| Literature DB >> 31889981 |
Julia Schachtsiek1, Tajammul Hussain1, Khadija Azzouhri1, Oliver Kayser1, Felix Stehle1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The raised demand of cannabis as a medicinal plant in recent years led to an increased interest in understanding the biosynthetic routes of cannabis metabolites. Since there is no established protocol to generate stable gene knockouts in cannabis, the use of a virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) method, resulting in a gene knockdown, to study gene functions is desirable.Entities:
Keywords: Cannabis sativa; Cotton leaf crumple virus (CLCrV); Post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS); Virus-induced gene silencing
Year: 2019 PMID: 31889981 PMCID: PMC6931244 DOI: 10.1186/s13007-019-0542-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Methods ISSN: 1746-4811 Impact factor: 4.993
Fig. 1Schematic representation of CLCrVvectors T-DNA structure. In between the left and right border DNA-A or DNA-B are present in addition to a hygromycin resistance cassette (HygR). DNA-A of CLCrV consists of four genes (AL1-AL4) and DNA-B consists of two genes (BR1 and BL1). The genes are flanked by the common regions (CR), consisting of the origin of replication
Fig. 2Workflow of a VIGS experiment a after identification of gene sequences and validation by sequencing, suitable siRNAs and off-targets are predicted. Based on these predictions silencing gene fragments were defined. b For in vivo validation silencing fragments are cloned in the VIGS-vectors and transformed in Agrobacteria for infiltration experiments
Fig. 3Silencing of PDS induced with the Cotton leaf crumple virus a Plants were infiltrated with the A. tumefaciens strain AGL1 carrying pCotton-PDS or an empty-vector control. Phenotypes could be identified approximately four weeks after infiltration with pCotton-PDS (right), whereas control plants showed no phenotype (left). b Overview on the efficiency of VIGS with different A. tumefaciens strains and number of infiltrated plants. c Quantification of the expression level of PDS in plants showing a phenotype and empty- vector control plants were analyzed by qPCR and normalized relative to the expression levels of eIFa and UBQ5. Error bars indicate standard error of five biological replicates. d Quantification of pigment content (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoids) of leaves from empty-vector control plants and PDS-silenced plants. Error bars indicate standard error of 3 representative replicates
Fig. 4Silencing of ChlI induced with the Cotton leaf crumple virus a Plants were infiltrated with the A. tumefaciens strain AGL1 carrying pCotton-ChlI or an empty-vector control. Phenotypes were visible approximately four weeks after infiltration with pCotton-ChlI (right). No phenotype was visible in control plants (left). b Overview on the efficiency of VIGS if plants were infiltrated with the A. tumefaciens strain AGL1. c Expression level of ChlI in plants showing a phenotype and empty-vector control plants were quantified with qPCR and normalized relative to the expression levels of eIFa and UBQ5. Error bars indicate standard error of five biological replicates. d Quantification of pigment content (chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b and carotenoids) of leaves from empty-vector control plants and ChlI-silenced plants. Error bars indicate standard error of 3 representative replicates
Fig. 5Detection of DNA-A and DNA-B. Genomic DNA was extracted either from PDS- and ChlI-silenced plants five week after inoculation or from control plants. As internal standard eIFa was used to ensure similar amounts of genomic DNA were used for amplification