Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 Jun;30(3):239-249.
doi: 10.1007/s11248-021-00246-x. Epub 2021 Apr 2.

Two efficient CRISPR/Cas9 systems for gene editing in soybean

Affiliations

Two efficient CRISPR/Cas9 systems for gene editing in soybean

Jéssica Carrijo et al. Transgenic Res. 2021 Jun.

Abstract

Genome editing using CRISPR/Cas9 has been highlighted as a powerful tool for crop improvement. Nevertheless, its efficiency can be improved, especially for crops with a complex genome, such as soybean. In this work, using the CRISPR/Cas9 technology we evaluated two CRISPR systems, a one-component vs. a two-component strategy. In a simplified system, the single transcriptional unit (STU), SpCas9 and sgRNA are driven by only one promoter, and in the conventional system, the two-component transcriptional unit (TCTU), SpCas9, is under the control of a pol II promoter and the sgRNAs are under the control of a pol III promoter. A multiplex system with three targets was designed targeting two different genes, GmIPK1 and GmIPK2, coding for enzymes from the phytic acid synthesis pathway. Both systems were tested using the hairy root soybean methodology. Results showed gene-specific edition. For the GmIPK1 gene, edition was observed in both configurations, with a deletion of 1 to 749 base pairs; however, the TCTU showed higher indel frequencies. For GmIPK2 major exclusions were observed in both systems, but the editing efficiency was low for STU. Both systems (STU or TCTU) have been shown to be capable of promoting effective gene editing in soybean. The TCTU configuration proved to be preferable, since it was more efficient. The STU system was less efficient, but the size of the CRISPR/Cas cassette was smaller.

Keywords: Genome editing; Low phytic acid; Single transcriptional unit; Two-component transcriptional unit.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Adli M (2018) The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond. Nat Commun 9:1911 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Ahmar S, Gill RA, Jung KH, Faheem A, Qasim MU, et al. (2020). Conventional and molecular techniques from simple breeding to speed breeding in crop plants: recent advances and future outlook. Int J Mol Sci. 2020 21(7):2590
    1. An G, Watson BD, Stachel S, Gordon MP, Nester EW (1985) New cloning vehicles for transformation of higher plants. EMBO J 4:277–284 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Bao A, Chen H, Chen L, Chen S, Hao Q et al (2019) CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis of GmSPL9 genes alters plant architecture in soybean. BMC Plant Biol 19(1):131 - PubMed - PMC
    1. Barrangou R (2015) Diversity of CRISPR-Cas immune systems and molecular machines. Genome Biol 16:247 - PubMed - PMC

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances

LinkOut - more resources