Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131068›Full record

ArticleProtoplasma2023

Development of an Agrobacterium-delivered codon-optimized CRISPR/Cas9 system for chickpea genome editing.

Santosh Kumar Gupta, Niraj Kumar Vishwakarma, Paheli Malakar, Poonam Vanspati, Nilesh Kumar Sharma, Debasis Chattopadhyay

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Protoplasma, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Genome editing in grain legumes for food security.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. 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

6 authors.

Santosh Kumar GuptaNational Institute of Plant Genome Research, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi, 110067, India. sanbio@nipgr.ac.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2245-8488
Niraj Kumar VishwakarmaNational Institute of Plant Genome Research, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi, 110067, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1011-7117
Paheli MalakarNational Institute of Plant Genome Research, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi, 110067, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9456-6264
Poonam VanspatiNational Institute of Plant Genome Research, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi, 110067, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-6608-9945
Nilesh Kumar SharmaNational Institute of Plant Genome Research, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi, 110067, India.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9463-8368
Debasis ChattopadhyayNational Institute of Plant Genome Research, Aruna Asaf Ali Marg, New Delhi, 110067, India. debasis@nipgr.ac.in.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5754-4987

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chickpea is considered recalcitrant to in vitro tissue culture amongst all edible legumes. The clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (CRISPR/Cas9)-based genome editing in chickpea can remove the bottleneck of limited genetic variation in this cash crop, which is rich in nutrients and protein. However, generating stable mutant lines using CRISPR/Cas9 requires efficient and highly reproducible transformation protocols. As an attempt to solve this problem, we developed a modified and optimized protocol for chickpea transformation. This study transformed the single cotyledon half-embryo explants using CaMV35S promoter to drive two marker genes (β-glucuronidase gene; GUS and green fluorescent protein; GFP) through binary vectors pBI101.2 and modified pGWB2, respectively. These vectors were delivered in the explants through three different strains of Agrobacterium tumefaciens, viz., GV3101, EHA105, and LBA4404. We found better efficiency with the strain GV3101 (17.56%) compared with two other strains, i.e., 8.54 and 5.43%, respectively. We recorded better regeneration frequencies in plant tissue culture for the constructs GUS and GFP, i.e., 20.54% and 18.09%, respectively. The GV3101 was further used for the transformation of the genome editing construct. For the development of genome-edited plants, we used this modified protocol. We also used a modified binary vector pPZP200 by introducing a CaMV35S-driven chickpea codon-optimized SpCas9 gene. The promoter of the Medicago truncatula U6.1 snRNA gene was used to drive the guide RNA cassettes. This cassette targeted and edited the chickpea phytoene desaturase (CaPDS) gene. A single gRNA was found sufficient to achieve high efficiency (42%) editing with the generation of PDS mutants with albino phenotypes. A simple, rapid, highly reproducible, stable transformation and CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing system for chickpea was established. This study aimed to demonstrate this system's applicability by performing a gene knockout of the chickpea PDS gene using an improved chickpea transformation protocol for the first time.

Indexed as

CicerGene EditingAgrobacterium tumefaciensCodonCRISPR-Cas SystemsGenome, PlantCodonChickpea transformationCodon optimizationCRISPR/Cas9Inference of CRISPR Edits (ICE)PDS

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.