Genome editing in cotton: challenges and opportunities
Journal of Cotton Research volume 6, Article number: 3 (2023)
Cotton has enormous economic potential providing high-quality protein, oil, and fibre. A large increase in cotton output is necessary due to the world's changing climate and constantly expanding human population. In the past, conventional breeding techniques were used to introduce genes into superior cotton cultivars to increase production and to improve quality. The disadvantages of traditional breeding techniques are their time-consuming, reliance on genetic differences that are already present, and considerable backcrossing. To accomplish goals in a short amount of time, contemporary plant breeding techniques, in particular modern genome editing technologies (GETs), can be used. Numerous crop improvement initiatives have made use of GETs, such as zinc-finger nucleases, transcription-activator-like effector nucleases, clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR), and CRISPR-associated proteins systems (CRISPR/Cas)-based technologies. The CRISPR/Cas system has a lot of potential because it combines three qualities that other GETs lack: simplicity, competence, and adaptability. The CRISPR/Cas mechanism can be used to improve cotton tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses, alter gene expression, and stack genes for critical features with little possibility of segregation. The transgene clean strategy improves CRISPR acceptability addressing regulatory issues associated with the genetically modified organisms (GMOs). The research opportunities for using the CRISPR/Cas system to address biotic and abiotic stresses, fibre quality, plant architecture and blooming, epigenetic changes, and gene stacking for commercially significant traits are highlighted in this article. Furthermore, challenges to use of CRISPR technology in cotton and its potential for the future are covered in detail.
From germination to harvesting, cotton experiences a variety of biotic and abiotic stresses. Climate change has become another havoc for cotton that has put it in threat of an unfavored environment (Uniyal and Dietrich 2019). Prolonged heat, cold and unexpected rains change the insect and disease dynamics. It also changes the scenario of abiotic factors like soil composition effecting the soil web, causing drought, salinity, and water scarcity (Onyekachi et al. 2019). All these factors integrate to make cotton a less profitable crop discouraging the farmers to grow it. Absolutely, cotton deserves more value as it is the only spendable natural fiber crop as compared to flax plant. Sustainable practices have been introduced to increase soil health, microbial diversity and crop yield (Wang et al. 2020). A sustainable and profitable cotton production system is required to address all the problems keeping in view the sustainable development goals (SDGs) set by United Nations (Marzec and Hensel 2020).
Genome editing (GenEd) has revolutionized the field of life sciences and is used for genetic engineering in plants and animals with equal success. Researchers are using GenEd technology to get precise genetic modifications (Wen et al. 2018). Precise genetic engineering has been a longstanding fundamental goal of scientists conducting research in the field of synthetic biology, gene therapy, drug development, molecular breeding and biotechnology. The goal was achieved when it was reported that creation of targeted in vivo modifications to genomes can be successfully achieved using engineered nucleases (ENs) (Bogdanove and Voytas 2011). Basic questions in the biology and biotechnology can be addressed using available GenEd platforms. Researchers are using ENs; zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator like effector nucleases (TALENs), meganucleases, clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) / CRISPR-associated protein (CRISPR/Cas) etc., from last couple of decades to recruit repairing machinery of the cell by creation of double-strand breaks (DSBs) at predefined target sites (Durai et al. 2005; Kim et al. 1996). The binding of a reprogrammable EN to the target sequence is the prerequisite to produce a DSB at the desirable target site (Mahfouz et al. 2014).
Previously, several techniques have been used for mutagenesis in plants. Mutations in plant genomes were produced for different purposes such as biotic resistance, abiotic stress tolerance, dwarfism etc. X-ray was the first mutagen used for mutation in drosophila (Muller 1927). There are several other physical (radiation), chemical (EMS) and biological (transposable) mutagens (Stadler 1928; Greco et al. 2001; Kim et al. 2006) which have been successfully employed for mutagenesis in plants.
Mutation breeding has produced 3 200 plant varieties since 1930 to 2014 exhibiting different traits of interest. The problem with use of these mutagenesis is off-target mutation that have detrimental effects, difficult to screen out and may produce confusing results for researchers (Podevin et al. 2013). With the discovery and innovation in scientific world, new specific and efficient mutagens have also been used such as targeting induced local lesions in genomes (TILLING) technologies and recombinases. These mutagens have been widely used for reverse genetics and functional genomics studies. GenEd technique has been found fruitful in plants and animals with equal success to provide site-specific/targeted mutagenesis (Woo et al. 2015). From eukaryotic to prokaryotic organisms, GenEd tools were found marvelous in precise genome editing for different purposes (Woo et al. 2015).
Utilizing GenEd technologies, a number of organisms have already been genetically created for selective genetic modification e.g. Arabidopsis thaliana (Cermak et al. 2011), tomato (Brooks et al. 2014; Li et al. 2018; Bari et al. 2019), grapes (Ren et al. 2016), potato (Butler et al. 2016; Clasen et al. 2016), banana (Kaur et al. 2017; Kaur et al. 2018; Kaur et al. 2020), sorghum (Jiang et al. 2013b), soybean (Curtin et al. 2011; Jacobs et al. 2015), maize (Liang et al. 2014; Char et al. 2017), cassava (Odipio et al. 2017; Gomez et al. 2019), Citrus sinesis (Wang et al. 2019), Kiwi fruit (Wang et al. 2018a, b), wheat (Wang et al. 2014; Kim et al. 2018), rice (Li et al. 2012; Hu et al. 2016; Shufen et al. 2019), tobacco (Mahfouz et al. 2011; Gao et al. 2015), cotton (D'Halluin et al. 2013; Iqbal et al. 2016; Chen et al. 2017; Gao et al. 2017a; Li et al. 2017; Wang et al. 2018a, b), bacteria (Jiang et al. 2013b, a), fungi (Liu et al. 2017), yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) (Li et al. 2011), viruses (Ali et al. 2015; Ji et al. 2015; Khan et al. 2018, 2019), drosophila (Gratz et al. 2013), mouse (Nelson et al. 2016), insects (Watanabe et al. 2017a), Caenorhabditis elegans (Cheng et al. 2013), zebrafish (Huang et al. 2011), rats (Tesson et al. 2011), sheep (Zhao et al. 2016), cattle (Gao et al. 2017b), goat (Zhou et al. 2017), pigs (Watanabe et al. 2017b), human cell lines (Miller et al. 2011). Advancement in gene editing technology, like base editing and prime editing which are more promising with high precision, has minimized the chance of off-targets (Mishra et al. 2020). Prime editing and base editing has been reported in wheat, rice, maize, and cotton (Biswas et al. 2022).
All ENs produce DSBs at the target site in the DNA sequence followed by repairing the cellular machinery with or without errors using non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology directed (HDR) repair pathways (Rouet et al. 1994; Salomon and Puchta 1998; Bibikova et al. 2003). NHEJ and HDR are used for gene repair, replacement of faulty genes and insertion of new gene (Zhang et al. 2013). For gene insertion in site specific manner, another method, Obligate Ligation-Gated Recombination (ObLiGaRe), were experimented and introduced by.
ObLiGaRe is an additional tool used for broad applications in genetic engineering and targeted gene modifications (Yamamoto et al. 2015). ObLiGaRe can also be used for gene tagging, reporter gene insertion, purification of fusion proteins and monitoring of gene expression (Maresca et al. 2013).
CRISPR-based genetic modification can be employed to edit a gene as well as a metabolic pathway. Multiplexing allows for the simultaneous editing of 6–8 genes, however the lower profits associated with GenEd discourage farmers from cultivating it especially in the countries where genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have social concerns (Bortesi and Fische 2015). So, breeders involved in the development of a variety of the multigene characters can use multiplexing technology to get high accuracy and efficiency. In this review, a general description of the available genome editing platforms has been given with special emphasis on using these platforms for genetic improvement in cotton.
GenEd tools used for targeted genome modifications
ZFNs, mega-nucleases, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas9 are famous gene editing tools which have been demonstrated for targeted gene modifications in plants (Aziz 2021). CRISPR is a well-known bacterial immune defense system with it’s the best and well know tools known as CRISPR that laid the new foundation for biotechnologies on CRISPR-Cas9 (Singha et al. 2022).
These GenEd tools can target and precisely edit the DNA sequence in the genome for genetic improvement in the organism (Table 1). The designing and reprogramming of GenEd tools according to the target sequence is possible. GenEd tools such as ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas are different in designing, cloning/construction, expression vectors and transformation methods but are similar in the basic principle of creation of DSBs at the target site.
The wise and efficient use of DSBs depends upon the selection of genome editing technology opted for that purpose. Moreover, DSBs can be used for the creation of targeted heritable mutation in general with some Indels (insertion/deletion of DNA bases at the DSBs). Insertion, correction, and replacement of a gene are also possible using a donor template (Lo et al. 2013). But it has been found less efficient in the case of plants. Furthermore, the deletion of a gene can be achieved by the creation of two DSBs in the flanking regions of the gene.
Several on-line and off-line software are available for designing and in silico assembly of the GenEd tools. The clones/plasmids are also available from different scientists or from non-profit plasmid repositories such as Addgene. Apart from ZFNs, TALENs and CRISPR/Cas which have been used more frequently and widely for genome editing, other ENs are also available such as Meganucleases or homing endonucleases (DADGILAGLI) which have also been reported for targeted genome modifications (Roth et al. 2012), but the applicability of Meganucleases is very limited compared to other ENs.
Zinc finger nucleases
The first targeted gene mutation was achieved in tobacco plants at the end of the previous century which involved DSBs. A natural meganuclease I-SceI 18-bp recognition site was used to achieve the target (Puchta et al. 1996). A selective and distinctive phenotype was reported after the repairing of DSB through homologous recombination in tobacco (Puchta et al. 1996; Puchta 1998). Targeting the specific DNA sequence in the provided genomes, ZFNs are the first extensively utilised artificial nucleases (Dong et al. 2021). FokI nuclease is a bacterial endonuclease which is fused with Zinc Fingers (ZFs) to create DSBs in a predetermined DNA sequence (Kim et al. 1996). ZFN-based gene targeting was first reported in animal systems (Bibikova et al. 2001). During 1990s, Drosophila melanogaster was the first organism targeted for ZFNs-based genome modifications (Bibikova et al. 2003).
For the creation of a DSB, a dimer of ZF monomers and FokI endonuclease is required. Previously, three ZFs636 recognizing 9-bp DNA binding sites were used for the successful creation of DSBs in the target DNA (Kim et al. 1996; Smith et al. 2000). Targeted mutation has been developed in Arabidopsis at the seedling stage through high temperature relative expression of ZFNs (Lloyd et al. 2005). It was found that 10% of the plants had desired mutations which were transmitted in the subsequent generations. The function of a defective GUS was observed after repairing via homologous recombination and by integrating the NPTII reporter gene at various chromosomal sites in 10 different transgenic tobacco lines (Wright et al. 2005). Gene targeting efficiency of ZFNs was also tested in tobacco against endogenous acetolactate synthase (ALS) genes (SuRA and SuRB) and herbicide-resistant plants were observed with allelic mutations transferable to new generations (Townsend et al. 2009) (Table 2).
In maize, an herbicide resistant gene was specifically targeted to a particular locus in several separate events and then added by the co-expression of ZFNs with a complementary donor molecule. This resulted in genetic modifications in advanced generations (Shukla et al. 2009). Gene replacement of 7-kb fragment with a 4-kb donor cassette has been successfully achieved based on HDR. The donor template composed of red fluorescent protein (RFP) and kanamycin resistance gene was flanked by two ZFN cutting site (Schneider et al. 2016). Artificial Zinc-finger Proteins (AZPs) have been used successfully for virus interference (begomoviruses) (Sera 2005; Takenaka et al. 2007). AZPs has also been used for blockage of Rep protein binding site to inhibit viral replication in begomoviruses infecting a number of plants including cotton (Mao et al. 2013). Similar strategies can be used for suppression of other viruses by targeting transcription factor (TF) binding sites in the conserved DNA sequences (Khan et al. 2017a, b). Use of AZPs and ZFNs is well demonstrated in plants as well as in animals and human cell lines for producing targeted gene modifications, but the difficulty in designing and cloning of ZFNs and their cost of production have opened the choice for choosing other GenEd tools which address existing problems (Lim et al. 2022).
TALEs and TALENs for targeted genome modifications
TALEs are released by Xanthomonas, which activate target genes to cause plant diseases. TALEs have an acidic transcription-activation domain (AD), a NLS at the C-terminus, a DBD in the middle, and signals for secretion and motility at the N-terminus (Ma et al. 2016). The 34 amino acid repeats are arranged in 14–20 tandem arrays in the core of the DBD. The amino acid sequences of the repeats are almost identical, with the exception of double residues at positions 12 and 13 which are called repeat variable di-residues (RVDs). The effector proteins' crystal structures reveal that the first RVD amino acid in position 12 stabilizes the repeat structure, while the second RVD amino acid in position 13 identifies the sense strand DNA nucleotide (Maeder et al. 2013). The letters HD, NG, NI, and NN all begin with the letter C. NK and NH are more guanine (G)-specific than NN. As long as there is a thymine (T) before the target sites initial nucleotide, TALENs may target any recognition site in the genome (Modrzejewski et al. 2019).
Making TALENs is challenging since TALEs' DBDs are lengthy and repetitive. TALEN may be assembled using a variety of techniques, including conventional cloning, Golden Gate, and solid-phase (Maeder et al. 2013). The Golden Gate ligation technique, which is less expensive, simple to regulate, and suitable for small-scale research, was used to create the majority of TALENs that target plant genes. Researchers may link up to 10 TALE repeats in a single reaction using Type IIS restriction enzymes and the same reaction mixture. The genes of tobacco, rice, Brachypodium, barley, Arabidopsis and many other plant species have been targeted with TALEs and TALENs. TALEs have been employed for suppression of cotton leaf curl virus (Khan et al. 2018).
Briefly, natural TALE proteins are secreted by plant pathogenic bacteria, Xanthomonas (Teper and Wang 2021). These proteins hijack plant gene expression regulation and modulate expression of disease susceptibility genes, making plants vulnerable to disease. TALE proteins are comprised of two domains: the DNA binding domain and the effector domain. In natural TALEs, the effector domain is an activator which can alter gene expression. The effector domain to the specific DNA region based on the septicity of TALE monomers which is targeted by the DNA binding domain. Each TALE monomer contains 33–35 amino acids. The 12 and 13-positioned amino acids in one TALE monomer are responsible for the specificity of the TALE monomer to the DNA base (Mao et al. 2007). For each DNA base, different RVDs have been deciphered based on their binding affinity. Hence, for four DNA bases, initially, four RVDs were given; NI for A, NG for T, HD for C and NN for G/A. Recently, other RVDs have also been discovered such as NH for G, and it was found that it is more specific in targeting G than NN because NN had similar affinity for A and G (Liang et al. 2017).
The designing and assembly of TALEs and TALENs is comparatively more simple, comprehensive, cost-effective and time saving than ZFNs. Due to the single RVD and DNA base complementarity, the modular assembly of TALE and TALENs is very easy and can be used for broad-spectrum targeting of DNA sequences. Theoretically, any DNA sequence can be targeted using TALENs, while in case of ZFNs it was not possible (Table 3). Golden gate assembly is the fastest, simplest and cheapest strategy of cloning TALEs and TALENs (Cermak et al. 2011). Many free web-based online softwares are available for designing of TALEs and TALENs according to the DNA sequence of choice (Khan et al. 2017a, b). Several companies are providing designing and cloning services for TALEN construction on commercial basis (Khan et al. 2017a, b; Khan et al. 2018). Moreover, apart from nuclease domain, other effector domains are also available for TALEs which can be utilized to improve epigenetic marks and control gene expression. Gene repressors i.e. KRAB and gene activators VP16 and VP64 are used for modulation of gene expression, while TET1 and LSD1 are used as epigenome modifiers (Sultan et al. 2022). Owing to the high targeted mutagenesis efficiency of TALENs over ZFNs, TALENs have become more acceptable and applicable molecular scissors (Chen et al. 2013). Although ZFNs and TALENs have the same nuclease domain, FokI nuclease, but the binding domain is more crucial in septicity and effectiveness which ultimately resulting in a high mutation rate (Mahfouz et al. 2011; Miller et al. 2011). In comparison to ZFNs, TALENs have been used more frequently in a variety of plant species for targeted gene modifications (Table 4).
CRISPR/Cas: an RNA-guided endonuclease system
CRISPR/Cas, an RNA-guided endonucleases (RGENs) system, was emerged as adaptive immune system in bacteria (Ahmad et al. 2021a). CRISPR/Cas is the simplest and easiest system in terms of designing and cloning compared to ZFNs and TALENs. The Cas protein being part of an artificial CRISPR/Cas system is derived to target site by a single guide RNA (sgRNA). A sgRNA consists of about 20 nt in its composition and is reasonably easy to design as per the required target sequence. This gRNA is complementary to the target DNA sequence-based on Watson–Crick base pairing. In bacteria and archaea, the CRISPR/Cas9 system serves as the RNA-based adaptive immune system. Streptococcus pyogenes is the source of the type II CRISPR system, which includes CRISPR-associated nuclease 9 (Cas9) (Zuo et al. 2022). By inserting repeats of the viral DNA into the bacterial genome, the native CRISPR system offers resistance to viruses. Transcripts of these repeats trigger a nuclease to attack the complementary DNA from the invading virus when a bacterial colony becomes infected a second time, eliminating the viral DNA (Park et al. 2022). The CRISPR/Cas9 system can be recreated in mammalian cells utilizing the following three simple components to enable its gene-targeting ability in the eukaryotic cell: Cas9, a specificity-determining CRISPR RNA (crRNA), and an auxiliary trans-activating RNA (tracrRNA) (Li et al. 2019c). A chimeric sgRNA can also be created by fusing the crRNA and tracrRNA duplexes. The wider applications due to cost effectiveness and easiness in designing and cloning have made CRISPR/Cas a prominent technology in gene editing field of research (Fig. 1).
GenEd technologies have significantly modified the skills to edit genome of various cells and organisms. CRISPR/Cas9 and TALENs have reshaped the agricultural biotechnology with its high throughput and multiplexed genome engineering. A specific DNA sequence in genome of an organism is bounded by an engineered binding domain (Li et al. 2019a). Gene expression may be modulated at various levels ranging from epigenetics to posttranscription by fusion of different effector domains with the engineered binding domain.
The programmable and predictable pattern of bringing DNA, RNA and protein close together is the projecting feature of CRISPR technology. The activators and repressors to a specific DNA sequence can also be recruited via CRISPR, which can further regulate expression of genes either through CRISPR-based activation (CRISPRa) or interference (CRISPRi) (Parkhi et al. 2021). In case of suppression of a polygenic trait in plants, such as gossypol production in cotton, CRISPRi could be a tool of choice. Cotton Biotechnology Laboratory at Center of Advance Studies, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad (Pakistan) is conducting similar project in collaboration with MNS University of Agriculture, Multan, Pakistan.
The study of gene function and altering the regulatory network affiliated with these genes is a powerful approach which will be more strengthened by the use of emerging site-specific genome editing technologies. Currently, the most suitable GenEd tool is the CRISPR/Cas that can target any DNA sequence in the genome and change the phenotype of the individuals (Cong et al. 2013). The artificial CRISPR/Cas system is the copy of microbial natural adaptive immune system which work by recognizing exogenous plasmids and bacteriophages based on RNAs: trancrRNA and crRNA. The difference between the two is the optimized sgRNA which is designed to target the specific DNA sequence. HNH and RuvC are the two endonuclease domains of Cas protein. The availability of protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) region is the main requirement of Cas9 protein. The Cas proteins may have differences in PAM region requirements, but commonly used Cas proteins need 5’NGG3’ along with a target sequence of 20 nt length. CRISPR/Cas system has been used efficiently for gene improvement in cotton (Li et al. 2019a, b, c; Wang et al. 2022a) (Table 5).
Mechanism of off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9 system
The length of sgRNA is ~20–23 nt, which is critical for determining the off-target sequence in the host genome. According to some researchers, the seed sequence similarity is crucial for define on and off-targets (Saha et al. 2022).
The target DNA sequence is complementary to the first 20 or so nucleotides of the sgRNA, which are then followed by a sequence known as the PAM, which is generally "NGG" (Slesarenko et al. 2022). Although, the 20-nt guide sequence of the sgRNA and the presence of a PAM adjacent to the target sequence in the genome are thought to tightly regulate Cas9's targeting specificity, off-target cleavage activity could still happen on DNA sequences with even three to five base pair mismatches in the PAM-distal part of the sgRNA-guiding sequence (Kang et al. 2022). At present, various CRISPR/Cas variants and types are available with different PAM requirements which may be used to enhance on-targeting. The requirement of PAM and complementary sgRNA sequence are the major factors in determining gene targeting (Li et al. 2019c).
Furthermore, earlier research has shown that various guide RNA architectures can influence the cleavage of on-target and off-target sites (Wang et al. 2022b). Crystal structure analyses and single-molecule DNA curtain experiments recommend that while the PAM site is essential for the initiation of Cas9 binding, the seed sequence corresponding to 3′ end of the crRNA complementary recognition site, directly adjacent to PAM, is also critical for subsequent Cas9 binding, R-loop formation, and initiation of nuclease activities of Cas9 (Wu et al. 2022). These factors should be considered while designing a gRNA for targeting a specific sequence in the genome.
Reducing off-target effects
Designing nucleases to limit off-target effects was a critical concern not just for the fundamental research approach, but also for their potential agricultural, clinical and industrial applications. In vivo or in vitro administration of ZFNs and TALENs may result in toxicity or mortality owing to binding to off-target locations and the production of unintended DNA breakage (Jackson and Linsley 2010). In the case of ZFNs and TALENs, mutations were introduced to enhance FokI endonuclease activity exclusively during heterodimerization at locations bound by two distinct nucleases (Ma et al. 2015). Off-target cleavage in CRISPR-Cas9 systems is often the result of sgRNAs recognizing completely or partly complementary genomic regions. Diverse strategies have been proposed to minimize off-target cleavage, such as decreasing the quantity and duration of active Cas9 protein in cells by selective administration or modifying the half-time of Cas9 (Hajiahmadi et al. 2019). HF-Cas9, eCas9, and HypaCas9 are among the Cas9 variants with decreased off-target selectivity. New versions of Cas9 and Cas9 homologs, such as CRISPR-Cas12 (Cpf1) and CRISPR-Cas13a (C2c2), may identify alternative PAMs, which not only expands the possibilities for precise genome editing, but also has the potential for greater on-target specificity. Cas9 fusion with FokI nuclease is an intriguing approach that combines the benefits of ZFNs/TALENs with the CRISPR-Cas9 system (Li et al. 2019b). To mitigate off-targeting in genome editing, there is a need to focus on the in-silico studies and designing of the gene editing tools. Genome-wide off-targeting analysis should be run before going to the cloning and transformation of the gene editing tool. In case of CRISPR designing, new artificial intelligence models such as deep learning/machine learning may be adopted. A Deep-RPA model has been designed to determine the vulnerability of the genome for off-targeting (Saddique et al. unpublished data). Another strategy to minimize or avoid off-targeting is the selection of a delivery method. Various researchers used mRNA or proteins (ribonucleoprotein RNPs) and delivered them into the cells for targeted mutations to avoid integration of the transgene into the host cell (Gao 2019). Moreover, use of nano-particles has also been reported for enhancing the delivery and efficiency of transformation while avoiding the off-targeting.
Different types of CRISPR/Cas system
Type V Cas12a is categorized as a Class 2 CRISPR system since it is comparable to Cas9 in that it simply relies on RNA molecules to create DSBs (Zhan et al. 2021). However, it simply needs a crRNA molecule to direct it to its target, in contrast to Cas9's dual guidance of a crRNA and a tracer RNA; also, the resultant DSBs are staggered cuts with 5-nt 5′-overhangs instead of the blunt cuts produced by Cas9. Additionally, whereas Cas9 enzymes recognize PAMs with G-rich sequences, Cas12a prefers to attach to targets with T-rich PAM sites. Recently, this spectrum of recognized PAMs has grown as a result of manufactured Cas12a variants (Wang et al. 2021b) (Table 6). Other advantages of Cas12a over Cas9 include its lower mismatch tolerance, which lowers off-target effects, and its ability to process its own crRNA through RNase III activity, which facilitates multiplex gene editing. This is possible because Cas12a can deliver a single pre-crRNA template to the cell, where it is then cleaved by Cas12a into various crRNA molecules that target various genes. The overhangs created when Cas12a cuts the target DNA, which helps HDR since staggered cuts are better mended using this method than NHEJ (Sledzinski et al. 2021). AsCpf1 and LbCpf1 from Acidaminococcus sp. BV3l6 and Lachnospiraceae bacteria ND2006 respectively, exhibit comparable on-target efficacy to SpCas9 in human cells (Lyu et al. 2021).
The most recent member to the CRISPR family is significantly distinct from its predecessors. Although, Cas13a is a Class 2 CRISPR system, it can only cleave RNA attributable to the activity of two HEPN domains, in contrast to Cas9 and Cas12a's capacity to cut DNA (Wang et al. 2021a). It shares with Cas12a the capacity to process its own crRNA, allowing several loci to be targeted with a single pre-crRNA template. Cas13a's RNA-cleaving characteristics may be used for post-transcriptional suppression with similar efficacy to RNA interference (RNAi) techniques of RNA silencing, but with greater specificity and the capacity to cleave nuclear transcripts, which is limited with RNAi (Sun et al. 2022). Due to alternative splicing, the transcription of single DNA sequence generates several splicing isoforms, hence targeting DNA with CRISPR systems affects all mRNA isoforms (Hernandez et al. 2022). Cas13a enables the investigation of a single isoform's function or interference with its impact without affecting the activity of the other isoforms. Cas13a may also target pre-mRNA, which can be advantageous in disorders caused by incorrect splicing since the enzyme can intervene before the error develops (Sahin et al. 2021). However, Cas13a exhibited a capacity to cleave RNA without discrimination, which might limit its therapeutic use. A recent research observed no similar effects when the LwaCas13a form of Leptotrichia wadei was applied to mammalian cells, indicating that this collateral impact may be missing or undetected in eukaryotic cells (Deol et al. 2022).
In conditions when gene knockouts are not preferred, the NHEJ mechanism serves no function other than to impede the preferred HDR mechanism's ability to repair DSBs (Schubert et al. 2021). Similar as before, a Cas9 nickase variant (nCas9) is generated by inserting a particular mutation into the RuvC domain of Cas9. nCas9 nicks the target DNA, creating single-stranded rather than DSBs. Single-nick prefers repaired by base excision repair, hence nCas9 may be utilized to increase the efficiency of the process by decreasing the frequency of Indel mutations arising from undesirable NHEJ repairs. Additionally, nickases may be used to improve the specificity of Cas9-directed genome editing. Scientists designed a twofold nicking method with a pair of nCas9 targeting opposing strands and adjacent gRNA targets offset by a predetermined number of base pairs (Jin et al. 2013). The coupling of nCas9 systems generates DSBs with gRNA-defined overhangs, which may lead to highly targeted gene edits when paired with HDR or initiate precise deletions in key alleles through NHEJ (Zhu et al. 2022). Even if one of nCas9's nicks is off-target, the resultant nick is readily repaired by high-fidelity base excision repair, in contrast to wild-type Cas9, where blunt off-target DSB might result in unwanted changes when repaired by the NHEJ pathway (Möller et al. 2022). This technique has the disadvantage of needing the concurrent creation and delivery of two different gRNA molecules.
When both RuvC and HNH catalytic domains of Cas9 are modified through two silencing mutations, the system loses its DNA cleaving capabilities but retains the ability to bind to targeted sequences (Wang et al. 2022b). Researchers have demonstrated that this catalytically inactive variant of Cas9 (dCas9) can hinder transcription on its own, presumably by either blocking the pairing between RNA-polymerase and promoter sequences targeted with dCas9 or instead by halting the elongation step if the target sequence is part of an open reading frame region (García-Castillo et al. 2021). The dCas9 system can be further modified in several ways, such as fusing dCas9 to direct or indirect transcription activators (such as VP64), to increase the expression of a specific DNA sequence; or transcription repressors (such as KRAB), to increase the efficiency of dCas9-mediated transcription inhibition (Dong and Ronald 2021). The modification of genetic expression by dCas9 is a transient process, as it does not cause permanent modifications to the genomic DNA. However, specific and long-lasting modifications to genetic expression are possible through the fusion of epigenetic modifiers to dCas9 (Rahman and McGowan 2022). Several effector domains may be fused with dCas9 DBD to get various modifications in gene expression at different levels. Khan et al. (2019) used dCas9 to inhibit cotton leaf curl virus and reported that dCas9 may be used as DNA binding protein to modulate gene expression and inhibit replication of the virus in host cell.
ESpCas9, SpCas9-HF1, and HypaCas9
The interactions between Cas9 system and bound DNA strands can be changed in a different ways to improve the specificity of CRISPR targeting. Slaymaker and Gaudelli (2021) thought that Cas9 cleavage might work better if the separation between the target and non-target strands was stable. This would mean that weakening this separation in unwanted targets would reduce off-target effects. Stable strand separation is maintained after Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 (SpCas9) binds to the target site through two types of interactions: the binding of gRNA to the target strand and the formation of a positively-charged groove as a result of an unintended interaction between the HNH and RuvC domains and the negatively-charged non-target strand (Slaymaker and Gaudelli 2021; Nierzwicki et al. 2022).
Re-hybridization between the target and non-target strand is facilitated by weakening contacts on the non-target strand by lowering positive charges. As a result, off-target effects are decreased because careful base pairing between the target DNA and gRNA is necessary to establish a stable division between the target and non-target strands (Michel et al. 2021). Two "enhanced specificity" SpCas9 variants (eSpCas9 and eSpCas9) were created by engineering SpCas9 mutants with a single positively-charged amino acid residue substitution to weaken groove interactions. These variants had similar on-target efficiency to WT SpCas9 but significantly lower levels of off-target cleavage (Donohoue et al. 2021).
Kleinstiver created the high-fidelity SpCas9-HF1, a variation that resulted in undetectable genome-wide off-target cleavage, by concentrating also on the binding between Cas9 and the target region. However, Kleinstiver and his colleagues altered four SpCas9 residues that created hydrogen bonds with the phosphate backbone of the target strand instead of destroying the non-target strand contacts. This impaired gRNA binding to DNA targets in the presence of any mismatches (Corsi et al. 2022b). Alanine substitutions in all four residues originated SpCas9-HF1, which along with eSpCas9 also showed comparable on-target activity with WT SpCas9, without impactful off-target effects (Garrood et al. 2021) (Fig. 2).
Using GenEd tools for abiotic stress tolerance in cotton
Abiotic stresses are unfit climatic/edaphic conditions that irregulate the homeostasis or normal function of an organism, which ultimately effects its fitness and growth including plants (Schmidt et al. 2018). High temperature, drought and salinity are the major factors of cotton output reduction cross the globe and cause yield loss up to 50% worldwide (Bita & Gerats 2013). Abiotic stresses resistance are the result of the interplay of several genes and their regulatory, signaling, and metabolic pathways components, and the interaction of these components lead to response/adaptation to abiotic stress (Nakashima et al. 2009; Hirayama and Shinozaki 2010; Mickelbart et al. 2015). Several genes, transcription factors, cis elements and interplay of these with each other decide the fate of plant towards abiotic stress responses. Whole genome duplication events may occur in case of some abiotic stresses (Panchy et al. 2016), which may also result in functional redundancy in multi-gene families (Jain 2015). So, it is difficult to fix these multigene traits through conventional techniques to harness the resistant in plants against abiotic stresses.
Understanding of molecular basis and tolerance mechanisms towards abiotic stresses (including salinity, water deprivation, and high temperature) is critical to develop abiotic stress tolerant genetically engineered plants. There are several transcriptional factors which can be utilized as potential candidates to enhance the tolerance in cotton against drought stress (Li et al. 2013). The role of several transcription factors like ERF, NAC, MYB, WRKY and bZIP has been reported in drought tolerance as well as in normal plant development. The functional genomic studies have been carried out by cloning and validating the function of these transcriptional factors in cotton as well as in other plants. The editing of these genes has led towards the activation of several pathways in cotton critical for drought tolerance. In a previous study, GhABF2, a bZIP transcription factor gene, has been found to have role in drought and salinity tolerance and reported in both Arabidopsis and cotton (Peng et al. 2021). The role of GhABF2 in abscisic acid (ABA) regulation was confirmed through transcriptomic analysis and higher enzyme activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD) and catalase (CAT) due to overexpressing GhABF2 were observed in transgenic cotton plants resulting in better phenotype and yield (Liang et al. 2016).
The tolerance to abiotic factors can be effectively utilized by efficient stacking of these genes/transcription factors in modern cotton genotypes with inclusion of constitutive/strong promoters. It has been reported that overexpression of GbMYB5 is involved in drought stress tolerance in tobacco and cotton reducing water-loss through stomata and showing hypersensitivity to ABA (Chen et al. 2015). Moreover, it is observed that sucrose non-fermenting1-related protein kinase2 (GhSnRK2) is positively correlated for tolerance to low temperature and high drought when this gene was silenced through virus induced gene silencing (VIGS) in plants (Bello et al. 2014). Furthermore, silencing of cotton PHYA1 genes through RNAi increased the rate of photosynthesis and improved the root systems in plant, resulting in drought, heat and salt tolerance (Abdurakhmonov et al. 2014). Similarly, there are many genes such as GhPIN1-3 and GhRDL1 that can be targeted for drought tolerance in cotton (He et al. 2017; Dass et al. 2017). Many genes of transporters, transcription factors and different enzymes such as CIPK, MYB, NAC, LEA, WD40, CDPK and NHX have been reported for reported for salt tolerance in cotton (Sun et al. 2018). There are some genes such as IAR3, FPGS3and two ESTs (GhHS126 and GhHS128) which were reported for heat tolerance in cotton (Demirel et al. 2014). GenEd tools may be used efficiently to mutate or suppress gene at transcriptional level. Multiple members of gene families may also be targeted using multiplex CRISPR system (Ahmad et al. 2021a). The success stories regarding the cotton gene editing have been given in Table 7.
There are many other plant species in which the application of genome editing has been witnessed for the improvement of abiotic stress tolerance. SIMAOK3 mutants were developed through CRISPR/Cas9 system to study drought stress in cotton plants (Wang et al. 2017a, b). By silencing 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid synthase 6 gene in the transgenic maize plants showed reduced levels of ethylene biosynthesis, and grain yield was significantly improved under drought stress conditions (Habben et al. 2014). Similarly, decreasing the sensitivity of maize to ethylene also resulted in higher yield (Shi et al. 2015). ARGOS genes, negative regulators of the ethylene response, were over-expressed to enhance drought tolerance in transgenic maize plants (Shi et al. 2015; Guo et al. 2014). Mutation produced through CRISPR-Cas9 in OsDST gene of rice increased the salt and drought tolerance by increasing the width of leaf and reducing stomatal density (Kumar et al. 2020). The mitogen-activated protein kinase 3 (SlMAPK3) gene was identified by CRISPR/Cas9-based mutations as a mediator of drought defense systems in tomato plants. Rice variants produced using CRISPR/Cas9 were utilized to investigate the role of stress/ABA-activated protein kinase2 (SAPK2) in response to stress in rice. To investigate the role of C-repeat conditional factors (CBFs) in Arabidopsis plant cold stress response, we employed CRISPR/Cas9 technology to create cbf1, 3 dual and cbf1, 2, 3 (CBFs) triple mutants. If a geneticist understood how genes work, he or she may be able to employ genetic markers to develop more resilient crops (Zhang et al. 2021). Gene editing utilizing the CRISPR/Cas9 system may reduce the damage caused by abiotic stressors, such as high heat, dehydration, salt, nutrient insufficiency, and high levels of toxic substances.
Abiotic stresses resistances are controlled by multiples genes and several regulatory networks are involved along with signal transduction and up and down production of metabolites. These genes can be targeted through CRISPR-Cas9 technologies for inclusion of stress tolerance and crop improvement in abruptly changing climate scenarios (Ahmad et al. 2021b). The more advanced strategy could be the HDR-mediated gene targeting for the stacking and pyramiding of multiple genes at a time. Technology advancements such as base editing in CRISPR/Cas9 technology opens new endeavors of abiotic stress tolerance in plants through precised point mutation (Mishra et al. 2020). In rice, the tolerance against submergence is switched through a cytosine base-editor by altering the C>T in Sub1A gene (Bhowmik et al. 2019). Different genes discussed above coupled with different promising genome editing techniques can be used to equip the cotton crop with abiotic resistance/tolerance traits. Numerous abiotic and biotic factors influence agriculture all around the globe. A growing global population, food instability, and environmental pollution have prompted farmers to explore for new ways to boost yields, quality, and resistance of crops (Xu et al. 2020a). As a new method of improving agricultural varieties, CRISPR/Cas9 might be employed for functional genetic investigations. This technology might be used to improve a wide range of aspects of plant breeding in the future (Zhu et al. 2018).
Genes modifications for yield traits
Flowering in several agricultural plants is governed by seasonal variations in day duration, which may restrict the geographic distribution of cultivation for certain crops (Zhang et al. 2018). By manipulating flowering alleles and their linkages, it is possible to control blooming time. The CRISPR/Cas9 approach for editing genes like FLOWER Genomic and SELF-PRUNING 5G has already resulted in considerable modifications in the blooming time of soybeans and tomatoes (Xu et al. 2020b; Soyk et al. 2017). The thermo-sensitive genetically male sterility (TGMS) strain is one of the most often used male infertility strains in the two-line hybridization mating procedure.
TMS5 is a line of thermos-responsive, genetically engineered male sterile mice. CRISPR/Cas9 technique was demonstrated to be capable of accelerating high-yielding rice production by developing 11 new TGMS lines in just one year. The CRISPR/Cas9 approach proved successful in modifying four yield-enhancing genes: DEP1, Gn1a, IPA1, and GS3. Dep1 and gn1a cultivars had more seeds per panicle, as well as higher grain products per panicle (Gao et al. 2020). Using the CRISPR/Cas9 technology, researchers were able to alter profitability genes in farmed crop kinds with relative ease. Recent studies have shown that the CRISPR/Cas9 system may be utilized in rice to eliminate a key gene that regulates the manufacture of strigolactones. High tillering and dwarf phenotype were common in the ccd7 mutant rice plants. Aside from that, certain CRISPR/Cas9 mutants have useful traits that may be exploited to breed and generate desired crops (Chen et al. 2021).
These genes are associated with phenotypes as varied as dwarfism and diminished fruit dehiscence in the Brassica oleracea species, valve-margin development in polyploid oilseed rape (BnALC), grain dormancy in barley (Hordeum vulgare), and chloroplast maturation in cotton (GhCLA1) (Marzec and Hensel 2020).
Gene modifications to improve the quality of products
Furthermore, through using CRISPR/Cas9 system, a single dominant Waxy gene controlling amylose content was knocked out in two rice varieties, and the resulting mutants showed low amylose levels and elevated glutinosity. This research provides a simple and successful method for transforming a low-quality rice variety into a higher-quality one. Furthermore, the GBSS gene, which encodes a granule-bound starch synthase, was damaged in tetraploid potato using CRISPR/Cas9 (Lei et al. 2021). Only lines with mutations in all four GBSS alleles showed a decrease in GBSS enzymatic activity. These lines had a lower amylose concentration and a higher amylopectin/amylose ratio. To improve the quality of polyploid crops, the capacity of CRISPR/Cas9 to mutate several genes simultaneously offers a straightforward and robust tool.
Genome modification to develop biotic stress resistance
EDR1 has previously been identified as down-regulation of Powdery mildew susceptibility in Arabidopsis. Three EDR1 homologs were simultaneously knocked out using CRISPR/Cas9, resulting in Taedr1 plants that are more susceptible to Powdery mildew. Cas9-guided RNA-directed Cas9 knockouts for wheat and tomato improved their Powdery mildew resistance by mutating a gene called MLO. Citrus canker is caused by the bacterial pathogen Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri, which causes the canker susceptibility gene CsLOB1 to be expressed in susceptible plants. CRISPR/Cas9 was used to alter the CsLOB1 gene in grapefruit Duncan (Citrus paradisi Mac.), resulting in citrus variants that are resistant to canker. Many distinct hosts show recessive tolerance to the eIF (eukaryotic translation initiation factor) genes. CRISPR/Cas9 was successful in engineering virus-resistant cucumber and Arabidopsis plants by targeting genes. CRISPR/Cas9 was used to delete the eIF4G gene, which regulates the recessive rice tungro spherical virus (RTSV) susceptibility trait, to generate RTSV-resistant rice cultivars (Rathore et al. 2020).
Generating transgene-free and genome-edited crops
The ease, accuracy, and effectiveness of CRISPR/Cas9-induced genomic engineering and its capacity to make transgene-free, genetically engineered crops have all attracted great interest. It is possible to screen for mutant progeny plants that still carry the Cas9/sgRNA transgenes, even if they have been delivered into plants as transgenes via the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Plants that are genome-edited and devoid of transgenes are difficult to identify from those that have been mutated naturally. Industrial use of CRISPR/Cas9 may be able to avoid the stringent biosafety regulations that are required for genetically engineered food crops. In the United States, biosafety regulations for anti-browning fungi Agaricus bisporus and waxy corn developed with CRISPR/Cas9 were met, among several instances.
Mutant libraries construction
The task of critically analyzing the functions of all the genes in a plant genome that has been sequenced is significant. This problem can be solved by creating a genetic library that is saturated with mutants. To fine-tune the CRISPR/Cas9 system's ability to target certain genes, we changed the sgRNA's 20-bp target-binding region. Genome-wide mutations and the forward genetic testing may be carried out utilizing CRISPR/Cas9, which is both feasible and affordable. This discovery paved the way for the rising screening of plant mutant libraries using CRISPR/Cas9 in human cultured cells. When converting pooled sgRNA libraries into tomatoes, for instance, a variety of mutant strains were created. Using large-scale genetic screening and decoding, a homolog of an Arabidopsis boron outflow carrier gene and a gene related to immunity-associated leucine-rich repeat subclass II was swiftly revealed. Additionally, two separate research groups have developed rice CRISPR/Cas9 mutant libraries, each of which has generated a substantial number of losses of function mutations by the transformation of sgRNA libraries.
Gene transcription or translation regulation
Multiple mechanisms exist for controlling the expression of a gene's product. Plant breeding relies heavily on manipulating gene expression to promote phenotypic variation. In earlier investigations, cis-regulatory factors in the gene activation loop were linked to agricultural species of plants’ development, domestication, and selection (Wang et al. 2022b). In tomatoes, CRISPR/Cas9 has recently been used to change the regulators of three genes associated with plant structure, inflorescence branching, and fruit size. Several promoter alterations indicated increasing variability in the trans-regulatory genes produced for each condition evaluated. When these transgenic crops are grown in the ground, they displayed decreased plant height, modified the color of the leaves, and increased the tiller angle. With help of the CRISPR/Cas9 mechanism, plant upstream open reading frames (uORFs) have been altered to produce higher amounts of protein, which were then transcribed into four different variations.
Gene stacking using GenEd tools
Using recombinases for genetic manipulation is an older method. Recombinase technology has been applied to site-specifically implant, remove, or reverse a target gene. It has been proposed that using site-specific recombinase technologies for gene deletion is a good way to modify genes (Andrés and Coupland 2012).
With the progress in GenEd tools like TALE proteins, TALE Recombinases (TALER) were developed by fusing TALE with DNA invertase Gin's catalytic regions (Mercer et al. 2012). TALERs have been used in mammalian cells and bacteria for targeted gene modifications. Engineered ZFs can be used as substitute of DNA binding domains to retarget the sequence of interest in the genome. These variants are the members of known resolvase/invertase family which categorically comes under serine recombinases. However, ZFNs had some hurdles like lacking in bonding with all DNA triplets, defective modularity with particular domains and difficulty in construction limited the wider application ZFPs for genome editing (Jin et al. 2013). Targeting capacity and potential applications on recombinases may be improved by TALER architecture which will be helpful for its uses in animal and plant biotechnology. In case of cotton, meganucleases have been used for pyramiding of genes based on homologous recombination (D'Halluin et al. 2013). Other efficient GenEd tools may be very useful for gene stacking because the advantage over recombinases technology is its specificity and targeted fashion even at the first event of gene integration in the host plant genome.
The study and innovation in the field of genome biology and genetic modification have always been of a great interest. Development of stress tolerant and disease resistant varieties and establishment of animal gene expression in plants are the marvelous achievements of genetic engineering. Plant breeders are always eager to find variations that can be used in the breeding programs. By the advent of genome editing tools, targeted genome modifications have become possible (McGarry et al. 2013). The flexibility of using different engineered proteins and nucleases to get desirable and precise results has increased the canvas of applicability of genome editing tools. Scientists are working on the understanding and nature of genome modification tools to address limitations related with their usage. The most important limitation is the off-targeting. To address off-targeting, one can choose a different tool from the toolbox. Researchers have found that TALENs, having a long target site, have fewer off targets compared with ZFNs and CRISPR/Cas (Wang et al. 2015). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has said that there would be no regulation for ENs-based precise deletions in the genome. This comes as part of the discussion around the regulation and adoption of genome edited organisms (GEOs). The scientists who are now working in this subject have expressed their optimism over this new breakthrough. Numerous agricultural plants and animals have been targeted using ENs or artificial DNA-binding proteins, and the findings have been found to be very encouraging. The toolbox that is utilized for GenEd has become more diverse, which further expands the variety of applications that can be accomplished through genome editing.
It has been shown to be more intriguing than previously existing technologies such as RNAi to suppress genes at the DNA level by introducing deletions or insertions in the target DNA. The mutations produced by using GenEd tools are more exact, specific, and efficient, and they provide outcomes that are more predictable than those produced by using other approaches such as RNAi, TILLING, and the use of other mutagens. In addition, the use of GenEd tools has made it possible to regulate gene expression in a manner that is both tunable and under remote control. Efficient regulation of the expression of native genes is possible with the use of TALEs, ZFs, and dCas either on their own or combined with effector domains. Researchers have also shown that subsequent generations of transgenic plants may be created devoid of these proteins via the process of segregation following the transformation of GenEd reagents. Therefore, these techniques may also be employed for the generation of plants that do not contain any transgenes, as well as for clean gene technology. The scientists and researchers who are working in the area of genome editing are quite eager and hopeful about the bright characteristic that this discipline has (Eş et al. 2019). These technologies are now being used across the board in the biological sciences to achieve desired genetic modifications in animals and plants.
The use of GenEd techniques in the genetic engineering of cotton will open up new possibilities for functional genomics researches, which may be used to better understand complicated metabolic processes that include several genes. By making use of the resources made available by GenEd, it is feasible to improve not only the quality of cotton fibre but also the quality of its seeds. The effectiveness of targeted gene alterations in cotton is shown by the reports of genetic engineering that were examined above. It is possible to use the CRISPR/Cas system with the nickase enzyme, which is used for gene repair and replacement, to replace an endogenous promoter with a constitutive, strong, and inducible exogenous promoter.
This will be beneficial in controlling the expression of an endogenous gene. These types of approaches are further useful to eliminate the risk of foreign gene insertion in the host plant genome. Gene pyramiding/stacking is another tremendous feature which may be used to mitigate the segregation of desirable genes (Rathore et al. 2020). Additionally, the stacking of genes for numerous reasons, such as the enhancement of insect resistance, herbicide resistance, disease resistance, yield, and quality, would be highly desirable for the agricultural business as well as farmers. Epigenome marks associated with flowering, stress resistance, and fiber quality can be modified using ZFs, TALEs, and dCas9 with multiple effector domains. In conclusion, GenEd toolbox is helpful in solving constraints resulting in decline in cotton growth, fiber quality, and yield.
Another feature of GenEd tools is the production of DNA-free gene edited plants. For this purpose, various researchers have used different reagents ranging from delivery of DNA, mRNA, and proteins. Moreover, several delivery methods have also been reported where nanoparticle-mediated delivery may be more efficient. In case of Cas9, RNPs have been delivered to engineer multiple genes in wheat (Liang et al. 2017). Producing genome edited crops in a DNA-free fashion could be a solution to the concerns associated with the use of GMOs. Hence, genome modified cotton is already cultivated over 80% of the cultivated area, making non-GMOs gene edited cotton will be accepted globally. So, the future of CRISPR-edited crops is bright and may be helpful in addressing the important issues such as food security and sustainability.
Genome editing is booming. Editing nucleases have revolutionized genomic engineering, making mammalian genome editing straightforward. Since their discovery, gene editing has advanced greatly. Each of the four primary nucleases used to cut and modify the genome has benefits and downsides, and the decision depends on the context. Current genome editing methods have drawbacks, and it's tough to modify low-transfection cells or primary cultivated cells. Genotoxicity is an inherent concern of nucleic acid-acting enzymes, although highly specialized endonucleases should diminish or eliminate it. Future efforts have to be made to complement and innovate present techniques. Gene editing research should progress greatly. With next-generation sequencing technology, new clinical applications will be presented, such as creating designed medicinal items, eradicating human genetic illnesses, and treating AIDS and malignancies. Combining genomic alterations caused by targeted nucleases with self-degrading, self-inactivating vectors may assist in overcoming restrictions to enhance genome editing selectivity, notably off-target modifications. Off-target effects are still poorly understood. If CRISPR/Cas9 is to live up to its promise, more researches in this area are essential. The lack of universal gene cargo delivery mechanisms continues to be the biggest barrier to the widespread usage of CRISPR/Cas9. Since genome engineering and regenerative medicine are still in their infancy, it is necessary to thoroughly understand the functional landscape of stem and progenitor cells in various genetic contexts in order to realize the full potential of these technologies in reprogramming the destiny of these cells. Only time will tell what potential these technologies will have for humanity. One important concern is whether the immune system would recognize or reject the alien genetic components found in the cells. The fact that bioethical concerns and legal issues associated to this issue are continuing to grow in light of the possibilities of manipulating human genetic material and the riskiness of the processes involved is another significant cause for worry. Technical and ethical regulations, as well as laws, should be evaluated and need significant consideration as soon as feasible.
Availability of data and materials
Zinc finger nuclease
Transcription activator like effector nucleases
Clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats
Double stranded breaks
Non-homologous end joining
Obligate ligation-gated recombination
Homology directed repair
Oligomerized pool engineering
Abdurakhmonov IY, Buriev ZT, Saha S, et al. Phytochrome RNAi enhances major fibre quality and agronomic traits of the cotton Gossypium hirsutum L. Nature Commun. 2014;5:3062. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms4062.
Abdurakhmonov IY, Ayubov MS, Ubaydullaeva KA, et al. RNA interference for functional genomics and improvement of cotton (Gossypium sp.). Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:202. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00202.
Ali Z, Abulfaraj A, Idris A, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated viral interference in plants. Genome Biol. 2015;16:238. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0799-6.
Ahmad A, Ghouri MZ, Jamil A, et al. First-generation transgenic cotton crops. In: Rahman Mu, Zafar Y, Zhang T, editors. Cotton precision breeding. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. 2021a. 229–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-64504-5_10.
Ahmad A, Ghouri MZ, Munawar N, et al. Regulatory, ethical, and social aspects of CRISPR crops. In: Ahmad A, Khan SH, Khan Z, editors. CRISPR Crops. Singapore: Springer; 2021b. p. 261–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7142-8_9.
Álvarez MM, Biayna J, Supek F. TP53-dependent toxicity of CRISPR/Cas9 cuts is differential across genomic loci and can confound genetic screening. Nat Commun. 2022;13:4520. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32285-1
Anugraha A, Thomas T, Thomas DT. Transgenic technology in crop improvement. In: Kumar N, editor. Biotechnology and crop improvement. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 2022. p. 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003239932.
Arnan C, Ullrich S, Pulido-Quetglas C, et al. Paired guide RNA CRISPR-Cas9 screening for protein-coding genes and lncRNAs involved in transdifferentiation of human B-cells to macrophages. BMC Genomics. 2022;23:402. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-022-08612-7.
Azadbakht N, Doosti A, Jami MS. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated LINC00511 knockout strategies, increased apoptosis of breast cancer cells via suppressing antiapoptotic genes. Biol Proced Online. 2022;24:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12575-022-00171-1.
Aman R, Mahas A, Butt H, et al. Engineering RNA virus interference via the CRISPR/Cas13 machinery in Arabidopsis. Viruses. 2018;10(12):732. https://doi.org/10.3390/v10120732.
Andrés F, Coupland G. The genetic basis of flowering responses to seasonal cues. Nature Rev Genet. 2012;13(9):627–39. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3291.
Aziz KJ. Genome editing: new, emerging, and interesting developments for clinical applications. J Biotechnol Bioinform Res. 2021;3:1–4.
Bhowmik P, Hassan MM, Molla K, et al. Application of CRISPR-Cas genome editing tools for the improvement of plant abiotic stress tolerance. In: Hasanuzzaman M, Nahar K, Fujita M, et al. editors. Approaches for enhancing abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 2019; p. 459–72. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781351104722
Buljung B, Nickum L, Andersen P, Evans G. Rapidly going virtual without sacrificing quality: adapting instruction for an engineering design course. J Academic Librarianship. 2022;8(6):102509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2022.102509
Bello B, Zhang X, Liu C, et al. Cloning of Gossypium hirsutum sucrose non-fermenting 1-related protein kinase 2 gene (GhSnRK2) and its overexpression in transgenic Arabidopsis escalates drought and low temperature tolerance. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(11):e112269. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0112269.
Bheemanahalli R, Sunoj VJ, Saripalli G, et al. Quantifying the impact of heat stress on pollen germination, seed set, and grain filling in spring wheat. Crop Sci. 2019;59(2):684–96. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2018.05.0292.
Bibikova M, Carroll D, Segal DJ, et al. Stimulation of homologous recombination through targeted cleavage by chimeric nucleases. Mol Cell Biol. 2001;21(1):289–97. https://doi.org/10.1128/MCB.21.1.289-297.2001.
Bibikova M, Beumer K, Trautman JK, Carroll D. Enhancing gene targeting with designed zinc finger nucleases. Science. 2003;300(5620):764. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1079512.
Biswas S, Bridgeland A, Irum S, et al. Optimization of prime editing in rice, peanut, chickpea, and cowpea protoplasts by restoration of GFP activity. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23:9809. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23179809.
Bita C, Gerats T. Plant tolerance to high temperature in a changing environment: scientific fundamentals and production of heat stress-tolerant crops. Front Plant Sci. 2013;4:273. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2013.00273.
Bogdanove AJ, Voytas DF. TAL effectors: customizable proteins for DNA targeting. Science. 2011;333(6051):1843–6. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.120409.
Bonawitz ND, Ainley WM, Itaya A, et al. Zinc finger nuclease-mediated targeting of multiple transgenes to an endogenous soybean genomic locus via non-homologous end joining. Plant Biotechnol J. 2019;17(4):750–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13012.
Bortesi L, Fischer R. The CRISPR/Cas9 system for plant genome editing and beyond. Biotechnol Adv. 2015;33(1):41–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.12.006.
Brooks C, Nekrasov V, Lippman ZB, et al. Efficient gene editing in tomato in the first generation using the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated 9 system. Plant Physiol. 2014;166(3):1292–7. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.114.247577.
Butler NM, Baltes NJ, Voytas DF, et al. Geminivirus-mediated genome editing in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) using sequence-specific nucleases. Front Plant Sci. 2016;21(7):1045. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01045.
Cai Y, Chen L, Liu X, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis of GmFT2a delays flowering time in soybean. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018;16(1):176-85. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12758.
Carver J, Kern M, Ko P, et al. A ribonucleoprotein‐based decaplex CRISPR/Cas9 knockout strategy for CHO host engineering. Biotechnology Progress. 2022;38:e3212. https://doi.org/10.1002/btpr.3212.
Chaudhuri A, Halder K, Datta A. Classification of CRISPR/Cas system and its application in tomato breeding. Theor Appl Genet. 2022;135:367–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-021-03984-y.
Chen Y, Fu M, Li H, et al. High‐oleic acid content, nontransgenic allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) generated by knockout of GhFAD2 genes with CRISPR/Cas9 system. Plant Biotechnol J. 2021;19:424. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13507.
Christian ML, Dapp MJ, Scharffenberger SC, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated insertion of HIV long terminal repeat within BACH2 promotes expansion of T regulatory–like cells. J Immunol. 2022;208(7):1700–10. doi: https://doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.2100491.
Corsi GI, Gadekar VP, Gorodkin J, Seemann SE. CRISPRroots: on-and off-target assessment of RNA-seq data in CRISPR–Cas9 edited cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022a;50(4):e20. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkab1131.
Corsi GI, Qu K, Alkan F, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 gRNA activity depends on free energy changes and on the target PAM context. Nat Commun. 2022b;13:3006. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30515-0.
Cromer MK, Barsan VV, Jaeger E, et al. Ultra-deep sequencing validates safety of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells. Nat Commun. 2022;13:4724. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-32233-z.
Cui F, Zhang Z, Cao C, et al. Protein–DNA/RNA interactions: machine intelligence tools and approaches in the era of artificial intelligence and big data. Proteomics. 2022;22:2100197. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmic.202100197.
Baek K, Kim DH, Jeong J, et al. DNA-free two-gene knockout in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii via CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Sci Rep. 2016;6:30620. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep30620.
Bari VK, Nassar JA, Kheredin SM, Get al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of CAROTENOID CLEAVAGE DIOXYGENASE 8 in tomato provides resistance against the parasitic weed Phelipanche aegyptiaca. Sci Rep. 2019;9:11438. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-47893-z.
Cermak T, Doyle EL, Christian M, et al. Efficient design and assembly of custom TALEN and other TAL effector-based constructs for DNA targeting. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(12):e82. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr218.
Char SN, Unger-Wallace E, Frame B, et al. Heritable site-specific mutagenesis using TALENs in maize. Plant Biotechnol J. 2015;13(7):1002–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12344.
Char SN, Neelakandan AK, Nahampun H, et al. An Agrobacterium-delivered CRISPR/Cas9 system for high-frequency targeted mutagenesis in maize. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017;15(2):257–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12611.
Chen S, Oikonomou G, Chiu CN, et al. A large-scale in vivo analysis reveals that TALENs are significantly more mutagenic than ZFNs generated using context-dependent assembly. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013;41(4):2769–78. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gks1356.
Chen T, Li W, Hu X, et al. A cotton MYB transcription factor, GbMYB5, is positively involved in plant adaptive response to drought stress. Plant Cell Physiol. 2015;56(5):917–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12157.
Chen X, Lu X, Shu N, et al. Targeted mutagenesis in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep44304.
Cheng Z, Yi P, Wang X, et al. Conditional targeted genome editing using somatically expressed TALENs in C. elegans. Nature Biotechnol. 2013;31(10):934–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2674.
Chao SF, Cai YC, Feng BB, et al. Editing of rice isoamylase gene ISA1 provides insights into its function in starch formation. Rice Sci. 2019;26(2):77–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rsci.2018.07.001.
Clasen BM, Stoddard TJ, Luo S, et al. Improving cold storage and processing traits in potato through targeted gene knockout. Plant Biotechnol J. 2016;14(1):169–76. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12370.
Cong L, Ran FA, Cox D, et al. Multiplex genome engineering using CRISPR/Cas systems. Science. 2013;339(6121):819–23.
Curtin SJ, Zhang F, Sander JD, et al. Targeted mutagenesis of duplicated genes in soybean with zinc-finger nucleases. Plant Physiol. 2011;156(2):466–73. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.111.172981.
Deol P, Madhwal A, Sharma G, et al. CRISPR use in diagnosis and therapy for COVID-19. Methods in Microbiology. 2022;50:123-50. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.mim.2022.03.002.
Dong OX, Ronald S. Targeted DNA insertion in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118:e2004834117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004834117.
Dass A, Abdin MZ, Reddy VS, et al. Isolation and characterization of the dehydration stress inducible GhRDL1 promoter from the cultivated upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J Plant Biochem Biotechnol. 2017;26(1):113–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13562-016-0369-3.
Demirel U, Gür A, Can N, et al. Identification of heat responsive genes in cotton. Biol Plant. 2014;58(3):515–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10535-014-0414-9.
D’Halluin K, Vanderstraeten C, Van Hulle J, et al. Targeted molecular trait stacking in cotton through targeted double-strand break induction. Plant Biotechnol J. 2013;11(8):933–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12085.
Dong OX, Ronald PC. Targeted DNA insertion in plants. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(22):e2004834117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004834117.
Donohoue PD, Pacesa M, Lau E, et al. Conformational control of Cas9 by CRISPR hybrid RNA-DNA guides mitigates off-target activity in T cells. Mol Cell. 2021;81:3637–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molcel.2021.07.035.
Durai S, Mani M, Kandavelou K, et al. Zinc finger nucleases: custom-designed molecular scissors for genome engineering of plant and mammalian cells. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33(18):5978–90.
Eş I, Gavahian M, Marti-Quijal FJ, et al. The application of the CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing machinery in food and agricultural science: current status, future perspectives, and associated challenges. Biotechnol Adv. 2019;37(3):410–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2019.02.006.
Farooq MU, Bashir MF, Khan MU, et al. Role of CRISPR to improve abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Biol Clin Sci Res J. 2021;2021(1). https://doi.org/10.54112/bcsrj.v2021i1.69.
Forner J, Pfeiffer A, Langenecker T, et al. Germline-transmitted genome editing in Arabidopsis thaliana using TAL-effector-nucleases. PLoS ONE. 2015;10(3):e0121056. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133945.
Guo M, Rupe MA, Wei J, et al. Maize ARGOS1 (ZAR1) transgenic alleles increase hybrid maize yield. J Experimental Botany. 2014;65(1):249-60. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert370.
Gao J, Wang G, Ma S, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in Nicotiana tabacum. Plant Mol Biol. 2015;87(1–2):99–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-014-0263-0.
Gao W, Long L, Tian X, et al. Genome editing in cotton with the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Front Plant Sci. 2017a;3(8):1364. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01364.
Gao Y, Wu H, Wang Y, et al. Single Cas9 nickase induced generation of NRAMP1 knockin cattle with reduced off-target effects. Genome Biol. 2017b;18(1):1–5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-016-1144-4.
Gao C. Precision plant breeding using genome editing technologies. Transgenic Res. 2019;28(Suppl 2):53–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-019-00132-7.
Gao H, Gadlage MJ, Lafitte HR, et al. Superior field performance of waxy corn engineered using CRISPR–Cas9. Nat Biotechnol. 2020;38(5):579–81. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0444-0.
García-Castillo J, Alcaraz-Pérez F, Martínez-Balsalobre E, et al. Telomerase RNA recruits RNA polymerase II to target gene promoters to enhance myelopoiesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118:e2015528118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015528118.
Garrood, WT, Kranjc N, Petri K, et al. Analysis of off-target effects in CRISPR-based gene drives in the human malaria mosquito. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118:e2004838117. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004838117.
Gong S, Zhang S, Wang X, et al. Strand displacement amplification assisted CRISPR-Cas12a strategy for colorimetric analysis of viral nucleic acid. Analytical Chemistry. 2021;93:15216–23. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.1c04133.
Gomez MA, Lin ZD, Moll T, et al. Simultaneous CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of cassava eIF 4E isoforms nCBP-1 and nCBP-2 reduces cassava brown streak disease symptom severity and incidence. Plant Biotechnol J. 2019;17(2):421–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12987.
Gratz SJ, Cummings AM, Nguyen JN, et al. Genome engineering of Drosophila with the CRISPR RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease. Genet. 2013;194(4):1029–35. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.152710.
Greco S, Matarazzo B, Slowinski R. Rough sets theory for multicriteria decision analysis. Eur J Oper Res. 2001;129(1):1–47.
Gurushidze M, Hensel G, Hiekel S, et al. True-breeding targeted gene knock-out in barley using designer TALE-nuclease in haploid cells. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(3):e92046. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0092046.
Hajiahmadi Z, Movahedi A, Wei H, et al. Strategies to increase on-target and reduce off-target effects of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in plants. 2019;20(15):3719. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms20153719.
Hernandez VA, Carvajal-Moreno J, Wang X, et al. Use of CRISPR/Cas9 with homology-directed repair to silence the human topoisomerase IIα intron-19 5’splice site: generation of etoposide resistance in human leukemia K562 cells. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(5):e0265794. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0265794.
Habben JE, Bao X, Bate NJ, et al. Transgenic alteration of ethylene biosynthesis increases grain yield in maize under field drought-stress conditions. Plant Biotechnol J. 2014;12(6):685–93. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12172.
He P, Zhao P, Wang LM, et al. The PIN gene family in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum): genome-wide identification and gene expression analyses during root development and abiotic stress responses. BMC Genomics. 2017;18:507. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-3901-5.
Hilioti Z, Ganopoulos I, Ajith S, et al. A novel arrangement of zinc finger nuclease system for in vivo targeted genome engineering: the tomato LEC1-LIKE4 gene case. Plant Cell Rep. 2016;35(11):2241–55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-016-2031-x.
Hirayama T, Shinozaki K. Research on plant abiotic stress responses in the post-genome era: past, present and future. Plant J. 2010;61(6):1041–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04124.x.
Hu X, Wang C, Fu Y, et al. Expanding the range of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in rice. Mol Plant. 2016;9(6):943–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2016.03.003.
Huang P, Xiao A, Zhou M, et al. Heritable gene targeting in zebrafish using customized TALENs. Nature Biotechnol. 2011;29(8):699–700. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1939.
Hummel AW, Chauhan RD, Cermak T, et al. Allele exchange at the EPSPS locus confers glyphosate tolerance in cassava. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018;16(7):1275–82. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12868.
Iaffaldano B, Zhang Y, Cornish K. CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing of rubber producing dandelion Taraxacum kok-saghyz using Agrobacterium rhizogenes without selection. Ind Crops Prod. 2016;89:356–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2016.05.029.
Iqbal Z, Sattar MN, Shafiq M. CRISPR/Cas9: a tool to circumscribe cotton leaf curl disease. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:475. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00475.
Jackson AL, Linsle PS. Recognizing and avoiding siRNA off-target effects for target identification and therapeutic application. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery. 2010;9:57–67. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd3010.
Jiang WZ, Zhou HB, Bi HH, et al. Demonstration of CRISPR/Cas9/sgRNA-mediated targeted gene modification in Arabidopsis, tobacco, sorghum and rice. Nucleic Acids Res. 2013b;41(20):e188. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkt780.
Jin X, Pang Y, Jia F, et al. A potential role for CHH DNA methylation in cotton fiber growth patterns. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e60547. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0060547.
Jacobs TB, LaFayette PR, Schmitz RJ, Parrott WA. Targeted genome modifications in soybean with CRISPR/Cas9. BMC Biotechnol. 2015;15:16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12896-015-0131-2.
Jain M. Function genomics of abiotic stress tolerance in plants: a CRISPR approach. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:375. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00375.
Janga MR, Campbell LM, Rathore KS. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Plant Mol Biol. 2017;94(4):349–60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-017-0599-3.
Janga MR, Pandeya D, Campbell LM, et al. Genes regulating gland development in the cotton plant. Plant Biotechnol J. 2019;17(6):1142–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13044.
Ji X, Zhang H, Zhang Y, et al. Establishing a CRISPR–Cas-like immune system conferring DNA virus resistance in plants. Nature Plants. 2015;1:15144. https://doi.org/10.1038/nplants.2015.144.
Jiang W, Bikard D, Cox D, et al. RNA-guided editing of bacterial genomes using CRISPR-Cas systems. Nature Biotechnol. 2013a;31(3):233–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2508.
Jung JH, Altpeter F. TALEN mediated targeted mutagenesis of the caffeic acid O-methyltransferase in highly polyploid sugarcane improves cell wall composition for production of bioethanol. Plant Mol Biol. 2016;92(1):131–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-016-0499-y.
Jung YJ, Nogoy FM, Lee SK, et al. Application of ZFN for site directed mutagenesis of rice SSIVa gene. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng. 2018;23:108–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12257-017-0420-9.
Kang M, Zuo Z, Yin Z, Gu J. Molecular mechanism of D1135E-induced discriminated CRISPR-Cas9 PAM recognition. J Chem Inf Model. 2022;62(12):3057–66. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jcim.1c01562.
Khan Z, Khan SH, Mubarik MS, Ahmad A. Targeted genome editing for cotton improvement. In: Rahman Mu, Zafar Y, editors. Past, present and future trends in cotton breeding. IntechOpen. 2018. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.73600.
Khan Z, Khan SH, Ahmad A. Challenges and future prospects of CRISPR technology. In: Ahmad A, Khan SH, Khan Z, editors. The CRISPR/Cas tool kit for genome editing. Singapore: Springer. 2022; p. 311–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6305-5_10.
Kovalchuk I. Off-target effects in genome editing. In: Kovalchuk I, Kovalchuk O, editors. Genome stability (Second ed). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Academic Press. 2021; p. 715-27. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85679-9.00038-6.
Kanazashi Y, Hirose A, Takahashi I, et al. Simultaneous site-directed mutagenesis of duplicated loci in soybean using a single guide RNA. Plant Cell Rep. 2018;37(3):553–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-018-2251-3.
Kaur N, Pandey A, Kumar P, et al. Regulation of banana phytoene synthase (MaPSY) expression, characterization and their modulation under various abiotic stress conditions. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:462. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00462.
Kaur N, Alok A, Kaur N, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated efficient editing in phytoene desaturase (PDS) demonstrates precise manipulation in banana cv. Rasthali genome. Funct Integr Genomics. 2018;18(1):89–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10142-017-0577-5.
Kaur N, Alok A, Shivani, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 directed editing of lycopene epsilon-cyclase modulates metabolic flux for β-carotene biosynthesis in banana fruit. Metab Eng. 2020;59:76–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymben.2020.01.008.
Kelliher T, Starr D, Richbourg L, et al. MATRILINEAL, a sperm-specific phospholipase, triggers maize haploid induction. Nature. 2017;542(7639):105–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20827.
Khan Z, Khan SH, Mubarik MS, et al. Use of TALEs and TALEN technology for genetic improvement of plants. Plant Mol Biol Rep. 2017a;35(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11105-016-0997-8.
Khan Z, Khan SH, Sadia B, et al. TALE-mediated inhibition of replication of begomoviruses. Int J Agric Biol. 2017b;20:109–18. https://doi.org/10.17957/IJAB/15.0456.
Khan Z, Khan SH, Ahmad A, et al. CRISPR/dCas9-mediated inhibition of replication of begomoviruses. Int J Agric Biol. 2019;21(4):711–8. https://doi.org/10.17957/IJAB/15.0948.
Kim YG, Cha J, Chandrasegaran S. Hybrid restriction enzymes: zinc finger fusions to Fok I cleavage domain. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1996;93:1156–60.
Kim D, Jeong S, Moon J. Synthesis of silver nanoparticles using the polyol process and the influence of precursor injection. Nanotechnology. 2006;17(16):4019.
Kim D, Alptekin B, Budak H. CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in wheat. Funct Integr Genomics. 2018;18(1):31–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10142-017-0572-x.
Kis A, Hamar É, Tholt G, et al. Creating highly efficient resistance against wheat dwarf virus in barley by employing CRISPR/Cas9 system. Plant Biotechnol J. 2019;17(6):1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13077.
Kumar VVS, Verma RK, Yadav SK, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 mediated genome editing of drought and salt tolerance (OsDST) gene in indica mega rice cultivar MTU1010. Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2020;26(6):1099–110. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12298-020-00819-w.
Lawrenson T, Shorinola O, Stacey N, et al. Induction of targeted, heritable mutations in barley and Brassica oleracea using RNA-guided Cas9 nuclease. Genome Biol. 2015;16:258. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0826-7.
Lei J, Dai P, Li J, et al. Tissue-specific CRISPR/Cas9 system of cotton pollen with GhPLIMP2b and GhMYB24 promoters. Plant Biology. 2021;64:13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12374-020-09272-4.
Li C, Zhang B. Genome editing in cotton using CRISPR/Cas9 system. In: Zhang B, editor. Transgenic cotton. Methods in molecular biology, vol 1902. New York, NY: Humana Press. 2019; p. 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-8952-2_8.
Li JF, Norville JE, Aach J, et al. Multiplex and homologous recombination–mediated genome editing in Arabidopsis and Nicotiana benthamiana using guide RNA and Cas9. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:688–91. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2654.
Li B, Rui H, Li Y, et al. 2019a. Robust CRISPR/Cpf1 (Cas12a)‐mediated genome editing in allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Plant Biotechnol J. 2019a;17:1862. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13147.
Li G, Liu R, Xu R, et al. Development of an Agrobacterium-mediated CRISPR/Cas9 system in pea (Pisum sativum L.). Crop J. 2022a;11(1):132-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cj.2022a.04.011.
Liang Z, Chen K, Li T, et al. Efficient DNA-free genome editing of bread wheat using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14261. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms14261.
Lim K, Cho SI, Kim JS. Nuclear and mitochondrial DNA editing in human cells with zinc finger deaminases. Nat Commun. 2022;13:366. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-27962-0.
Long KR, Rbaibi Y, Bondi CD, et al. Cubilin-, megalin-, and Dab2-dependent transcription revealed by CRISPR/Cas9 knockout in kidney proximal tubule cells. Renal Physiology. 2022;322:F14-F26. https://doi.org/10.1152/ajprenal.00259.2021.
Lyu P, Lu Z, Cho SI, et al. 2021. Adenine base editor ribonucleoproteins delivered by lentivirus-like particles show high on-target base editing and undetectable RNA off-target activities. The CRISPR J. 2021;4:69–81. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2020.0095.
Li T, Huang S, Zhao X, et al. Modularly assembled designer TAL effector nucleases for targeted gene knockout and gene replacement in eukaryotes. Nucleic Acids Res. 2011;39(14):6315–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr188.
Li T, Liu B, Spalding MH, et al. High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nature Biotechnol. 2012;30(5):390–2. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2199.
Li J, Stoddard TJ, Demorest ZL, et al. Multiplexed, targeted gene editing in Nicotiana benthamiana for glyco-engineering and monoclonal antibody production. Plant Biotechnol J. 2016;14(2):533–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12403.
Li C, Unver T, Zhang B. A high-efficiency CRISPR/Cas9 system for targeted mutagenesis in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep43902.
Li X, Wang Y, Chen S, et al. Lycopene is enriched in tomato fruit by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated multiplex genome editing. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:559. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.00559.
Li J, Hong S, Chen W, et al. Advances in detecting and reducing off-target effects generated by CRISPR-mediated genome editing. J Genet Genom. 2019b;46:513–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgg.2019b.11.002.
Li J, Manghwar H, Sun L, et al. Whole genome sequencing reveals rare off-target mutations and considerable inherent genetic or/and somaclonal variations in CRISPR/Cas9-edited cotton plants. Plant Biotechnol. 2019c;17:858–68. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13020.
Li B, Liang SJ, Alariqi M, et al. The application of temperature sensitivity CRISPR/LbCpf1 (LbCas12a) mediated genome editing in allotetraploid cotton (G. hirsutum) and creation of nontransgenic, gossypol-free cotton. Plant Biotechnol J. 2020;19(2):221–3. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13470.
Li R, Klingbeil O, Monducci D, et al. Comparative optimization of combinatorial CRISPR screens. Nat Commun. 2022b;13:1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30196-9.
Liang Z, Zhang K, Chen K, Gao C. Targeted mutagenesis in Zea mays using TALENs and the CRISPR/Cas’s system. J Genet Genom. 2014;41(2):63–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jgg.2013.12.001.
Liang C, Meng Z, Meng Z, et al. GhABF2, a bZIP transcription factor, confers drought and salinity tolerance in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep35040.
Liu Q, Gao R, Li J, et al. Development of a genome-editing CRISPR/Cas9 system in thermophilic fungal Myceliophthora species and its application to hyper-cellulase production strain engineering. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2017;10(1):1–4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13068-016-0693-9.
Lloyd A, Plaisier CL, Carroll D, Drews GN. Targeted mutagenesis using zinc-finger nucleases in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2005;102(6):2232–7. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0409339102.
Lo TW, Pickle CS, Lin S, et al. Precise and heritable genome editing in evolutionarily diverse nematodes using TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 to engineer insertions and deletions. Genet. 2013;195(2):331–48. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.113.155382.
Ma X, Zhang Q, Zhu Q, et al. A robust CRISPR/Cas9 system for convenient, high-efficiency multiplex genome editing in monocot and dicot plants. Molecular Plant. 2015;8:1274–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2015.04.007.
Maeder ML, Angstman JF, Richardson ME, et al. Targeted DNA demethylation and activation of endogenous genes using programmable TALE-TET1 fusion proteins. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31:1137–42. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2726.
Mao YB, Cai WJ, Wang JW, et al. Silencing a cotton bollworm P450 monooxygenase gene by plant-mediated RNAi impairs larval tolerance of gossypol. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25:1307–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt1352.
Marzec M, Hensel G. Prime editing: game changer for modifying plant genomes. Trends in Plant Sci. 2020;25:722–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2020.05.008.
McGarry RC, Prewitt S, Ayre BG. Overexpression of FT in cotton affects architecture but not floral organogenesis. Plant Signaling Behavior. 2013;8:e23602. https://doi.org/10.4161/psb.23602.
Möller L, Aird EJ, Schröder MS, et al. Recursive Editing improves homology-directed repair through retargeting of undesired outcomes. Nat Commun. 2022;13:4550. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-31944-7.
Ma D, Hu Y, Yang C, et al. Genetic Basis for Glandular Trichome Formation in Cotton. Nat Commun. 2016;7:10456. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms10456.
Macovei A, Sevilla NR, Cantos C, et al. Novel alleles of rice eIF4G generated by CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis confer resistance to Rice tungro spherical virus. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018;16(11):1918–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12927.
Mahfouz MM, Li L, Shamimuzzaman M, et al. De novo-engineered transcription activator-like effector (TALE) hybrid nuclease with novel DNA binding specificity creates double-strand breaks. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2011;108(6):2623–8. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1019533108.
Mahfouz MM, Piatek A, Stewart CN Jr. Genome engineering via TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 systems: challenges and perspectives. Plant Biotechnol J. 2014;12(8):1006–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12256.
Mao Y, Zhang H, Xu N, et al. Application of the CRISPR–Cas system for efficient genome engineering in plants. Mol Plant. 2013;6(6):2008. https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/sst121.
Maresca M, Lin VG, Guo N, Yang Y. Obligate ligation-gated recombination (ObLiGaRe): custom-designed nuclease-mediated targeted integration through nonhomologous end joining. Genome Res. 2013;23(3):539–46. https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.145441.112.
Marton I, Zuker A, Shklarman E, et al. Nontransgenic genome modification in plant cells. Plant Physiol. 2010;154(3):1079–87. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.110.164806.
Mercer AC, Gaj T, Fuller RP, Barbas CF III. Chimeric TALE recombinases with programmable DNA sequence specificity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(21):11163–72.
Michel S, Schirduan K, Shen Y, et al. Using RNA-Seq to assess off-target effects of antisense oligonucleotides in human cell lines. Mol Diagn Ther. 2021;25:77–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40291-020-00504-4.
Mickelbart MV, Hasegawa PM, Bailey-Serres J. Genetic mechanisms of abiotic stress tolerance that translate to crop yield stability. Nature Rev Genet. 2015;16(4):237–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3901.
Muller HJ. Artificial transmutation of the gene. Science. 1927;66(1699):84–7.
Miller JC, Tan S, Qiao G, et al. A TALE nuclease architecture for efficient genome editing. Nature Biotechnol. 2011;29(2):143–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1755.
Mishra R, Joshi RK, Zhao K. Base editing in crops: current advances, limitations and future implications. Plant Biotechnol J. 2020;18(1):20–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13225.
Modrzejewski D, Hartung F, Sprink T, et al. What is the available evidence for the range of applications of genome-editing as a new tool for plant trait modification and the potential occurrence of associated off-target effects: a systematic map. Environ Evid. 2019;8:27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-019-0171-5.
Morineau C, Bellec Y, Tellier F, et al. Selective gene dosage by CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing in hexaploid Camelina sativa. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017;15(6):729–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12671.
Nahmad AD, Reuveni E, Goldschmidt E, et al. Frequent aneuploidy in primary human T cells after CRISPR–Cas9 cleavage. Nat Biotechnol. 2022;40:1807–1813. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-022-01377-0.
Nierzwicki Ł, East KW, Binz JM, et al. Principles of target DNA cleavage and the role of Mg2+ in the catalysis of CRISPR–Cas9. Nat Catal. 2022;5:912–22. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41929-022-00848-6.
Niu C, Wang C, Li F, et al. Aptamer assisted CRISPR-Cas12a strategy for small molecule diagnostics. Biosensors and Bioelectronics. 2021;183:113196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2021.113196.
Nakashima K, Ito Y, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K. Transcriptional regulatory networks in response to abiotic stresses in Arabidopsis and grasses. Plant Physiol. 2009;149(1):88–95. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.129791.
Nelson CE, Hakim CH, Ousterout DG, et al. In vivo genome editing improves muscle function in a mouse model of Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Science. 2016;351(6271):403–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5143.
Odipio J, Alicai T, Ingelbrecht I, et al. Efficient CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing of Phytoene desaturase in cassava. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1780. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01780.
Onyekachi OG, Boniface OO, Gemlack NF, Nicholas N. The effect of climate change on abiotic plant stress: a review. In: de Oliveira AB, editor. Abiotic Biotic Stress Plants. Rijeka: IntechOpen; 2019. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82681.
Panchy N, Lehti-Shiu M, Shiu SH. Evolution of gene duplication in plants. Plant Physiol. 2016;171(4):2294–316. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.16.00523.
Podevin N, Davies HV, Hartung F, et al. Site-directed nucleases: a paradigm shift in predictable, knowledge-based plant breeding. Trends Biotechnol. 2013;31(6):375–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.03.004.
Park SB, Uchida T, Tilson S, et al. A dual conditional CRISPR-Cas9 system to activate gene editing and reduce off-target effects in human stem cells. Molecular Therapy: Nucleic Acids. 2022;28:656–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.omtn.2022.04.013.
Parkhi V, Bhattacharya A, Char B. Multiomics technologies and genetic modification in plants: rationale, opportunities and reality. In: Kumar A, Kumar R, Shukla P, Patel HK, editors. Omics technologies for sustainable agriculture and global food security (Vol II). Singapore: Springer. 2021; p. 313–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-2956-3_12.
Peng R, Jones DC, Liu F, Zhang B. From sequencing to genome editing for cotton improvement. Trends in Biotechnol. 2021;39(3):221–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2020.09.001.
Pramanik D, Shelake RM, Park J, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated generation of pathogen-resistant tomato against tomato yellow leaf curl virus and powdery mildew. Int J Molec Sci. 2021;22(4):1878. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22041878.
Puchta H. Repair of genomic double-strand breaks in somatic plant cells by one-sided invasion of homologous sequences. Plant J. 1998;13(3):331–9. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1998.00035.x.
Puchta H, Dujon B, Hohn B. Two different but related mechanisms are used in plants for the repair of genomic double-strand breaks by homologous recombination. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 1996;93(10):5055–60. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.93.10.5055.
Qin L, Li J, Wang Q, et al. High-efficient and precise base editing of C• G to T• A in the allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) genome using a modified CRISPR/Cas9 system. Plant Biotechnol J. 2020;18(1):45–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13168.
Rahman MF, McGowan PO. Cell-type-specific epigenetic effects of early life stress on the brain. Transl Psychiatry. 2022;12:326. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41398-022-02076-9.
Ramadan M, Alariqi M, Ma Y, et al. Efficient CRISPR/Cas9 mediated Pooled-sgRNAs assembly accelerates targeting multiple genes related to male sterility in cotton. Plant Methods. 2021;17(1):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-021-00712-x.
Rathore KS, Pandeya D, Campbell LM, et al. Ultra-low gossypol cottonseed: selective gene silencing opens up a vast resource of plant-based protein to improve human nutrition. Critical Reviews in Plant Sci. 2020;39:1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352689.2020.1724433.
Ren C, Liu X, Zhang Z, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated efficient targeted mutagenesis in Chardonnay (Vitis vinifera L.). Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32289.
Roth N, Klimesch J, Dukowic-Schulze S, et al. The requirement for recombination factors differs considerably between different pathways of homologous double-strand break repair in somatic plant cells. Plant J. 2012;72(5):781–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2012.05119.x.
Rouet P, Smih F, Jasin M. Introduction of double-strand breaks into the genome of mouse cells by expression of a rare-cutting endonuclease. Mol Cell Biol. 1994;14(12):8096–106.
Sahin I, George A, Seyhan AA. Therapeutic targeting of alternative RNA splicing in gastrointestinal malignancies and other cancers. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:11790. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms222111790.
Salomon S, Puchta H. Capture of genomic and T-DNA sequences during double-strand break repair in somatic plant cells. EMBO J. 1998;17(20):6086–95.
Sauer NJ, Narváez-Vásquez J, Mozoruk J, et al. Oligonucleotide-mediated genome editing provides precision and function to engineered nucleases and antibiotics in plants. Plant Physiol. 2016;170(4):1917–28. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.01696.
Schmidt RR, Weits DA, Feulner CF, van Dongen JT. Oxygen sensing and integrative stress signaling in plants. Plant Physiol. 2018;176(2):1131–42. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.17.01394.
Schneider K, Schiermeyer A, Dolls A, et al. Targeted gene exchange in plant cells mediated by a zinc finger nuclease double cut. Plant Biotechnol J. 2016;14(4):1151–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12483.
Sera T. Inhibition of virus DNA replication by artificial zinc finger proteins. J Virol. 2005;79(4):2614–9. https://doi.org/10.1128/JVI.79.4.2614-2619.2005.
Shan Q, Wang Y, Chen K, et al. Rapid and efficient gene modification in rice and Brachypodium using TALENs. Mol Plant. 2013;6(4):1365. https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/sss162.
Shi J, Habben JE, Archibald RL, et al. Overexpression of ARGOS genes modifies plant sensitivity to ethylene, leading to improved drought tolerance in both Arabidopsis and maize. Plant Physiol. 2015;169(1):266–82. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.15.00780.
Shukla VK, Doyon Y, Miller JC, et al. Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature. 2009;459(7245):437–41. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07992.
Singha DL, Das D, Sarki YN, et al. Harnessing tissue-specific genome editing in plants through CRISPR/Cas system: current state and future prospects. Planta. 2022;255(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-021-03811-0.
Slaymaker IM, Gaudelli NM. Engineering Cas9 for human genome editing. Curr Opin Struct Bio. 2021;69:86–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2021.03.004.
Sledzinski P, Dabrowska M, Nowaczyk M, Olejniczak M. Paving the way towards precise and safe CRISPR genome editing. Biotechnol Adv. 2021;49:107737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2021.107737.
Smith J, Bibikova M, Whitby FG, et al. Requirements for double-strand cleavage by chimeric restriction enzymes with zinc finger DNA-recognition domains. Nucleic Acids Res. 2000;28(17):3361–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/28.17.3361.
Stadler LJ. Mutations in barley induced by X-rays and radium. Science. 1928;68(1756):186–7. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.68.1756.186.
Saha A, Arantes PR, Palermo G. Dynamics and mechanisms of CRISPR-Cas9 through the lens of computational methods. Current Opinion in Structural Biology. 2022;75:102400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbi.2022.102400.
Schubert MS, Thommandru B, Woodley J, et al. Optimized design parameters for CRISPR Cas9 and Cas12a homology-directed repair. Sci Rep. 2021;11:19482. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98965-y
Shamshirgaran Y, Liu J, Sumer H, et al. Tools for efficient genome editing; ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR. In: Verma PJ, Sumer H, Liu J, editors. Applications of genome modulation and editing. Methods in molecular biology, vol 2495. New York, NY: Humana. 2022; p. 29–46. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-2301-5_2.
Singh M, Mal N, Mohapatra R, et al. Recent biotechnological developments in reshaping the microalgal genome: a signal for green recovery in biorefinery practices. Chemosphere. 2022;293:133513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.133513.
Soyk S, Müller NA, Park SJ, et al. Variation in the flowering gene SELF PRUNING 5G promotes day-neutrality and early yield in tomato. Nat Genet. 2017;49(1):162–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3733.
Sun X, Wang DO, Wang J. Targeted manipulation of m6A RNA modification through CRISPR-Cas-based strategies. Methods. 2022;203:56-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymeth.2022.03.006.
Sultan Q, Ashraf S, Munir A, et al. Beyond genome editing: CRISPR approaches. In: Ahmad A, Khan SH, Khan Z, editors. The CRISPR/Cas tool kit for genome editing. Singapore: Springer. 2022;187-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-6305-5_6.
Takenaka K, Koshino-Kimura Y, Aoyama Y, Sera T. Inhibition of tomato yellow leaf curl virus replication by artificial zinc-finger proteins. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series. 2007;51(1):429–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/nass/nrm215
Watanabe M, Nagashima H. Genome editing of pig. In: Hatada I, editor. Genome editing in animals. New York, NY: Humana Press. 2017b; p. 121–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-7128-2.
Yamamoto Y, Bliss J, Gerbi SA. Whole organism genome editing: targeted large DNA insertion via ObLiGaRe nonhomologous end-joining in vivo capture. G3: Genes Genomes Genet. 2015;5(9):1843–7. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.115.019901.
Uniyal B, Dietrich J. Modifying automatic irrigation in SWAT for plant water stress scheduling. Agricultural Water Management. 2019;223:105714. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.105714.
Sugano SS, Shirakawa M, Takagi J, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in the liverwort Marchantia polymorpha L. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014;55(3):475–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcu014.
Sun Z, Li N, Huang G, et al. Site-S pecific gene targeting using transcription activator-L ike effector (TALE)-based nuclease in Brassica oleracea. J Integr Plant Biol. 2013;55(11):1092–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.12091.
Sun Z, Li H, Zhang Y, et al. Identification of SNPs and candidate genes associated with salt tolerance at the seedling stage in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.). Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1011. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01011.
Teper D, Wang N. Consequences of adaptation of TAL effectors on host susceptibility to Xanthomonas. PLoS Genet. 2021;17(1):e1009310. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1009310.
Tesson L, Usal C, Ménoret S, et al. Knockout rats generated by embryo microinjection of TALENs. Nature Biotechnol. 2011;29(8):695–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.1940.
Townsend JA, Wright DA, Winfrey RJ, et al. High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases. Nature. 2009;459(7245):442–5. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07845.
Tripathi JN, Ntui VO, Ron M, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 editing of endogenous banana streak virus in the B genome of Musa spp. overcomes a major challenge in banana breeding. Commun Biol. 2019;2(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-019-0288-7.
Tyagi K, Ghosh A, Nair D, et al. Breakthrough COVID19 infections after vaccinations in healthcare and other workers in a chronic care medical facility in New Delhi, India. Diabetes & Metabolic Syndrome: Clinical Res & Rev. 2021;15(3):1007–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dsx.2021.05.001.
Wada N, Osakabe K, Osakabe Y. Genome editing in plants. Gene Genome Editing. 2022;3–4:100020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ggedit.2022.100020.
Waltz E. CRISPR-edited crops free to enter market, skip regulation. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34:582. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0616-582.
Wang Y, Cheng X, Shan Q, et al. Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nature Biotechnol. 2014;32(9):947–51. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2969.
Wang L, Shao Y, Guan Y, et al. Large genomic fragment deletion and functional gene cassette knock-in via Cas9 protein mediated genome editing in one-cell rodent embryos. Sci Rep. 2015;5:17517. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep17517.
Wang L, Wang L, Tan Q, et al. Efficient inactivation of symbiotic nitrogen fixation related genes in Lotus japonicus using CRISPR-Cas9. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1333. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01333.
Wang M, Tu L, Lin M, et al. Asymmetric subgenome selection and cis-regulatory divergence during cotton domestication. Nature Genet. 2017a;49(4):579–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3807.
Wang Y, Meng Z, Liang C, et al. Increased lateral root formation by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of arginase genes in cotton. Sci China Life Sci. 2017b;60(5):524. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11427-017-9031-y.
Wang P, Zhang J, Sun L, et al. High efficient multisites genome editing in allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) using CRISPR/Cas9 system. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018a;16(1):137–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12755.
Wang Z, Wang S, Li D, et al. Optimized paired-sgRNA/Cas9 cloning, and expression cassette triggers high-efficiency multiplex genome editing in kiwifruit. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018b;16(8):1424–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12884.
Wang L, Chen S, Peng A, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated editing of CsWRKY22 reduces susceptibility to Xanthomonas citri subsp. citri in Wanjincheng orange (Citrus sinensis (L.) Osbeck). Plant Biotechnol Rep. 2019;13(5):501–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11816-019-00556-x.
Wang Q, Alariqi M, Wang F, et al. The application of a heat-inducible CRISPR/Cas12b (C2c1) genome editing system in tetraploid cotton (G. hirsutum) plants. Plant Biotechnol J. 2020;18:2436–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13417.
Wang GY, Xu ZP, Wang FQ, et al. Development of an efficient and precise adenine base editor (ABE) with expanded target range in Allotetraploid cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). BMC Biol. 2022a;20(1):45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12915-022-01232-3.
Wang JY, Pausch P, Doudna JA. Structural biology of CRISPR–Cas immunity and genome editing enzymes. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2022b;20(11):641–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00739-4.
Watanabe K, Kobayashi A, Endo M, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of the dihydroflavonol-4-reductase-B (DFR-B) locus in the Japanese morning glory Ipomoea (Pharbitis) nil. Sci Rep. 2017a;7:10028. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-10715-1.
Wen S, Liu H, Li X, et al. TALEN-mediated targeted mutagenesis of fatty acid desaturase 2 (FAD2) in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) promotes the accumulation of oleic acid. Plant Mol Biol. 2018;97(1):177–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-018-0731-z.
Wendt T, Holm PB, Starker CG, et al. TAL effector nucleases induce mutations at a pre-selected location in the genome of primary barley transformants. Plant Mol Biol. 2013;83(3):279–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11103-013-0078-4.
Woo JW, Kim J, Kwon SI, et al. DNA-free genome editing in plants with preassembled CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Nature Biotechnol. 2015;33(11):1162-4. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3389.
Wright DA, Townsend JA, Winfrey RJ Jr, et al. High-frequency homologous recombination in plants mediated by zinc-finger nucleases. Plant J. 2005;44(4):693–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02551.x.
Wu T, Lyu R, He C. spKAS-seq reveals R-loop dynamics using low-input materials by detecting single-stranded DNA with strand specificity. Science Advances. 2022;8(48):eabq2166. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abq2166.
Xu H, Zhang L, Zhang K, Ran Y. Progresses, challenges, and prospects of genome editing in soybean (Glycine max). Frontiers in Plant Science. 2020b;11:571138. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.571138.
Xu W, Jin T, Dai Y, Liu CC. Surpassing the detection limit and accuracy of the electrochemical DNA sensor through the application of CRISPR Cas systems. Biosens Bioelectron. 2020a;155:112100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bios.2020.112100.
Xu J, Kang BC, Naing AH, et al. CRISPR/Cas9‐mediated editing of 1‐aminocyclopropane‐1‐carboxylate oxidase1 enhances Petunia flower longevity. Plant Biotechnol J. 2020b;18(1):287–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13197.
Zhan X, Lu Y, Zhu JK, Botella JR. Genome editing for plant research and crop improvement. J Integrative Plant Biology. 2021;63(1):3–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/jipb.13063.
Zhang F, Maeder ML, Unger-Wallace E, et al. High frequency targeted mutagenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana using zinc finger nucleases. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2010;107(26):12028–33. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914991107.
Zhang Y, Zhang F, Li X, et al. Transcription activator-like effector nucleases enable efficient plant genome engineering. Plant Physiol. 2013;161(1):20–7. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.112.205179.
Zhang Y, Liang Z, Zong Y, et al. Efficient and transgene-free genome editing in wheat through transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 DNA or RNA. Nature Commun. 2016;7(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms12617.
Zhang H, Gou F, Zhang J, et al. TALEN-mediated targeted mutagenesis produces a large variety of heritable mutations in rice. Plant Biotechnol J. 2016;14(1):186–94. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12372.
Zhang T, Zheng Q, Yi X, et al. Establishing RNA virus resistance in plants by harnessing CRISPR immune system. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018;16(8):1415–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12881.
Zhang Y, Zhou P, Bozorov TA, Zhang D. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 technology in wild apple (Malus sieverii) for paired sites gene editing. Plant Methods. 2021;17(1):1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13007-021-00769-8.
Zhao X, Ni W, Chen C, et al. Targeted editing of myostatin gene in sheep by transcription activator-like effector nucleases. Asian-Austral J Anim Sci. 2016;29(3):413. https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.15.0041.
Zhou W, Wan Y, Guo R, et al. Generation of beta-lactoglobulin knock-out goats using CRISPR/Cas9. PLoS ONE. 2017;12(10):e0186056. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186056.
Zhuo C, Zhang J, Lee JH, et al. Spatiotemporal control of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing. Signal Transduct Targeted Ther. 2021;6(1):238. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-021-00645-w.
Zhu QH, Jin S, Yuan Y, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated saturated mutagenesis of the cotton MIR482 family for dissecting the functionality of individual members in disease response. Plant Direct. 2022;6(6):e410.
Zuo Z, Babu K, Ganguly C, et al. Rational engineering of CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease to attenuate position-dependent off-target effects. The CRISPR J. 2022;5(2):329-40. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2021.0076.
Zsögön A, Čermák T, Naves ER, et al. De novo domestication of wild tomato using genome editing. Nature Biotechnol. 2018;36(12):1211–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.4272.
Zeng L, Liu Y, Nguyenla XH, et al. Broad-spectrum CRISPR-mediated inhibition of SARS-CoV-2 variants and endemic coronaviruses in vitro. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):2766. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30546-7.
Zhu S, Yu X, Li Y, et al. Highly efficient targeted gene editing in upland cotton using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2018;19(10):3000. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19103000.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
All the authors and co-authors are agreed to submit the review article in BMC Journal of Cotton Research.
All authors declare no competing interests.
About this article
Cite this article
Khan, Z., Khan, S.H., Ahmed, A. et al. Genome editing in cotton: challenges and opportunities. J Cotton Res 6, 3 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42397-023-00140-3
- Genetic improvement