Genome Editing: A Promising Approach for Achieving Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants

Kaur, Navdeep; Sharma, Shubham; Hasanuzzaman, Mirza; Pati, Pratap Kumar

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5547231

International Journal of Genomics

On this page

Abstract Introduction Conclusion Abbreviations Data Availability Conflicts of Interest Acknowledgments References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 5547231 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/5547231

Genome Editing: A Promising Approach for Achieving Abiotic Stress Tolerance in Plants

Navdeep Kaur,¹Shubham Sharma,²Mirza Hasanuzzaman,³and Pratap Kumar Pati^1,2

Academic Editor: Ertugrul Filiz

Received12 Jan 2022

Accepted24 Mar 2022

Published15 Apr 2022

Abstract

The susceptibility of crop plants towards abiotic stresses is highly threatening to assure global food security as it results in almost 50% annual yield loss. To address this issue, several strategies like plant breeding and genetic engineering have been used by researchers from time to time. However, these approaches are not sufficient to ensure stress resilience due to the complexity associated with the inheritance of abiotic stress adaptive traits. Thus, researchers were prompted to develop novel techniques with high precision that can address the challenges connected to the previous strategies. Genome editing is the latest approach that is in the limelight for improving the stress tolerance of plants. It has revolutionized crop research due to its versatility and precision. The present review is an update on the different genome editing tools used for crop improvement so far and the various challenges associated with them. It also highlights the emerging potential of genome editing for developing abiotic stress-resilient crops.

1. Introduction

The world population is anticipated to reach up to 10 billion by the end of the year 2050. In this scenario, the production of food crops is required to be increased by 60% in the coming years for ensuring global food security [1, 2]. However, abiotic stresses including salinity, drought, and extreme temperatures are some of the primary constraints that significantly hamper the production and yield of crop plants [3, 4]. They are responsible for almost 50% yield loss of crop plants resulting in $14–19 million annual economic loss worldwide [5, 6]. The effect of these stresses is further expected to aggravate due to the climatic uncertainties in near future [3, 7]. Thus, management of abiotic stresses in different crops is one of the prime aims of researchers for ensuring sustainable agriculture.

Researchers have endeavored to develop various approaches from time to time for achieving abiotic stress tolerance in plants [8–11]. The most conventional means involves crossing of two parental plants for producing a progeny plant having desired characteristics. However, this approach has met only limited success due to the complexity of traits associated with abiotic stress tolerance [12–14]. In the past decade, with the advancement in the field of genomics and molecular biology, the emergence of the genetic engineering approach has provided great opportunities for increasing the stress tolerance of plants [15, 16]. In this strategy, abiotic stress-tolerant crops are generated by mobilizing genes or their regulating elements into the genome of interest [17]. However, the worldwide use of genetically modified crops is restricted due to the various health and environmental concerns associated with their use [18, 19]. Thus, to fulfill the food demand of the growing world population, it is imperative to devise novel and potent strategies that can help in the production of abiotic stress-resilient crops with better growth and yield. In this scenario, the emergence of genome editing has revolutionized the field of plant science and agriculture [1, 20].

Genome alteration is a natural phenomenon that exists on earth for thousands of years. Plants with specific genetic variations have been selected over others through evolution since long. Almost all the crops grown nowadays have sustained considerable genetic variations in the past [21, 22]. Modern corn grown worldwide that is substantially different from its wild ancestor teosinte is such an example. However, our ancestors relied upon the naturally occurring genome variations/mutations to improve the various crop traits [22]. Later in the 20^th century, when it was established that DNA forms the genetic basis of life and controls the phenotype of any organism, researchers introduced changes in the genome using chemical mutagens and radiations. This type of mutagenesis was very resourceful for the mutational breeding that has shown significant success in the Green Revolution of the 1970s [22, 23]. However, the drawbacks of random mutagenesis and stringent selection procedures for mutants have generated a pressing need to develop new approaches that can alter the DNA sequence in a specific manner [24]. In this context, genome editing offers a precise modification of the target genome in an integration-free mode [9]. The concept of genome editing was conceived by Capecchi in the 1980s [22, 25]. In this approach, the genetic material can be removed, altered, or added at specific loci within the genome [26]. During this process, double-stranded (ds) DNA breaks (DSB) are created in a sequence-specific manner using sequence-specific endonucleases (SSEs). SSEs are expressed within the cell transiently either using mRNA that quickly degrades once its job is done or in the form of a protein that is not transferred to future generations [27–31]. The gaps generated during this process are then repaired by host DNA repair machinery via nonhomologous end-joining (NHEJ) and homologous recombination (HR). NHEJ system operates through two pathways including Ku-dependent and Ku-independent [32, 33]. During the Ku-dependent pathway, Ku proteins KU70/80 bind to the ends of ds breaks at the target site. This binding leads to the recruitment of repair machinery comprising of ligase IV enzyme along with its cofactors resulting in sealing the gaps [32]. However, in the Ku-independent pathway, the broken ends of the DNA sequence are resected to generate a single-stranded overhang. These overhangs are then aligned with the help of 5-25 bp long microhomologous sequences. The resulted gaps are later filled with the DNA polymerase and nicks are ligated using DNA ligase [34]. NHEJ repair system is error-prone and may result in deletions or insertions in the target genome. On the contrary to this, the HR repair system is error-free as in this pathway, a DNA template is used to accurately replace the nucleotides and thus HR results in insertions or replacements in the target genome [33]. Genome editing has been used for improving the various traits in plants for almost a decade; however, in the past few years, it has progressed to a phenomenal degree of success because of the development of simpler genome editing tools. Although a few earlier research papers have dealt with the CRISPR/Cas-mediated abiotic stress amelioration in plants, yet there is scarcity of review articles that holistically discuss the potential of different available genome editing tools to overcome the problem of abiotic stress in plants. The present review is an update on the various types of genome editing tools used for crop improvement and the advancements on their potential to impart abiotic stress tolerance. In addition, it also highlights the different challenges that hurdles the harnessing of available genome editing tools to their full potential for improving the abiotic stress resilience of plants.

2. Different Plant Genome Editing Techniques

Plant genome editing techniques have been classified into four major types to date based on onsite-specific endonucleases. These consist of meganucleases, zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) (Table 1) [20, 35].

2.1. Meganucleases

Meganucleases are the endonucleases that can recognize and cut larger DNA sequences (>12 bp) in a sequence-specific manner [36, 37]. They are reported to occur in a range of organisms including archaebacteria, bacteria, algae, fungi, yeast, and some of plant species. They were initially discovered in the 1980s and were later extensively characterized in the early 1990s in mammalian cells [38]. Due to the presence of long recognition sites, their target site is expected to occur only once in a large genome. Moreover, meganucleases can endure mild polymorphisms at the target site [38]. They are also known as homing endonucleases and are assumed to act as parasitic elements of the host genome. Meganucleases create ds DNA breaks in the host genome at a specific position and then propagate themselves in the given genome using the homologous repair system of the host; however, their exact role is still not clear [39]. Meganucleases have been classified into five families on the basis of their sequence and motifs present in their structure. These include LAGLIDADG, PD-(D/E) XK, His-Cys box, GIY-YIG, and HNH [39, 40]. Among these, the LAGLIDADG meganuclease (LMN) family has been extensively used for genome editing. Its name is derived from the sequence of the major motif present in the structure of this family of proteins [37, 39]. LMNs are usually expressed in the chloroplast and mitochondria of unicellular eukaryotes. Most of these endonucleases exist as dimeric proteins and exhibit two roles including RNA maturase activity responsible for their own intron splicing and a specific endonuclease activity that result in the cleavage of the exon sequence [38]. Meganucleases generate ds breaks which are repaired using the NHEJ system resulting in error-prone deletions or micro insertions at the target site [38, 41]. Among various members of this family, the most widely used for genome editing are I-SceI and I-CreI. I-SceI gene is localized in the 21S rRNA encoding gene of mitochondrial DNA of Saccharomyces cerevisiae. It identifies 18 bp long sequence 5-TAGGGATAACAGGGTAAT-3 and is known as the “gold standard” in the field of genome editing due to its specificity and activity. I-CreI was identified in the chloroplast of unicellular algae Chlamydomonas reinhardtii and is localized in the 23S rRNA gene. It exists as a homodimer and recognizes 22 bp long target sequence 5-CAAAACGTCGTGAGACAGTTTG-3. The catalytic region of I-CreI consists of dual aspartic acid residues which participate in cleaving the DNA [38, 42]. Meganucleases have been used as scaffolds for engineering endonucleases in customized gene therapy [38]. However, due to the difficulties involved in the process of reengineering meganucleases to target novel DNA sequences, its use in genome editing has been limited [43, 44].

2.2. Zinc-Finger Nucleases

Zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs) are the artificially synthesized endonucleases that can cleave ds DNA in a sequence-specific manner [45, 46]. They can be used to introduce a wide range of genetic modifications including insertions, deletions, translocations, inversions, and point mutations in the target genome [47]. Thus, ZFNs have been used in the majority of genome editing experiments in various organisms to date [47, 48]. They consist of two domains, viz., the first DNA binding domain and another nuclease domain. DNA binding domain is composed of 3- to 6-zinc finger repeats, and each of these repeats can recognize a 9-18 bp long nucleotide sequence. The other domain comprises of a restriction enzyme Flavobacterium okeanokoitesI (FokI) and is involved in the cleavage of DNA [48]. FokI enzyme needs to dimerize to function accurately, and thus for cleaving each target sequence, a pair of ZFNs is required [46, 49]. To cleave the target DNA sequence, each of the two ZFN molecules binds to the opposite DNA strands for proper dimerization. Earlier, homodimeric FokI domains were used in the ZFNs that sometimes resulted in the formation of unwanted dimeric species with similar monomeric ZFNs. However, in the past few reports, heterodimeric FokI domains have been designed for ZFNs, which substantially reduces the generation of unnecessary homodimers of the FokI domain, thus improving their specificity [47]. Once dimerized, FokI cleaves the target DNA sequence introducing DSB which is repaired either by NHEJ or HR. In the presence of a homologous template sequence, HR machinery is used; however, in its absence, the NHEJ mechanism is used resulting in frameshift mutations due to the insertion or deletion of nucleotides. ZFNs can be designed using different protein engineering methods to virtually target any novel stretch of DNA [50]. ZFNs with improved specificity and activity have been engineered to successfully generate knockouts to remove the function of the gene and also to incorporate gain of function mutations [51].

2.3. Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases

Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) are the engineered restriction enzymes that are designed to cut specific DNA sequences [52]. They also consist of two domains like ZFNs, the TALE DNA binding domain and the DNA cleaving domain [46]. TALE DNA binding domain is made up of TAL effector (TALE) proteins. TALEs are the naturally occurring transcription factors secreted by the Xanthomonas genus of plant pathogens upon infection [53]. They are made up of 33-34 amino acids conserved repetitive sequences with variation at 12^th and 13^th position referred to as repeat variable residues (RVDs). These RVDs are solely responsible for the recognition of specific DNA sequences that act as a substrate for TALEN molecules. In most of the customized TALENs, RVDs consist of histidine-aspartic acid (HD) for cytosine, asparagine-asparagine (NN), asparagine-isoleucine (NI) for adenine, asparagine-histidine (NH), asparagine-asparagine (NN), asparagine-lysine (NK) for guanine, and asparagine-glycine (NG) for thymine [54, 55]. It was revealed from the crystal structure of TALE that the RVD residue at the 12^th position is involved in making a stabilized contact with the backbone loop and the 13^th position RVD is involved in forming a base-specific contact with the target DNA [56, 57]. Researchers have also examined the genomes of other organisms for discovering TALE-like proteins. In one such attempt, Ralstonia TALE-like proteins (RTLs) have been isolated from the bacteria Ralstonia solanacearum. RTLs are structurally similar to TALEs; however, they possess different RVD residues [54]. DNA cleavage domain of TALENs is composed of FokI enzyme-like ZFNs. Thus, TALEN also needs to dimerize to act on their target sites [47].

Due to specificity in DNA binding, TALEs can be used for synthesizing epigenetic and transcriptional regulators [22]. It has been proposed that the activity of the TALEN molecule is regulated by the flanking amino acids present on the N and C terminal of the DNA recognition domain [58]. The removal of a few amino acids from both of these ends provides stability to the proteins by facilitating proper folding. The resulting truncated versions of TALEN molecules have also been found to show better activity [59–61]. For creating such customized TALEN molecules, a ligation-based “Golden Gate System” has been the method of choice of the researchers [62–64]. However, the more advanced “Platinum TALEN and Platinum Gate System” has also been developed that is used to incorporate mutations in eukaryotes [33].

2.4. Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/CRISPR-Associated Protein

The Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeat/CRISPR-Associated System (CRISPR/Cas) is the recent breakthrough approach in the field of genome editing that has become a leading research tool for targeted mutagenesis in eukaryotes [65, 66]. This tool has been espoused from the defense machinery of bacteria. Different archaeal and bacterial species use CRISPR/Cas system to protect themselves from the invading viruses [67]. Most of the archaea and almost 40% of the different bacterial species sequenced genomes possess CRISPR/Cas system that can degrade RNA, DNA, or both [68, 69]. Whenever a phage infects a bacteria having CRISPR/Cas defense mechanism, the host bacterium degrades the invading DNA/RNA in three phases, viz., adaptation, biogenesis, and immunity/interference phase. In the adaptation phase, a fragment of pathogenic DNA is acquired by the host CRISPR array which is then transcribed into mature RNA also called as cr RNA in the biogenesis phase. These cr RNAs are later used by the nuclease enzyme Cas as a guide RNA to degrade the target sequence in the immunity phase [70, 71]. However, for the action of Cas endonuclease, the target site must contain a short DNA sequence known as “protospacer-adjacent motif” (PAM) downstream to the given target site, and it should be compatible with the given Cas protein [72–76].

The CRISPR system is adopted from the bacteria Streptococcus pyogenes that use Cas9 nuclease, and a single-guide RNA molecule has been most widely exploited for genome editing [67, 75]. For this purpose, 20-22 nucleotides long target-specific small guide RNAs (sg RNA) are synthesized which recognize their target and base pairs with them using Watson and Crick base pairing [77].Cas9 enzyme later cuts the recognized target site at specific positions, and the resulting gaps are filled using an HR repair system [77]. Initially, Cas9 isolated from Streptococcus pyogenes was used for most of the genome editing experiments; however, in the past few years, several variants of Cas9 have been generated through improvements in the wild-type Cas9 [78]. Apart from Cas9, various other types of Cas including Cas3, Cas12, and Cas13 have been recently explored for their potential application in genome editing [79]. Among these, Cas12 is the most preferred choice for genome editing of plants after Cas9 [80]. In contrast to other genome editing tools, this system is simpler, versatile, and inexpensive and thus has been widely used for improving the different traits in almost all the kingdoms of life [67]. Moreover, the past few years are also marked as “CRISPR craze” years by the researchers due to the immense use of this approach. Further, the ability of CRISPR/Cas to offer multiplex genome editing makes it a method of choice by researchers [81, 82].

3. Genome Editing: A Boon for Generating Abiotic Stress-Resilient Plants

To sustain the increasing global population, it is imperative to escalate the production of food crops exponentially. However, the susceptibility of plants to an array of abiotic stresses is a major challenge to achieving this goal [83]. Earlier, many abiotic stress-tolerant crop plants have been developed using conventional marker-assisted breeding. However, this approach takes almost a decade to successfully develop abiotic stress-resilient crops due to intensive screening and backcrossing procedures [84]. The stress-tolerant plants developed through genetic engineering have shown promising results, but there are number of hurdles in their commercialization. Hence, in this scenario, genome editing appears to be a sophisticated approach to develop abiotic stress-resilient crops in the future as it offers precise manipulation of various gene loci in comparatively lesser time, thus reducing the cost of crop improvement programs (Figure 1) [85]. Genome editing has already been successfully used to improve the various traits of plants including their nutritional value and yield [22]. On the contrary, there are only a few reports on its use for generating abiotic stress-tolerant plants. However, due to the development of highly efficient genome editing tools like CRISPR/Cas, it can provide ample opportunities to improve the abiotic stress resilience of plants. Moreover, it can be used to understand the role of various stress signaling cascades in abiotic stress adaptation [77]. Here, we discuss the key advances in the use of genome editing for improving the abiotic stress resilience of plants (Table 2).

3.1. Salinity Stress

Salt stress is a major abiotic stress that is responsible for a significant reduction in the global productivity of different crops [86, 87]. It affects almost 80 million hectares of global irrigated land, and this area is further expected to increase due to changing global climate [88]. Although the potential of genome editing in crop improvement is well-realized, still there are only a few reports on the successful use of this approach for achieving salinity stress tolerance in plants. In one such report, the OsRR22 gene that encodes for a transcription factor (TF) involved in the regulation of signaling as well as the metabolism of cytokinins in plants has been edited in rice to confer salt stress tolerance [89, 90]. Earlier, it was reported that loss of function of this gene can significantly hamper the cytokinin pathway, thus conferring salt stress resistance in plants [89]. The rice knockouts of OsRR22 produced using CRISPR/Cas9 performed better under salt stress [90]. Further, genome editing has been used to understand the molecular regulation of various genes involved in abiotic stress adaptation. RAV2 is a TF that belongs to AP2/ERF family and plays a critical role in abiotic stress tolerance [91]. However, its regulation in response to salt stress was not elucidated. Genome editing of the promoter sequence of the RAV2 gene using CRISPR/Cas9 revealed that the GT-1 element that is localized at the −664 position relative to the putative start site of translation of RAV2 is critical for its induction in response to salt stress [91]. In another report, the loss of function mutants of the SAPK2 gene that plays a key role in ABA signaling during osmotic stress showed increased sensitivity towards salt stress stimuli emphasizing the involvement of SAPK2 in salt stress adaptation [92]. Recently, the drought and salt tolerance (DST) gene of rice has been mutated using CRISPR/Cas for improving salt/drought stress tolerance in plants. The resultant dst^∆184–305 mutant plants exhibited a reduction in stomatal density and showed enhanced levels of water retention in leaves. The decrease in stomatal density was linked to the downregulated expression of different genes involved in the development of stomata including MUTE, ICE1, and SPCH1 in mutant plants [93]. Moreover, in tomatoes, alteration of 8CM and PRD domains of hybrid proline-rich protein 1 (HyPRP1) with the advent of CRISPR/Cas resulted in improved salinity stress tolerance [94]. Further, a micro-RNA encoding gene OsmiR535 that regulates the expression of abiotic stress-responsive genes at the posttranscriptional level was mutated using CRISPR/Cas. The resulting knockout osmir535 rice mutant plants showed better performance upon exposure to salt stress as compared to the control plants [95]. From these reports, it is clearly evident that genome editing can impart salinity stress resistance in plants. Thus, in future, research efforts should be focused on targeting the key salinity stress response genes (especially those that can regulate multiple stress responses such as transcription factors) with the advent of genome editing.

3.2. Drought Stress

Drought is another multidisciplinary stress that affects the growth of plants at various morphological, physiological, and biochemical levels [96]. The effect of this stress is further expected to increase in the coming years due to climate change [97]. Genome editing has been successfully employed for improving the drought tolerance of different crops. OPEN STOMATA 2 (OST2) gene encodes for an H⁺-ATPase and is involved in creating proton gradients in plant cells. Precise modification of this gene via CRISPR/Cas9 has been reported to modulate stomatal closing in response to water-deficient conditions, thus conferring drought stress tolerance [98]. The loss of function sapk2 mutant rice plants produced using CRISPR/Cas exhibited more sensitivity against drought stress that was linked to the modulation of the expression of several genes that acts downstream of the SAPK2 including OsOREB1, OsRab21, OsRab16b, OsLEA3, OsbZIP23, OsSLAC1, and OsSLAC7 genes [92]. ARGOS8 is yet another drought stress-responsive gene modulated using genome editing. It is a negative regulator of the ethylene signaling pathway, and its increased expression is known to confer drought stress resistance in plants [99, 100]. The replacement of the promoter sequence of ARGOS8 using CRISPR/Cas9 with GOS2 promoter resulted in the increased ubiquitous expression of this gene in maize, thus enhancing their resistance towards drought stress [101]. Further, it has been realized that genome editing can be successfully used for improving the different traits of diploid plants; however, its implementation on the polyploid and complex genomes is a major challenge. Recently, CRISPR/Cas9 has been used to edit the TaDREB2 gene that encodes for a dehydration responsive element binding protein in the protoplast of wheat to generate drought stress-resistant plants that open new opportunities to improve the stress resistance of polyploid plants using genome editing [102]. Moreover, editing of the trehalase gene that plays a key role in trehalose catabolism using CRISPR/Cas improved the drought tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana [103]. Trehalase enzyme catalyzes the only reaction of trehalose catabolism in plants and results in the hydrolysis of trehalose into D-glucose molecules. The plants with edited substrate-binding domain of trehalase enzyme showed drought-tolerant phenotypic traits [103]. Besides, the alteration of DST and miR535 genes using CRISPR/Cas leads to improved drought tolerance in addition to salinity stress acclimatization in rice [93, 95]. Overall, the genome editing has played a pivotal role in the identification and characterization of critical drought stress-responsive genes that can be targeted in future crop improvement programs using various available genomics approaches.

3.3. Temperature Stress

Plants grow at an optimum temperature and thus any increase or decrease in this temperature can seriously hamper their growth and yield [104, 105]. As the temperature of the earth is continuously increasing due to global climate change, the development of novel strategies to combat the effects of temperature extremities in plants is a major challenge [106]. Researchers have attempted to improve the survival of different plants in response to temperature stress using genome editing. The 9-cis-EPOXYCAROTENOID DIOXYGENASE4 (NCED4) gene knockout mutants of lettuce plants produced using CRISPR/Cas9 has been reported to show better thermotolerance at the germination stage [107]. CRISPR/Cas9 technology has also been used to edit two genes TIFY1a and TIFY1b in rice to decipher their precise role in cold stress tolerance [108]. Moreover, the CRISPR/Cas-mediated editing of the Ann3 gene of rice revealed its key role in cold stress adaptation [109]. Similarly, mutagenesis of tomato C-repeat binding factor 1 (CBF1) gene unraveled the importance of this gene in imparting cold stress tolerance in tomatoes. The cbf1 mutant tomato plants were observed to be more sensitive towards the stress conditions and accumulated more indole acetic acid along with enhanced electrolyte leakage [110]. Further, in a recent study, three rice genes, viz., OsPIN5b, GS3, and OsMYB30, were altered using CRISPR/Cas9 resulting in improved cold stress tolerance along with better yield [111]. Despite these few reports, the potential of genome editing has not been fully explored for conferring temperature stress resistance in plants. Thus, conscious efforts are much required for the identification of key genes that regulate temperature stress responses and their modulation using genome editing for protecting the plants against heat/cold injury in the era of global climate change.

3.4. Herbicide Stress

The uncontrolled growth of herbs imposes a major threat to the annual yield of many crops, and thus, herbicides are routinely used in agriculture to control the growth of weed plants. However, during this process, the use of herbicides also imposes a considerable menace on the growth of nontarget plants [112]. Thus, to mitigate the effects of herbicides, it is imperative to develop herbicide-resistant plants. Genome editing has been successfully used for imparting herbicide resistance in plants. Different genes have been altered using ZFNs, TALENs, and CRISPR/Cas for imparting herbicide resistance to plants, and among these, ALS and EPSPS are the major ones. ALS gene encodes for an enzyme acetolactate synthase that catalyzes the key step in the biosynthetic pathway of branched amino acids including leucine, isoleucine, and valine [113, 114]. A range of herbicides, such as the imidazolinones, sulfonylureas, triazolopyrimidines, sulfonylamino-carbonyl-triazolinones, and pyrimidinylthio (or oxy)-benzoates, have been reported to inhibit the activity of ALS in plants [115, 116]. In 2009, this gene was precisely modified using the ZFN genome editing tool. The resulting alteration made the tobacco plants resistant to sulfonyl urea herbicides [117]. Later, the ALS gene was altered in a range of crop plants such as soybean, maize, potato, and watermelon using TALENs and CRISPR/Cas9 tools [118–121]. EPSPS is another gene that encodes for an enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate that plays a critical role in the biosynthetic pathway of essential aromatic amino acids via the shikimate pathway [122]. This enzyme is highly sensitive to a routinely used herbicide glyphosate [123]. The alteration of two nucleic acid residues in the binding site of glyphosate-EPSPS using CRISPR/Cas9 has resulted in the modified genotypes of flax and rice with improved tolerance towards glyphosate [124, 125]. In addition to ALS and EPSPS, there are few reports on the alteration of Acetyl-CoA carboxylase (ACCase) gene for achieving herbicide resistance in the target plant using genome editing [126]. ACCase plays a pivotal role in fatty acid biosynthesis and herbicides including cyclohexanedione (CHD), aryloxyphenoxypropionate (APP), and phenylpyrazoline (PPZ) act on this enzyme. This gene has been altered using CRISPR/Cas in rice and wheat for achieving herbicide resistance [127, 128]. Although there are many success stories where genome editing has successfully addressed the menace of herbicide stress, but in these reports, resistance has been primarily achieved only for ACCase-inhibiting, ALS-inhibiting, and glyphosate herbicides. Thus, future research progress on the development of herbicide-resistant plant varieties against other classes of herbicides including protoporhyrinogen oxidase inhibiting and 4-hydroxyphenyl pyruvate dioxygenase herbicide is much warranted [126].

4. Challenges Associated with Genome-Edited Crops

Genome editing offers a robust method to accomplish genetic modifications in an integration-free manner using SSEs [129]. However, there are some challenges associated with this approach that needs to be addressed for its successful implementation in crop improvement programs. The major concern in this regard is the occurrence of off-target mutations [130]. It has been reported that genome editing tools especially CRISPR/Cas9 often recognize an imperfect match thus cutting the nucleotide sequences nonspecifically. Although, these off-target mutations are expected to be segregated during stringent breeding/selection process in different crop improvement programs, still they impose a major concern on the efficient use of genome editing in plants [130]. To solve this issue, researchers have designed various softwares including CRISPR-GE and CRISPR-P that can aid up in accurately designing the guide RNA [131, 132].

The commercialization and regulation of genome-edited crops are also highly debated by different regulatory authorities and scientific communities [133–136]. An internationally accepted set of regulations for genome-edited crops is still lacking [130]. The major concern in their regulation is the dilemma that whether such crops should be considered under the genetically modified organism (GMO) regulations or not. In this context, USDA has exempted the genome-edited crops from GMO regulation in 2012 and has approved the cultivation and commercialization of waxy corn and mushrooms edited using the CRISPR/Cas system [137–139]. However, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has included the genome-edited crops under the GMO regulations that can hinder their commercialization in Europe and may also affect agricultural trade with European countries [140].

5. Conclusion

Genome editing is a valuable tool for crop improvement programs due to its efficiency, simplicity, and specificity [141]. It has opened up new opportunities in the field of functional genomics and plant breeding. Preliminary studies have established that genome editing is a suitable approach for producing abiotic stress-resilient crops in the future to solve the problem of hunger. However, the various technological and regulatory hurdles are still required to be solved for reshaping global agriculture using genome editing.

Abbreviations

SSE:	Sequence-specific endonucleases
ds:	Double stranded
NHEJ:	Nonhomologous end-joining
HR:	Homologous recombination
ZFN:	Zinc-finger nucleases
TALENS:	Transcription activator-like effector nucleases
TALE:	TAL effector
CRISPR:	Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats
Cas9:	CRISPR-associated protein 9
PAM:	Protospacer-adjacent motif
RVDs:	Repeat variable residues (RVDs)
GMO:	Genetically modified organisms
USDA:	United States Department of Agriculture
EU:	European Union

Data Availability

All data are included in the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the support from the Rashtriya Uchchattar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA-III) Program, Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, New Delhi.

References

D. Jaganathan, K. Ramasamy, G. Sellamuthu, S. Jayabalan, and G. Venkataraman, “CRISPR for crop improvement: an update review,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 9, p. 985, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Bhatta, P. Sandro, M. R. Smith et al., “Need for speed: manipulating plant growth to accelerate breeding cycles,” Current Opinion in Plant Biology, vol. 60, article 101986, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. A. Bhat, R. A. Mir, V. Kumar et al., “Mechanistic insights of CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing towards enhancing abiotic stress tolerance in plants,” Physiologia Plantarum, vol. 172, pp. 1255–1268, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Biswas, S. C. Saha, and A. Dey, “CRISPR-Cas genome-editing tool in plant abiotic stress-tolerance,” Plant Gene, vol. 26, article 100286, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Martinez, M. Nieves-Cordones, M. Lopez-Delacalle et al., “Tolerance to stress combination in tomato plants: new insights in the protective role of melatonin,” Molecules, vol. 23, no. 3, p. 535, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Kaur and P. K. Pati, “Harnessing the potential of Brassinosteroids in abiotic stress tolerance in plants,” Brassinosteroids: Plant Growth and Development, pp. 407–423, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Vaughan, A. Block, S. A. Christensen, L. H. Allen, and E. A. Schmelz, “The effects of climate change associated abiotic stresses on maize phytochemical defenses,” Phytochemistry Reviews, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 37–49, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Pande and S. Arora, “Molecular strategies for development of abiotic stress tolerance in plants,” Cell & Cellular Life Sciences Journal, vol. 2, no. 2, article 000112, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Kaur, G. Kaur, and P. K. Pati, “Deciphering strategies for salt stress tolerance in rice in the context of climate change,” Advances in Rice Research for Abiotic Stress Tolerance, Woodhead Publishing, pp. 113–132, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Anwar and J.-K. Kim, “Transgenic breeding approaches for improving abiotic stress tolerance: recent progress and future perspectives,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 21, no. 8, p. 2695, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Kerchev, T. Meer, N. Sujeeth et al., “Molecular priming as an approach to induce tolerance against abiotic and oxidative stresses in crop plants,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 40, article 107503, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Turan, K. Cornish, and S. Kumar, “Salinity tolerance in plants: breeding and genetic engineering,” Australian Journal of Crop Science, vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 1337–1348, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
Z. U. Zafar, H. Manzoor, S. Rasul et al., “Strategies to improve crop salt and drought tolerance: success and limitations,” Agrobios (India), vol. 11, pp. 265–298, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
M. H. Azimi, M. K. Alvijeh, and A. Zarei, “Intervarietal hybridization and observation of heterosis in the new hybrids of Iris germanica,” International Journal of Horticultural Science and Technology, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 65–79, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
A. T. Jan, P. Singhal, and Q. M. R. Haq, “Plant abiotic stress: deciphering remedial strategies for emerging problem,” Journal of Plant Interactions, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 97–108, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Lal and S. Lal, Genetic engineering of plants for crop improvement, CRCPress, 2020.
H. Wang, H. Wang, H. Shao, and X. Tang, “Recent advances in utilizing transcription factors to improve plant abiotic stress tolerance by transgenic technology,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 7, p. 67, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kamle, P. Kumar, J. K. Patra, and V. K. Bajpai, “Current perspectives on genetically modified crops and detection methods,” Biotech, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 1–15, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. E. Scott, Y. Inbar, C. D. Wirz, D. Brossard, and P. Rozin, “An overview of attitudes toward genetically engineered food,” Annual Review of Nutrition, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 459–479, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Gao, “Genome engineering for crop improvement and future agriculture,” Cell, vol. 184, no. 6, pp. 1621–1635, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. W. Holmes, T. T. Hammond, G. O. U. Wogan et al., “Natural history collections as windows on evolutionary processes,” Molecular Ecology, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 864–881, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. E. M. Sedeek, A. Mahas, and M. Mahfouz, “Plant genome engineering for targeted improvement of crop traits,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 10, p. 114, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Y. Shu, B. P. Forster, and H. Nakagawa, “Principles and applications of plant mutation breeding,” Plant Mutation Breeding and Biotechnology, pp. 301–325, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Pacher and H. Puchta, “From classical mutagenesis to nuclease-based breeding–directing natural DNA repair for a natural end-product,” The Plant Journal, vol. 90, no. 4, pp. 819–833, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Capecchi, “High efficiency transformation by direct microinjection of DNA into cultured mammalian cells,” Cell, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 479–488, 1980.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Chen, Y. Wang, R. Zhang, H. Zhang, and C. Gao, “CRISPR/Cas genome editing and precision plant breeding in agriculture,” Annual Review of Plant Biology, vol. 70, no. 1, pp. 667–697, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
I. Marton, A. Zuker, E. Shklarman et al., “Nontransgenic genome modification in plant cells,” Plant Physiology, vol. 154, no. 3, pp. 1079–1087, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Baltes, J. Gil-Humanes, T. Cermak, P. A. Atkins, and D. F. Voytas, “DNA replicons for plant genome engineering,” The Plant Cell, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 151–163, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Ali, A. Abul-Faraj, L. Li, N. Ghosh, M. Piatek, and A. Mahjoub, “Efficient virus-mediated genome editing in plants using the CRISPR/Cas9 system,” Molecular Plant, vol. 8, no. 8, pp. 1288–1291, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Ilardi and M. Tavazza, “Biotechnological strategies and tools for Plum pox virus resistance: trans-, intra-, cis-genesis, and beyond,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 6, p. 379, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Yin, T. Han, G. Liu et al., “A geminivirus-based guide RNA delivery system for CRISPR/Cas9 mediated plant genome editing,” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–10, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Deriano and D. B. Roth, “Modernizing the nonhomologous end-joining repertoire: alternative and classical NHEJ share the stage,” Annual Review of Genetics, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 433–455, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Osakabe and K. Osakabe, “Genome editing with engineered nucleases in plants,” Plant and Cell Physiology, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 389–400, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Crespan, T. Czabany, G. Maga, and U. Hübscher, “Microhomology-mediated DNA strand annealing and elongation by human DNA polymerases λ and β on normal and repetitive DNA sequences,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 40, no. 12, pp. 5577–5590, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Adli, “The CRISPR tool kit for genome editing and beyond,” Nature Communications, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 1–13, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Chapdelaine, C. Pichavant, J. Rousseau, F. Paques, and J. P. Tremblay, “Meganucleases can restore the reading frame of a mutated dystrophin,” Gene Therapy, vol. 17, no. 7, pp. 846–858, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Suzuki, K.-i. Ohta, Y. Nakajima et al., “Meganuclease-based artificial transcription factors,” ACS Synthetic Biology, vol. 9, no. 10, pp. 2679–2691, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Arnould, C. Delenda, S. Grizot et al., “The I-CreI meganuclease and its engineered derivatives: applications from cell modification to gene therapy,” Protein Engineering, Design & Selection, vol. 24, no. 1-2, pp. 27–31, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Silva, L. Poirot, R. Galetto et al., “Meganucleases and other tools for targeted genome engineering: perspectives and challenges for gene therapy,” Current Gene Therapy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 11–27, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Danilo, É. Montes, H. Archambeau et al., “I-SceI and customized meganucleases-mediated genome editing in tomato and oilseed rape,” Transgenic Research, vol. 31, pp. 87–105, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Liang, M. Han, P. J. Romanienko, and M. Jasin, “Homology-directed repair is a major double-strand break repair pathway in mammalian cells,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 95, no. 9, pp. 5172–5177, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Prieto, P. Redondo, B. López-Méndez et al., “Understanding the indirect DNA read-out specificity of I-CreI Meganuclease,” Scientific Reports, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–9, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. L. Maeder and C. A. Gersbach, “Genome-editing technologies for gene and cell therapy,” Molecular Therapy, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 430–446, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Zess and M. Begemann, “CRISPR-Cas9 and beyond: what’s next in plant genome engineering,” In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 584–594, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Carroll, “Genome engineering with zinc-finger nucleases,” Genetics, vol. 188, no. 4, pp. 773–782, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Z. Iqbal, M. S. Iqbal, A. Ahmad, A. G. Memon, and M. I. Ansari, “New prospects on the horizon: genome editing to engineer plants for desirable traits,” Current Plant Biology, vol. 24, article 100171, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. K. Joung and J. D. Sander, “TALENs: a widely applicable technology for targeted genome editing,” Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 49–55, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. D. Urnov, E. J. Rebar, M. C. Holmes, H. Steve Zhang, and P. D. Gregory, “Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases,” Nature Reviews Genetics, vol. 11, no. 9, pp. 636–646, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Bitinaite, D. A. Wah, A. K. Aggarwal, and I. Schildkraut, “FokI dimerization is required for DNA cleavage,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 95, no. 18, pp. 10570–10575, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. F. Petolino, “Genome editing in plants via designed zinc finger nucleases,” In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology-Plant, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 1–8, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Novak, “Plant biotechnology applications of zinc finger technology,” Transgenic Plants, Humana Press, New York, NY, pp. 295–310, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
M. Mushtaq, A. Sakina, S. H. Wani et al., “Harnessing genome editing techniques to engineer disease resistance in plants,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 10, p. 550, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. L. Doyle, B. L. Stoddard, D. F. Voytas, and A. J. Bogdanove, “TAL effectors: highly adaptable phytobacterial virulence factors and readily engineered DNA-targeting proteins,” Trends in Cell Biology, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 390–398, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. J. Bogdanove, S. Schornack, and T. Lahaye, “TAL effectors: finding plant genes for disease and defense,” Current Opinion in Plant Biology, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 394–401, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Ma, Q. Zhu, Y. Chen, and Y.-G. Liu, “CRISPR/Cas9 platforms for genome editing in plants: developments and applications,” Molecular Plant, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 961–974, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Deng, C. Yan, X. Pan et al., “Structural basis for sequence-specific recognition of DNA by TAL effectors,” Science, vol. 335, no. 6069, pp. 720–723, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. N.-S. Mak, P. Bradley, R. A. Cernadas, A. J. Bogdanove, and B. L. Stoddard, “The crystal structure of TAL effector PthXo1 bound to its DNA target,” Science, vol. 335, no. 6069, pp. 716–719, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Voytas, “Plant genome engineering with sequence-specific nucleases,” Annual Review of Plant Biology, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 327–350, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Miller, S. Tan, G. Qiao et al., “A TALE nuclease architecture for efficient genome editing,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 143–148, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Mussolino, R. Morbitzer, F. Lütge, N. Dannemann, T. Lahaye, and T. Cathomen, “A novel TALE nuclease scaffold enables high genome editing activity in combination with low toxicity,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 39, no. 21, pp. 9283–9293, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Sun, J. Liang, Z. Abil, and H. Zhao, “Optimized TAL effector nucleases (TALENs) for use in treatment of sickle cell disease,” Molecular Bio Systems, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 1255–1263, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Cermak, E. L. Doyle, M. Christian et al., “Efficient design and assembly of custom TALEN and other TAL effector-based constructs for DNA targeting,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 39, no. 12, pp. e82–e82, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Li, M. J. Piatek, A. Atef et al., “Rapid and highly efficient construction of TALE-based transcriptional regulators and nucleases for genome modification,” Plant Molecular Biology, vol. 78, no. 4-5, pp. 407–416, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. E. Sanjana, L. Cong, Y. Zhou, M. M. Cunniff, G. Feng, and F. Zhang, “A transcription activator-like effector toolbox for genome engineering,” Nature Protocols, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 171–192, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. LeBlanc, F. Zhang, J. Mendez et al., “Increased efficiency of targeted mutagenesis by CRISPR/Cas9 in plants using heat stress,” The Plant Journal, vol. 93, no. 2, pp. 377–386, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. Tahir, Q. Ali, M. S. Rashid, and A. Malik, “The journey of CRISPR-Cas9 from bacterial defense mechanism to a gene editing tool in both animals and plants,” Biological and Clinical Sciences Research Journal, vol. 2020, no. 1, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Bortesi and R. Fischer, “The CRISPR/Cas9 system for plant genome editing and beyond,” Biotechnology Advances, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 41–52, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Jansen, J. D. A. van Embden, W. Gaastra, and L. M. Schouls, “Identification of genes that are associated with DNA repeats in prokaryotes,” Molecular Microbiology, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 1565–1575, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Sorek, V. Kunin, and P. Hugenholtz, “CRISPR—a widespread system that provides acquired resistance against phages in bacteria and archaea,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 181–186, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Barrangou, C. Fremaux, H. Deveau et al., “CRISPR provides acquired resistance against viruses in prokaryotes,” Science, vol. 315, no. 5819, pp. 1709–1712, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Rath, L. Amlinger, A. Rath, and M. Lundgren, “The CRISPR-Cas immune system: biology, mechanisms and applications,” Biochimie, vol. 117, pp. 119–128, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Deveau, R. Barrangou, J. E. Garneau et al., “Phage response to CRISPR-encoded resistance in Streptococcus thermophilus,” Journal of Bacteriology, vol. 190, no. 4, pp. 1390–1400, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. E. Garneau, M.-È. Dupuis, M. Villion et al., “The CRISPR/Cas bacterial immune system cleaves bacteriophage and plasmid DNA,” Nature, vol. 468, no. 7320, pp. 67–71, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Sapranauskas, C. F. GiedriusGasiunas, R. Barrangou, P. Horvath, and V. Siksnys, “The Streptococcus thermophilus CRISPR/Cas system provides immunity in Escherichia coli,” Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 39, no. 21, pp. 9275–9282, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Jinek, K. Chylinski, I. Fonfara, M. Hauer, J. A. Doudna, and E. Charpentier, “A programmable dual-RNA–guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity,” Science, vol. 337, no. 6096, pp. 816–821, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. Gasiunas, R. Barrangou, P. Horvath, and V. Siksnys, “Cas9–crRNA ribonucleoprotein complex mediates specific DNA cleavage for adaptive immunity in bacteria,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 109, no. 39, pp. E2579–E 2586, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Jain, “Function genomics of abiotic stress tolerance in plants: a CRISPR approach,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 6, p. 375, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Tycko, V. E. Myer, and P. D. Hsu, “Methods for optimizing CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing specificity,” Molecular Cell, vol. 63, no. 3, pp. 355–370, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Wada, R. Ueta, Y. Osakabe, and K. Osakabe, “Precision genome editing in plants: state-of-the-art in CRISPR/Cas9-based genome engineering,” BMC Plant Biology, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. M. Hassan, Y. Zhang, G. Yuan et al., “Construct design for CRISPR/Cas-based genome editing in plants,” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 26, no. 11, pp. 1133–1152, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Scheben, Y. Yuan, and D. Edwards, “Advances in genomics for adapting crops to climate change,” Current Plant Biology, vol. 6, pp. 2–10, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Minkenberg, M. Wheatley, and Y. Yang, “CRISPR/Cas9-enabled multiplex genome editing and its application,” Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science, vol. 149, pp. 111–132, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
O. P. Dhankher and C. H. Foyer, “Climate resilient crops for improving global food security and safety,” Plant, Cell & Environment, vol. 41, no. 5, pp. 877–884, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. M. L. Hoang, T. N. Tran, T. K. T. Nguyen et al., “Improvement of salinity stress tolerance in rice: challenges and opportunities,” Agronomy, vol. 6, no. 4, p. 54, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. G. Schaart, C. C. M. van de Wiel, L. A. P. Lotz, and M. J. M. Smulders, “Opportunities for products of new plant breeding techniques,” Trends in Plant Science, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 438–449, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Sandhu, V. Sureshkumar, C. Prakash et al., “RiceMetaSys for salt and drought stress responsive genes in rice: a web interface for crop improvement,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 1–11, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Yang and Y. Guo, “Unraveling salt stress signaling in plants,” Journal of Integrative Plant Biology, vol. 60, no. 9, pp. 796–804, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Kumar, M. Kumar, S.-R. Kim, H. Ryu, and Y.-G. Cho, “Insights into genomics of salt stress response in rice,” Rice, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–15, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Takagi, M. Tamiru, A. Abe et al., “MutMap accelerates breeding of a salt-tolerant rice cultivar,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 33, no. 5, pp. 445–449, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Zhang, Y. Liu, F. Wang et al., “Enhanced rice salinity tolerance via CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the OsRR22 gene,” Molecular Breeding, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1–10, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y.-B. Duan, J. Li, R.-Y. Qin et al., “Identification of a regulatory element responsible for salt induction of rice OsRAV2 through ex situ and in situ promoter analysis,” Plant Molecular Biology, vol. 90, no. 1-2, pp. 49–62, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Lou, H. Wang, G. Liang, and Y. Diqiu, “OsSAPK2 confers abscisic acid sensitivity and tolerance to drought stress in rice,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 8, p. 993, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. V. Santosh Kumar, R. K. Verma, S. K. Yadav et al., “CRISPR-Cas9 mediated genome editing of drought and salt tolerance (OsDST) gene in indica mega rice cultivar MTU 1010,” Physiology and Molecular Biology of Plants, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 1099–1110, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. T. Tran, D. T. H. Doan, J. Kim et al., “CRISPR/Cas9-based precise excision of SlHyPRP1 domain (s) to obtain salt stress-tolerant tomato,” Plant Cell Reports, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 999–1011, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Yue, H. Cao, and B. Liu, “OsmiR535, a potential genetic editing target for drought and salinity stress tolerance in Oryza sativa,” Plants, vol. 9, no. 10, p. 1337, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Y. Salehi-Lisar and H. Bakhshayeshan-Agdam, “Drought stress in plants: causes, consequences, and tolerance,” Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants, Springer, Cham, no. 1, pp. 1–16, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. C. Nelson, M. W. Rosegrant, J. Koo et al., “Climate change: impact on agriculture and costs of adaptation,” International Food Policy Research Institute, vol. 21, 2009.
View at: Google Scholar
Y. Osakabe, T. Watanabe, S. S. Sugano et al., “Optimization of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to modify abiotic stress responses in plants,” Scientific Reports, vol. 6, no. 1, article 26685, pp. 1–10, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Guo, M. A. Rupe, J. Wei et al., “Maize ARGOS1 (ZAR1) transgenic alleles increase hybrid maize yield,” Journal of Experimental Botany, vol. 65, no. 1, pp. 249–260, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Shi, J. E. Habben, R. L. Archibald et al., “Overexpression of ARGOS genes modifies plant sensitivity to ethylene, leading to improved drought tolerance in both Arabidopsis and maize,” Plant Physiology, vol. 169, no. 1, pp. 266–282, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Shi, H. Gao, H. Wang et al., “ARGOS 8 variants generated by CRISPR-Cas9 improve maize grain yield under field drought stress conditions,” Plant Biotechnology Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 207–216, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Kim, B. Alptekin, and H. Budak, “CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in wheat,” Functional & Integrative Genomics, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 31–41, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Nuñez-Muñoz, B. Vargas-Hernández, J. Hinojosa-Moya, R. Ruiz-Medrano, and B. Xoconostle-Cázares, “Plant drought tolerance provided through genome editing of the trehalase gene,” Plant Signaling & Behavior, vol. 16, no. 4, article 1877005, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Fahad, A. A. Bajwa, U. Nazir et al., “Crop production under drought and heat stress: plant responses and management options,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 8, p. 1147, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S.-S. Kazemi-Shahandashti and R. Maali-Amiri, “Global insights of protein responses to cold stress in plants: signaling, defence, and degradation,” Journal of Plant Physiology, vol. 226, pp. 123–135, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Raza, A. Razzaq, S. Mehmood et al., “Impact of climate change on crops adaptation and strategies to tackle its outcome: a review,” Plants, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 34, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. D. Bertier, M. Ron, H. Huo, K. J. Bradford, A. B. Britt, and R. W. Michelmore, “High-resolution analysis of the efficiency, heritability, and editing outcomes of CRISPR/Cas9-induced modifications of NCED4 in lettuce (Lactuca sativa),” G3: Genes, Genomes Genetics, vol. 8, no. 5, pp. 1513–1521, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Z. Huang, X. F. Zeng, J. R. Li, and D. G. Zhao, “Construction and analysis of tify1a and tify1b mutants in rice (Oryza sativa) based on CRISPR/Cas9 technology,” Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology, vol. 25, no. 6, pp. 1003–1012, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
C. Shen, Z. Que, Y. Xia et al., “Knock out of the annexin gene OsAnn3 via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing decreased cold tolerance in rice,” Journal of Plant Biology, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 539–547, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Li, L. Zhang, L. Wang et al., “Reduction of tomato-plant chilling tolerance by CRISPR–Cas9-mediated SlCBF1 mutagenesis,” Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, vol. 66, no. 34, pp. 9042–9051, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Zeng, J. Wen, W. Zhao, Q. Wang, and W. Huang, “Rational improvement of rice yield and cold tolerance by editing the three genes OsPIN5b, GS3, and OsMYB30 with the CRISPR–Cas9 system,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 10, p. 1663, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Varshney, M. I. R. Khan, A. Masood, T. S. Per, F. Rasheed, and N. A. Khan, “Contribution of plant growth regulators in mitigation of herbicidal stress,” Journal of Plant Biochemistry & Physiology, vol. 3, no. 4, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Y. Lee, J. Townsend, J. Tepperman et al., “The molecular basis of sulfonylurea herbicide resistance in tobacco,” The EMBO Journal, vol. 7, no. 5, pp. 1241–1248, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Chipman, Z. Barak, and J. V. Schloss, “Biosynthesis of 2-aceto-2-hydroxy acids: acetolactate synthases and acetohydroxyacid synthases,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure and Molecular Enzymology, vol. 1385, no. 2, pp. 401–419, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. J. Mazur, C.-F. Chui, and J. K. Smith, “Isolation and characterization of plant genes coding for acetolactate synthase, the target enzyme for two classes of herbicides,” Plant Physiology, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 1110–1117, 1987.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Q. Zhou, W. Liu, Y. Zhang, and K. K. Liu, “Action mechanisms of acetolactate synthase-inhibiting herbicides,” Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 89–96, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. A. Townsend, D. A. Wright, R. J. Winfrey et al., “High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases,” Nature, vol. 459, no. 7245, pp. 442–445, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. M. Butler, P. A. Atkins, D. F. Voytas, and D. S. Douches, “Generation and inheritance of targeted mutations in potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) using the CRISPR/Cas system,” PloSOne, vol. 10, no. 12, article e0144591, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Svitashev, J. K. Young, C. Schwartz, S. Huirong Gao, C. Falco, and A. Mark Cigan, “Targeted mutagenesis, precise gene editing, and site-specific gene insertion in maize using Cas9 and guide RNA,” Plant Physiology, vol. 169, no. 2, pp. 931–945, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Sun, X. Zhang, W. Chuanyin et al., “Engineering herbicide-resistant rice plants through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated homologous recombination of acetolactate synthase,” Molecular Plant, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 628–631, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Tian, L. Jiang, X. Cui et al., “Engineering herbicide-resistant watermelon variety through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated base-editing,” Plant Cell Reports, vol. 37, no. 9, pp. 1353–1356, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. M. Kishore and D. M. Shah, “Amino acid biosynthesis inhibitors as herbicides,” Annual Review of Biochemistry, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 627–663, 1988.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Schönbrunn, S. Eschenburg, W. A. Shuttleworth et al., “Interaction of the herbicide glyphosate with its target enzyme 5-enolpyruvylshikimate 3-phosphate synthase in atomic detail,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 98, no. 4, pp. 1376–1380, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. J. Sauer, J. Mozoruk, R. B. Miller et al., “Oligonucleotide-directed mutagenesis for precision gene editing,” Plant Biotechnology Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 496–502, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Li, X. Meng, Y. Zong et al., “Gene replacements and insertions in rice by intron targeting using CRISPR- Cas9,” Nature Plants, vol. 2, no. 10, pp. 1–6, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Dong, Y. Huang, and K. Wang, “The development of herbicide resistance crop plants using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing,” Genes, vol. 12, no. 6, p. 912, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. Zhang, J. Liu, Z. Chai et al., “Generation of herbicide tolerance traits and a new selectable marker in wheat using base editing,” Nature plants, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 480–485, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Liu, R. Qin, J. Li et al., “A CRISPR-Cas9-mediated domain-specific base-editing screen enables functional assessment of ACCase variants in rice,” Plant Biotechnology Journal, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1845–1847, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. P. Weeks, M. H. Spalding, and B. Yang, “Use of designer nucleases for targeted gene and genome editing in plants,” Plant Biotechnology Journal, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 483–495, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Mao, J. R. Botella, Y. Liu, and J.-K. Zhu, “Gene editing in plants: progress and challenges,” National Science Review, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 421–437, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
Y. Lei, L. Li, H.-Y. Liu, S. Li, F. Xing, and L.-L. Chen, “CRISPR-P: a web tool for synthetic single-guide RNA design of CRISPR-system in plants,” Molecular Plant, vol. 7, no. 9, pp. 1494–1496, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
X. Xie, X. Ma, Q. Zhu, D. Zeng, G. Li, and Y.-G. Liu, “CRISPR-GE: a convenient software toolkit for CRISPR-based genome editing,” Molecular Plant, vol. 10, no. 9, pp. 1246–1249, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), “Scientific opinion addressing the safety assessment of plants developed using zinc finger nuclease 3 and other site-directed nucleases with similar function,” EFSA Journal, vol. 10, no. 10, p. 2943, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Lusser and H. V. Davies, “Comparative regulatory approaches for groups of new plant breeding techniques,” New Biotechnology, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 437–446, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. Podevin, H. V. Davies, F. Hartung, F. Nogué, and J. M. Casacuberta, “Site-directed nucleases: a paradigm shift in predictable, knowledge-based plant breeding,” Trends in Biotechnology, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 375–383, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Pauwels, N. Podevin, D. Breyer, D. Carroll, and P. Herman, “Engineering nucleases for gene targeting: safety and regulatory considerations,” New Biotechnology, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 18–27, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Turnbull, M. Lillemo, and T. A. K. Hvoslef-Eide, “Global regulation of genetically modified crops amid the gene edited crop boom–a review,” Frontiers in Plant Science, vol. 12, p. 258, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Waltz, “Tiptoeing around transgenics: new techniques for manipulating plant genomes are yielding plants touted as nontransgenic. Will that relieve regulatory burden? Emily Waltz investigates,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 215–217, 2012.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Waltz, “Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation,” Nature News, vol. 532, no. 7599, p. 293, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. D. Urnov, P. C. Ronald, and D. Carroll, “A call for science-based review of the European court's decision on gene-edited crops,” Nature Biotechnology, vol. 36, no. 9, pp. 800–802, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. S. Kamburova, E. V. Nikitina, S. E. Shermatov et al., “Genome editing in plants: an overview of tools and applications,” International Journal of Agronomy, vol. 2017, Article ID 7315351, 15 pages, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Eid and M. M. Mahfouz, “Genome editing: the road of CRISPR/Cas9 from bench to clinic,” Experimental & Molecular Medicine, vol. 48, no. 10, pp. e265–e265, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
T. K. Guha and D. R. Edgell, “Applications of alternative nucleases in the age of CRISPR/Cas9,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 18, no. 12, p. 2565, 2017.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
H. Li, Y. Yang, W. Hong, M. Huang, W. Min, and X. Zhao, “Applications of genome editing technology in the targeted therapy of human diseases: mechanisms, advances and prospects,” Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 1–23, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. Janik, M. Niemcewicz, M. Ceremuga, L. Krzowski, J. Saluk-Bijak, and M. Bijak, “Various aspects of a gene editing system—crispr–cas 9,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences, vol. 21, no. 24, p. 9604, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Navdeep Kaur et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

2668

Downloads

1329

Citations