Molecular Breeding for Improved Second Generation Bioenergy Crops

Trends in Plant Science

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2016, Pages 43-54

  Allwright, Mike R ^a   Taylor, Gail ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

DNA technologies; Miscanthus; Next generation sequencing; Poplar; Switchgrass; Willow

Indexed keywords

BIOFUEL;

CROP; DNA SHUFFLING; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; GENOTYPING TECHNIQUE; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; PROCEDURES; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT;

BIOFUELS; CROPS, AGRICULTURAL; DNA SHUFFLING; GENOME-WIDE ASSOCIATION STUDY; GENOTYPING TECHNIQUES; QUANTITATIVE TRAIT, HERITABLE;

EID: 84960824699     PISSN: 13601385     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.tplants.2015.10.002     Document Type: Review

References (129)

1. Tester M., Langridge P. Breeding technologies to increase crop production in a changing world. Science 2010, 327:818-822.
2. Jena K.K., Mackill D.J. Molecular markers and their use in marker-assisted selection in rice. Crop Sci. 2008, 48:1266.
3. Gupta H.S., et al. Quality protein maize for nutritional security: rapid development of short duration hybrids through molecular marker assisted breeding. Curr. Sci. 2009, 96:230-237.
4. Miedaner T., Korzun V. Marker-assisted selection for disease resistance in wheat and barley breeding. Phytopathology 2012, 102:560-566.
5. Ortega F., Lopez-Vizcon C. Application of molecular marker-assisted selection (MAS) for disease resistance in a practical potato breeding programme. Potato Res. 2012, 55:1-13.
6. Flachowsky H., et al. Application of a high-speed breeding technology to apple (Malus × domestica) based on transgenic early flowering plants and marker-assisted selection. New Phytol. 2011, 192:364-377.
7. Sebastian S.A., et al. Context-specific marker-assisted selection for improved grain yield in elite soybean populations. Crop Sci. 2010, 50:1196.
8. De Donato M., et al. Genotyping-by-sequencing (GBS): a novel, efficient and cost-effective genotyping method for cattle using next-generation sequencing. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e62137.
9. Whyte J.J., Prather R.S. Genetic modifications of pigs for medicine and agriculture. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 2011, 78:879-891.
10. Michael T.P., VanBuren R. Progress, challenges and the future of crop genomes. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015, 24:71-81.
11. Mardis E.R. A decade's perspective on DNA sequencing technology. Nature 2011, 470:198-203.
12. Godfray H.C.J., et al. Food security: the challenge of feeding 9 billion people. Science 2010, 327:812-818.
13. The Royal Society U.K. Reaping the Benefits: Science and the Sustainable Intensification of Global Agriculture 2009, The Royal Society UK.
14. Fairley P. Next generation biofuels. Nature 2011, 474:S2-S5.
15. Van Ittersum M.K., et al. Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance - a review. Field Crops Res. 2013, 143:4-17.
16. Laborte A.G., et al. Rice yields and yield gaps in Southeast Asia: past trends and future outlook. Eur. J. Agron. 2012, 36:9-20.
17. Neumann K., et al. The yield gap of global grain production: a spatial analysis. Agric. Syst. 2010, 103:316-326.
18. Fermont A.M., et al. Closing the cassava yield gap: an analysis from smallholder farms in East Africa. Field Crops Res. 2009, 112:24-36.
19. Ray M.J., et al. Variation in cell wall composition and accessibility in relation to biofuel potential of short rotation coppice willows. Bioenergy Res. 2012, 5:685-698.
20. Ingvarsson P.K., Street N.R. Association genetics of complex traits in plants. New Phytol. 2010, 189:909-922.
21. Davey J.W., et al. Genome-wide genetic marker discovery and genotyping using next-generation sequencing. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2011, 12:499-510.
22. Jansson S., Douglas C.J. Populus: a model system for plant biology. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2007, 58:435-458.
23. Tuskan G.A., et al. The genome of black cottonwood, Populus trichocarpa (Torr. & Gray). Science 2006, 313:1596-1604.
24. Slavov G.T., et al. Genome resequencing reveals multiscale geographic structure and extensive linkage disequilibrium in the forest tree Populus trichocarpa. New Phytol. 2012, 196:713-725.
25. Geraldes A., et al. SNP discovery in black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa) by population transcriptome resequencing. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2011, 11:81-92.
26. Liu J., et al. Transcriptome analysis of the differentially expressed genes in the male and female shrub willows (Salix suchowensis). PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e60181.
27. Wang Y., et al. Exploring the switchgrass transcriptome using second-generation sequencing technology. PLoS ONE 2012, 7:e34225.
28. Swaminathan K., et al. A framework genetic map for Miscanthus sinensis from RNAseq-based markers shows recent tetraploidy. BMC Genomics 2012, 13:142.
29. Geraldes A., et al. A 34K SNP genotyping array for Populus trichocarpa: design, application to the study of natural populations and transferability to other Populus species. Mol. Ecol. Resour. 2013, 13:306-323.
30. Porth I., et al. Genome-wide association mapping for wood characteristics in Populus identifies an array of candidate single nucleotide polymorphisms. New Phytol. 2013, 200:710-726.
31. McKown A.D., et al. Genome-wide association implicates numerous genes underlying ecological trait variation in natural populations of Populus trichocarpa. New Phytol. 2014, 203:535-553.
32. La Mantia J., et al. Association analysis identifies Melampsora × columbiana poplar leaf rust resistance SNPs. PLoS ONE 2013, 8:e78423.
33. Slavov G.T., et al. Genome-wide association studies and prediction of 17 traits related to phenology, biomass and cell wall composition in the energy grass Miscanthus sinensis. New Phytol. 2014, 201:1227-1239.
34. Xu Y., et al. Whole-genome strategies for marker-assisted plant breeding. Mol. Breed. 2012, 29:833-854.
35. Ashraf M., Foolad M.R. Crop breeding for salt tolerance in the era of molecular markers and marker-assisted selection. Plant Breed. 2013, 132:10-20.
36. Resende M.F.R., et al. Accelerating the domestication of trees using genomic selection: accuracy of prediction models across ages and environments. New Phytol. 2012, 193:617-624.
37. Jakob K., et al. Genetic improvement of C4 grasses as cellulosic biofuel feedstocks. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2009, 45:291-305.
38. Hinchee M., et al. Short-rotation woody crops for bioenergy and biofuels applications. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2009, 45:619-629.
39. Gomez L.D., et al. Sustainable liquid biofuels from biomass: the writing's on the walls. New Phytol. 2008, 178:473-485.
40. Etchells J.P., et al. Wood formation in trees is increased by manipulating PXY-regulated cell division. Curr. Biol. 2015, 25:1050-1055.
41. Polle A., et al. Poplar genetic engineering: promoting desirable wood characteristics and pest resistance. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2013, 97:5669-5679.
42. Miranda M., et al. The transcriptional response of hybrid poplar (Populus trichocarpa × P. deltoides) to infection by Melampsora medusae leaf rust involves induction of flavonoid pathway genes leading to the accumulation of proanthocyanidins. Mol. Plant. Microbe Interact. 2007, 20:816-831.
43. Wilkerson C.G., et al. Monolignol ferulate transferase introduces chemically labile linkages into the lignin backbone. Science 2014, 344:90-93.
44. Baxter H.L., et al. Two-year field analysis of reduced recalcitrance transgenic switchgrass. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2014, 12:914-924.
45. Coleman H.D., et al. Enhanced expression of glutamine synthetase (GS1a) confers altered fibre and wood chemistry in field grown hybrid poplar (Populus tremula × alba) (717-1B4). Plant Biotechnol. J. 2012, 10:883-889.
46. Man H-M., et al. Characterization of transgenic poplar with ectopic expression of pine cytosolic glutamine synthetase under conditions of varying nitrogen availability. New Phytol. 2005, 167:31-39.
47. el-Khatib R.T., et al. Transgenic poplar characterized by ectopic expression of a pine cytosolic glutamine synthetase gene exhibits enhanced tolerance to water stress. Tree Physiol. 2004, 24:729-736.
48. Kim Y-H., et al. Transgenic poplar expressing Arabidopsis NDPK2 enhances growth as well as oxidative stress tolerance. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2011, 9:334-347.
49. Fu C., et al. Overexpression of miR156 in switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) results in various morphological alterations and leads to improved biomass production. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2012, 10:443-452.
50. Shim D., et al. Transgenic poplar trees expressing yeast cadmium factor 1 exhibit the characteristics necessary for the phytoremediation of mine tailing soil. Chemosphere 2013, 90:1478-1486.
51. Wang Y.C., et al. Enhanced salt tolerance of transgenic poplar plants expressing a manganese superoxide dismutase from Tamarix androssowii. Mol. Biol. Rep. 2010, 37:1119-1124.
52. Zhou X., et al. Exploiting SNPs for biallelic CRISPR mutations in the outcrossing woody perennial Populus reveals 4-coumarate:CoA ligase specificity and redundancy. New Phytol. 2015, 208:298-301.
53. Karp A., et al. Genetic improvement of willow for bioenergy and biofuels. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2011, 53:151-165.
54. Dohleman F.G., et al. Seasonal dynamics of above- and below-ground biomass and nitrogen partitioning in Miscanthus × giganteus and Panicum virgatum across three growing seasons. GCB Bioenergy 2012, 4:534-544.
55. Heaton E.A., et al. Meeting US biofuel goals with less land: the potential of Miscanthus. Global Change Biol. 2008, 14:2000-2014.
56. Ercoli L., et al. Effect of irrigation and nitrogen fertilization on biomass yield and efficiency of energy use in crop production of Miscanthus. Field Crops Res. 1999, 63:3-11.
57. Lewandowski I., Heinz A. Delayed harvest of Miscanthus - influences on biomass quantity and quality and environmental impacts of energy production. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 19:45-63.
58. Angelini L.G., et al. Comparison of Arundo donax L. and Miscanthus × giganteus in a long-term field experiment in Central Italy: analysis of productive characteristics and energy balance. Biomass Bioenergy 2009, 33:635-643.
59. Clifton-Brown J.C., Lewandowski I. Screening Miscanthus genotypes in field trials to optimise biomass yield and quality in southern Germany. Eur. J. Agron. 2002, 16:97-110.
60. Christian D.G., et al. Growth, yield and mineral content of Miscanthus × giganteus grown as a biofuel for 14 successive harvests. Ind. Crops Prod. 2008, 28:320-327.
61. Kering M.K., et al. Biomass yield and nutrient removal rates of perennial grasses under nitrogen fertilization. Bioenergy Res. 2012, 5:61-70.
62. Nonhebel S. Energy yields in intensive and extensive biomass production systems. Biomass Bioenergy 2002, 22:159-167.
63. Scaracia-Mugnozza G.E., et al. Species and their hybrids grown under short rotation. II. Biomass components and harvest index of hybrid and parental species clones. Can. J. For. Res. 1997, 27:285-294.
64. Pontailler J.Y., et al. Biomass yield of poplar after five 2-year coppice rotations. Forestry 1999, 72:157-163.
65. Carmona R., et al. Biomass yield and quality of an energy dedicated crop of poplar (Populus spp.) clones in the Mediterranean zone of Chile. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 74:96-102.
66. Rae A.M., et al. QTL for yield in bioenergy Populus: identifying G×E interactions from growth at three contrasting sites. Tree Genet. Genomes 2007, 4:97-112.
67. Labrecque M., Teodorescu T. Field performance and biomass production of 12 willow and poplar clones in short-rotation coppice in southern Quebec (Canada). Biomass Bioenergy 2005, 29:1-9.
68. Fortier J., et al. Biomass and volume yield after 6 years in multiclonal hybrid poplar riparian buffer strips. Biomass Bioenergy 2010, 34:1028-1040.
69. Nassi O., Di Nasso N., et al. Biomass production and energy balance of a 12-year-old short-rotation coppice poplar stand under different cutting cycles. GCB Bioenergy 2010, 2:89-97.
70. Verlinden M.S., et al. First vs. second rotation of a poplar short rotation coppice: above-ground biomass productivity and shoot dynamics. Biomass Bioenergy 2015, 73:174-185.
71. Dillen S.Y., et al. Biomass yield and energy balance of a short-rotation poplar coppice with multiple clones on degraded land during 16 years. Biomass Bioenergy 2013, 56:157-165.
72. Truax B., et al. Yield in 8 year-old hybrid poplar plantations on abandoned farmland along climatic and soil fertility gradients. For. Ecol. Manage. 2012, 267:228-239.
73. Nielsen U.B., et al. Production potential of 36 poplar clones grown at medium length rotation in Denmark. Biomass Bioenergy 2014, 64:99-109.
74. Bungart R., Hüttl R.F. Growth dynamics and biomass accumulation of 8-year-old hybrid poplar clones in a short-rotation plantation on a clayey-sandy mining substrate with respect to plant nutrition and water budget. Eur. J. For. Res. 2004, 123:105-115.
75. Bungart R. Erzeugung von Biomasse zur energetischen Nutzung durch den Anbau schnellwachsender Baumarten auf Kippsubstraten des Lausitzer Braunkohlereviers unter besonderer Berü cksichtigung der Nä hrelementversorgung und des Wasserhaushaltes. Cottbuser. Schr. Bodenschutz Rekult. 1999, 7:1-159.
76. Adegbidi H.G., et al. Biomass and nutrient removal by willow clones in experimental bioenergy plantations in New York state. Biomass Bioenergy 2001, 20:399-411.
77. Labrecque M., Teodorescu T.I. High biomass yield achieved by Salix clones in SRIC following two 3-year coppice rotations on abandoned farmland in southern Quebec, Canada. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 25:135-146.
78. Volk T.A., et al. Yields of willow biomass crops across a range of sites in North America. Aspects Appl. Biol. 2011, 112:67-74.
79. Stolarski M.J., et al. Yield, energy parameters and chemical composition of short-rotation willow biomass. Ind. Crops Prod. 2013, 46:60-65.
80. Kopp R.F., et al. Willow biomass production during ten successive annual harvests. Biomass Bioenergy 2001, 20:1-7.
81. Stolarski M.J., et al. Willow biomass production under conditions of low-input agriculture on marginal soils. For. Ecol. Manage. 2011, 262:1558-1566.
82. McElroy G.H., Dawson W.M. Biomass from short-rotation coppice willow on marginal land. Biomass 1986, 10:225-240.
83. Serapiglia M.J., et al. Yield and woody biomass traits of novel shrub willow hybrids at two contrasting sites. Bioenergy Res. 2013, 6:533-546.
84. Adegbidi H.G., et al. Effect of organic amendments and slow-release nitrogen fertilizer on willow biomass production and soil chemical characteristics. Biomass Bioenergy 2003, 25:389-398.
85. Marron N., et al. Evaluation of leaf traits for indirect selection of high yielding poplar hybrids. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2007, 61:103-116.
86. Rae A.M., et al. Five QTL hotspots for yield in short rotation coppice bioenergy poplar: the poplar biomass loci. BMC Plant Biol. 2009, 9:23.
87. Noh S.A., et al. The poplar basic helix-loop-helix transcription factor BEE3 - like gene affects biomass production by enhancing proliferation of xylem cells in poplar. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 2015, 462:64-70.
88. Drost D.R., et al. Genetical genomics of Populus leaf shape variation. BMC Plant Biol. 2015, 15:166.
89. Rae A.M., et al. Morphological and physiological traits influencing biomass productivity in short-rotation coppice poplar. Can. J. For. Res. 2004, 34:1488-1498.
90. Zhu X-G., et al. Improving photosynthetic efficiency for greater yield. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2010, 61:235-261.
91. Al Afas N., et al. Clonal variation in stomatal characteristics related to biomass production of 12 poplar (Populus) clones in a short rotation coppice culture. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2006, 58:279-286.
92. McKown A.D., et al. Association genetics, geography, and ecophysiology link stomatal patterning in Populus trichocarpa with carbon gain and disease resistance trade-offs. Mol. Ecol. 2014, 23:5771-5790.
93. Lin M.T., et al. A faster RuBisCO with potential to increase photosynthesis in crops. Nature 2014, 513:547-550.
94. Demura T., Ye Z-H. Regulation of plant biomass production. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2010, 13:299-304.
95. Wullschleger S.D., et al. Phenotypic variation in growth and biomass distribution for two advanced-generation pedigrees of hybrid poplar. Can. J. For. Res. 2005, 35:1779-1789.
96. Marron N., et al. Plasticity of growth and sylleptic branchiness in two poplar families grown at three sites across Europe. Tree Physiol. 2006, 26:935-946.
97. Moreno-Cortés A., et al. CsRAV1 induces sylleptic branching in hybrid poplar. New Phytol. 2012, 194:83-90.
98. Sannigrahi P., et al. Poplar as a feedstock for biofuels: a review of compositional characteristics. Biofuels Bioprod. Biorefin. 2010, 4:209-226.
99. Harris D., et al. Genetic modification in cellulose-synthase reduces crystallinity and improves biochemical conversion to fermentable sugar. GCB Bioenergy 2009, 1:51-61.
100. Studer M.H., et al. Lignin content in natural Populus variants affects sugar release. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2011, 108:6300-6305.
101. Van Acker R., et al. Improved saccharification and ethanol yield from field-grown transgenic poplar deficient in cinnamoyl-CoA reductase. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2014, 111:845-850.
102. Pliura A., et al. Genotypic variation in wood density and growth traits of poplar hybrids at four clonal trials. For. Ecol. Manage. 2007, 238:92-106.
103. Jorge V., et al. Genetic architecture of qualitative and quantitative Melampsora larici-populina leaf rust resistance in hybrid poplar: genetic mapping and QTL detection. New Phytol. 2005, 167:113-127.
104. Fichot R., et al. Vulnerability to drought-induced cavitation in poplars: synthesis and future opportunities. Plant Cell Environ. 2015, 38:1233-1251.
105. Wang L., et al. Root plasticity of Populus euphratica seedlings in response to different water table depths and contrasting sediment types. PLoS ONE 2015, 10:e0118691.
106. Yu L-H., et al. Arabidopsis EDT1/HDG1 improves drought and salt tolerance in cotton and poplar and increases cotton yield in the field. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2015, Published online April 15, 2015. 10.1111/pbi.12358.
107. Tang S., et al. Populus euphratica: the transcriptomic response to drought stress. Plant Mol. Biol. 2013, 83:539-557.
108. Chen S., et al. The salt-responsive transcriptome of Populus simonii × Populus nigra via DGE. Gene 2012, 504:203-212.
109. Guo X.Y., et al. A comparison of physiological, morphological and growth responses of 13 hybrid poplar clones to flooding. Forestry 2011, 84:1-12.
110. Zaidi P.H., et al. QTL mapping of agronomic waterlogging tolerance using recombinant inbred lines derived from tropical maize (Zea mays L) germplasm. PLoS ONE 2015, 10:e0124350.
111. Viger M., et al. Toward improved drought tolerance in bioenergy crops: QTL for carbon isotope composition and stomatal conductance in Populus. Food Energy Security 2013, 2:220-236.
112. Rennenberg H., et al. Nitrogen nutrition of poplar trees. Plant Biol. 2010, 12:275-291.
113. Novaes E., et al. Quantitative genetic analysis of biomass and wood chemistry of Populus under different nitrogen levels. New Phytol. 2009, 182:878-890.
114. 2O) above a short-rotation poplar plantation after conversion from agricultural land. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2013, 169:100-110.
115. 2 assimilation and water use efficiency across a range of poplar genotypes. Physiol. Plant. 2011, 142:297-304.
116. Behnke K., et al. Isoprene emission-free poplars - a chance to reduce the impact from poplar plantations on the atmosphere. New Phytol. 2012, 194:70-82.
117. Knoth J.L., et al. Biological nitrogen fixation and biomass accumulation within poplar clones as a result of inoculations with diazotrophic endophyte consortia. New Phytol. 2014, 201:599-609.
118. Danielsen L., et al. Fungal soil communities in a young transgenic poplar plantation form a rich reservoir for fungal root communities. Ecol. Evol. 2012, 2:1935-1948.
119. Paskalev V. Can science tame politics: the collapse of the new GMO regime in the EU. Eur. J. Risk Regul. 2012, 3:190-201.
120. Kalaitzandonakes N., et al. Potential economic impacts of zero thresholds for unapproved GMOs: the EU case. Food Policy 2014, 45:146-157.
121. Chrispeels M.J. Yes indeed, most Americans do eat GMOs every day!. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2014, 56:4-6.
122. Fillatti J.J., et al. Agrobacterium mediated transformation and regeneration of Populus. Mol. Gen. Genet. 1987, 206:192-199.
123. Yang J., et al. Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated genetic transformation of Salix matsudana Koidz. using mature seeds. Tree Physiol. 2013, 33:628-639.
124. Wang X., et al. Establishment of an efficient in vitro culture and particle bombardment-mediated transformation systems in Miscanthus sinensis Anderss., a potential bioenergy crop. GCB Bioenergy 2011, 3:322-332.
125. Xi Y., et al. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of switchgrass and inheritance of the transgenes. Bioenergy Res. 2009, 2:275-283.
126. Leplé J-C., et al. Downregulation of cinnamoyl-coenzyme A reductase in poplar: multiple-level phenotyping reveals effects on cell wall polymer metabolism and structure. Plant Cell 2007, 19:3669-3691.
127. Voelker S.L., et al. Antisense down-regulation of 4CL expression alters lignification, tree growth, and saccharification potential of field-grown poplar. Plant Physiol. 2010, 154:874-886.
128. Voelker S.L., et al. Reduced wood stiffness and strength, and altered stem form, in young antisense 4CL transgenic poplars with reduced lignin contents. New Phytol. 2011, 189:1096-1109.
129. Bjurhager I., et al. Ultrastructure and mechanical properties of Populus wood with reduced lignin content caused by transgenic down-regulation of cinnamate 4-hydroxylase. Biomacromolecules 2010, 11:2359-2365.