Figures (3)  Tables (1)
    • Figure 1. 

      Schematic diagram for the wet-lab workflow of CRISPR/Cas-based genome editing, showing the limitations of current transformation and regeneration protocols. After CRISPR/Cas reagents, such as a plasmid DNA vector or RNP for the genes of interest, are transformed into explant cells, these cells must then be regenerated into mutant transgenic plants. Each step of the tissue culture process reduces its efficiency owing to the regeneration of non-transformed plants and the regeneration of transformed plants that lack the desired edit. Antibiotics are typically added to the culture medium to increase the proportion of transformed cells by inhibiting the growth of non-transformed cells (only in the Agrobacterium T-DNA transfer method). The transformation efficiency, regeneration rate, and in vivo activity of CRISPR/Cas reagents all impact the total genome editing efficiency during this process. However, genome editing efficiency in most tree genome editing practices (Table 1) has not been accurately measured. Efficiency is typically calculated as A/(A+B+C), where A indicates the number of mutant transgenic plants, and B and C indicate the numbers of non-mutant transgenic plants obtained from transformed and non-transformed cells. This does not account for the number of explant cells that were transformed but not regenerated. Most tree genome editing studies have focused more on whether the CRISPR/Cas reagents function than on their efficiency. Conventional protocols for transformation and regeneration are laborious and time-consuming, and their low efficiencies are major obstacles to tree genome editing using the CRISPR/Cas system. Possible solutions to these problems are discussed in Section 4.

    • Figure 2. 

      Direct delivery of CRISPR/Cas reagents (plasmid or RNP) and potential barriers affecting their delivery efficiency and intranuclear genome editing activities. The active form of CRISPR/Cas reagents is the RNP, which is generated from transcription and translation of the CRISPR/Cas and sgRNA sequences. Because transcription only takes place in the nucleus, these plasmids must therefore gain entry to this cellular compartment. In the nucleus, Cas+NLS and sgRNAs are transcribed into RNAs, and the Cas + NLS mRNA must be exported into the cytoplasm to be translated into the Cas + NLS protein, which then re-enters the nucleus to form the RNP complex with sgRNAs. Therefore, the plasmid delivery process involves a total of three passes through the nuclear envelope. Although this process has been studied extensively, it still remains unclear how the nuclear envelope regulates the import of plasmid DNA, RNA, or RNP complexes into the nucleus, and the low efficiency of direct delivery systems may be due to the negative regulatory role of the nuclear envelope during the nucleocytoplasmic transfer of CRISPR/Cas reagents into the nucleus. Furthermore, intracellular protein and RNA degradation systems, such as the Ubiquitin-Proteosome and RNA exosome, may be potential obstacles for the RNP complex. These “degradosomes” may render the activity of RNPs more transient, resulting in a much lower editing efficiency.

    • Figure 3. 

      Faster and easier regeneration of genome-edited plants by tissue culture–independent protocols. (a) Conventional tissue culture is both tedious and laborious. This process normally takes anywhere from six to eighteen months and requires a sterile environment and a large amount of tissue culture medium, dishes, bottles, and chemical reagents. Its regeneration efficiency is relatively low, and recalcitrancy limits its utility. (b) Recently, novel technologies, such as mobilization of sgRNAs by FT mRNA fusion and de novo meristem induction, have been developed, enabling researchers to overcome some of the problems of conventional tissue culture. In the FT mRNA/sgRNAs protocol, FT mRNA encodes the mobile florigen essential for induction of flowering, which is fused to sgRNAs to facilitate their movement from the leaf to the shoot apical meristem. This causes genome editing of the floral meristem, which results in genome-edited seed production. In the de novo meristem induction protocol, genome editing and meristem induction are performed simultaneously to generate genome-edited seeds. These in planta transformation protocols require only one or two months to generate genome-edited plants. In addition, these protocols do not require laborious processes of sterilization and sterile tissue culture.

    • Tree speciessgRNA design
      tool
      Cas delivery enhancerPromoter
      (sgRNA)
      Promoter
      (Cas)
      Multiplex targetingTransformation protocol/explantRegeneration protocol/timeMutagenesis efficiency; mutation; mutantsPotential off-targets (Number; activity)Reference
      Actinidia chinensis
      cv. Hongyang
      Cas-DesignerNLSAtU635SPTGAgrobacterium/
      leaf disc
      CI-S; —7.14%–91.67%; indel; biallelic, chimeric4; N[32]
      A. chinensis
      cv. Hort16A
      GeneiousNLSAtU3, AtU6Ubi, 35SPTGAgrobacterium/
      leaf strip
      CI-S-R; —30%–75%; indel; biallelic, heterozygous[33]
      Bambusa oldhamiiNLSOsU32× 35SPEG (DNA)/protoplastCI-S; 3 mon12.5% (5/40); del&subs; —[14]
      Citrus sinensis cv. ValenciaNLS35S35SAgroinfiltration/leaf3.2%–3.9%; del; —46; N[10]
      C. sinensis OsbeckAtU635SAgrobacterium/epicotylS-G; —34.5% (38/110); del; biallelic, homozygous, heterozygous11; 1-bp point mutations (5–10%)[20]
      C. paradisiNLS35S35SAgrobacterium/epicotylS-G; ——; indel; —85; N[21]
      35SAgrobacterium/leaf & epicotylS-G; —23.8%–89.36%; indel; —7; N[22]
      Yao, 35SAgrobacterium/epicotylS-G; —42.8% (3/7); del; —0[23]
      Dendrocalamus latiflorus MunroOsU6UbiPEG (DNA)/protoplastCI-S-R; —83.3%–100%; indel; homozygous, biallelic, heterozygous, chimeric[15]
      Hevea brasiliensisPEG (RNP)/protoplast3.74%–20.11%; indel; —[55]
      Malus × domestica Bork.CRISPORNLSMdU3, MdU6PcUbi4-2Gateway cloningAgrobacterium/young leavesB; 6 mon90% (27/30); indel&subs; biallelic chimeric4; N[11]
      Malus prunifolia cv. Golden DeliciousCRISPR RGENNLSPEG (RNP)/protoplast6.9%; indel; —[12]
      M. prunifolia Borkh. 'Seishi'× M.NLSAtU62× 35SAgrobacterium/leaf discS-R; 8 mon10.9% (18/164); indel; homozygous, heterozygous, chimeric0[13]
      Coffea canephora
      clone 197
      NLSAtU635SRestriction enzyme ligationAgrobacterium/
      embryonic calli
      SE; 18 mon30.4% (28/92); indel; homozygous, heterozygous0[27]
      Manihot esculenta cv. 60444; cv. TME 204CRISPR-PNLSAtU635SAgrobacterium/
      embryonic calli
      SE; —19.1%–46.6%; indel&subs; homozygous, biallelic, heterozygous[17]
      M. esculenta
      cv. 60444
      CRISPR-PAtU62× 35SGibson assemblyAgrobacterium/
      embryonic calli
      SE; —91%; indel; homozygous, biallelic, heterozygous, chimeric5; single mutation for one off-target was detected[18]
      Jatropha curcasCRISPR-PNLSAtU335SAgrobacterium/cotyledonCI-S; 4 mon—; indel; homozygous[54]
      Parasponia
      andersonii
      GPP sgRNA designerNLSAtU635SAgrobacterium/
      stem, petiole
      CI-S-R; 4 mon37.9%–88.9%; indel; biallelic, heterozygous[16]
      Poncirus. trifoliata L. Raf. × C. sinensis L.
      Osb
      NLSAtU6YaoAgrobacterium/epicotylS; 4 mon85% (17/20); indel&subs; homozygous, monoallelic heterozygous2; N[24]
      35S, AtU635SAgrobacterium/epicotylS-G; —15.55%–79.67%; indel; homozygous3; N[25]
      Populus albaZiFiTNLSAtU3, AtU635SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/young leavesCI-S-R; 3 mon89%; del; —[35]
      84K poplar (P. alba ×
      P. glandulosa)
      CRISPR-P 2.0NLSAtU6PcUbi4-2Agrobacterium/leaf disc—; indel; —[36]
      NLSAtU62× 35SAgrobacterium/leaf discCI-S-R; —6.7%–70%; del; biallelic, homozygous, heterozygous[53]
      Populus tomentosa Carr. clone 741NLSAtU3, AtU635SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/leaf discCI-S-R; 3 mon51.7% (30/59); indel&invers; biallelic homozygous, heterozygous[37]
      Golden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/leaf discCI-S-R; —93.33%–100%; indel; —[38]
      35SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/leaf discCI-S-R; —48% (12/25); indel; —[39]
      35SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/leaf discCI-S-R; ——; indel; —[40]
      35SAgrobacterium/leaf discCI-S-R; ——; indel; —[41]
      35SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/leaf discCI-S-R; ——; indel; —[42]
      Populus tremula × P. alba clone 717ZiFiTNLSAtU62× 35SRestriction enzyme ligationAgrobacterium/leaf, petiole, stemCI-S-R; 18 wk81.8% (479/585); indel&subs&invers; homozygous, biallelic, heterozygous, chimeric5; N[43]
      GeneiousNLSMtU62× 35SAgrobacterium/
      leaf, stem
      CI-S-R; —100%; indel; biallelic[44]
      GeneiousNLSAtU6PcUbi4-2Agrobacterium/leaf discCI-S-R; 4–8 mon—; indel; —[45]
      Populus tremula × P. alba INRA clone 717-1B4MtU635SAgrobacterium/ —CI; —[46]
      GeneiousNLSMtU62× 35SAgrobacterium/
      hairy root
      HR; —40%; indel; —5; N[47]
      CRISPR-P 2.0NLSAtU6Atact2Golden Gate MoClo system assemblyAgrobacterium/leafHR; —87.5% (14/16); indel; homozygous, biallelic, heterozygous[48]
      Populus tremula × tremuloides clone 353ZiFiTNLSAtU62× 35SRestriction enzyme ligationAgrobacterium/leaf, petiole, stemCI-S-R; 18 wk88.8% (88/99); indel&subs&invers; homozygous, biallelic, heterozygous, chimeric5; N[43]
      Populus tremula × tremuloides clone T89CRISPR-P 2.0NLS35SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/ —[49]
      Populus trichocarpa Nisqually-1CRISPR-P 2.03x NLSAtU62× 35S, PUbi4Golden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/leaf discCI-S; ——; indel; —[50]
      AtU62× 35SAgrobacterium/stemS-R; 17 wk—; indel; —[51]
      CRISPRdirectAtU62× 35SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/stemS-R; 14 wk75%–100%; indel; homozygous, biallelic, heterozygous, chimeric8; N[52]
      Punica granatum L.Cas-DesignerNLSAtU6AtUbiRestriction enzyme ligationAgrobacterium/
      hairy root
      HR; ——; indel&subs; homozygous, biallelic, chimeric[34]
      Pyrus communis L. cv. ConferenceCRISPORNLSMdU3, MdU6PcUbi4-2Gateway cloningAgrobacterium/young leavesB; 7 mon9% (5/54); indel&subs; biallelic chimerism4; N[11]
      Theobroma cacaoGeneiousAtU635SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/leaf, primary SE cotyledonSE; —27%; indel; —9; 0.29–1.9% (off-target rate)[26]
      Vitis vinifera L. cv. ChardonnayCRISPR-PNLSAtU635SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/callusS; —100% (3/3); indel; heterozygous, chimeric4; N[28]
      CRISPR RGENNLSPEG (RNP)/protoplast0.1%; indel; —[12]
      V. vinifera cv. ThompsonCRISPR-P, CRISPR RGENNLSAtU3, AtU62× 35SGolden Gate cloningAgrobacterium/
      embryonic callus
      SE; 12 mon31% (22/72); large del; biallelic, monoallelic6; N[29]
      V. vinifera L. cv. Neo MuscatNLSAtU6PcUbiAgrobacterium/
      embryonic callus
      CI-SE; 19–21 mon2.7%–72.2%; indel; biallelic3; N[30]
      V. vinifera cv. Chasselas × V. berlandieriCRISPR-PAtU635SAgrobacterium/
      embryonic cell
      SE; —66.6% (4/6); indel; biallelic, heterozygous, chimeric2; N[31]
      Abbreviations: NLS, nuclear localization signal; AtU3/AtU6, Arabidopsis promoters for small nuclear RNA transcription; MtU3/MtU6, Medicago truncatula U3/6 promoters; MdU3/MdU6, Malus domestica U3/6 promoters; Cas, Cas nucleases; 35S, cauliflower mosaic virus (CaMV) 35S promoter; Ubi, ubiquitin promoter; PcUbi, Petroselinum crispum ubiquitin promoter; PTG, Polycistronic tRNA process system; GFP, green fluorescent protein; Agrobacterium, Agrobacterium-mediated T-DNA transfer; PEG (DNA), Polyethylene glycol–mediated DNA transfection; PEG (RNP), Polyethylene glycol–mediated ribonucleoprotein transfection; mon, month; wk, week; B, budding; CI, callus induction; S, shooting; R, rooting; G, grafting; SE, somatic embryogenesis; indel, insertion and deletion mutations; del, deletion mutation; subs, substitution mutation; invers, sequence inversion mutation; N, no activity detected; —, not mentioned.

      Table 1. 

      Application of the CRISPR/Cas system to tree genome editing.