| Literature DB >> 33749085 |
Zixiang Cheng1, Yao Sun1,2, Suhua Yang3, Hui Zhi1, Tao Yin1, Xiaojiao Ma1, Haoshan Zhang1, Xianmin Diao1, Yan Guo2, Xinhai Li1, Chuanyin Wu1, Yi Sui1.
Abstract
Entities:
Keywords: zzm321990SiMTLzzm321990; CRISPR-Cas9; Foxtail millet; haploid embryo
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 33749085 PMCID: PMC8196629 DOI: 10.1111/pbi.13584
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plant Biotechnol J ISSN: 1467-7644 Impact factor: 9.803
Figure 1Haploid embryo induction in foxtail millet. (a) Genomic structure of SiMTL and targeted sites for the CRISPR‐Cas9 system. PAM is underlined and the guide RNA sequence is highlighted in blue. (b) Five representative T0 plants edited at guide 1 or guide 2 in SiMTL. The predicted consequence at the protein level resulting from each type of editing is given. (c) Seeds setting rate of the same 5 events. Ten T1 plants were grown for each event. For #3 and #5, only homozygous segregants of +1(A)/+1(A) were used for data collection. **Significant difference between simtl and WT at P < 0.01 by two‐tailed t‐test. (d) Representative pollens from a simtl plant, showing normal starch accumulation relative to WT. (e) Verification of haploid plant by flow cytometry analysis. The x‐axis indicates the signal peak for nuclei and y‐axis indicates the number of nuclei. (f) Haploid induction efficiency (HIR%) determined by self‐pollination or crossing. For crossing, a male sterile line 682A was used as the female and was pollinated with the #14 line. (g) Haploid plant with reduced height and smaller organs relative to WT. A representative haploid plant from crossing, morphologically similar to the female parent, is shown in the lower right panel.