4.7 Article

CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Mutagenesis of Carotenoid Cleavage Dioxygenase 8 (CCD8) in Tobacco Affects Shoot and Root Architecture

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms19041062

关键词

carotenoid cleavage dioxygenase (CCD); Nicotiana tabacum; plant architecture; shoot branch-ing; Strigolactones; targeted mutagenesis

资金

  1. State Key Program of National Natural Science of China [31530071]
  2. CNTC [110201601027(JY-01)]
  3. YNTC [2017YN01, 2016YN23]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Strigolactones (SLs) are a class of phytohormones that regulate plant architecture. Carotenoid cleavage dioxygenase (CCD) genes are involved in the biosynthesis of SLs and are identified and characterized in many plants. However, the function of CCD genes in tobacco remains poorly understood. In this study, two closely related genes NtCCD8A and NtCCD8B were cloned from tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.). The two NtCCD8 genes are orthologues of the tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) carotenoid cleavage dioxygenase 8 (SlCCD8) gene. NtCCD8A and NtCCD8B were primarily expressed in tobacco roots, but low expression levels of these genes were detected in all plant tissues, and their transcript levels significantly increased in response to phosphate limitation. NtCCD8A and NtCCD8B mutations were introduced into tobacco using the CRISPR/Cas9 system and transgenic tobacco lines for both ntccd8 mutant alleles were identified. The ntccd8a and ntccd8b mutant alleles were inactivated by a deletion of three nucleotides and insertion of one nucleotide, respectively, both of which led to the production of premature stop codons. The ntccd8 mutants had increased shoot branching, reduced plant height, increased number of leaves and nodes, and reduced total plant biomass compared to wild-type plants; however, the root-to-shoot ratio was unchanged. In addition, mutant lines had shorter primary roots and more of lateral roots than wild type. These results suggest that NtCCD8 genes are important for changes in tobacco plant architecture.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据