Search for: All records

Crop improvement relies heavily on genetic variation that arises spontaneously through mutation. Modern breeding methods are very adept at combining this genetic variation in ways that achieve remarkable improvements in plant performance. Novel traits have also been created through mutation breeding and transgenesis. The advent of gene editing, however, marks a turning point: With gene editing, synthetic variation will increasingly supplement and, in some cases, supplant the genetic variation that occurs naturally. We are still in the very early stages of realizing the opportunity provided by plant gene editing. At present, typically only one or a few genes are targeted for mutation at a time, and most mutations result in loss of gene function. New technological developments, however, promise to make it possible to perform gene editing at scale. RNA virus vectors, for example, can deliver gene-editing reagents to the germ line through infection and create hundreds to thousands of diverse mutations in the progeny of infected plants. With developmental regulators, edited somatic cells can be induced to form meristems that yield seed-producing shoots, thereby increasing throughput and shrinking timescales for creating edited plants. As these approaches are refined and others developed, they will allow for accelerated breeding, the domestication of orphan crops and the reengineering of metabolism in a more directed manner than has ever previously been possible. 

Heritable base-editing using a viral delivery system enables high-throughput functional analysis of genes in Arabidopsis. 

Summary Abscission is predetermined in specialized cell layers called the abscission zone (AZ) and activated by developmental or environmental signals. In the grass family, most identified AZ genes regulate AZ anatomy, which differs among lineages. A YABBY transcription factor,SHATTERING1(SH1), is a domestication gene regulating abscission in multiple cereals, including rice andSetaria. In rice,SH1inhibits lignification specifically in the AZ. However, the AZ ofSetariais nonlignified throughout, raising the question of howSH1functions in species without lignification.Crispr‐Cas9 knockout mutants ofSH1were generated inSetaria viridisand characterized with histology, cell wall and auxin immunofluorescence, transmission electron microscopy, hormonal treatment and RNA‐Seq analysis.Thesh1mutant lacks shattering, as expected. No differences in cell anatomy or cell wall components including lignin were observed betweensh1and the wild‐type (WT) until abscission occurs. Chloroplasts degenerated in the AZ of WT before abscission, but degeneration was suppressed by auxin treatment. Auxin distribution and expression of auxin‐related genes differed between WT andsh1, with the signal of an antibody to auxin detected in thesh1chloroplast.SH1inSetariais required for activation of abscission through auxin signaling, which is not reported in other grass species.