Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27474038›Full record

ArticleBMC plant biology2016

Seamless editing of the chloroplast genome in plants.

Elena Martin Avila, Martin F Gisby, Anil Day

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC plant biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Advances inFrontiers in plant science · 2024
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Mini-synplastomes for plastid genetic engineering.Plant biotechnology journal · 2022
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Hotter, drier, CRISPR: the latest edit on climate change.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Elena Martin AvilaFaculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
Martin F GisbyFaculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK.
Anil DayFaculty of Life Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, M13 9PT, UK. anil.day@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-7835-9572
University of Manchester · GBAustralian National University · AU

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/I011552/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGene editing technologies enable the precise insertion of favourable mutations and performance enhancing trait genes into chromosomes whilst excluding all excess DNA from modified genomes. The technology gives rise to a new class of biotech crops which is likely to have widespread applications in agriculture. Despite progress in the nucleus, the seamless insertions of point mutations and non-selectable foreign genes into the organelle genomes of crops have not been described. The chloroplast genome is an attractive target to improve photosynthesis and crop performance. Current chloroplast genome engineering technologies for introducing point mutations into native chloroplast genes leave DNA scars, such as the target sites for recombination enzymes. Seamless editing methods to modify chloroplast genes need to address reversal of site-directed point mutations by template mediated repair with the vast excess of wild type chloroplast genomes that are present early in the transformation process.

resultsUsing tobacco, we developed an efficient two-step method to edit a chloroplast gene by replacing the wild type sequence with a transient intermediate. This was resolved to the final edited gene by recombination between imperfect direct repeats. Six out of 11 transplastomic plants isolated contained the desired intermediate and at the second step this was resolved to the edited chloroplast gene in five of six plants tested. Maintenance of a single base deletion mutation in an imperfect direct repeat of the native chloroplast rbcL gene showed the limited influence of biased repair back to the wild type sequence. The deletion caused a frameshift, which replaced the five C-terminal amino acids of the Rubisco large subunit with 16 alternative residues resulting in a ~30-fold reduction in its accumulation. We monitored the process in vivo by engineering an overlapping gusA gene downstream of the edited rbcL gene. Translational coupling between the overlapping rbcL and gusA genes resulted in relatively high GUS accumulation (~0.5 % of leaf protein).

conclusionsEditing chloroplast genomes using transient imperfect direct repeats provides an efficient method for introducing point mutations into chloroplast genes. Moreover, we describe the first synthetic operon allowing expression of a downstream overlapping gene by translational coupling in chloroplasts. Overlapping genes provide a new mechanism for co-ordinating the translation of foreign proteins in chloroplasts.

Indexed as

Genome, ChloroplastChloroplastsGene EditingNicotianaPlant ProteinsPoint MutationPlant ProteinsHomologous recombinationOrganelle genome editingOverlapping genesRubisco LS mutationTranslational coupling

Identifiers

PMID27474038
PMCPMC4966725
OpenAlexW2495772271

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.