Advances in plant transgenic technology in the 20th century overcame the major hurdle for transfer of genetic material between species. This not only enabled fundamental insights into plant biology, but also revolutionized commercial agriculture. Adoption of transgenic plants in industrial agriculture has reduced pesticide application, while bringing significant increase in crop yields and farmers' profits. The progress made in transgenic technology over the last three decades paved the way mainly for simple single-gene insect and herbicide tolerance (HT) trait products. Modern agriculture demands stacking and pyramiding of complex traits that provide broad-spectrum insect and HT with other agronomic traits. In addition, more recent developments in genome editing provide unique opportunities to create precise on-demand genome modifications to enhance crop productivity. The major challenge for the plant biotech industry therefore remains to combine multiple forms of traits needed to create commercially viable stacked product. This review provides a historical perspective of conventional breeding stacks, current status of molecular stacks and future developments needed to enable genome-editing technology for trait stacking.

Introduction

A defining challenge of modern agriculture is to ensure global food security by feeding an increasingly populated, urban and affluent planet without compromising the diverse and crucial ecosystems [1]. Given that world population is projected to increase to 9 billion in next 30 years, with the current agricultural productivity an additional ∼1 billion hectares of cultivated land will be required by 2050 to meet the food demand [2]. A potential solution to address this global agriculture challenge without expanding environmental footprint is to improve productivity by maximizing crop yield to its full biophysical potential. The adoption of advances made in breeding and agricultural practice in the 1960s led to the green revolution, which provided food security to millions of people [3]. Introduction of novel traits by conventional breeding is limited to germplasms that are sexually compatible.

The species barrier of trait transfer was overcome by transgenic trait technology in the mid-1990s, which was a major milestone in commercial agriculture. Transgenic technology made a huge impact in improving agriculture productivity through mainly single-gene herbicide and insect traits in key crops like maize, soybean and cotton. The next-generation trait products entail stacking multiple insect and disease resistance and herbicide tolerance (HT) genes to provide control of a broad range of insect pests and weeds [4]. In addition, pyramiding of 2–3 genes is needed against a single pest to provide multiple modes of action for robust and durable control [5]. Rapid advances made in genomics coupled with high-throughput phenotyping are greatly expanding the potential of identifying networks of native genes and alleles controlling disease resistance and agronomic traits [6]. Manipulation of agronomic traits depends on precise engineering of complex metabolic pathways, which requires concerted expression of multiple genes [7].

Designed nucleases have become a powerful gene editing tool to create targeted DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) at specified genomic locations [8]. Currently, there are four different types of designed nucleases being used, namely meganucleases, zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-associated endonucleases. These tools have successfully been used for targeted genome editing of multiple plant species. However, editing of multiple genes or alleles is generally needed to create a commercially viable trait. For example, the disease control conferred by single disease resistance (R) gene is often overcome within a few seasons by pathogen evolution, and multiple R genes are needed to provide durable resistance in plants [9].

Given that a majority of the stacked biotech products currently in the market were developed by conventional crossing, trait stacking using breeding is clearly a straightforward and viable option. However, the breeding approach is limited to a few multiple independently segregating loci, and the method requires substantial time and resources for sorting and deregulation of multiple unlinked transgenes [4,10]. This review will focus on different trait stacking approaches including conventional plant breeding, transgenic molecular stack and gene editing with a major emphasis on application of designed nucleases as a tool for trait stacking.

Conventional trait stacks

Trait stacks are mainly created using two approaches: molecular stack and breeding stack. Molecular stacks are made via plant transformation, incorporating two (or more) genes from a single transgene construct into the plant genome. Molecular stacks are physically linked and therefore co-segregate, thus making subsequent introgression and conversion fairly simple. The first generation of commercial molecular stacks mainly contained single-gene insect resistance (IR) and HT trait, which include Syngenta's event Bt11 with pat and cry1Ab, TC1507 with pat and cry1F jointly developed by Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer, Monsanto's MON 89034 with cry1A.105 and cry2Ab2 [4]. While molecular stacks with two to three genes are straightforward to make, more genes with multiple modes of action are desired in a commercial product to have a resilient management system for robust tolerance to target pests. With increased number of genes, assembly of the gene cassettes becomes complex and challenging, especially with repetitive use of a limited number of regulatory elements in a stack, which could potentially lead to gene silencing or spontaneous transgene rearrangements [11]. Furthermore, with the addition of each new sequence, the size of the transgene is increased while the number of permutations for vector construction increases exponentially. Plant transformation quickly becomes a limiting factor with the large size of the transgene and the number of constructs [7,11,12] leading to significant costs in transformation and characterization of transgenic events. In addition, when multiple gene candidates are present to control the same pest on one stack, the efficacy trials to parse out the functionality of each gene become very complex.

Breeding stacks are developed using traditional plant breeding methods where each parental line contains one or more previously incorporated transgene(s). These parental lines are crossed with each other to create offspring that contain all the traits. Monsanto in 1997 introduced the first breeding stack, which was produced by crossing two cotton events: Bollgard™ (producing the Bt toxin cry1Ab) and Roundup Ready™ (producing epsps enzyme: 5-enolpyruvyl-shikimate synthase) [13]. Following commercial success of breeding stacks, biotech seed companies invested heavily in developing trait stacks to meet specific market needs. Based on USDA survey data, stacked corn occupied 76% of corn acres and stacked cotton reached 80% of cotton plantings by 2016 (https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/adoption-of-genetically-engineered-crops-in-the-us/recent-trends-in-ge-adoption.aspx). Breeding stacks with previously deregulated events are straightforward and flexible when a few trait loci are needed to make a commercial product. In some countries, such as in the U.S.A. and Canada, no additional safety assessment studies are required for registration of new breeding stacks created using previously deregulated commercialized events. Even when a new approval is needed, the process is expedited as the biology of the existing germplasm and transgenic events is well characterized. Those independently registered events are randomly integrated into chromosomes, most likely unlinked, offering the flexibility of ‘fit for purpose’.

Different trait stacks can be developed to meet the market needs with specific pest spectra, such as in SmartStax™ and PowerCore™ technologies jointly developed by Dow AgroSciences and Monsanto. In SmartStax, four independent transgenic loci (events MON 89034, TC1507, 88017 and DAS 59122) were brought together via breeding in a single product with multiple modes of action covering a broad spectrum of insect pests [14,15]. Meanwhile, PowerCore™, with MON 89034, TC1507 and NK603, is a unique combination of three events, providing wide spectrum protection against above-ground pests for areas with minimal corn rootworm pressure [15]. One distinct advantage of breeding stacks is their flexibility for cross-licensing. This was clearly demonstrated with PowerCore™, the product mentioned above, which has two traits, MON 89034 and NK603 from Monsanto, and one, TC1507 from Dow AgroSciences.

While breeding stacks do provide some advantages, with increased number of events, deployment of stacks for these unlinked genetic loci quickly becomes a huge burden to the breeders. Based on Mendelian segregation, ∼19 000 F2 individuals need to be planted and analyzed to obtain one homozygote from six transgenic events containing unlinked segregating loci [16]. With increased number of unlinked loci, additional time is needed for the conversion of desired traits into elite germplasms. For example, complete conversion might take <4 years for one to three loci, while >5 years are needed for creating a product containing four or more loci. This would lead to an estimated ∼1.2% hidden loss in genetic gain with every year lost for the conversion [17]. Furthermore, to take the advantage of diverse genetic pool of germplasm, transgenic traits are often introduced into thousands of elite lines, which would demand ever-increasing field resources and analytics to track and ensure product stewardship. In addition, with every locus, there is also concern of carrying unwanted linkage drag which could negatively affect overall product performance.

Molecular stacks using gene targeting

Creation of new molecular stacks brings some challenges as conventional transformation methodologies such as Agrobacterium or biolistics do not target transgenes into specific locations in the genome. As these methodologies insert transgenes at essentially random locations, large numbers of transgenic events need to be screened in order to eliminate events with negative characteristics. These can include epigenetic modification of the transgene, thus affecting expression, incomplete or rearranged transgenes at insertion, disruption of native genes, insertion at undesired genomic locations, agronomic effect resulting from transgene insertion and insertion of vector backbone [18,19]. Additionally, many governmental regulations are associated with the negative implications of the random nature of conventional transgene insertions. To overcome challenges associated with random insertions, genome-editing tools could be used for precise insertion of transgenes into predefined desired genomic locations. This process of gene addition could be continued for multiple generations of product development by sequential targeting of trait genes within or in close proximity to an existing transgene (Figure 1).

Different gene targeting approaches for trait stacking in plants.

Figure 1.
Different gene targeting approaches for trait stacking in plants.

(A) Gene targeting to create physically separate but genetically linked trait stack. Selectable markers 2 and 3 are targeted several kilobases upstream of GOI1 in the target using homology to the genomic sequence (green dotted line). (B) Targeting using partial nonfunctional fragments of a selectable marker in target (top) and donor (middle), containing overlap (blue line) for 5′ homology. Homology at 3′-end is shown as a black line. Precise targeting will result in a functional selectable marker (bottom). (C) Gene targeting to create physically linked trait stack. Selectable marker 2 is precisely inserted next to selectable marker 1 using flanking homology sequences (red and purple lines). (D) Gene targeting and stacking using NMCE between target and donor. Promoterless selectable marker 2 in the donor utilizes intron (green line) as 5′ homology for targeting leading to exchange of selectable marker 1 by 2 in the targeted product (bottom). Additional GOIs could be loaded in the donor (not shown). Blue arrow: promoter. Scissors: double-strand break using designed nuclease. Red hexagon: transcriptional terminator.

Figure 1.
Different gene targeting approaches for trait stacking in plants.

(A) Gene targeting to create physically separate but genetically linked trait stack. Selectable markers 2 and 3 are targeted several kilobases upstream of GOI1 in the target using homology to the genomic sequence (green dotted line). (B) Targeting using partial nonfunctional fragments of a selectable marker in target (top) and donor (middle), containing overlap (blue line) for 5′ homology. Homology at 3′-end is shown as a black line. Precise targeting will result in a functional selectable marker (bottom). (C) Gene targeting to create physically linked trait stack. Selectable marker 2 is precisely inserted next to selectable marker 1 using flanking homology sequences (red and purple lines). (D) Gene targeting and stacking using NMCE between target and donor. Promoterless selectable marker 2 in the donor utilizes intron (green line) as 5′ homology for targeting leading to exchange of selectable marker 1 by 2 in the targeted product (bottom). Additional GOIs could be loaded in the donor (not shown). Blue arrow: promoter. Scissors: double-strand break using designed nuclease. Red hexagon: transcriptional terminator.

The advent of multiple tools for the nuclease-mediated creation of DSBs in the genome has enabled site-specific genome modification. The demonstration that homologous recombination could be augmented by two orders of magnitude through the creation of DSB in the genome [20,21] was the initial step in the development of our modern toolbox of genome-editing tools in plants. Genomic DSB can be repaired by non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ) or homology-dependent repair (HDR). The process of HDR is limited to S and G2 phases of the cell cycle, while NHEJ is the primary DNA repair pathway in the somatic cells [22]. Given this, it is understandable that the prevalence of NHEJ targeted mutagenesis or ‘knockout’ using genome-editing tools has become routine, while HDR-mediated targeted integration or ‘knockin’ still remains more challenging. The type of repair utilized by plants (HDR vs. NHEJ) is a function of many factors including the presence of repair template and cell type [23]. At present, there are multiple tools which can foster the creation of DSBs in the genomes of plants (Table 1). The use of these tools has been described in detail previously elsewhere [2426].

Table 1
Examples of gene stacking in crop species.
TechniqueType of gene stackingCrop speciesReference
Meganuclease Stacking near transgene Cotton [28
Nonfunctional marker gene Corn [25
ZFN Nonfunctional marker gene Tobacco [34
Nonfunctional marker gene Tobacco [35
Transgene stacking Corn [42
Cassette exchange Corn [43
Cassette exchange Tobacco [40
TALENs Gene exchange Barley [58
TechniqueType of gene stackingCrop speciesReference
Meganuclease Stacking near transgene Cotton [28
Nonfunctional marker gene Corn [25
ZFN Nonfunctional marker gene Tobacco [34
Nonfunctional marker gene Tobacco [35
Transgene stacking Corn [42
Cassette exchange Corn [43
Cassette exchange Tobacco [40
TALENs Gene exchange Barley [58

Meganucleases

Rare cutting enzymes (such as I-SceI) and meganucleases were among the first tools used to demonstrate transgene integration into the genome of plants [20,21,2729]. With the demonstration of the I-SceI-induced DSB and site-specific integration of a transgene into a pre-engineered site of maize [30], the initial step of precise trait stacking mediated by DSB was taken. While the basic path for precise gene targeting and stacking was laid out, hurdles for routine deployment still existed. Gene targeting still relied upon the prior integration of a random event, as well as pre-engineering of nuclease recognition sites. These difficulties were addressed through the development of engineered meganucleases that could be designed to recognize novel sequences [24,31]. Meganuclease technology has been used to create transgenic trait stacks in both maize and cotton. Interestingly, demonstration of precise trait stacking in cotton involved single-chain I-CreI–based engineered homing endonuclease for targeted integration of two herbicide tolerance genes proximal to a pre-existing, high-performance transgene locus (Figure 1A) [32]. Based on independently transformed embryogenic callus lines, ∼2% targeting frequency and Mendelian inheritance of targeted traits were reported.

Zinc finger nucleases

ZFNs, consisting of a DNA-binding domain attached to a nuclease domain, are another early tool developed for induction of DSBs in plant genomes. The DNA-binding domain can be designed to recognize almost any DNA sequence and thus enable targeted double-strand break creation [33]. The utility of ZFNs was first shown in the model plant species Arabidopsis via targeted mutagenesis of a pre-engineered sequence [34]. Demonstration of targeted mutagenesis of endogenous loci was later accomplished in Arabidopsis [35,36] and in soybean [37]. Gene targeting via homologous recombination (HR) induced by ZFNs was first accomplished using reconstitution of a nonfunctional selectable marker in a pre-engineered target (Figure 1B) inserted in tobacco [3840] and Arabidopsis [38,41]. The HR-mediated gene targeting using ZFNs in a crop plant was later demonstrated through the insertion of the pat (phosphinothricin acetyl transferase) gene [42] into the endogenous IPK1 locus in maize [43]. The plants obtained from this targeted insertion exhibited both herbicide resistance and reduced phytate levels. ZFNs have also been used to induce targeted gene exchange in the tobacco BY2 cell reporter system [44].

Use of ZFNs for stacking of transgenic traits in maize has been shown through multiple systems. Engineered trait landing pads with pre-engineered ZFN recognition sites were used to demonstrate targeting of a herbicide tolerance gene (aad1) into an existing transgene containing the pat herbicide tolerance gene (Figure 1C). This was accomplished through the co-transformation of the second marker gene, aad1 encoding aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase [45], flanked by sequences homologous to the integrated trait landing pad along with a corresponding ZFN. The result was a molecular stack of two herbicide resistance genes with demonstrated activity of both genes [46]. Since every cycle of gene stacking requires a new selectable marker, the limited number of available markers poses a major hurdle for sequential targeting and trait stacking. This limitation was overcome in a recent study where new transgenic stacks were loaded in successive gene targeting cycles through the exchange of selectable marker genes in maize (Figure 1D) [47]. Cassette exchange was accomplished using the homology of an intron downstream from a promoter driving the selectable marker gene cassette and a trait landing pad homology at the 3′-end. Targeting rates of up to 30% of generated events were reported using the pat selectable marker gene. Unlike previous gene targeting methods (described above) that utilize defective or partial genes for selecting targeted events, this system offers distinct advantages as it exchanges a fully functional selectable marker in every iteration, thus allowing for recycling of selectable markers needed to accomplish sequential targeting in multiple generations of trait stacking.

Transcriptional activator-like effector nucleases

TALENs, which are derived from transcriptional activator-like effectors of the plant pathogen Xanthomonas spp., have been shown to be versatile for design with sequence recognition, which can be used to create DSBs at practically any genomic locus [4850]. Genome editing via TALENS has been demonstrated in multiple plant species including Arabidopsis thaliana protoplast [51] and transient expression assays in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves [48]. Additionally, site-directed mutagenesis using TALENs has been reported in crop plants such as potato [52], tomato [53], soybean [54], rice [55,56], maize [57], wheat [58] and barley [59]. Targeted gene editing using TALENs has been achieved in rice [60]. Precise gene targeting via TALENs has been shown in tobacco protoplast [61], barley cells [62], rice [60] and tomato plants [63].

Clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat

The newest and widely popular genome-editing tool is the engineered CRISPR/CRISPR-associated (Cas) systems [64]. Cas9 (CRISPR-associated) endonuclease is guided to a target DNA sequence adjacent to the PAM (protospacer adjacent motif) sequence by the complex of a CRISPR RNA (crRNA) with a trans-activating crRNA (tracrRNA). Later, a fusion of the dual-tracrRNA : crRNA complex was engineered creating a single-guide RNA (sgRNA) to direct Cas9-mediated targeted DNA cleavage [65]. The design process of this system is extremely easy since Cas9 protein does not require any re-engineering while specificity of the nuclease is defined by the sgRNA. CRISPR-Cpf1 (CRISPR from Prevoltella and Francisella1) has recently been reported as a new type of genome-editing tool [66]. Unlike the Cas9 system, Cpf1 is a type V CRISPR effector that recognizes thymidine-rich PAM sequence and induces cohesive DSBs at target site guided by a single crRNA [6668]. Since discovery in 2012, the CRISPR system technology has expanded quickly with rapid demonstration of genome modification occurring in multiple crops such as rice [64,69,70], maize [57,71], soybean [72,73] and wheat [58,64]. The initial demonstration of targeted gene insertion utilizing the CRISPR system included rice [64] and Arabidopsis [74,75]. Gene targeting via homologous recombination has been achieved using the CRISPR/Cas technology in maize [71], soybean [76] and tomato [63].

In reality, all the technologies described above perform the same core function, which is to create DSBs in the genome of a plant. Therefore, factors such as ease of design, fidelity and intellectual property (IP) need to be considered when choosing the most appropriate technology for their use. When evaluating the ability to effectively design a nuclease, both CRISPRs and TALENs are generally considered quite favorably in terms of design and ease of use. However, CRISPR has some design limitations [65,66], which are not present with technologies such as ZFNs. In terms of fidelity, ZFNs utilizing high-fidelity FokI nuclease requiring hetrodimerization have been evaluated in clinical trials and deemed to be safe [77]. In addition, the IP rights surrounding CRISPRs are quite complex, one must consider all facets of IP when making a choice of technologies [78,79].

Intragenomic homologous recombination and trait stacking

Although gene editing is a quantum technological leap in the field of plant biotechnology, there are yet bottlenecks to its full deployment in trait stacking for crop improvement. While targeted mutagenesis to create gene edits using designed nucleases is becoming a routine approach, targeted transgene integration remains a huge challenge due to its reliance on genetic transformation of plants and on a DNA repair process (HDR) less prevalent in plants. Significant advances in plant transformation have been made in last ∼20 years; however, the majority of plant species and genotypes are still recalcitrant to transformation and regeneration [80].

Intragenomic homologous recombination (IGHR) provides an attractive opportunity to address limitations of low transformation efficiency by utilizing the DNA recombination system of a cell to replicate randomly inserted donor transgene for subsequent IGHR-mediated insertion and stacking of the donor into the target site. As described in Figure 2, this approach needs a very small number of primary transgenic plant lines that contain stable integration of donor and the matching designed nuclease transgene. Unlike a few cells that contain donor and designed nuclease transgene in direct transformation-mediated precise gene stacking described above, all the cells in the whole plant contain donor and nuclease leading to intrachromosomal recombination between target and donor throughout the life cycle of plant development. The germinal targeted events containing donor sequence stacked to the target site could be screened in the next generation. A similar approach using a site-specific recombinase (FLP) and a site-specific enodnuclease (I-SceI) was used in Drosophila for modification of the yellow locus [8183].

Gene stacking in plants using IGHR.

Figure 2.
Gene stacking in plants using IGHR.

(A) Donor line (DN) containing excisable donor sequence (red asterisk) designed nuclease (black asterisk) is generated using transformation. (B) Target line (TR) containing target locus (green asterisk). (C) The donor line is cross-pollinated to target line. (D) F1 plants are screened to obtain targeted plants containing donor sequence stacked to target locus. The designed nuclease sequence could be segregated out.

Figure 2.
Gene stacking in plants using IGHR.

(A) Donor line (DN) containing excisable donor sequence (red asterisk) designed nuclease (black asterisk) is generated using transformation. (B) Target line (TR) containing target locus (green asterisk). (C) The donor line is cross-pollinated to target line. (D) F1 plants are screened to obtain targeted plants containing donor sequence stacked to target locus. The designed nuclease sequence could be segregated out.

Plant scientists were quick to propose this method for plant gene targeting and stacking [84]; it was demonstrated in Arabidopsis [85] using endonuclease (I-SceI) and CRISPR/Cas system [75]. The IGHR-mediated GT in a model system paved the way for application of this method in maize by somatic ectopic recombination and tissue culture selection [8688]. The recent demonstration of this technique in maize using zinc finger nucleases [87] provides a robust gene stacking strategy for commercial product development. A flexible and modular gene stacking design described in the report utilized nuclease-mediated cassette exchange (NMCE) between target and donor to activate a promoterless selectable marker in a donor sequence [47]. This approach provides flexibility to strategically place different traits in modular donor or target format, which could be mixed and match meeting the changing market needs

Conclusions and future direction

Designed nuclease-mediated targeted mutagenesis is becoming routine in plants [43,45,5658,64,71,8991] to create desired traits by introducing knockout mutations. However, to provide broad spectrum of insect and disease resistance, herbicide tolerance and wide-ranging agronomic enhancements, we envision that future biotech crops will contain trait packages consisting of native, gene-edited and transgenic traits stacked together in one genome. Recent advances in gene targeting via IGHR have generated huge potential for the application of designed nucleases for gene editing and stacking of edited traits with native and transgenic traits. Unlike conventional methods that depend on an efficient transformation system, the IGHR approach utilizes the conventional breeding technique for precise gene stacking, which makes this system very attractive for gene editing and stacking in a broad group of economically important crop plants that remain recalcitrant to genetic transformation. The method could further be improved by using viral replicons to amplify nuclease and repair a template for enhanced gene targeting [92]. In addition, recent development toward targeted gene insertion and replacement using the NHEJ pathway [93], which avoids homology restrictions, will further enable deployment of genome-editing technology for trait stacking.

Summary
  • Modern agriculture demands stacking and pyramiding of multiple genes to provide diverse agronomic trait package with multiple modes of action for robust and durable control against pest.

  • A vast majority of the stacked biotech products currently in the market were developed by the conventional breeding approach, which requires substantial time and resources for sorting and deregulation, and the method is only practical for limited number of independently segregating loci.

  • Designed nucleases have become a powerful genome-editing tool to create targeted DNA double-strand breaks at specified genomic locations.

  • Recent advances made in gene stacking using genome-editing tools have created a huge opportunity for application of this technology in commercial agriculture.

Abbreviations

     
  • Cas

    CRISPR-associated

  •  
  • Cpf1

    CRISPR from Prevoltella and Francisella1

  •  
  • CRISPR

    clustered, regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat

  •  
  • crRNA

    CRISPR RNA

  •  
  • DSBs

    double-strand breaks

  •  
  • FLP

    Flippase

  •  
  • GT

    gene targeting

  •  
  • GOI

    gene of interest

  •  
  • HDR

    homology-dependent repair

  •  
  • HR

    homologous recombination

  •  
  • HT

    herbicide tolerance

  •  
  • IGHR

    intragenomic homologous recombination

  •  
  • IP

    intellectual property

  •  
  • NHEJ

    non-homologous end-joining

  •  
  • NMCE

    nuclease-mediated cassette exchange

  •  
  • PAM

    protospacer adjacent motif

  •  
  • pat

    phosphinothricin acetyl transferase

  •  
  • sgRNA

    single-guide RNA

  •  
  • TALENs

    transcription activator-like effector nucleases

  •  
  • tracrRNA

    trans-activating crRNA

  •  
  • ZFNs

    zinc-finger nucleases

Author Contribution

S.K., W.C. and S.N. drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Michelle Smith, Otto Folkerts, Lakshmi Sastry-Dent, Steve Webb and Rodrigo Sarria for reviewing the manuscript and providing valuable suggestions.

Competing Interests

The authors in this publication certify that they are employees of Dow AgroSciences LLC, a subsidiary of The Dow Chemical Company. As employees, the authors may have some company stock (The Dow Chemical Company), but no other personal financial interest in the subject matter of the materials discussed in this manuscript.

Bollgard™, Roundup Ready™, SmartStax™ and PowerCore™ are trademarks of Monsanto Technology LLC.

References

References
1
Samberg
,
L.H.
(
2016
)
Food security: a collaboration worth its weight in grain
.
Nature
537
,
624
625
2
Tilman
,
D.
,
Balzer
,
C.
,
Hill
,
J.
and
Befort
,
B.L.
(
2011
)
Global food demand and the sustainable intensification of agriculture
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
108
,
20260
20264
3
Dockter
,
C.
and
Hansson
,
M.
(
2015
)
Improving barley culm robustness for secured crop yield in a changing climate
.
J. Exp. Bot.
66
,
3499
3509
4
Que
,
Q.
,
Chilton
,
M.-D.M.
,
de Fontes
,
C.M.
,
He
,
C.
,
Nuccio
,
M.
,
Zhu
,
T.
et al
(
2010
)
Trait stacking in transgenic crops: challenges and opportunities
.
GM Crops
1
,
220
229
5
Gressel
,
J.
,
Gassmann
,
A.J.
and
Owen
,
M.D.K.
(
2017
)
How well will stacked transgenic pest/herbicide resistances delay pests from evolving resistance?
Pest Manag. Sci.
73
,
22
34
6
Huang
,
S.
,
Weigel
,
D.
,
Beachy
,
R.N.
and
Li
,
J.
(
2016
)
A proposed regulatory framework for genome-edited crops
.
Nat. Genet.
48
,
109
111
7
Walsh
,
T.A.
,
Bevan
,
S.A.
,
Gachotte
,
D.J.
,
Larsen
,
C.M.
,
Moskal
,
W.A.
,
Merlo
,
P.A.O.
et al
(
2016
)
Canola engineered with a microalgal polyketide synthase-like system produces oil enriched in docosahexaenoic acid
.
Nat. Biotechnol.
34
,
881
887
8
Weeks
,
D.P.
,
Spalding
,
M.H.
and
Yang
,
B.
(
2016
)
Use of designer nucleases for targeted gene and genome editing in plants
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
14
,
483
495
9
Steuernagel
,
B.
,
Periyannan
,
S.K.
,
Hernández-Pinzón
,
I.
,
Witek
,
K.
,
Rouse
,
M.N.
,
Yu
,
G.
et al
(
2016
)
Rapid cloning of disease-resistance genes in plants using mutagenesis and sequence capture
.
Nat. Biotechnol.
34
,
652
655
10
Siebert
,
M.W.
,
Nolting
,
S.P.
,
Hendrix
,
W.
,
Dhavala
,
S.
,
Craig
,
C.
,
Leonard
,
B.R.
et al
(
2012
)
Evaluation of corn hybrids expressing Cry1F, Cry1A.105, Cry2Ab2, Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1, and Cry3Bb1 against Southern United States insect pests
.
J. Econ. Entomol.
105
,
1825
1834
11
Peremarti
,
A.
,
Twyman
,
R.M.
,
Gómez-Galera
,
S.
,
Naqvi
,
S.
,
Farré
,
G.
,
Sabalza
,
M.
et al
(
2010
)
Promoter diversity in multigene transformation
.
Plant Mol. Biol.
73
,
363
378
12
Fujisawa
,
M.
,
Takita
,
E.
,
Harada
,
H.
,
Sakurai
,
N.
,
Suzuki
,
H.
,
Ohyama
,
K.
et al
(
2009
)
Pathway engineering of Brassica napus seeds using multiple key enzyme genes involved in ketocarotenoid formation
.
J. Exp. Bot.
60
,
1319
1332
13
Perlak
,
F.J.
,
Oppenhuizen
,
M.
,
Gustafson
,
K.
,
Voth
,
R.
,
Sivasupramaniam
,
S.
,
Heering
,
D.
et al
(
2001
)
Development and commercial use of Bollgard® cotton in the USA—early promises versus today's reality
.
Plant J.
27
,
489
501
14
Head
,
G.
,
Carroll
,
M.
,
Clark
,
T.
,
Galvan
,
T.
,
Huckaba
,
R.M.
,
Price
,
P.
et al
(
2014
)
Efficacy of SmartStax® insect-protected corn hybrids against corn rootworm: the value of pyramiding the Cry3Bb1 and Cry34/35Ab1 proteins
.
Crop Prot.
57
,
38
47
15
Storer
,
N.P.
,
Thompson
,
G.D.
and
Head
,
G.P.
(
2012
)
Application of pyramided traits against Lepidoptera in insect resistance management for Bt crops
.
GM Crops Food
3
,
154
162
16
Petolino
,
J.F.
and
Kumar
,
S.
(
2016
)
Transgenic trait deployment using designed nucleases
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
14
,
503
509
17
Badu-Apraku
,
B.
,
Fakorede
,
M.A.B.
,
Oyekunle
,
M.
,
Yallou
,
G.C.
,
Obeng-Antwi
,
K.
,
Haruna
,
A.
et al
(
2015
)
Gains in grain yield of early maize cultivars developed during three breeding eras under multiple environments
.
Crop Sci.
55
,
527
539
18
Butaye
,
K.M.J.
,
Cammue
,
B.P.A.
,
Delauré
,
S.L.
and
De Bolle
,
M.F.C.
(
2005
)
Approaches to minimize variation of transgene expression in plants
.
Mol. Breed.
16
,
79
91
19
Ow
,
D.W.
(
2002
)
Recombinase-directed plant transformation for the post-genomic era
.
Plant Mol. Biol.
48
,
183
200
20
Puchta
,
H.
,
Dujon
,
B.
and
Hohn
,
B.
(
1993
)
Homologous recombination in plant cells is enhanced by in vivo induction of double strand breaks into DNA by a site-specific endonuclease
.
Nucleic Acids Res.
21
,
5034
5040
21
Puchta
,
H.
and
Hohn
,
B.
(
1996
)
From centiMorgans to base pairs: homologous recombination in plants
.
Trends Plant Sci.
1
,
340
348
22
Puchta
,
H.
(
2005
)
The repair of double-strand breaks in plants: mechanisms and consequences for genome evolution
.
J. Exp. Bot.
56
,
1
14
23
Moore
,
J.K.
and
Haber
,
J.E.
(
1996
)
Cell cycle and genetic requirements of two pathways of nonhomologous end-joining repair of double-strand breaks in Saccharomyces cerevisiae
.
Mol. Cell. Biol.
16
,
2164
2173
24
Voytas
,
D.F.
(
2013
)
Plant genome engineering with sequence-specific nucleases
.
Annl. Rev. Plant Biol.
64
,
327
350
doi:
25
Cardi
,
T.
and
Neal Stewart
, Jr,
C.
(
2016
)
Progress of targeted genome modification approaches in higher plants
.
Plant Cell Rep.
35
,
1401
1416
26
Sovová
,
T.
,
Kerins
,
G.
,
Demnerová
,
K.
and
Ovesná
,
J.
(
2017
)
Genome editing with engineered nucleases in economically important animals and plants: state of the art in the research pipeline
.
Curr. Issues Mol. Biol.
21
,
41
61
PMID:
[PubMed]
27
Salomon
,
S.
and
Puchta
,
H.
(
1998
)
Capture of genomic and T-DNA sequences during double-strand break repair in somatic plant cells
.
EMBO J.
17
,
6086
6095
28
Chilton
,
M.-D.M.
and
Que
,
Q.
(
2003
)
Targeted integration of T-DNA into the tobacco genome at double-stranded breaks: new insights on the mechanism of T-DNA integration
.
Plant Physiol.
133
,
956
965
29
Tzfira
,
T.
,
Frankman
,
L.R.
,
Vaidya
,
M.
and
Citovsky
,
V.
(
2003
)
Site-specific integration of Agrobacterium tumefaciens T-DNA via double-stranded intermediates
.
Plant Physiol.
133
,
1011
1023
30
D'Halluin
,
K.
,
Vanderstraeten
,
C.
,
Stals
,
E.
,
Cornelissen
,
M.
and
Ruiter
,
R.
(
2008
)
Homologous recombination: a basis for targeted genome optimization in crop species such as maize
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
6
,
93
102
31
Daboussi
,
F.
,
Stoddard
,
T.J.
and
Zhang
,
F.
(
2015
) Engineering meganuclease for precise plant genome modification. In
Advances in new Technology for Targeted Modification of Plant Genomes
, pp.
21
38
.
Springer
32
D'Halluin
,
K.
,
Vanderstraeten
,
C.
,
Van Hulle
,
J.
,
Rosolowska
,
J.
,
Van Den Brande
,
I.
,
Pennewaert
,
A.
et al
(
2013
)
Targeted molecular trait stacking in cotton through targeted double-strand break induction
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
11
,
933
941
33
Urnov
,
F.D.
,
Rebar
,
E.J.
,
Holmes
,
M.C.
,
Zhang
,
H.S.
and
Gregory
,
P.D.
(
2010
)
Genome editing with engineered zinc finger nucleases
.
Nat. Rev. Genet.
11
,
636
646
34
Lloyd
,
A.
,
Plaisier
,
C.L.
,
Carroll
,
D.
and
Drews
,
G.N.
(
2005
)
Targeted mutagenesis using zinc-finger nucleases in Arabidopsis
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
102
,
2232
2237
35
Osakabe
,
K.
,
Osakabe
,
Y.
and
Toki
,
S.
(
2010
)
Site-directed mutagenesis in Arabidopsis using custom-designed zinc finger nucleases
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
107
,
12034
12039
36
Zhang
,
F.
,
Maeder
,
M.L.
,
Unger-Wallace
,
E.
,
Hoshaw
,
J.P.
,
Reyon
,
D.
,
Christian
,
M.
et al
(
2010
)
High frequency targeted mutagenesis in Arabidopsis thaliana using zinc finger nucleases
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
107
,
12028
12033
37
Curtin
,
S.J.
,
Zhang
,
F.
,
Sander
,
J.D.
,
Haun
,
W.J.
,
Starker
,
C.
,
Baltes
,
N.J.
et al
(
2011
)
Targeted mutagenesis of duplicated genes in soybean with zinc-finger nucleases
.
Plant Physiol.
156
,
466
473
38
Wright
,
D.A.
,
Townsend
,
J.A.
,
Winfrey
, Jr,
R.J.
,
Irwin
,
P.A.
,
Rajagopal
,
J.
,
Lonosky
,
P.M.
et al
(
2005
)
High-frequency homologous recombination in plants mediated by zinc-finger nucleases
.
Plant J.
44
,
693
705
39
Cai
,
C.Q.
,
Doyon
,
Y.
,
Ainley
,
W.M.
,
Miller
,
J.C.
,
DeKelver
,
R.C.
,
Moehle
,
E.A.
et al
(
2009
)
Targeted transgene integration in plant cells using designed zinc finger nucleases
.
Plant Mol. Biol.
69
,
699
709
40
Townsend
,
J.A.
,
Wright
,
D.A.
,
Winfrey
,
R.J.
,
Fu
,
F.L.
,
Maeder
,
M.L.
,
Joung
,
J.K.
et al
(
2009
)
High-frequency modification of plant genes using engineered zinc-finger nucleases
.
Nature
459
,
442
445
41
de Pater
,
S.
,
Neuteboom
,
L.W.
,
Pinas
,
J.E.
,
Hooykaas
,
P.J.J.
and
van der Zaal
,
B.J.
(
2009
)
ZFN-induced mutagenesis and gene-targeting in Arabidopsis through Agrobacterium-mediated floral dip transformation
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
7
,
821
835
42
Wohlleben
,
W.
,
Arnold
,
W.
,
Broer
,
I.
,
Hillemann
,
D.
,
Strauch
,
E.
and
Puhler
,
A.
(
1988
)
Nucleotide sequence of the phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase gene from Streptomyces viridochromogenes Tü494 and its expression in Nicotiana tabacum
.
Gene
70
,
25
37
43
Shukla
,
V.K.
,
Doyon
,
Y.
,
Miller
,
J.C.
,
DeKelver
,
R.C.
,
Moehle
,
E.A.
,
Worden
,
S.E.
et al
(
2009
)
Precise genome modification in the crop species Zea mays using zinc-finger nucleases
.
Nature
459
,
437
441
44
Schneider
,
K.
,
Schiermeyer
,
A.
,
Dolls
,
A.
,
Koch
,
N.
,
Herwartz
,
D.
,
Kirchhoff
,
J.
et al
(
2016
)
Targeted gene exchange in plant cells mediated by a zinc finger nuclease double cut
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
14
,
1151
1160
45
Wright
,
T.R.
,
Shan
,
G.
,
Walsh
,
T.A.
,
Lira
,
J.M.
,
Cui
,
C.
,
Song
,
P.
et al
(
2010
)
Robust crop resistance to broadleaf and grass herbicides provided by aryloxyalkanoate dioxygenase transgenes
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
107
,
20240
20245
46
Ainley
,
W.M.
,
Sastry-Dent
,
L.
,
Welter
,
M.E.
,
Murray
,
M.G.
,
Zeitler
,
B.
,
Amora
,
R.
et al
(
2013
)
Trait stacking via targeted genome editing
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
11
,
1126
1134
47
Kumar
,
S.
,
AlAbed
,
D.
,
Worden
,
A.
,
Novak
,
S.
,
Wu
,
H.
,
Ausmus
,
C.
et al
(
2015
)
A modular gene targeting system for sequential transgene stacking in plants
.
J. Biotechnol.
207
,
12
20
48
Mahfouz
,
M.M.
,
Li
,
L.
,
Shamimuzzaman
,
M.
,
Wibowo
,
A.
,
Fang
,
X.
and
Zhu,
J.-K.
(
2011
)
De novo-engineered transcription activator-like effector (TALE) hybrid nuclease with novel DNA binding specificity creates double-strand breaks
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
108
,
2623
2628
49
Christian
,
M.
and
Voytas
,
D.F.
(
2015
) Engineered TAL effector proteins: versatile reagents for manipulating plant genomes. In
Advances in New Technology for Targeted Modification of Plant Genomes
, pp.
55
72
.
Springer
50
Sprink
,
T.
,
Metje
,
J.
and
Hartung
,
F.
(
2015
)
Plant genome editing by novel tools: TALEN and other sequence specific nucleases
.
Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.
32
,
47
53
51
Cermak
,
T.
,
Doyle
,
E.L.
,
Christian
,
M.
,
Wang
,
L.
,
Zhang
,
Y.
and
Schmidt
,
C.
(
2011
)
Efficient design and assembly of custom TALEN and other TAL effector-based constructs for DNA targeting
.
Nucleic Acids Res.
39
,
7879
52
Clasen
,
B.M.
,
Stoddard
,
T.J.
,
Luo
,
S.
,
Demorest
,
Z.L.
,
Li
,
J.
,
Cedrone
,
F.
et al
(
2016
)
Improving cold storage and processing traits in potato through targeted gene knockout
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
14
,
169
176
53
Lor
,
V.S.
,
Starker
,
C.G.
,
Voytas
,
D.F.
,
Weiss
,
D.
and
Olszewski
,
N.E.
(
2014
)
Targeted mutagenesis of the tomato PROCERA gene using transcription activator-like effector nucleases
.
Plant Physiol.
166
,
1288
1291
54
Haun
,
W.
,
Coffman
,
A.
,
Clasen
,
B.M.
,
Demorest
,
Z.L.
,
Lowy
,
A.
,
Ray
,
E.
et al
(
2014
)
Improved soybean oil quality by targeted mutagenesis of the fatty acid desaturase 2 gene family
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
12
,
934
940
55
Li
,
T.
,
Liu
,
B.
,
Spalding
,
M.H.
,
Weeks
,
D.P.
and
Yang
,
B.
(
2012
)
High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice
.
Nat. Biotechnol.
30
,
390
392
56
Shan
,
Q.
,
Zhang
,
Y.
,
Chen
,
K.
,
Zhang
,
K.
and
Gao
,
C.
(
2015
)
Creation of fragrant rice by targeted knockout of the OsBADH2 gene using TALEN technology
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
13
,
791
800
57
Liang
,
Z.
,
Zhang
,
K.
,
Chen
,
K.
and
Gao
,
C.
(
2014
)
Targeted mutagenesis in Zea mays using TALENs and the CRISPR/Cas system
.
J. Genet. Genomics
41
,
63
68
58
Wang
,
Y.
,
Cheng
,
X.
,
Shan
,
Q.
,
Zhang
,
Y.
,
Liu
,
J.
,
Gao
,
C.
et al
(
2014
)
Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew
.
Nat. Biotechnol.
32
,
947
951
59
Wendt
,
T.
,
Holm
,
P.B.
,
Starker
,
C.G.
,
Christian
,
M.
,
Voytas
,
D.F.
,
Brinch-Pedersen
,
H.
et al
(
2013
)
TAL effector nucleases induce mutations at a pre-selected location in the genome of primary barley transformants
.
Plant Mol. Biol.
83
,
279
285
60
Wang
,
M.
,
Liu
,
Y.
,
Zhang
,
C.
,
Liu
,
J.
,
Liu
,
X.
,
Wang
,
L.
et al
(
2015
)
Gene editing by co-transformation of TALEN and chimeric RNA/DNA oligonucleotides on the rice OsEPSPS gene and the inheritance of mutations
.
PLoS ONE
10
,
e0122755
61
Zhang
,
Y.
,
Zhang
,
F.
,
Li
,
X.
,
Baller
,
J.A.
,
Qi
,
Y.
,
Starker
,
C.G.
et al
(
2013
)
Transcription activator-like effector nucleases enable efficient plant genome engineering
.
Plant Physiol.
161
,
20
27
62
Budhagatapalli
,
N.
,
Rutten
,
T.
,
Gurushidze
,
M.
,
Kumlehn
,
J.
and
Hensel
,
G.
(
2015
)
Targeted modification of gene function exploiting homology-directed repair of TALEN-mediated double-strand breaks in barley
.
G3: Genes Genomes Genet.
5
,
1857
1863
63
Čermák
,
T.
,
Baltes
,
N.J.
,
Čegan
,
R.
,
Zhang
,
Y.
and
Voytas
,
D.F.
(
2015
)
High-frequency, precise modification of the tomato genome
.
Genome Biol.
16
,
232
64
Shan
,
Q.
,
Wang
,
Y.
,
Li
,
J.
,
Zhang
,
Y.
,
Chen
,
K.
,
Liang
,
Z.
et al
(
2013
)
Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system
.
Nat. Biotechnol.
31
,
686
688
65
Jinek
,
M.
,
Chylinski
,
K.
,
Fonfara
,
I.
,
Hauer
,
M.
,
Doudna
,
J.A.
and
Charpentier
,
E.
(
2012
)
A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA Endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity
.
Science
337
,
816
821
66
Zetsche
,
B.
,
Gootenberg
,
J.S.
,
Abudayyeh
,
O.O.
,
Slaymaker
,
I.M.
,
Makarova
,
K.S.
,
Essletzbichler
,
P.
et al
(
2015
)
Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system
.
Cell
163
,
759
771
67
Fonfara
,
I.
,
Richter
,
H.
,
Bratovič
,
M.
,
Le Rhun
,
A.
and
Charpentier
,
E.
(
2016
)
The CRISPR-associated DNA-cleaving enzyme Cpf1 also processes precursor CRISPR RNA
.
Nature
532
,
517
521
68
Dong
,
D.
,
Ren
,
K.
,
Qiu
,
X.
,
Zheng
,
J.
,
Guo
,
M.
,
Guan
,
X.
et al
(
2016
)
The crystal structure of Cpf1 in complex with CRISPR RNA
.
Nature
532
,
522
526
69
Miao
,
J.
,
Guo
,
D.
,
Zhang
,
J.
,
Huang
,
Q.
,
Qin
,
G.
,
Zhang
,
X.
et al
(
2013
)
Targeted mutagenesis in rice using CRISPR-Cas system
.
Cell Res.
23
,
1233
1236
70
Endo
,
A.
,
Masafumi
,
M.
,
Kaya
,
H.
and
Toki
,
S.
(
2016
)
Efficient targeted mutagenesis of rice and tobacco genomes using Cpf1 from Francisella novicida
.
Sci. Rep.
6
,
38169
71
Svitashev
,
S.
,
Young
,
J.K.
,
Schwartz
,
C.
,
Gao
,
H.R.
,
Falco
,
S.C.
and
Cigan
,
A.M.
(
2015
)
Targeted mutagenesis, precise gene editing, and site-specific gene insertion in maize using Cas9 and guide RNA
.
Plant Physiol.
169
,
931
945
72
Jacobs
,
T.B.
,
LaFayette
,
P.R.
,
Schmitz
,
R.J.
and
Parrott
,
W.A.
(
2015
)
Targeted genome modifications in soybean with CRISPR/Cas9
.
BMC Biotechnol.
15
,
16
73
Kim
,
H.
,
Kim
,
S.-T.
,
Ryu
,
J.
,
Kang
,
B.-C.
,
Kim
,
J.-S.
and
Kim
,
S.-G.
(
2017
)
CRISPR/Cpf1-mediated DNA-free plant genome editing
.
Nat. Commun.
8
,
14406
74
Feng
,
Z.
,
Mao
,
Y.
,
Xu
,
N.
,
Zhang
,
B.
,
Wei
,
P.
,
Yang
,
D.-L.
et al
(
2014
)
Multigeneration analysis reveals the inheritance, specificity, and patterns of CRISPR/Cas-induced gene modifications in Arabidopsis
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
111
,
4632
4637
75
Schiml
,
S.
,
Fauser
,
F.
and
Puchta
,
H.
(
2014
)
The CRISPR/Cas system can be used as nuclease for in planta gene targeting and as paired nickases for directed mutagenesis in Arabidopsis resulting in heritable progeny
.
Plant J.
80
,
1139
1150
76
Li
,
Z.
,
Liu
,
Z.-B.
,
Xing
,
A.
,
Moon
,
B.P.
,
Koellhoffer
,
J.P.
,
Huang
,
L.
et al
(
2015
)
Cas9-guide RNA directed genome editing in soybean
.
Plant Physiol.
169
,
960
970
77
Tebas
,
P.
,
Stein
,
D.
,
Tang
,
W.W.
,
Frank
,
I.
,
Wang
,
S.Q.
,
Lee
,
G.
et al
(
2014
)
Gene editing of CCR5 in autologous CD4 T cells of persons infected with HIV
.
N. Engl. J. Med.
370
,
901
910
78
Schinkel
,
H.
and
Schillberg
,
S.
(
2016
)
Genome editing: intellectual property and product development in plant biotechnology
.
Plant Cell Rep.
35
,
1487
1491
79
Benahmed-Miniuk
,
F.
,
Kresz
,
M.
,
Kanaujiya
,
J.K.
and
Southgate
,
C.D.
(
2017
)
Genome-editing technologies and patent landscape overview
.
Pharm Pat. Anal.
6
,
115
134
80
Altpeter
,
F.
,
Springer
,
N.M.
,
Bartley
,
L.E.
,
Blechl
,
A.E.
,
Brutnell
,
T.P.
,
Citovsky
,
V.
et al
(
2016
)
Advancing crop transformation in the era of genome editing
.
Plant Cell
28
,
1510
1520
81
Rong
,
Y.S.
and
Golic
,
K.G.
(
2000
)
Gene targeting by homologous recombination in Drosophila
.
Science
288
,
2013
2018
82
Rong
,
Y.S.
and
Golic
,
K.G.
(
2001
)
A targeted gene knockout in Drosophila
.
Genetics
157
,
1307
1312
PMID:
[PubMed]
83
Maggert
,
K.A.
,
Gong
,
W.J.
and
Golic
,
K.G.
(
2008
)
Methods for homologous recombination in Drosophila
.
Methods Mol. Biol.
420
,
155
174
84
Kumar
,
S.
and
Fladung
,
M.
(
2001
)
Controlling transgene integration in plants
.
Trends Plant Sci.
6
,
155
159
85
Fauser
,
F.
,
Roth
,
N.
,
Pacher
,
M.
,
Ilg
,
G.
,
Sanchez-Fernandez
,
R.
,
Biesgen
,
C.
et al
(
2012
)
In planta gene targeting
.
Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A.
109
,
7535
7540
86
Ayar
,
A.
,
Wehrkamp-Richter
,
S.
,
Laffaire
,
J.-B.
,
Le Goff
,
S.
,
Levy
,
J.
,
Chaignon
,
S.
et al
(
2013
)
Gene targeting in maize by somatic ectopic recombination
.
Plant Biotechnol. J.
11
,
305
314
87
Kumar
,
S.
,
Worden
,
A.
,
Novak
,
S.
,
Lee
,
R.
and
Petolino
,
J.F.
(
2016
)
A trait stacking system via intra-genomic homologous recombination
.
Planta
244
,
1157
1166
88
Kumar
,
S.
,
Barone
,
P.
and
Smith
,
M.
(
2016
)
Gene targeting and transgene stacking using intra genomic homologous recombination in plants
.
Plant Methods
12
,
11
89
Zhang
,
Y.
,
Liang
,
Z.
,
Zong
,
Y.
,
Wang
,
Y.
,
Liu
,
J.
,
Chen
,
K.
et al
(
2016
)
Efficient and transgene-free genome editing in wheat through transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 DNA or RNA
.
Nat. Commun.
7
,
12617
90
Gao
,
J.
,
Wang
,
G.
,
Ma
,
S.
,
Xie
,
X.
,
Wu
,
X.
,
Zhang
,
X.
et al
(
2015
)
CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in Nicotiana tabacum
.
Plant Mol. Biol.
87
,
99
110
91
Gao
,
H.R.
,
Smith
,
J.
,
Yang
,
M.
,
Jones
,
S.
,
Djukanovic
,
V.
,
Nicholson
,
M.G.
et al
(
2010
)
Heritable targeted mutagenesis in maize using a designed endonuclease
.
Plant J.
61
,
176
187
92
Gil-Humanes
,
J.
,
Wang
,
Y.
,
Liang
,
Z.
,
Shan
,
Q.
,
Ozuna
,
C.V.
,
Sánchez-León
,
S.
et al
(
2017
)
High-efficiency gene targeting in hexaploid wheat using DNA replicons and CRISPR/Cas9
.
Plant J.
89
,
1251
1262
93
Li
,
J.
,
Meng
,
X.
,
Zong
,
Y.
,
Chen
,
K.
,
Zhang
,
H.
,
Liu
,
J.
et al
(
2016
)
Gene replacements and insertions in rice by intron targeting using CRISPR–Cas9
.
Nat. Plants
2
,
16139