt with type II of Streptococcus pyogenes [14]. One CRISPR RNA transcript is processed to produce one or more short guide RNAs that can lead Cas9 to the target DNA sequence [13,14,25]. The Cas9 protein has DNA endonuclease activity. Cas9 attaches to the guide RNA in the cell and produces a binary complex that utilizes Watson–Crick base pairing to search the genome for the DNA target for cleavage. The guide RNA binds to the specific target gene. Cas9 also needs a proto-spacer adjacent motif (PAM) located immediately downstream of the target DNA sequence on the non-target DNA strand. PAM sequence 5′-NGG-3′ is recognized by Cas9 from S. pyogenes [14,26,27] A wide compatibility of PAM substantially increases the targeting range of plant genome editing tools based on the CRISPR/Cas9 system [28]. HNH and RuvC are two nuclease domains found in Cas9 proteins. The target DNA strand complementary to the guide RNA sequence is cleaved by the HNH-like nuclease domain and the non-target strand is cleaved by the RuvC-like nuclease domain [13,14,29]. This induces a DNA double-strand break (DSB) at the target site, which may be utilized for non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) or homology directed repair (HDR) modifications [30]. The DSB created by Cas9 is repaired using either error-prone non-homologous end-joining [31], which results in small random insertions and deletions at the cleavage site, or high-fidelity, homology-directed repair [32], which results in precise genome modification at the DSB site using a homologous repair template. Because of its ease of development, simplicity of application, and high efficiency, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has become quickly adopted as an extremely effective tool for genome modification in a broad range of species since the initial demonstration of its potential for genome engineering [13,24]. As a result, NHEJ has become a popular method for disrupting genes by introducing small base pair InDels (insertions/deletions) at specific target genes, while HDR has been used to precisely introduce point mutations and insert or replace desired large sequences into the target DNA [33] in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Schematic picture of genome editing mediated by the CRISPR/Cas9 system. The Cas9 protein, which is guided by a desired single-strand guide (gRNA), cuts the double-stranded DNA and makes a double strand break (DSB). Subsequently, DNA repair occurs through either Non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) or homology directed repair (HDR) pathways (Modified from Doudna JA, Charpentier E, 2014) [34].

4. Challenge and Future Prospects

The simplicity and effectiveness of CRISPR/Cas9 over other genome editing methods are its most significant benefits. The ability to concurrently edit several target genes with the CRISPR/Cas9 system is a significant benefit [141,142]. In a two-step experimental method, Zsögön targeted six genes and produced mutations in four of them. CRISPR/Cas9 may also introduce multiplex off-target mutations into the genome [143] However, novel CRISPR/Cas variants that recognize various PAMs have increased the editing effectiveness of target bases in the sequence of interest [144]. CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing can improve a characteristic by accurately altering and rapidly rearranging chromosomes in one of the best breeding strategies. It takes less time than traditional breeding methods [145]. The comparisons of traditional breeding and the modern breeding methods for rice improvement are described in detail, as shown in Figure 4.
Figure 4. Comparison of the traditional breeding and the modern breeding methods for rice improvement. (A) Crossbreeding based on naturally occurring mutations has introduced various traits into elite recipient lines selected by phenotype, free of transgene. (B) Through hybrid breeding, two genetically different parent lines are produced. The heterosis effect is maintained for only one generation, free of transgene. (C) Through molecular breeding, various traits are introduced into elite lines, followed by backcrossing, selectinon by phenotype, and molecular marker, free of transgene. (D) Throught mutation breeding, radiation and chemical mutagenesis is used to induce random mutations genome-wide. It greatly expands genetic variations. It requires backcrossing. It is free of transgene. (E) Transgenic breeding introduces genes or traits from other organisms. Foreign DNA is randomly integrated into the rice genome (GMO). (F) Genome editing breeding technologies can modify plant genomes to improve traits without integrating foreign DNA into the genome. The genome is mutated by NHEJ and HDR pathways, free of transgenes. They are precise techniques for future plant breeding.
Even though CRISPR/Cas9 is a very effective and vast application, there are still some limitations that hamper improving crops. First of all, breeders should set up the efficient transformation system for CRISPR/Cas9-Target gene vector to develop enough transgenic plants and to confirm the gene-edited plants. This application should be set up well for each target plant species. The success of creating the gene-edited plants may depend on this step. Off-target mutations are DNA changes made by a deceptive gRNA, a gRNA-independent method, or non-specific sites [146]. There is a lot of concern about off-target activity or mutations that happen at places other than the intended target site. This could make the genome unstable and change the function of normal genes, Numerous ways exist for precisely modifying the gene evolved by blocking NHEJ or boosting HDR, including genetic manipulation, synchronized expression, and overlapping homology arm [143]. Off-target mutations are often tolerable in plants and mutants, and they may be discovered and eradicated by segregation over subsequent crossing [147]. Some bioinformatics tools, such as Cas-OFFinder and CCTop, have been developed to detect off-targets as well as some systems, such as SELEX, IDLV capture, Guide-seq, and Digenome-seq [148]. In comparison to the NHEJ pathway, HDR has a lower efficiency. Another limitation is that some countries are not ready to commercialize genome editing crops [68]. With the increase of gene-editing tools, there exists a need to carefully consider the modern definition of GMOs and the corresponding regulatory frameworks with them [149].
An overall picture of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing applications in plants has been provided by El-Mounadi [150]. It introduces the user to the mechanism of Cas9 activity, methods of delivering to plant cells (i.e., transformation techniques), examples of enhancing crop traits using CRISPR/Cas9, and biosafety and regulatory aspects of genome editing. Many countries formally declare that crops will not be regulated under biosafety legislation if the product of the genome-edited crops do not contain foreign DNA [151]. Several countries including Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and the United States have already exempted genome-edited crops from being regulated in the same way as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) [152].
CRISPR/Cas9 enables the generation of non-GMO mutant plants, an approach that has been widely applied in diverse genomic architectures to study its function as well as its resistance to biotic and abiotic challenges and suitable agronomic and other essential agronomic characteristics, matching with current biosafety regulations for GMO plants. Overall, this method makes it easier to analyze functions of various genes and enhance genetics of the essential species. Because of these benefits, experts working on rice genetic improvement across the globe favor this CRISPR/Cas9 technology [153].
As implications for breeders, to develop new varieties with genes expressing important agronomical traits by CRISPR/Cas9 technology, breeders first identify genes that act as factors in yield increase, quality improvement, abiotic stress tolerance, and biotic stress resistance. They can apply these genes to create specific mutations to develop new varieties. In the near future, breeders should apply homology-directed repair (HDR) techniques to facilitate breeding strategies for specific genes of interest for breeding new varieties.

5. Conclusions

The majority of crop enhancements have relied on targeted editing, which includes repair of DSBs through NHEJ and rarely whole gene modification (HDR). To increase the efficiency of gene editing for many agronomically important genes, improvements in techniques for providing exact target genes and increasing the efficiency of the HDR route for specific target genes are required. Breeders may also try to modify cis-elements in the promoter region to change the expression of specific genes of agronomic importance. Genome-edited plants are being approved in many countries as crops that could be branded as non-GMO with foreign-DNA-free methods because there is no technological difference in genetic changes between plants generated by genome editing and plants produced through traditional breeding. In the future, molecular design breeding in crops using genome editing technologies with NHEJ and HDR to increase yield, disease or insect resistance, nutritional value, and other traits will be a significant focus.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and writing the article, V.T.L. and M.-S.K.; Review and editing, Y.-J.J. and K.-K.K.; Supervision, idea development, and editing, Y.-G.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant (PJ01483602) from the Rural Development Administration and the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry Education (2021R1I1A4A01057295) Republic of Korea. It was conducted during the research year of Chungbuk National University in 2019, Korea.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest relevant to this study to disclose.

References

  1. Gross, B.L.; Zhao, Z. Archaeological and genetic insights into the origins of domesticated rice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 6190–6197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. FAO. Available online: https://www.fao.org/faostat/en/#home (accessed on 16 August 2021).
  3. FAO Statistics. Available online: https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html (accessed on 16 August 2021).
  4. Hunter, M.C.; Smith, R.G.; Schipanski, M.E.; Atwood, L.W.; Mortensen, D.A. Agriculture in 2050: Recalibrating Targets for Sustainable Intensification. BioScience 2017, 67, 386–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Bastin, J.F.; Clark, E.; Elliott, T.; Hart, S.; van den Hoogen, J.; Hordijk, I.; Ma, H.; Majumder, S.; Manoli, G.; Maschler, J.; et al. Correction: Understanding climate change from a global analysis of city analogues. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0224120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Ma, N.L.; Che Lah, W.A.; Abd Kadir, N.; Mustaqim, M.; Rahmat, Z.; Ahmad, A.; Lam, S.D.; Ismail, M.R. Susceptibility and tolerance of rice crop to salt threat: Physiological and metabolic inspections. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Godfray, H.C.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pingali, P.L. Green revolution: Impacts, limits, and the path ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 12302–12308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Cong, L.; Ran, F.A.; Cox, D.; Lin, S.; Barretto, R.; Habib, N.; Hsu, P.D.; Wu, X.; Jiang, W.; Marraffini, L.A.; et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science 2013, 339, 819–823. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Wolter, F.; Schindele, P.; Puchta, H. Plant breeding at the speed of light: The power of CRISPR/Cas to generate directed genetic diversity at multiple sites. BMC Plant. Biol. 2019, 19, 176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Mishra, R.; Zheng, W.; Joshi, R.K.; Kaijun, Z. Genome Editing Strategies Towards Enhancement of Rice Disease Resistance. Rice Sci. 2021, 28, 133–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Jinek, M.; Chylinski, K.; Fonfara, I.; Hauer, M.; Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity. Science 2012, 337, 816–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Jiang, F.; Doudna, J.A. CRISPR/Cas9 Structures and Mechanisms. Annu. Rev. Biophys. 2017, 46, 505–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Majumder, R.R.; Sakhale, S.; Yadav, S.; Sandhu, N.; Hassan, L.; Hossain, M.A.; Kumar, A. Molecular Breeding for Improving Drought Tolerance in Rice: Recent Progress and Future Perspectives. Mol. Breed. Rice Abiotic Stress Toler. Nutr. Qual. 2021, 2, 5374. [Google Scholar]
  16. Anzalone, A.V.; Koblan, L.W.; Liu, D.R. Genome editing with CRISPR-Cas nucleases, base editors, transposases and prime editors. Nat. Biotechnol. 2020, 38, 824–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Jung, C.; Capistrano-Gossmann, G.; Braatz, J.; Sashidhar, N.; Melzer, S. Recent developments in genome editing and applications in plant breeding. Plant. Breed. 2018, 137, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shino, Y.; Shinagawa, H.; Makino, K.; Amemura, M.; Nakata, A. Nucleotide sequence of the iap gene, responsible for alkaline phosphatase isozyme conversion in Escherichia coli, and identification of the gene product. J. Bacteriol. 1987, 169, 5429–5433. [Google Scholar]
  19. Mojica, F.J.; Díez-Villaseñor, C.; Soria, E.; Juez, G. Biological significance of a family of regularly spaced repeats in the genomes of Archaea, Bacteria and mitochondria. Mol. Microbiol. 2000, 36, 244–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Grissa, I.; Vergnaud, G.; Pourcel, C. CRISPRFinder: A web tool to identify clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats. Nucleic Acids Researc. 2007, 35, 52–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Boyaval, P.; Moineau, S.; Romero, D.; Horvath, P. Against Viruses in Prokaryotes. Science 2007, 315, 1709–1712. [Google Scholar]
  22. Mojica, F.J.M.; Díez-Villaseñor, C.; García-Martínez, J.; Soria, E. Intervening sequences of regularly spaced prokaryotic repeats derive from foreign genetic elements. J. Mol. Evol. 2005, 60, 174–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Thurtle-Schmidt, D.M.; Lo, T.W. Molecular biology at the cutting edge: A review on CRISPR/CAS9 gene editing for undergraduates. Biochem. Mol. Biol. Educ. 2018, 46, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Hsu, P.D.; Lander, E.S.; Zhang, F. Development and Applications of CRISPR/Cas9 for Genome Engineering. Cell 2014, 157, 1262–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Horvath, P.; Barrangou, R. CRISPR/Cas, the immune system of bacteria and archaea. Science 2010, 327, 167–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lander, E.S. The Heroes of CRISPR. Cell 2016, 164, 18–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Anders, C.; Niewoehner, O.; Duerst, A.; Jinek, M. Structural basis of PAM-dependent target DNA recognition by the Cas9 endonuclease. Nature 2014, 513, 569–573. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Xu, Z.; Kuang, Y.; Ren, B.; Yan, D.; Yan, F.; Spetz, C.; Sun, W.; Wang, G.; Zhou, X.; Zhou, H. SpRY greatly expands the genome editing scope in rice with highly flexible PAM recognition. Genome Biol. 2021, 22, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Gao, L.; Cox, D.; Yan, W.X.; Manteiga, J.C.; Schneider, M.W.; Yamano, T.; Nishimasu, H.; Nureki, O.; Crosetto, N.; Zhang, F. Engineered Cpf1 variants with altered PAM specificities. Nat. Biotechnol. 2017, 35, 789–792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Symington, L.S.; Gautier, J. Double-strand break end resection and repair pathway choice. Annu. Rev. Genet. 2011, 45, 247–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Lieber, M.R. The Mechanism of DSB Repair by the NHEJ. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2011, 79, 181–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. San Filippo, J.; Sung, P.; Klein, H. Mechanism of eukaryotic homologous recombination. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 2018, 77, 229–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Shan, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Zhang, Y.; Chen, K.; Liang, Z.; Zhang, K.; Liu, J.; Xi, J.J.; Qiu, J.L.; et al. Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nat. Biotechnol. 2013, 31, 686–688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Doudna, J.A.; Charpentier, E. Genome editing. The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 2014, 346, 1258096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ricroch, A.; Clairand, P.; Harwood, W. Use of CRISPR systems in plant genome editing: Toward new opportunities in agriculture. Emerg. Top. Life Sci. 2017, 1, 169–182. [Google Scholar]
  36. Oerke, E.C. Crop Losses to Pests. J. Agric. Sci. 2006, 144, 31–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Woo, J.W.; Kim, J.; Kwon, S.I.; Corvalán, C.; Cho, S.W.; Kim, H.; Kim, S.G.; Kim, S.T.; Choe, S.; Kim, J.S. DNA-free genome editing in plants with preassembled CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33, 1162–1164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wade, M. High-Throughput Silencing Using the CRISPR/Cas9 System: A Review of the Benefits and Challenges. J. Biomol. Screen. 2015, 20, 1027–1039. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bortesi, L.; Fischer, R. The CRISPR/Cas9 system for plant genome editing and beyond. Biotechnol. Adv. 2015, 33, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Khan, M.; Dar, Z.; Dar, S. Breeding Strategies for Improving Rice Yield—A Review. Agric. Sci. 2015, 6, 467–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Cho, Y.; Kang, H.; Lee, J.; Lee, Y.; Lim, S.; Gauch, H.G.; Eun, M.Y.; Mccouch, S. Identification of Quantitative Trait Loci in Rice for Yield, Yield Components, and Agronomic Traits across Years and Locations. Crop. Sci. 2007, 47, 2403–2417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Xing, Y.; Zhang, Q. Genetic and molecular bases of rice yield. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 2010, 61, 421–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Shan, Q.; Wang, Y.; Li, J.; Gao, C. Genome editing in rice and wheat using the CRISPR/Cas system. Nat. Protoc. 2014, 9, 2395–2410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Li, M.; Li, X.; Zhou, Z.; Wu, P.; Fang, M.; Pan, X.; Lin, Q.; Luo, W.; Wu, G.; Li, H. Reassessment of the Four Yield-related Genes Gn1a, DEP1, GS3, and IPA1 in Rice Using a CRISPR/Cas9 System. Front. Plant. Sci. 2016, 7, 377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Usman, B.; Zhao, N.; Nawaz, G.; Qin, B.; Liu, F.; Liu, Y.; Li, R. CRISPR/Cas9 Guided Mutagenesis of Grain Size 3 Confers Increased Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Grain Length by Regulating Cysteine Proteinase Inhibitor and Ubiquitin-Related Proteins. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 3225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xu, R.; Yang, Y.; Qin, R.; Li, H.; Qiu, C.; Li, L.; Wei, P.; Yang, J. Rapid improvement of grain weight via highly efficient CRISPR/Cas9-mediated multiplex genome editing in rice. J. Genet. Genom. = Yi Chuan Xue Bao 2016, 43, 529–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Han, Y.; Teng, K.; Nawaz, G.; Feng, X.; Usman, B.; Wang, X.; Luo, L.; Zhao, N.; Liu, Y.; Li, R. Generation of semi-dwarf rice (Oryza sativa L.) lines by CRISPR/Cas9-directed mutagenesis of OsGA20ox2 and proteomic analysis of unveiled changes caused by mutations. 3 Biotech 2019, 9, 387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Zhou, J.; Xin, X.; He, Y.; Chen, H.; Li, Q.; Tang, X.; Zhong, Z.; Deng, K.; Zheng, X.; Akher, S.A.; et al. Multiplex QTL editing of grain-related genes improves yield in elite rice varieties. Plant. Cell Rep. 2019, 38, 475–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Lacchini, E.; Kiegle, E.; Castellani, M.; Adam, H.; Jouannic, S.; Gregis, V.; Kater, M.M. CRISPR-mediated accelerated domestication of African rice landraces. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0229782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lv, Y.; Shao, G.; Jiao, G.; Sheng, Z.; Xie, L.; Hu, S.; Tang, S.; Wei, X.; Hu, P. Targeted mutagenesis of POLYAMINE OXIDASE 5 that negatively regulates mesocotyl elongation enables the generation of direct-seeding rice with improved grain yield. Mol. Plant. 2021, 14, 344–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Usman, B.; Nawaz, G.; Zhao, N.; Liu, Y.; Li, R. Generation of High Yielding and Fragrant Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Lines by CRISPR/Cas9 Targeted Mutagenesis of Three Homoeologs of Cytochrome P450 Gene Family and OsBADH2 and Transcriptome and Proteome Profiling of Revealed Changes Triggered by Mutations. Plants 2020, 9, 788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Zeng, Y.; Wen, J.; Zhao, W.; Wang, Q.; Huang, W. Rational Improvement of Rice Yield and Cold Tolerance by Editing the Three Genes OsPIN5b, GS3, and OsMYB30 With the CRISPR/Cas9 System. Front. Plant. Sci. 2020, 10, 1663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gao, Q.; Li, G.; Sun, H.; Xu, M.; Wang, H.; Ji, J.; Wang, D.; Yuan, C.; Zhao, X. Targeted Mutagenesis of the Rice FW 2.2-Like Gene Family Using the CRISPR/Cas9 System Reveals OsFWL4 as a Regulator of Tiller Number and Plant Yield in Rice. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cui, Y.; Hu, X.; Liang, G.; Feng, A.; Wang, F.; Ruan, S.; Dong, G.; Shen, L.; Zhang, B.; Chen, D.; et al. Production of novel beneficial alleles of a rice yield-related QTL by CRISPR/Cas9. Plant. Biotechnol. J. 2020, 18, 1987–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Usman, B.; Nawaz, G.; Zhao, N.; Liao, S.; Qin, B.; Liu, F.; Liu, Y.; Li, R. Programmed Editing of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) OsSPL16 Gene Using CRISPR/Cas9 Improves Grain Yield by Modulating the Expression of Pyruvate Enzymes and Cell Cycle Proteins. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 22, 249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Miao, C.; Xiao, L.; Hua, K.; Zou, C.; Zhao, Y.; Bressan, R.A.; Zhu, J.K. Mutations in a subfamily of abscisic acid receptor genes promote rice growth and productivity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 6058–6063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cuevas, R.P.; Fitzgerald, M.A. Genetic Diversity of Rice Grain Quality. Genet. Divers. Plants 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Custodio, M.C.; Cuevas, R.P.; Ynion, J.; Laborte, A.G.; Velasco, M.L.; Demont, M. Rice quality: How is it defined by consumers, industry, food scientists, and geneticists? Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 92, 122–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Zhou, H.; Xia, D.; He, Y. Rice grain quality—Traditional traits for high quality rice and health-plus substances. Mol. Breed. 2019, 40, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Sharma, N.; Khanna, R. Rice Grain Quality: Current Developments and Future Prospects. In Recent Advances in Grain Crops Research; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019; pp. 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  62. Fiaz, S.; Ahmad, S.; Noor, M.A.; Wang, X.; Younas, A.; Riaz, A.; Riaz, A.; Ali, F. Applications of the CRISPR/Cas9 System for Rice Grain Quality Improvement: Perspectives and Opportunities. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Liu, Q.; Wang, Z.; Chen, X.; Cai, X.; Tang, S.; Yu, H.; Zhang, J.; Hong, M.; Gu, M. Stable inheritance of the antisense Waxy gene in transgenic rice with reduced amylose level and improved quality. Transgenic Res. 2003, 12, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Tian, Z.; Qian, Q.; Liu, Q.; Yan, M.; Liu, X.; Yan, C.; Liu, G.; Gao, Z.; Tang, S.; Zeng, D.; et al. Allelic diversities in rice starch biosynthesis lead to a diverse array of rice eating and cooking qualities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, 21760–21765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Zhang, J.; Zhang, H.; Botella, J.R.; Zhu, J.K. Generation of new glutinous rice by CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the Waxy gene in elite rice varieties. J. Integr. Plant. Biol. 2018, 60, 369–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ma, X.; Zhang, Q.; Zhu, Q.; Liu, W.; Chen, Y.; Qiu, R.; Wang, B.; Yang, Z.; Li, H.; Lin, Y.; et al. A Robust CRISPR/Cas9 System for Convenient, High-Efficiency Multiplex Genome Editing in Monocot and Dicot Plants. Mol. Plant. 2015, 8, 1274–1284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sun, Y.; Jiao, G.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, X.; Li, J.; Guo, X.; Du, W.; Du, J.; Francis, F.; Zhao, Y.; et al. Generation of High-Amylose Rice through CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Targeted Mutagenesis of Starch Branching Enzymes. Front. Plant. Sci. 2017, 8, 298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Tabassum, J.; Ahmad, S.; Hussain, B.; Mawia, A.M.; Zeb, A.; Ju, L. Applications and Potential of Genome-Editing Systems in Rice Improvement: Current and Future Perspectives. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Chao, S.; Cai, Y.; Feng, B.; Jiao, G.; Sheng, Z.; Luo, J.; Tang, S.; Wang, J.; Hu, P.; Wei, X. Editing of Rice Isoamylase Gene ISA1 Provides Insights into Its Function in Starch Formation. Rice Sci. 2019, 26, 77–87. [Google Scholar]
  70. Ashokkumar, S.; Jaganathan, D.; Ramanathan, V.; Rahman, H.; Palaniswamy, R.; Kambale, R.; Muthurajan, R. Creation of novel alleles of fragrance gene OsBADH2 in rice through CRISPR/Cas9 mediated gene editing. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0237018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zaplin, E.S.; Liu, Q.; Li, Z.; Butardo, V.M.; Blanchard, C.L.; Rahman, S. Production of high oleic rice grains by suppressing the expression of the OsFAD2-1 gene. Funct. Plant. Biol. 2013, 40, 996–1004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Abe, K.; Araki, E.; Suzuki, Y.; Toki, S.; Saika, H. Production of high oleic/low linoleic rice by genome editing. Plant. Physiol. Biochem. 2018, 131, 58–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Bahariah, B.; Masani, M.; Rasid, O.A.; Parveez, G. Multiplex CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing of the FAD2 gene in rice: A model genome editing system for oil palm. J. Genet. Eng. Biotechnol. 2021, 19, 86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Wang, S.; Yang, Y.; Guo, M.; Zhong, C.; Yan, C.; Sun, S. Targeted mutagenesis of amino acid transporter genes for rice quality improvement using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Crop. J. 2020, 8, 457–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Zhao, D.S.; Li, Q.F.; Zhang, C.Q.; Zhang, C.; Yang, Q.Q.; Pan, L.X.; Ren, X.Y.; Lu, J.; Gu, M.H.; Liu, Q.Q. GS9 acts as a transcriptional activator to regulate rice grain shape and appearance quality. Nat. Commun. 2018, 9, 1240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Songmei, L.; Jie, J.; Yang, L.; Jun, M.; Shouling, X.; Yuanyuan, T.; Youfa, L.; Qingyao, S.; Jianzhong, H. Characterization and Evaluation of OsLCT1 and OsNramp5 Mutants Generated Through CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Mutagenesis for Breeding Low Cd Rice. Rice Sci. 2019, 26, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Endo, A.; Saika, H.; Takemura, M.; Misawa, N.; Toki, S. A novel approach to carotenoid accumulation in rice callus by mimicking the cauliflower Orange mutation via genome editing. Rice 2019, 12, 81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Dong, O.X.; Yu, S.; Jain, R.; Zhang, N.; Duong, P.Q.; Butler, C.; Li, Y.; Lipzen, A.; Martin, J.A.; Barry, K.W.; et al. Marker-free carotenoid-enriched rice generated through targeted gene insertion using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Sun, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wu, C.; He, Y.; Ma, Y.; Hou, H.; Guo, X.; Du, W.; Zhao, Y.; Xia, L. Engineering Herbicide-Resistant Rice Plants through CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Homologous Recombination of Acetolactate Synthase. Mol. Plant. 2016, 9, 628–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Xu, R.F.; Li, H.; Qin, R.Y.; Li, J.; Qiu, C.H.; Yang, Y.C.; Ma, H.; Li, L.; Wei, P.C.; Yang, J.B. Generation of inheritable and “transgene clean” targeted genome-modified rice in later generations using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 11491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Chandrasekhar, K.; Reddy, G.M.; Singh, J.; Vani, K.; Vijayalakshmi, M.; Kaul, T.; Reddy, M.K. Development of Transgenic Rice Harbouring Mutated Rice 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate 3-Phosphate Synthase (Os-mEPSPS) and Allium sativum Leaf Agglutinin (ASAL) Genes Conferring Tolerance to Herbicides and Sap-Sucking Insects. Plant. Mol. Biol. Report. 2014, 32, 1146–1157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Liu, X.; Liu, H.; Zhang, Y.; He, M.; Li, R.; Meng, W.; Wang, Z.; Li, X.; Bu, Q. Fine-tuning Flowering Time via Genome Editing of Upstream Open Reading Frames of Heading Date 2 in Rice. Rice 2021, 14, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Li, X.; Zhou, W.; Ren, Y.; Tian, X.; Lv, T.; Wang, Z.; Fang, J.; Chu, C.; Yang, J.; Bu, Q. High-efficiency breeding of early-maturing rice cultivars via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing. J. Genet. Genom. 2017, 44, 175–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Peng, Q.; Zhu, C.; Liu, T.; Zhang, S.; Feng, S.; Wu, C. Phosphorylation of OsFD1 by OsCIPK3 promotes the formation of RFT1-containing florigen activation complex for long-day flowering in rice. Mol. Plant. 2021, 14, 1135–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Mao, Y.; Zhang, H.; Xu, N.; Zhang, B.; Gou, F.; Zhu, J.K. Application of the CRISPR-Cas system for efficient genome engineering in plants. Mol. Plant. 2013, 6, 2008–2011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Nieves-Cordones, M.; Mohamed, S.; Tanoi, K.; Kobayashi, N.I.; Takagi, K.; Vernet, A.; Guiderdoni, E.; Périn, C.; Sentenac, H.; Véry, A.A. Production of low-Cs+ rice plants by inactivation of the K+ transporter OsHAK1 with the CRISPR-Cas system. Plant. J. Cell Mol. Biol. 2017, 92, 43–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Mao, X.; Zheng, Y.; Xiao, K.; Wei, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Cai, Q.; Chen, L.; Xie, H.; Zhang, J. OsPRX2 contributes to stomatal closure and improves potassium deficiency tolerance in rice. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2018, 495, 461–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Dong, H.; Huang, Y.; Wang, K. The Development of Herbicide Resistance Crop Plants Using CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Gene Editing. Genes 2021, 12, 912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Zhao, T.X.; Lin, C.; Shen, Z. Development of Transgenic Glyphosate-Resistant Rice with G6 Gene Encoding 5-Enolpyruvylshikimate-3-Phosphate Synthase. Agric. Sci. China 2011, 10, 1307–1312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Li, J.; Meng, X.; Zong, Y.; Chen, K.; Zhang, H.; Liu, J.; Li, J.; Gao, C. Gene replacements and insertions in rice by intron targeting using CRISPR-Cas9. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Xu Zhou, H.; He, M.; Li, J.; Chen, L.; Huang, Z.; Zheng, S.; Zhu, L.; Ni, E.; Jiang, D.; Zhao, B.; et al. Development of Commercial Thermo-sensitive Genic Male Sterile Rice Accelerates Hybrid Rice Breeding Using the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated TMS5 Editing System. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 37395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Gu, W.; Zhang, D.; Qi, Y.; Yuan, Z. Generating Photoperiod-Sensitive Genic Male Sterile Rice Lines with CRISPR/Cas9. Methods Mol. Biol. 2019, 1917, 97–107. [Google Scholar]
  93. Lan, S.; Guojun, D.; Yu, Z.; Guocheng, H.; Qiang, Z.; Guanglian, H.; Bo, X.; Deyong, R.; Jiang, H.; Li, Z.; et al. Rapid Creation of New Photoperiod-/Thermo-Sensitive Genic Male-Sterile Rice Materials by CRISPR/Cas9 System. Rice Sci. 2019, 26, 129–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Xie, Z.; Nolan, T.M.; Jiang, H.; Yin, Y. AP2/ERF Transcription Factor Regulatory Networks in Hormone and Abiotic Stress Responses in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant. Sci. 2019, 10, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Duan, Y.B.; Li, J.; Qin, R.Y.; Xu, R.F.; Li, H.; Yang, Y.C.; Ma, H.; Li, L.; Wei, P.C.; Yang, J.B. Identification of a regulatory element responsible for salt induction of rice OsRAV2 through ex situ and in situ promoter analysis. Plant. Mol. Biol. 2016, 90, 49–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  96. Zhang, A.; Liu, Y.; Wang, F.; Li, T.; Chen, Z.; Kong, D.; Bi, J.; Zhang, F.; Luo, X.; Wang, J.; et al. Enhanced rice salinity tolerance via CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the OsRR22 gene. Mol. Breed. New Strateg. Plant. Improv. 2019, 39, 47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Mitra, J. Genetics and genetic improvement of drought resistance in crop plants. Curr. Sci. 2001, 80, 758–763. [Google Scholar]
  98. Babu, R.C.; Zhang, J.; Blum, A.; Ho, T.D.; Wu, R.; Nguyen, H.T. HVA1, a LEA gene from barley confers dehydration tolerance in transgenic rice (Oryza sativa L.) via cell membrane protection. Plant. Sci. 2004, 166, 855–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Farooq, M.; Wahid, A.; Basra, S.M.A. and Islam-ud-Din. Improving Water Relations and Gas Exchange with Brassinosteroids in Rice under Drought Stress. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2009, 195, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Ogata, T.; Ishizaki, T.; Fujita, M.; Fujita, Y. CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of OsERA1 confers enhanced responses to abscisic acid and drought stress and increased primary root growth under nonstressed conditions in rice. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0243376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Lou, D.; Wang, H.; Liang, G.; Yu, D. OsSAPK2 Confers Abscisic Acid Sensitivity and Tolerance to Drought Stress in Rice. Front. Plant. Sci. 2017, 8, 993. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Santosh Kumar, V.V.; Verma, R.K.; Yadav, S.K.; Yadav, P.; Watts, A.; Rao, M.V.; Chinnusamy, V. CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing of drought and salt tolerance (OsDST) gene in indica mega rice cultivar MTU1010. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants Int. J. Funct. Plant. Biol. 2020, 26, 1099–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Yue, E.; Cao, H.; Liu, B. OsmiR535, a Potential Genetic Editing Target for Drought and Salinity Stress Tolerance in Oryza sativa. Plants 2020, 9, 1337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Usman, B.; Nawaz, G.; Zhao, N.; Liao, S.; Liu, Y.; Li, R. Precise Editing of the OsPYL9 Gene by RNA-Guided Cas9 Nuclease Confers Enhanced Drought Tolerance and Grain Yield in Rice (Oryza sativa L.) by Regulating Circadian Rhythm and Abiotic Stress Responsive Proteins. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Liao, S.; Qin, X.; Luo, L.; Han, Y.; Wang, X.; Usman, B.; Nawaz, G.; Zhao, N.; Liu, Y.; Li, R. CRISPR/Cas9-Induced Mutagenesis of Semi-Rolled Leaf1,2 Confers Curled Leaf Phenotype and Drought Tolerance by Influencing Protein Expression Patterns and ROS Scavenging in Rice (Oryza sativa L.). Agronomy 2019, 9, 728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Shakiba, E.; Edwards, J.D.; Jodari, F.; Duke, S.E.; Baldo, A.M.; Korniliev, P.; McCouch, S.R.; Eizenga, G.C. Genetic architecture of cold tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa) determined through high resolution genome-wide analysis. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0172133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  107. Koseki, M.; Kitazawa, N.; Yonebayashi, S.; Maehara, Y.; Wang, Z.X.; Minobe, Y. Identification and fine mapping of a major quantitative trait locus originating from wild rice, controlling cold tolerance at the seedling stage. Mol. Genet. Genom. 2010, 284, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Shen, C.; Que, Z.; Xia, Y.; Tang, N.; Li, D.; He, R.; Cao, M. Knock out of the annexin gene OsAnn3 via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing decreased cold tolerance in rice. J. Plant Biol. 2016, 60, 539–547. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. 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] [PubMed]
  110. Xu, Y.; Chu, C.; Yao, S. The impact of high-temperature stress on rice: Challenges and solutions. Crop. J. 2021, 9, 963–976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Nandy, S.; Pathak, B.; Zhao, S.; Srivastava, V. Heat-shock-inducible CRISPR/Cas9 system generates heritable mutations in rice. Plant. Direct 2019, 3, e00145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Liang, Y.; Biswas, S.; Kim, B.; Bailey-Serres, J.; Septiningsih, E.M. Improved Transformation and Regeneration of Indica Rice: Disruption of SUB1A as a Test Case via CRISPR-Cas9. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 6989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Wang, F.; Wang, C.; Liu, P.; Lei, C.; Hao, W.; Gao, Y.; Liu, Y.G.; Zhao, K. Enhanced Rice Blast Resistance by CRISPR/Cas9-Targeted Mutagenesis of the ERF Transcription Factor Gene OsERF922. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0154027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Foster, A.J.; Martin-Urdiroz, M.; Yan, X.; Wright, H.S.; Soanes, D.M.; Talbot, N.J. CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein-mediated co-editing and counterselection in the rice blast fungus. Sci. Rep. 2018, 8, 14355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Li, S.; Shen, L.; Hu, P.; Liu, Q.; Zhu, X.; Qian, Q.; Wang, K.; Wang, Y. Developing disease-resistant thermosensitive male sterile rice by multiplex gene editing. J. Integr. Plant. Biol. 2019, 61, 1201–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Ma, J.; Chen, J.; Wang, M.; Ren, Y.; Wang, S.; Lei, C.; Cheng, Z.; Sodmergen. Disruption of OsSEC3A Increases the Content of Salicylic Acid and Induces Plant Defense Responses in Rice. J. Exp. Bot. 2018, 69, 1051–1064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Xie, K.; Minkenberg, B.; Yang, Y. Boosting CRISPR/Cas9 multiplex editing capability with the endogenous tRNA-processing system. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2015, 112, 3570–3575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Zeng, X.; Luo, Y.; Vu, N.; Shen, S.; Xia, K.; Zhang, M. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutation of OsSWEET14 in rice cv. Zhonghua11 confers resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae without yield penalty. BMC Plant. Biol. 2020, 20, 313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Oliva, R.; Ji, C.; Atienza-Grande, G.; Huguet-Tapia, J.C.; Perez-Quintero, A.; Li, T.; Eom, J.S.; Li, C.; Nguyen, H.; Liu, B.; et al. Broad-spectrum resistance to bacterial blight in rice using genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 2019, 37, 1344–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kim, Y.A.; Moon, H.; Park, C.J. CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of Os8N3 in rice to confer resistance to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Rice 2019, 12, 67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Macovei, A.; Sevilla, N.R.; Cantos, C.; Jonson, G.B.; Slamet-Loedin, I.; Čermák, T.; Voytas, D.F.; Choi, I.R.; Chadha-Mohanty, P. Novel alleles of rice eIF4G generated by CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis confer resistance to Rice tungro spherical virus. Plant. Biotechnol. J. 2018, 16, 1918–1927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Wassmann, R.; Jagadish, S.V.; Sumfleth, K.; Pathak, H.; Howell, G.; Ismail, A.M.; Serraj, R.; Redoña, E.D.; Singh, R.K.; Heuer, S. Chapter 3 Regional Vulnerability of Climate Change Impacts on Asian Rice Production and Scope for Adaptation. Adv. Agron. 2009, 102, 91–133. [Google Scholar]
  123. Xu, J.; Xing, Y.; Xu, Y.; Wan, J. Breeding by design for future rice: Genes and genome technologies. Crop. J. 2021, 9, 491–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Yin, J.; Zou, L.; Zhu, X.; Cao, Y.; He, M.; Chen, X. Fighting the enemy: How rice survives the blast pathogen’s attack. Crop. J. 2021, 9, 543–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Nalley, L.; Tsiboe, F.; Durand-Morat, A.; Shew, A.; Thoma, G. Economic and environmental impact of rice blast pathogen (Magnaporthe oryzae) alleviation in the United States. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0167295. [Google Scholar]
  126. Tran, T.T.; Pérez-Quintero, A.L.; Wonni, I.; Carpenter, S.; Yu, Y.; Wang, L.; Leach, J.E.; Verdier, V.; Cunnac, S.; Bogdanove, A.J.; et al. Functional analysis of African Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae TALomes reveals a new susceptibility gene in bacterial leaf blight of rice. PLoS Pathog. 2018, 14, e1007092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Shim, J.; Torollo, G.; Angeles-Shim, R.B.; Cabunagan, R.C.; Choi, I.R.; Yeo, U.S.; Ha, W.G. Rice tungro spherical virus resistance into photoperiod-insensitive japonica rice by marker-assisted selection. Breed. Sci. 2015, 65, 345–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  128. Yarasi, B.; Sadumpati, V.; Immanni, C.P.; Vudem, D.R.; Khareedu, V.R. Transgenic rice expressing Allium sativum leaf agglutinin (ASAL) exhibits high-level resistance against major sap-sucking pests. BMC Plant. Biol. 2008, 8, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Douglas, A.E. Strategies for Enhanced Crop Resistance to Insect Pests. Annu. Rev. Plant. Biol. 2018, 69, 637–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Van, F.K. Cross-order and cross-phylum activity of Bacillus thuringiensis pesticidal proteins. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2013, 114, 76–85. [Google Scholar]
  131. Paul, S.; Das, S. Natural insecticidal proteins, the promising bio-control compounds for future crop protection. Nucleus 2021, 64, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Rajadurai, G.; Kalaivani, A.; Varanavasiyappan, S.; Balakrishnan, N.; Udayasuriyan, V.; Sudhakar, D.; Natarajan, N. Generation of insect resistant marker-free transgenic rice with a novel cry2AX1 gene. Electron. J. Plant. Breed. 2018, 9, 723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Qiu, L.; Fan, J.; Zhang, B.; Liu, L.; Wang, X.; Lei, C.; Lin, Y.; Ma, W. RNA interference knockdown of aminopeptidase N genes decrease the susceptibility of Chilo suppressalis larvae to Cry1Ab/Cry1Ac and Cry1Ca-expressing transgenic rice. J. Invertebr. Pathol. 2017, 145, 9–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Zuo, Y.; Xue, Y.; Lu, W.; Ma, H.; Chen, M.; Wu, Y.; Yang, Y.; Hu, Z. Functional validation of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) α6 as a target of spinosyns in Spodoptera exigua utilizing the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2020, 76, 2415–2422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Wang, X.; Xu, Y.; Huang, J.; Jin, W.; Yang, Y.; Wu, Y. CRISPR-Mediated Knockout of the ABCC2 Gene in Ostrinia furnacalis Confers High-Level Resistance to the Bacillus thuringiensis Cry1Fa Toxin. Toxins 2020, 12, 246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Wang, J.; Wang, H.; Liu, S.; Liu, L.; Tay, W.T.; Walsh, T.K.; Yang, Y.; Wu, Y. CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing of Helicoverpa armigera with mutations of an ABC transporter gene HaABCA2 confers resistance to Bacillus thuringiensis Cry2A toxins. Insect Biochem. Mol. Biol. 2017, 87, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Gheraoing, H.; Piganeau, M.; Renouf, B.; Renaud, J.B.; Sallmyr, A.; Ruis, B.; Oh, S.; Tomkinson, A.E.; Hendrickson, E.A.; Giovannangeli, C.; et al. Chromosomal Translocations in Human Cells Are Generated by Canonical Nonhomologous End-Joining. Mol. Cell 2014, 55, 829–842. [Google Scholar]
  138. Jasin, M.; Rothstein, R. Repair of strand breaks by homologous recombination. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2013, 5, a012740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Wang, M.; Lu, Y.; Botella, J.R.; Mao, Y.; Hua, K.; Zhu, J.K. Gene Targeting by Homology-Directed Repair in Rice Using a Geminivirus-Based CRISPR/Cas9 System. Mol Plant. 2017, 10, 1007–1010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ali, Z.; Shami, A.; Sedeek, K.; Kamel, R.; Alhabsi, A.; Tehseen, M.; Hassan, N.; Butt, H.; Kababji, A.; Hamdan, S.M.; et al. Fusion of the Cas9 endonuclease and the VirD2 relaxase facilitates homology-directed repair for precise genome engineering in rice. Commun. Biol. 2020, 3, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Zsögön, A.; Čermák, T.; Naves, E.R.; Notini, M.M.; Edel, K.H.; Weinl, S.; Freschi, L.; Voytas, D.F.; Kudla, J.; Peres, L.E. De novo domestication of wild tomato using genome editing. Nat. Biotechnol. 2018, 36, 1211–1216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Hashimoto, R.; Ueta, R.; Abe, C.; Osakabe, Y.; Osakabe, K. Efficient Multiplex Genome Editing Induces Precise, and Self-Ligated Type Mutations in Tomato Plants. Front. Plant. Sci. 2018, 9, 916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Zhang, X.H.; Tee, L.Y.; Wang, X.G.; Huang, Q.S.; Yang, S.H. Off-target Effects in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated Genome Engineering. Molecular therapy. Nucleic Acids 2015, 4, e264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Hua, K.; Tao, X.; Han, P.; Wang, R.; Zhu, J.K. Genome Engineering in Rice Using Cas9 Variants that Recognize NG PAM Sequences. Mol. Plant. 2019, 12, 1003–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Chen, W.; McKenna, A.; Schreiber, J.; Haeussler, M.; Yin, Y.; Agarwal, V.; Noble, W.S.; Shendure, J. Massively parallel profiling and predictive modeling of the outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated double-strand break repair. Nucleic Acids Res. 2019, 47, 7989–8003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Hahn, F.; Nekrasov, V. CRISPR/Cas precision: Do we need to worry about off-targeting in plants? Plant. Cell Rep. 2019, 38, 437–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Razzaq, A.; Saleem, F.; Kanwal, M.; Mustafa, G.; Yousaf, S.; Imran Arshad, H.M.; Hameed, M.K.; Khan, M.S.; Joyia, F.A. Modern trends in plant genome editing: An inclusive review of the CRISPR/Cas9 Toolbox. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 4045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Koo, T.; Lee, J.; Kim, J.-S. Measuring and Reducing Off-Target Activities of Programmable Nucleases Including CRISPR-Cas9. Mol. Cells 2015, 38, 475–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Mao, Y.; Botella, J.R.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, J.K. Gene editing in plants: Progress and challenges. Natl. Sci. Rev. 2019, 6, 421–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. El-Mounadi, K.; Morales-Floriano, M.L.; Garcia-Ruiz, H. Principles, Applications, and Biosafety of Plant Genome Editing Using CRISPR-Cas9. Front. Plant. Sci. 2020, 11, 56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Schmidt, S.M.; Belisle, M.; Frommer, W.B. The evolving landscape around genome editing in agriculture: Many countries have exempted or move to exempt forms of genome editing from GMO regulation of crop plants. EMBO Rep. 2020, 21, e50680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. Kumar, S.; Rymarquis, L.A.; Ezura, H.; Nekrasov, V. Editorial: CRISPR-Cas in Agriculture: Opportunities and Challenges. Front. Plant. Sci. 2021, 12, 672329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Romero, F.M.; Gatica-Arias, A. CRISPR/Cas9: Development and Application in Rice Breeding. Rice Sci. 2019, 26, 265–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.