2021
DOI: 10.1007/s11240-020-02008-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparative potato genome editing: Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation and protoplasts transfection delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 components directed to StPPO2 gene

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 56 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The CRISPR/Cas9 system has been successfully applied in various plant species for site-specific base modifications through various genetic transformation methods with varying editing efficiency. It has been observed that the editing efficiency of 9.6%, 18.4%, and 31.9% can be obtained in the edited lines depending on the Agrobacterium -mediated transformation, ribonucleoprotein complexes, and transient expression in protoplasts respectively [ 21 ]. Another advancement of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, the Transiently Expressed CRISPR/Cas DNA (TECCDNA) is a simple and efficient genome-editing approach in which mutant plants are regenerated after transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 DNA [ 22 ].…”
Section: Genome Editing Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The CRISPR/Cas9 system has been successfully applied in various plant species for site-specific base modifications through various genetic transformation methods with varying editing efficiency. It has been observed that the editing efficiency of 9.6%, 18.4%, and 31.9% can be obtained in the edited lines depending on the Agrobacterium -mediated transformation, ribonucleoprotein complexes, and transient expression in protoplasts respectively [ 21 ]. Another advancement of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, the Transiently Expressed CRISPR/Cas DNA (TECCDNA) is a simple and efficient genome-editing approach in which mutant plants are regenerated after transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 DNA [ 22 ].…”
Section: Genome Editing Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since this first report, RNPs have been successfully used to mediate potato genome editing using the protoplasts transfection and regeneration system, with editing efficiencies ranging from 27 to 68% ( González et al, 2020 ) and 52 to 72% ( Zhao et al, 2021 ), varying with the targeted genes and the design of RNP components. Protoplasts provide a suitable platform for genome-editing reagents delivery and may in some cases represent even a more efficient strategy when compared to Agrobacterium -mediated transformation ( González et al, 2021 ). Even though it represents a promising strategy to mediate transgene-free genome editing in potato, the use of RNP in protoplasts present some important aspects to consider.…”
Section: Genome Editing In Potatomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though it represents a promising strategy to mediate transgene-free genome editing in potato, the use of RNP in protoplasts present some important aspects to consider. For instance, DNA traces remaining in the assembled RNPs may led to unintended foreign DNA insertions in the regenerated plants, with different frequencies ( Andersson et al, 2018 ; González et al, 2021 ; Zhao et al, 2021 ). A possible origin of such traces is the DNA molecules employed for the in vitro transcription of sgRNAs, before RNP assembly.…”
Section: Genome Editing In Potatomentioning
confidence: 99%
“…After delivering the complex into the cell nucleus, RNP is rapidly degraded, thus avoiding potential off-target effects ( Kim J.-S. et al, 2015 , 2017 ; Subburaj et al, 2016 ). Moreover, for cellular toxicity associated with long-term expression of Cas and/or integration of exogenous DNA, the RNP complex approach may represent a good choice due to the transient and stable transfection in the plant cell ( González et al, 2021 ). On the other hand, as this strategy does not use selection marker genes, the screening of edited plants with desirable phenotypes may become more laborious and costly.…”
Section: Genome Editing Technology Focuses On Crispr/cas Technologymentioning
confidence: 99%