| Literature DB >> 31344311 |
Chenxu Liu1,2, Yu Zhong1,2, Xiaolong Qi1,2, Ming Chen1,2, Zongkai Liu1,2, Chen Chen1,2, Xiaolong Tian1,2, Jinlong Li1,2, Yanyan Jiao1,2, Dong Wang1,2, Yuwen Wang1,2, Mengran Li1,2, Mingming Xin1, Wenxin Liu1,2, Weiwei Jin1,2, Shaojiang Chen1,2.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: CRISPR/Cas9; breeding; doubled haploid (DH); inducer; wheat
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31344311 PMCID: PMC6953200 DOI: 10.1111/pbi.13218
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Biotechnol J ISSN: 1467-7644 Impact factor: 9.803
Figure 1Knockout of wheat homologues genes of /Zm/ triggers HI. (a) Gene structure of Ta ‐A, Ta ‐B and T a ‐D and knockout experiment. Exons in red are target regions of guide RNAs. Shown below are guide RNA (green) and sequence of transgenic lines Da14‐1, Da14‐2, ND52‐2 and ND52‐6 at Ta‐A and Ta‐D (black), respectively. Deletions are shown by ‘‐’ on grey background. (b) Spike performance of wild type (left) and knockout (right) plants. Statistical analysis for SSR of wild type and four transgenic lines is shown on the right side. ** P < 0.01 calculated with the heteroscedastic two‐tailed Student's t‐test. Sample size is marked on the top of each column. (c) Phenotypic difference between haploid (H) and hexaploid (HE) wheat, including whole plant, leaf, ear and anther. Bars = 5 cm, 1 cm, 1 cm and 1 mm for whole plant, flag leaf, ear and anther, respectively. (d) Ploidy verification with flow cytometry analysis. (e) HI potential of transgenic lines and control in self‐pollination progeny. Genotype Ta ‐A and genotype T a‐D: H, heterozygous, means one copy from two TaPLA alleles had been edited; M, homozygous mutant, means both copies of TaPLA had been edited, either the same mutation or different; and W, wild type, means neither of two copies of TaPLA had been edited. The control group comprised self‐pollinated plants from wild type CB037. (f) HI potential in cross progeny. M, male parent; F, female parent; CS, Chinese Spring; LC, Liaochun10. (g) Subcellular localization of Ta in tobacco epidermal cells. Confocal scanning (GFP; outside left), ER‐mCherry signal (inside left), differential interference contrast (DIC; inside right), and merged (outside right) micrographs of tobacco epidermal cells transformed with a 35S::TaPLA‐AEGFP, 35S::TaPLA‐B‐EGFP, 35S::TaPLA‐D‐EGFP and 35S::EGFP control. Scale bars = 30 μm. (h) Pollen viability assays with FDA staining. Comparison of pollen viability between wild type and mutants in CB037 background (scale bar, 100 μm) (left). Pollen with a strong (white triangle) and weak (yellow triangle) or no (red triangle) GFP represented for high‐viability pollen (HVP), low‐viability pollen (LVP) and dead pollen (DP), respectively. Ratio of the three viability classes in wild type and mutant pollen (right). Statistics were conducted with three biological replicates. A heteroscedastic two‐tailed Student's t‐test was performed for each class between wild type and mutant. NS, not significant (P ≥ 0.05).