Opportunities for Products of New Plant Breeding Techniques

Trends in Plant Science

Volumn 21, Issue 5, 2016, Pages 438-449

  Schaart, Jan G ^a   van de Wiel, Clemens C M ^a   Lotz, Lambertus A P ^a   Smulders, Marinus J M ^a  

^a WAGENINGEN UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Cisgenesis; CRISPR Cas9; Early flowering; Intragenesis; New plant breeding techniques; TALEN

Indexed keywords

CRISPR CAS SYSTEM; CROP; METABOLISM; PHYSIOLOGY; PLANT BREEDING; PROCEDURES;

CRISPR-CAS SYSTEMS; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; PLANT BREEDING;

EID: 84957656529     PISSN: 13601385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2015.11.006     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Lusser M., et al. Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012, 30:231-239.
2. Araki M., et al. Caution required for handling genome editing technology. Trends Biotechnol. 2014, 32:234-237.
3. Jones H.D. Regulatory uncertainty over genome editing. Nat. Plants 2015, 1:1-3.
4. Araki M., Ishii T. Towards social acceptance of plant breeding by genome editing. Trends Plant Sci. 2015, 20:145-149.
5. Hartung F., Schiemann J. Precise plant breeding using new genome editing techniques: opportunities, safety and regulation in the EU. Plant J. 2014, 78:742-752.
6. Mahfouz M.M., et al. Genome engineering via TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 systems: challenges and perspectives. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2014, 12:1006-1014.
7. Osakabe Y., Osakabe K. Genome editing with engineered nucleases in plants. Plant Cell Physiol. 2015, 56:389-400.
8. Sadelain M., et al. Safe harbours for the integration of new DNA in the human genome. Nat. Rev. Cancer 2012, 12:51-58.
9. Cantos C., et al. Identification of "safe harbor" loci in indica rice genome by harnessing the property of zinc-finger nucleases to induce DNA damage and repair. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5:302.
10. Shukla V.K., et al. Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases. Nature 2009, 459:437-441.
11. Ainley W.M., et al. Trait stacking via targeted genome editing. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2013, 11:1126-1134.
12. Holme I.B., et al. Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2013, 11:395-407.
13. Chawla R., et al. Tuber-specific silencing of asparagine synthetase-1 reduces the acrylamide-forming potential of potatoes grown in the field without affecting tuber shape and yield. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2012, 10:913-924.
14. Haverkort A.J., et al. Applied biotechnology to combat late blight in potato caused by Phytophthora infestans. Potato Res. 2009, 52:249-264.
15. Vanblaere T., et al. The development of a cisgenic apple plant. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 154:304-311.
16. Krens F.A., et al. Cisgenic apple trees; development, characterization, and performance. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6:286.
17. Holme I.B., et al. Cisgenic barley with improved phytase activity. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2012, 10:237-247.
18. Li T., et al. High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012, 30:390-392.
19. Wang Y.P., et al. Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nat. Biotechnol. 2014, 32:947-951.
20. Haun W., et al. Improved soybean oil quality by targeted mutagenesis of the fatty acid desaturase 2 gene family. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2014, 12:934-940.
21. Clasen B.M., et al. Improving cold storage and processing traits in potato through targeted gene knockout. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2015, Published online April 7, 2015. 10.1111/pbi.12370.
22. Woo J.W., et al. DNA-free genome editing in plants with preassembled CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoproteins. Nat. Biotechnol. 2015, 33:1162-1164.
23. Zhu T., et al. Targeted manipulation of maize genes in vivo using chimeric RNA/DNA oligonucleotides. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1999, 96:8768-8773.
24. Sauer N.J., et al. Oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis for precision gene editing. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2015, Published online October 27, 2015. 10.1111/pbi.12496.
25. Zhu T., et al. Engineering herbicide-resistant maize using chimeric RNA/DNA oligonucleotides. Nat. Biotechnol. 2000, 18:555-558.
26. Flachowsky H., et al. Application of a high-speed breeding technology to apple (Malus x domestica) based on transgenic early flowering plants and marker-assisted selection. New Phytol. 2011, 192:364-377.
27. Srinivasan C., et al. Plum (Prunus domestica) trees transformed with poplar FT1 result in altered architecture, dormancy requirement, and continuous flowering. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e40715.
28. Waltz E. Tiptoeing around transgenics. Nat. Biotechnol. 2012, 30:215-217.
29. Kalantidis K. Grafting the way to the systemic silencing signal in plants. PLoS Biol. 2004, 2:1059-1061.
30. Zhao D.Y., Song G.Q. Rootstock-to-scion transfer of transgene-derived small interfering RNAs and their effect on virus resistance in nontransgenic sweet cherry. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2014, 12:1319-1328.
31. Song G.Q., et al. Engineering cherry rootstocks with resistance to Prunus necrotic ring spot virus through RNAi-mediated silencing. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2013, 11:702-708.
32. Lusser M., Davies H.V. Comparative regulatory approaches for groups of new plant breeding techniques. New Biotechnol. 2013, 30:437-446.
33. Podevin N., et al. Transgenic or not? No simple answer! New biotechnology-based plant breeding techniques and the regulatory landscape. EMBO Rep. 2012, 13:1057-1061.
34. Pavan S., et al. Loss of susceptibility as a novel breeding strategy for durable and broad-spectrum resistance. Mol. Breed. 2010, 25:1-12.
35. Gilissen L.J., et al. Silencing the major apple allergen Mal d 1 by using the RNA interference approach. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2005, 115:364-369.
36. Dubois A.E., et al. First successful reduction of clinical allergenicity of food by genetic modification: Mal d 1-silenced apples cause fewer allergy symptoms than the wild-type cultivar. Allergy 2015, 70:1406-1412.
37. Riascos J.J., et al. Hypoallergenic legume crops and food allergy: factors affecting feasibility and risk. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2010, 58:20-27.
38. Gilissen L.J.W.J., et al. Reducing the incidence of allergy and intolerance to cereals. J. Cereal Sci. 2014, 59:337-353.
39. Smulders M.J.M., et al. Development of wheat varieties with reduced contents of celiac-immunogenic epitopes through conventional and GM strategies. Proceedings of the 28th Meeting of the Working Group on Prolamin Analysis and Toxicity 2015, 47-56. Verlag Deutsche Forschungsanstalt für Lebensmittelchemie (DFA). P. Koehler (Ed.).
40. Schenk M.F., et al. Consumer attitudes towards hypoallergenic apples that alleviate mild apple allergy. Food Qual. Prefer. 2011, 22:83-91.
41. Schenk M.F., et al. The influence of perceived benefits on acceptance of GM applications for allergy prevention. Health Risk Soc. 2008, 10:263-282.
42. Kronberger N., et al. How natural is 'more natural'? the role of method, type of transfer, and familiarity for public perceptions of cisgenic and transgenic modification. Sci. Comunm. 2014, 36:106-130.
43. Palmgren M.G., et al. Are we ready for back-to-nature crop breeding?. Trends Plant Sci. 2015, 20:155-164.
44. Yamagishi N., et al. Reduced generation time of apple seedlings to within a year by means of a plant virus vector: a new plant-breeding technique with no transmission of genetic modification to the next generation. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2014, 12:60-68.
45. Schaart J.G., et al. Effective production of marker-free transgenic strawberry plants using inducible site-specific recombination and a bifunctional selectable marker gene. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2004, 2:233-240.
46. Marton I., et al. Nontransgenic genome modification in plant cells. Plant Physiol. 2010, 154:1079-1087.
47. Honig A., et al. Transient expression of virally delivered meganuclease in planta generates inherited genomic deletions. Mol. Plant 2015, 8:1292-1294.
48. Voytas, D.F. et al. Cellectis. Methods for non-transgenic genome editing in plants, WO/2014/199358.