REVIEW ARTICLE
Application of CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing System to Reduce the Pre- and Post-Harvest Yield Losses in Cereals
Thumadath Palayullaparambil Ajeesh Krishna1, Theivanayagam Maharajan1, Stanislaus Antony Ceasar1, *
Article Information
Identifiers and Pagination:
Year: 2022Volume: 16
E-location ID: e187407072205190
Publisher ID: e187407072205190
DOI: 10.2174/18740707-v16-e2205190
Article History:
Received Date: 13/1/2022Revision Received Date: 18/2/2022
Acceptance Date: 25/3/2022
Electronic publication date: 18/07/2022
Collection year: 2022
open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode). This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Abstract
Cereals are an important source of food for millions of people across low-middle-income countries. Cereals are considered a staple food for poor people. The majority of the people are depending upon agricultural occupation. Agriculture provides a primary source of income for many farmers in low-middle-income countries. The pre- and post-harvest loss of crop yield affects farmers and is a major problem in achieving food security. Biotic and abiotic factors cause pre- and post-harvest loss of crop yield worldwide. It significantly affects the economic status of farmers as well as low-middle-income countries. Many advanced technologies are available for resolving the pre- and post-harvest loss of crop yield. The past few decades have seen remarkable progress in crop improvement. Especially high-throughput genome sequencing approaches contributed to advancement in the crop improvement. Genome-editing has also been considered a key tool for crop improvement. The clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) system has become a potent genome editing system for modifying key traits in cereal crops. CRISPR/Cas9 system offers new opportunities for addressing pre-and post-harvest constraints affecting cereal grain production and storage. In this review, we discuss the application of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system to reduce pre-and post-harvest yield loss in cereal crops. It may promote the economic status of farmers and reduce food demand in the coming decades.
1. INTRODUCTION
Cereals are the edible grains and belong to the grass family, Poaceae (Gramineae) [1]. It includes rice, maize, wheat, rye, sorghum, barley, oats, triticale, millets, etc. Cereals are the most important food and nutritional crops in the world [2]. Cereal crops can be consumed in different ways, which are used to make many healthy dishes for humans [3, 4]. Major crops such as rice, maize, and wheat provide more than 30% of the food calories to 4.5 billion people in developing countries [5]. Other cereals and non-cereal crops are also important for human health [6-9]. They have a significant role in food security. Global food and nutritional security depend upon sustainable cereal crop production. The agricultural sector provides a primary source of income for farmers in developing countries. It depends upon the production and marketing of crops. The pre- and post-harvest loss of crop yield is a major issue in the current scenario [10]. This makes debt a liability for farmers and also it leads to food demand in the future. Both biotic and abiotic stresses influence the pre-and post-harvest loss of crop yield. For example, drought stress may occur at the panicle emergence or grain filling or grain maturation time of the crop plants, which severely affects the loss of yield. Many researchers have reported that the incidence of drought at the pre-harvesting stage has significantly reduced the grain yield [11-13]. The unexpected rainfall also causes the pre-harvest sprouting of seeds in the mother plants. It is one of the serious issues for pre-harvest loss of yield. Pre-harvest sprouting not only makes a serious economic issue for farmers but also leads to reducing crop yield and quality [14]. The insect and pests also significantly affect the pre-harvest loss of crop yield [15]. After post-harvest, correct storage facilities of the grain are important to prevent yield loss due to pest attack, mould spoilage, grain sprouting, etc [16]. It is very difficult to store cereal crops on a large scale due to a lack of storage facilities. Reducing pre- and post-harvest yield loss could be a sustainable solution to reduce the food demand [17]. Various approaches to improving the crop traits and storage facilities, adopting better agronomic practices, etc. may help to reduce the pre- and post-harvest loss of yield. These are the most important approaches to increasing agricultural productivity.
In past, chemical-based insecticides, pesticides, fungicides, and other chemicals were used for increasing the shelf life and decreasing the yield loss of the crops [17-19]. It may lead to many health issues in human beings due to chemical toxicity [20-22]. The consumption of these crops is not good for human health. For example, chemical fumigants such as ethylene dibromide, methyl bromide, and ethylene oxide are very risky to human health and the environment [22]. These chemicals are widely used to control insect infestations in crops. Developing an improved crop variety with an increased shelf life of the yield is an important approach for reducing the pre- and post-harvest loss of yield. It is safe for human health and avoids environmental risks. Many advanced genomic approaches are available now for resolving this issue. Genome sequencing technology helps to understand the genome organization of crops [23-26]. It helps to improve crop traits through molecular breeding and genome-editing approaches [27, 28]. Clustered, regularly interspaced, short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) is a key genome editing system and is widely used for altering plant traits [29-32]. CRISPR/Cas9 system is applied in many crop plants and improves their traits under various biotic and abiotic stresses [33-38]. Researchers have adapted the CRISPR/Cas9 system as an efficient genome-editing technique in targeting the gene of interest for crop plants. It may also help to improve crop traits and reduce the pre- and post-harvest loss of yield. In this review, we discuss the application of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system to reduce pre-and post-harvest yield loss in cereal crops. This review will help researchers to understand the scope and application of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system in crop improvement, which may help reduce food demand in the coming decades.
2. OVERVIEW OF POST- AND PRE-HARVEST YIELD LOSS IN CEREAL CROP
The economy of the developing country is mainly dependent on agriculture. Agriculture is the backbone of developing countries, and also it is a leading occupation for people. Cereals are major food crops for developing countries and are providing food security. Global cereal production is around 2788 million tons per year [39]. Cereal grain production is constrained by both biotic and abiotic stresses [40-42]. During the pre- and post-harvest loss of crop yield due to biotic and abiotic stresses, the economic value of the crops is reduced or makes them unsuitable for human consumption. It may significantly affect the overall cereal production worldwide. For example, more than 70% of the African (sub-Saharan region) population is directly involved in agriculture [43]. The post-harvest loss of crop yield is estimated to be between 20 and 40% in the African region [44]. The post-harvest losses are valued at around the US $1.6 billion per year. Such economic losses are a combination of those which occur on the field during harvesting time, in storage, during post-harvest processing, and during other sales and marketing activities. Pre-harvest sprouting is a major issue in decreasing cereal production worldwide [45]. It also severely affects the quality of cereal crops such as rice, maize, wheat, barley, oats, rye, etc [46-49]. Pre-harvest sprouting causes an annual economic loss of one billion dollars on a global scale [50]. Crop yield loss from insects and pests’ infestation before harvest and during storage time are serious problems in developing countries [17, 51]. It is estimated that 30-40% of stored grain is damaged annually by insects and pests [52]. Other various biotic and abiotic factors are also severely affecting the pre and post-harvest loss of crop yield [53-57]. It leads to a decrease in the economy of a developing country. Reducing pre- and post-harvest loss of crop yield is a major research area in the current scenario. Agriculture scientists need to adopt new techniques to reduce pre-and post-harvest loss. It may improve the economic status of farmers as well as developing countries.
3. FACTORS AFFECTING THE PRE- AND POST-HARVEST YIELD LOSS IN CEREAL CROP
Crop production and productivity are influenced by various agro-ecological topography. Proper agricultural practices are critical for reducing yield loss. The reduction of crop yield is influenced by many factors. These factors are categorized into three such as 1) technological (agricultural practices, storage facilities, transportation, and marketing, etc), 2) biotic/ biological (insect, pest, disease, etc.), 3) abiotic/ environmental (drought, moisture, soil fertility, etc.). Biotic and abiotic factors are a major problem in the pre-and post-harvest loss of agricultural products (Fig. 1). Significant yield losses from both biotic and abiotic stresses have been reported by many researchers [58-62]. For example, abiotic stresses such as temperature, drought, and low soil fertility, cause up to 82% annual loss of crops yield worldwide [63]. A global survey indicated that insects and pests cause yield losses of up to 30% in crops [64]. Haque et al. [31] reported that pre-harvest yield losses due to diseases can be up to 15% in major food crops. The pathogenic micro-organism causes more than 42% yield losses and reduces 15% of global food production [65]. There is a huge impact of individual biotic and abiotic constraints reducing the crop yield and quality, which may lead to food demand in the coming decades. The main reasons for the pre-and post-harvest loss are 1) delay of grain maturation, 2) unexpected rainfall, 3) grain shedding, 4) insect and pest attack during grain development, and 5) storage pest damage, etc. Effective agriculture practices are essential for reducing the loss of yield at the time of pre-and post-harvest stages.
In abiotic stress, moisture, temperature, and drought are the main factors affecting crop production, which is highly influenced by the pre- and post-harvest loss of grain yield. Pre-harvest sprouting has been recognized as one of the main factors that reduce the production and quality of crops [66]. It is due to the incidence of moisture contents before harvest. Pre-harvest sprouting issues have been reported in rice, maize, wheat, barley, etc [67-73]. The accumulation of high moisture content in the grains also leads to fungal infections [53, 74, 75]. This also reduces the quality of the crop and makes it unfit for human consumption. Optimum temperature is necessary for harvesting and storage. Proper temperature is very effective for maintaining crop quality. The drought stress mainly decreases the harvest index and delays the seed maturation of the crops [76]. The insect and pests are the main factors for biotic stresses, which significantly affect the pre-and post-harvest loss of crop yield. The insect and pest infestations reduced crop yield in rice maize, wheat, barley, oats, etc. during the pre-and post-harvest periods [77-82]. The post-harvest crop loss occurs from harvest to human consumption due to both biotic and abiotic factors. Scientists need to resolve this problem permanently through advanced crop breeding. It may help to develop a new tolerant variety to both biotic and abiotic factors and reduce yield loss.
 |
Fig. (1). Major biotic and abiotic factors involved in the pre-and post-harvest yield loss in cereal crops. Both biotic (fungus, bacteria, stored pest, insect, and pest) and abiotic (cold, water, drought, and temperature) stress factors significantly reduce the crop yield and quality and make it unsuitable for human consumption. |
4. OVERVIEW OF CRISPR/CAS9 FOR CROP IMPROVEMENT
Gene editing uses engineered site-specific nucleases to remove, insert, or mutate a DNA sequence [83]. It is a recent tool used for crop breeding. Conventional breeding by genetic recombination or random mutagenesis is a time-consuming process. The advent of site-specific nucleases has highlighted the importance of site-directed mutagenesis over random mutagenesis [84]. It is very effective for improving the desirable traits of the crops. Advanced genome-editing techniques like zinc finger nuclease (ZFNs), transcriptional activator-like effect or nuclease (TALENs), and CRISPR/Cas9 offer platforms for transgene-free genome-editing and precisely target any gene of interest [85]. Among the genome editing techniques, CRISPR/Cas9 requires only a small piece of RNA (gRNA) to target any gene of interest [86]. It is a very efficient genome-editing system that improves crop traits under both biotic and abiotic stresses. The CRISPR/Cas9 system has been applied in many crop plants [87, 88]. The application of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in cereal crops was highlighted by Hillary and Ceasar [32]. The CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing system paved the way for a nucleotide excision (remove, insert, or mutate) mechanism for crop improvement. It has high efficiency and accuracy which is highly helpful for crop improvement [89]. Genome-editing system like CRISPR/Cas9 has been considered to be a potential tool for crop improvement. In the last few years, developments in CRISPR/Cas9 system are spectacular and widely applied for target mutagenesis in crops, including gene knock-out and knock-in, modification, and suppression of target genes [88]. Despite the significant advances in CRISPR/Cas9 system, numerous limitations and concerns still exist, such as off-target mutations, indel mutations, and the absence of PAM sequence in the chosen gene loci [90]. These demerits bring concerns to the regulatory bodies, consumers, and the farmers to utilize CRISPR/Cas9 edited crops [91]. However, a variety of CRISPR-based systems (variants such as Cas12, Cas13, and Cas14, base editing, prime editing) are now in the row, which would serve as alternatives to Cas9 [92-96]. These advancements in CRISPR-based systems would definitely reduce the pre-and post-harvest yield loss in cereal crops and strengthen food security in the future.
5. APPLICATION OF CRISPR/CAS9 TO REDUCE PRE-AND POST-HARVEST YIELD LOSS
Cereals are the primary source of calories and nutrients and serve as a staple food for millions of people in developing countries. The pre-and post-harvest loss of crops is a serious issue for farmers to meet food production. The CRISPR/Cas9 system promises the rapid development of new varieties of crops with enhanced traits. The CRISPR-Cas9 genome-editing system has been successfully used to develop biotic and abiotic stress-resistant plants (Fig. 2).The various approaches for the reduction in pre-and post-harvesting loss of yield using the CRISPR/Cas9 system are discussed below.
 |
Fig. (2). Crop improvement through CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing. The CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing system has allowed the development of biotic and abiotic stress-resistant crop varieties either by knock-in of resistant genes or knock-out of susceptible genes. |
5.1. Reduction of Pre-Harvest Yield Loss by CRISPR/Cas9 System
Pre-harvest sprouting is a major problem in cereal crops. The moisture and temperature raise grain susceptibility to pre-harvest sprouting. The phytohormones like abscisic acid (ABA) and gibberellic acid (GA) are involved in seed germination and dormancy in many plants [97, 98]. These phytohormones have multi-functional properties. For example, the ABA is one of the multi-functional phytohormones, it is involved in many stress-induced responses. It has been shown that ABA plays a crucial role in regulating plant adaptation to various biotic and abiotic stresses, as ABA can trigger extensive changes in the transcriptome to help plants respond to environmental stresses [99-102]. The biosynthesis of these phytohormones is regulated by many genes. The knock-out or knock-in of target genes related to the biosynthesis of phytohormones will help reduce pre-harvest sprouting in cereal crops (Table 1). For example, OsABA2 gene codes for zeaxanthin epoxidase in rice which is involved in ABA biosynthesis [103]. Knock-out of the OsABA2 gene using the CRISPR/Cas9 system showed altered seed dormancy and germination in rice [104]. It may help to reduce yield losses in rice due to pre-harvest sprouting. The MOTHER OF FT AND TFL (MFT) gene is also involved in the regulation of ABA signaling-mediated seed germination. The OsMFT2 knock-out lines exhibited pre-harvest sprouting in rice, whereas pre-harvest sprouting did not exhibit in wild-type and OsMFT2 overexpression lines [105]. These results have given the insight into reducing the loss of pre-harvest sprouting in rice through the knock-in of OsMF2 genes through the CRISPR/Cas9 system in the future. The CRISPR/Cas9 system could be used to introduce desirable traits and reduce yield loss in crops. The qSH1 is an important gene associated with seed shattering in rice [106]. The knock-out of the qSH1 gene using the CRISPR/Cas9 system showed reduced grain shattering in rice [106]. Konishi et al. [107] reported that the loss of function of qSH1 gene in rice significantly improved strong seed shattering, which helps to improve the crops production. Many genes such as shattering abortion1 (SHAT1), shattering4 (SH4), growth-regulating factor 4 (GRF4), etc. have been identified in rice and they are responsible for rice grain shattering [108-110]. The CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing system has allowed to improve the crop yield either by knock-in of resistant genes or knock-out of susceptible genes. The CRISPR-Cas9 system was used to mutate the salt and drought tolerance (DST) gene in rice [111]. Santosh et al. [111] revealed that the dst mutant lines improved salt and drought tolerance as well as grain yield in rice. Application of CRISPR/Cas system targeting these genes may help to improve the pre-harvest loss in cereals.
Table 1. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 system to reduce the pre-and post-harvest yield loss in major cereal crops. Details on the name of the cereal crop, type of study, target gene, gene function, and observation are given.
| Name of the Crop | Type of Study | Target Gene | Functions/Description of Gene | Observation | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rice | Knock-out | qSH1 | Susceptible to seed shattering | Reduced the seed shattering | [106] |
| Rice | Knock-out | MFT2 | Susceptible to sprouting | Reduced the post-harvest sprouting | [105] |
| Rice | Knock-out | VP1and Sdr4 | Tolerance to sprouting | Increased the post-harvest sprouting | [98] |
| Rice | Knock-out | ABA2 | Involved in ABA biosynthesis pathway | Enhanced the disease resistance and altered seed dormancy | [104] |
| Rice | Mutation | Gn1a and DEP1 | Gene related to yield | Increased the grain yield | [132] |
| Rice | Knock-out | PHS9 | Susceptible to sprouting | Increased the pre-harvest sprouting | [133] |
| Rice | Mutation | SD1 | Tolerance to lodging | Increased the resistance to lodging | [134] |
| Rice | Mutation | DST | Tolerance to abiotic stress | Increased the tolerance to salt and drought stress | [111] |
| Rice | Mutation | SAPK2 | Tolerance to drought | Increased the tolerance to drought stress | [135] |
| Rice | Knock-out | Ann3 | Tolerance to cold | Increased the tolerance to cold stress | [136] |
| Rice | Knock-out | SWEET13 | Susceptible to blight disease and involved in sugar synthesis | Increased the resistance to bacterial blight disease | [113] |
| Rice | Mutation | ERF922 | Tolerance to pathogenicity | Increased the resistance to pathogenicity | [118] |
| Rice | Mutation | SEC3A | Tolerance to blight disease | Increased the resistance to blight disease | [137] |
| Rice | Knock-down | CYP71A1 | Involved in biosynthesis of serotonin | Increased the resistance to brown plant hopper | [122] |
| Wheat | Knock-out | MLO | Susceptible to powdery mildew | Increased the resistance to powdery mildew |
[114] |
| Wheat | Knock-out | EDR1 | Susceptible to powdery mildew | Increased the resistance to powdery mildew |
[117] |
The CRISPR/Cas9 system was also successfully applied in biotic stress management in cereal crops (Table 1). Pre-harvest yield losses due to diseases can be up to 15% in major food crops [31]. Bacterial blight is a major disease (caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. Oryzae) that constrains rice production in Asia [112]. The knock-out of the OsSWEET13 gene using the CRISPR/Cas9 system showed improved resistance to bacterial blight disease in rice [113]. The knock-out of OsSWEET13 reduces the sugar availability within the xylem vessels and prevents bacterial colonization in rice. This may help to reduce the crop yield losses due to bacterial blight disease. The fungus is responsible for multiple diseases including mildew, rot, rust, and smut, which can cause huge yield loss in crops. The mildew-resistance locus (MLO) is one of the susceptible genes to powdery mildew in wheat. Knock-out of mildew-resistance locus (TaMLO) gene using the CRISPR/Cas9 system showed resistance to powdery mildew disease in wheat [114]. As per a very recent breakthrough study, TaMLO-R32 mutant lines created by a multiplex CRISPR system maintain the normal growth and yields as well as confer resistance to powdery mildew disease in wheat [115]. Editing of MLO gene in wheat may provide the opportunity to breed varieties with improved grain yield [114, 116]. CRISPR/Cas9 system-mediated knock-out of enhanced disease resistance1 (EDR1) resulted in enhanced resistance in wheat to powdery mildew caused by Blumeria graminis [117]. In rice, the knock-out of the ethylene-responsive factors 922 (ERF922) gene by the CRISPR/Cas9 system showed improved resistance to pathogenicity [118]. The CRISPR/Cas9 system is very useful for the functional characterization of target genes. So far, many biotic and abiotic stress-responsive genes have been identified in crops. Most of the genes are very helpful for reducing the pre-harvest loss of grain yield. The knock-out or knock-in of stress-responsive genes through the CRISPR/Cas9 system could help develop improved crop variety. It may improve the economic status of farmers and reduce the food demand in the coming decades.
5.2. Reduction of Post-Harvest Yield Loss by CRISPR/Cas9 System
Insects and pests mainly affect post-harvest yield loss in cereals. Improving the quality of the grains could help develop resistance against the damage caused by insects and pests. The CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing system has allowed the development of new insect-pest resistant crop varieties by either knock-in insect-pest resistant genes or knock-out of susceptible genes (Fig. 2). The chemical and physical properties of grains are responsible for defense mechanisms against insect-pest damage [119, 120]. The chemical composition of grain cell walls, the color of the testa,, glume and grain phenol content, etc. contribute to grain insect-pest attack as well as mold resistance [121]. Alteration of grain components could be effective for reducing the post-harvest loss of grain yield. These strategies maybe effectively utilized in the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing for insect-pest control. For example, the inactivated CYP71A1 gene prevents serotonin biosynthesis and increases the salicylic acid content in plants, which helps to improve insect-resistant and prevent yield losses [122]. CYP71A1 knock-out mutants prevented serotonin synthesis and conferred disease-resistance in rice [123]. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knock-down of CYP71A1 gene in rice showed resistance to brown planthopper [122]. So far, many insect-pest resistant genes have been identified in crop plants [124, 125]. Genome-editing in insect-pest with CRISPR/Cas9 system has been recognized as a potential tool for insect-pest control [126]. The CRISPR/Cas9 system-mediated knock-out of various genes of insect-pest such as Spodoptera litura [127, 128], Spodoptera littoralis [129], Helicoverpa armigera [130], and Plutella xylostella [131] helped to protect the plants from insect damage. CRISPR/Cas9 system has great prospects in controlling agricultural insects and pests (Table 1).
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE PROSPECTS
The economy of the developing country is mainly dependent on agriculture and the large-scale production of crops. Pre-and post-harvest loss is a major issue in the agriculture sector. Both biotic and abiotic factors influence crop production. The agricultural management and adequate storage facilities cannot reduce the pre-and post-harvest yield loss. It is not effective in the long term due to current societal and climatic changes. Developing crop varieties with increased shelf life is an important approach in reducing the pre- and post-harvest loss of yield. Many advanced approaches are available for crop improvement. Genome-editing is one of the most important solutions for crop improvement. It helps to alter the desirable traits of the crops. It is a long-term solution for reducing pre-and post-harvest yield loss. In the current scenario, transgenic-free crops are safe for human health. The CRISPR/Cas9 system offers a precise transgene-free genome-editing approach. This approach offers new opportunities for addressing pre-and post-harvest loss of crop yield. It is widely used for improving crop traits. The CRISPR/Cas9 system is an asset for crop improvement. It can help to reduce yield loss and strengthen food security in the future.
AUTHORS' CONTRIBUTIONS
TPAK, TM, and SAC conceptualized and wrote the manuscript. SAC critically revised the manuscript for publication.
CONSENT FOR PUBLICATION
Not applicable.
FUNDING
This work was financially supported by Rajagiri College of Social Sciences (Autonomous), Kerala, India, under Seed Money for Faculty Minor Research.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The author declares no conflict of interest, financial or otherwise.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We sincerely thank Rajagiri College of Social Sciences, Kochi, Kerala, for providing the research facilities and support.
REFERENCES
| [1] | Barak S. Cereal-based beverages 2018; 73-89. |
| [2] | Awika JM. Major cereal grains production and use around the world.Advances in cereal science: Implications to food processing and health promotion 2011; 1-13. |
| [3] | Saleh ASM, Zhang Q, Chen J, Shen Q. Millet grains: Nutritional quality, processing, and potential health benefits. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2013; 12(3): 281-95. |
| [4] | Blandino A, Al-Aseeri ME, Pandiella SS, Cantero D, Webb C. Cereal-based fermented foods and beverages. Food Res Int 2003; 36(6): 527-43. |
| [5] | Shiferaw B, Prasanna BM, Hellin J, Bänziger M. Crops that feed the world 6. Past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security. Food Secur 2011; 3(3): 307-27. |
| [6] | Gong L, Cao W, Chi H, et al. Whole cereal grains and potential health effects: Involvement of the gut microbiota. Food Res Int 2018; 103(103): 84-102. |
| [7] | Filipčev B, Kojić J, Krulj J, Bodroža-Solarov M, Ilić N. Betaine in cereal grains and grain-based products. Foods 2018; 7(4): 49. |
| [8] | Luithui Y, Baghya Nisha R, Meera MS. Cereal by-products as an important functional ingredient: Effect of processing. J Food Sci Technol 2019; 56(1): 1-11. |
| [9] | Mughal M, Fontan Sers C. Cereal production, undernourishment, and food insecurity in South Asia. Rev Dev Econ 2020; 24(2): 524-45. |
| [10] | Singh JM, Grover DK, Singh P. Pre, and post-harvest losses: Farm level estimates for paddy cultivation in Punjab. ORYZA-An Int J Rice 2015; (52): 65-74. |
| [11] | Sotchenko VS, Panfilov AE, Gorbacheva AG, et al. Genotype and the environment influence on the rate of grain moisture loss in corn during the ripening period. Sh Biol 2021; 56(1): 54-65. |
| [12] | Kamara AY, Menkir A, Badu-Apraku B, Ibikunle O. The influence of drought stress on growth, yield and yield components of selected maize genotypes. J Agric Sci 2003; 141(1): 43-50. |
| [13] | Lafitte H, Yongsheng G, Yan S, Li Z-K. Whole plant responses, key processes, and adaptation to drought stress: The case of rice. J Exp Bot 2006; 58(2): 169-75. |
| [14] | Jang SG, Lar SM, Zhang H, et al. Detection of whole-genome resequencing-based QTLs associated with pre-harvest sprouting in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Plant Breed Biotechnol 2020; 8(4): 396-404. |
| [15] | Mondal D, Ghosh A, Roy D, et al. Yield loss assessment of rice (Oryza Sativa L.) due to different biotic stresses under the system of rice intensification (SRI). J Entomol Zool Stud 2017; (5): 1974-80. |
| [16] | McKevith B. Nutritional aspects of cereals. Nutr Bull 2004; 29(2): 111-42. |
| [17] | Kumar D, Kalita P. Reducing postharvest losses during storage of grain crops to strengthen food security in developing countries. Foods 2017; 6(1): 8. |
| [18] | Ma L, Zhang M, Bhandari B, Gao Z. Recent developments in novel shelf life extension technologies of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables. Trends Food Sci Technol 2017; 64(64): 23-38. |
| [19] | Sheahan M, Barrett CB. Food loss and waste in Sub-Saharan Africa: A critical review. Food Policy 2017; (70): 1-12. |
| [20] | Yadav IC, Devi NL. Pesticides classification and its impact on humans and the environment. Environ Sci Eng 2017; (6): 140-58. |
| [21] | Terziev V, Petkova-Georgieva S. The pesticides toxic impact on the human health condition and the ecosystem. SSRN Electronic Journal 2019; 15(5): 1314-20. |
| [22] | Thomas P. Control of post-harvest loss of grain, fruits, and vegetables by radiation processing.Irradiation for food safety and quality 2020; 93-102. |
| [23] | Unamba CIN, Nag A, Sharma RK. Next generation sequencing technologies: The doorway to the unexplored genomics of non-model plants. Front Plant Sci 2015; 6(6): 1074. |
| [24] | Tao Y, Zhao X, Mace E, Henry R, Jordan D. Exploring and exploiting pan-genomics for crop improvement. Mol Plant 2019; 12(2): 156-69. |
| [25] | Peng R, Jones DC, Liu F, Zhang B. From sequencing to genome editing for cotton improvement. Trends Biotechnol 2021; 39(3): 221-4. |
| [26] | Bevan MW, Uauy C, Wulff BBH, Zhou J, Krasileva K, Clark MD. Genomic innovation for crop improvement. Nature 2017; 543(7645): 346-54. |
| [27] | Ajeesh Krishna TP, Maharajan T, Ignacimuthu S, Antony Ceasar S. Genomic-assisted breeding in finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.) for abiotic stress tolerance.Genomic designing for abiotic stress resistant cereal crops 2021; 291-317. |
| [28] | Ceasar A. Genome-editing in millets: Current knowledge and future perspectives. Mol Biol Rep 2021; 1-9. |
| [29] | Ceasar SA, Rajan V, Prykhozhij SV, Berman JN, Ignacimuthu S. Insert, remove or replace: A highly advanced genome editing system using CRISPR/Cas9. Biochim Biophys Acta Mol Cell Res 2016; 1863(9): 2333-44. |
| [30] | Bortesi L, Fischer R. The CRISPR/Cas9 system for plant genome editing and beyond. Biotechnol Adv 2015; 33(1): 41-52. |
| [31] | Haque E, Taniguchi H, Hassan MM, et al. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing technology for the improvement of crops cultivated in tropical climates: Recent progress, prospects, and challenges. Front Plant Sci 2018; 9(9): 617. |
| [32] | Hillary VE, Ceasar SA. Application of CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing System in Cereal Crops. Open Biotechnol J 2019; 13(1): 173-9. |
| [33] | Zeng Y, Wen J, Zhao W, Wang Q, Huang W. Rational improvement of Rice yield and cold tolerance by editing the three genes OsPIN5b, GS3, and OsMYB30 with the CRISPR–Cas9 system. Front Plant Sci 2020; 10(10): 1663. |
| [34] | Zhou H, He M, Li J, et al. Development of commercial thermo-sensitive genic male sterile rice accelerates hybrid rice breeding using the CRISPR/Cas9-mediated TMS5 editing system. Sci Rep 2016; 6(1): 37395. |
| [35] | Zhang A, Liu Y, Wang F, et al. Enhanced rice salinity tolerance via CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the OsRR22 gene. Mol Breed 2019; 39(3): 47. |
| [36] | Shi J, Gao H, Wang H, et al. ARGOS8 variants generated by CRISPR-Cas9 improve maize grain yield under field drought stress conditions. Plant Biotechnol J 2017; 15(2): 207-16. |
| [37] | Li J, Wang Z, He G, Ma L, Deng XW. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated disruption of TaNP1 genes results in complete male sterility in bread wheat. J Genet Genomics 2020; 47(5): 263-72. |
| [38] | Zhang Z, Hua L, Gupta A, et al. Development of an Agrobacterium delivered CRISPR /Cas9 system for wheat genome editing. Plant Biotechnol J 2019; 17(8): 1623-35. |
| [39] | Supply FAOC, Brief D. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2020.http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/ru/ |
| [40] | Fahad S, Adnan M, Noor M, et al. Major constraints for global rice production.Advances in rice research for abiotic stress tolerance 2019; 1-22. |
| [41] | Badu-Apraku B, Fakorede MAB. Maize in sub-Saharan Africa: Importance and production constraints.Advances in genetic enhancement of early and extra-early maize for sub-Saharan Africa 2017; 3-10. |
| [42] | Kosina P, Reynolds M, Dixon J, Joshi A. Stakeholder perception of wheat production constraints, capacity building needs, and research partnerships in developing countries. Euphytica 2007; 157(3): 475-83. |
| [43] | Abass AB, Ndunguru G, Mamiro P, Alenkhe B, Mlingi N, Bekunda M. Post-harvest food losses in a maize-based farming system of semi-arid savannah area of Tanzania. J Stored Prod Res 2014; 57(57): 49-57. |
| [44] | Zorya S, Morgan N, Diaz Rios L, et al. Missing food: the case of postharvest grain losses in sub-Saharan Africa 2011.http://gala.gre.ac.uk/id/eprint/10385 |
| [45] | Sohn SI, Pandian S, Kumar TS, et al. Seed dormancy and pre-harvest sprouting in rice-An updated overview. Int J Mol Sci 2021; 22(21): 11804. |
| [46] | Tuan PA, Kumar R, Rehal PK, et al. Molecular mechanisms underlying abscisic acid/gibberellin balance in the control of seed dormancy and germination in cereals. Front Plant Sci 2018; (9): 668. |
| [47] | Fang J, Chai C, Qian Q, et al. Mutations of genes in synthesis of the carotenoid precursors of ABA lead to pre-harvest sprouting and photo-oxidation in rice. Plant J 2008; 54(2): 177-89. |
| [48] | Olaerts H, Courtin CM. Impact of preharvest sprouting on endogenous hydrolases and technological quality of wheat and bread: A review. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf 2018; 17(3): 698-713. |
| [49] | Ali A, Cao J, Jiang H, et al. Unraveling molecular and genetic studies of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) resistance against factors causing pre-harvest sprouting. Agronomy (Basel) 2019; 9(3): 117. |
| [50] | Tai L, Wang H-J, Xu X-J, et al. Cereal pre-harvest sprouting: A global agricultural disaster regulated by complex genetic and biochemical mechanisms. J Exp Bot 2021; 72(8): 2857-76. |
| [51] | Alavi HR. Trusting trade and the private sector for food security in Southeast Asia 2011. |
| [52] | Gebremdein MB. Varietal screening for resistance against field and storage crop pests: An implication for Ethiopian crop variety development. J Plant Breed Crop Sci 2018; (10): 203-9. |
| [53] | Magan N, Hope R, Cairns V, Aldred D. Post-harvest fungal ecology: Impact of fungal growth and mycotoxin-accumulation in stored grain.Epidemiology of mycotoxin producing fungi 2003; 723-30. |
| [54] | Swai J, Mbega ER, Mushongi A, Ndakidemi PA. Post-harvest losses in maize store-time and marketing model perspectives in Sub-Saharan Africa. J Stored Prod Postharvest Res 2019; (10): 1-12. |
| [55] | Bordoloi J. Assessment of pre and post-harvest losses of paddy and wheat in Assam 2013. |
| [56] | Kannan E, Kumar P, Vishnu K, Abraham H. Assessment of pre and post-harvest losses of rice and red gram in Karnataka. Crops 2013; (44): 61-70. |
| [57] | Tadesse A, Ayalew A, Getu E, Tefera T. Review of research on post-harvest pests. Increasing Crop Prod through Improv plant Prot 2006; (2): 475-563. |
| [58] | Ahmad M, Ali Q, Hafeez MM, Malik A. Improvement for biotic and abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Biol Clin Sci Res J 2021; 2021(1): 1-9. |
| [59] | Rasheed R, Ashraf MA, Iqbal M, et al. Major constraints for global rice production: Changing climate, abiotic and biotic stresses.Rice research for quality improvement: Genomics and Genetic Engineering 2020; 15-45. |
| [60] | Haggag WM, Abouziena HF, Abd-El-Kreem F, El Habbasha S. Agriculture biotechnology for management of multiple biotic and abiotic environmental stress in crops. J Chem Pharm Res 2015; (7): 882-9. |
| [61] | Afzal F, Chaudhari SK, Gul A, et al. Bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) under biotic and abiotic stresses: An overview. Crop Prod Glob Environ issues 2015; 293-317. |
| [62] | Baillo EH, Kimotho RN, Zhang Z, Xu P. Transcription factors associated with abiotic and biotic stress tolerance and their potential for crops improvement. Genes (Basel) 2019; 10(10): 771. |
| [63] | Oshunsanya SO, Nwosu NJ, Li Y. Abiotic stress in agricultural crops under climatic conditions.Sustainable agriculture, forest, and environmental management 2019; 71-100. |
| [64] | Savary S, Willocquet L, Pethybridge SJ, Esker P, McRoberts N, Nelson A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat Ecol Evol 2019; 3(3): 430-9. |
| [65] | Oerke EC. Crop losses to pests. J Agric Sci 2006; 144(1): 31-43. |
| [66] | Gao X, Hu CH, Li HZ, et al. Factors affecting pre-harvest sprouting resistance in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): A review. J Anim Plant Sci 2013; (23): 556-65. |
| [67] | Lee JS, Chebotarov D, McNally KL, et al. Novel sources of pre-harvest sprouting resistance for japonica rice improvement. Plants 2021; 10(8): 1709. |
| [68] | Li C, Ni P, Francki M, et al. Genes controlling seed dormancy and pre-harvest sprouting in a rice-wheat-barley comparison. Funct Integr Genomics 2004; 4(2): 84-93. |
| [69] | Fang J, Chu C. Abscisic acid and the pre-harvest sprouting in cereals. Plant Signal Behav 2008; 3(12): 1046-8. |
| [70] | Kang S, Shon J, Kim HS, et al. Analysis of genetic variation in pre-harvest sprouting at different cumulative temperatures after heading of rice. Hangug Jagmul Haghoeji 2018; 63: 8-17. |
| [71] | Carrari F, Perez-Flores L, Lijavetzky D, et al. Cloning and expression of a sorghum gene with homology to maize vp1. Its potential involvement in pre-harvest sprouting resistance. Plant Mol Biol 2001; 45(6): 631-40. |
| [72] | King RW, Richards RA. Water uptake in relation to pre-harvest sprouting damage in wheat: Ear characteristics. Aust J Agric Res 1984; 35(3): 327-36. |
| [73] | Lin R, Horsley RD, Schwarz PB. Associations between caryopsis dormancy, α-amylase activity, and pre-harvest sprouting in barley. J Cereal Sci 2008; 48(2): 446-56. |
| [74] | Janardhana GR, Raveesha KA, Shetty HS. Mycotoxin contamination of maize grains grown in Karnataka (India). Food Chem Toxicol 1999; 37(8): 863-8. |
| [75] | Magan N, Aldred D. Post-harvest control strategies: Minimizing mycotoxins in the food chain. Int J Food Microbiol 2007; 119(1-2): 131-9. |
| [76] | Venuprasad R, Bool ME, Dalid CO, Bernier J, Kumar A, Atlin GN. Genetic loci responding to two cycles of divergent selection for grain yield under drought stress in a rice breeding population. Euphytica 2009; 167(2): 261-9. |
| [77] | Sinha JP, Jha S, Atwal SS, Sinha SN. Post-harvest management of paddy seed. Indian Agric Res Inst Reg Station Karnal 2010; 1: 35-6. |
| [78] | Savary S, Willocquet L, Elazegui FA, Castilla NP, Teng PS. Rice pest constraints in tropical Asia: quantification of yield losses due to rice pests in a range of production situations. Plant Dis 2000; 84(3): 357-69. |
| [79] | De Groote H. Maize yield losses from stem borers in Kenya. Int J Trop Insect Sci 2002; 22(2): 89-96. |
| [80] | Hagstrum DW, Reed C, Kenkel P. Management of stored wheat insect pests in the USA. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 1999; 4(2): 127-43. |
| [81] | Lindblad M. Development and evaluation of a logistic risk model: Predicting frit fly infestation in oats. Ecol Appl 2001; 11(5): 1563-72. |
| [82] | Stejskal V, Aulicky R, Kucerova Z. Pest control strategies and damage potential of seed-infesting pests in the Czech stores – A review. Plant Prot Sci 2014; 50(4): 165-73. |
| [83] | Jasin M, Haber JE. The democratization of gene editing: Insights from site-specific cleavage and double-strand break repair. DNA Repair (Amst) 2016; 44: 6-16. |
| [84] | Svitashev S, Young JK, Schwartz C, Gao H, Falco SC, Cigan AM. Targeted mutagenesis, precise gene editing, and site-specific gene insertion in maize using Cas9 and guide RNA. Plant Physiol 2015; 169(2): 931-45. |
| [85] | Demirci Y, Zhang B, Unver T. CRISPR/Cas9: An RNA-guided highly precise synthetic tool for plant genome editing. J Cell Physiol 2018; 233(3): 1844-59. |
| [86] | Zhang F, Wen Y, Guo X. CRISPR/Cas9 for genome editing: Progress, implications and challenges. Hum Mol Genet 2014; 23(R1): R40-6. |
| [87] | Bao A, Burritt DJ, Chen H, Zhou X, Cao D, Tran LSP. The CRISPR/Cas9 system and its applications in crop genome editing. Crit Rev Biotechnol 2019; 39(3): 321-36. |
| [88] | Arora L, Narula A. Gene editing and crop improvement using CRISPR-Cas9 system. Front Plant Sci 2017; 8: 1932. |
| [89] | Hajiahmadi Z, Movahedi A, Wei H, et al. Strategies to increase on-target and reduce off-target effects of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in plants. Int J Mol Sci 2019; 20(15): 3719. |
| [90] | Zong Y, Wang Y, Li C, et al. Precise base editing in rice, wheat and maize with a Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusion. Nat Biotechnol 2017; 35(5): 438-40. |
| [91] | Krishna TPA, Maharajan T, Ceasar SA. The role of membrane transporters in the biofortification of zinc and iron in plants. Biol Trace Elem Res 2022; 3: 1-15. |
| [92] | Gaudelli NM, Komor AC, Rees HA, et al. Programmable base editing of A•T to G•C in genomic DNA without DNA cleavage. Nature 2017; 551(7681): 464-71. |
| [93] | Kim YB, Komor AC, Levy JM, Packer MS, Zhao KT, Liu DR. Increasing the genome-targeting scope and precision of base editing with engineered Cas9-cytidine deaminase fusions. Nat Biotechnol 2017; 35(4): 371-6. |
| [94] | Zetsche B, Gootenberg JS, Abudayyeh OO, et al. Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system. Cell 2015; 163(3): 759-71. |
| [95] | Anzalone AV, Randolph PB, Davis JR, et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature 2019; 576(7785): 149-57. |
| [96] | Harrington LB, Burstein D, Chen JS, et al. Programmed DNA destruction by miniature CRISPR-Cas14 enzymes. Science 2018; 362(6416): 839-42. |
| [97] | Finkelstein R, Reeves W, Ariizumi T, Steber C. Molecular aspects of seed dormancy. Annu Rev Plant Biol 2008; 59(1): 387-415. |
| [98] | Chen W, Wang W, Lyu Y, et al. OsVP1 activates Sdr4 expression to control rice seed dormancy via the ABA signaling pathway. Crop J 2021; 9(1): 68-78. |
| [99] | Chong L, Guo P, Zhu Y. Mediator complex: A pivotal regulator of ABA signaling pathway and abiotic stress response in plants. Int J Mol Sci 2020; 21(20): 7755. |
| [100] | Khan N, Bano A, Ali S, Babar MA. Crosstalk amongst phytohormones from planta and PGPR under biotic and abiotic stresses. Plant Growth Regul 2020; 90(2): 189-203. |
| [101] | Denancé N, Sánchez-Vallet A, Goffner D, Molina A. Disease resistance or growth: The role of plant hormones in balancing immune responses and fitness costs. Front Plant Sci 2013; 4: 155. |
| [102] | Sharma E, Borah P, Kaur A, et al. A comprehensive transcriptome analysis of contrasting rice cultivars highlights the role of auxin and ABA responsive genes in heat stress response. Genomics 2021; 113(3): 1247-61. |
| [103] | Agrawal GK, Yamazaki M, Kobayashi M, Hirochika R, Miyao A, Hirochika H. Screening of the rice viviparous mutants generated by endogenous retrotransposon Tos17 insertion. Tagging of a zeaxanthin epoxidase gene and a novel ostatc gene. Plant Physiol 2001; 125(3): 1248-57. |
| [104] | Liao Y, Bai Q, Xu P, et al. Mutation in rice Abscisic Acid2 results in cell death, enhanced disease-resistance, altered seed dormancy and development. Front Plant Sci 2018; 9: 405. |
| [105] | Song S, Wang G, Wu H, et al. OsMFT2 is involved in the regulation of ABA signaling-mediated seed germination through interacting with OsbZIP23/66/72 in rice. Plant J 2020; 103(2): 532-46. |
| [106] | Sheng X, Sun Z, Wang X, et al. Improvement of the rice “easy-to-shatter” trait via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of the qSH1 gene. Front Plant Sci 2020; 11: 619. |
| [107] | Konishi S, Izawa T, Lin SY, et al. An SNP caused loss of seed shattering during rice domestication. Science 2006; 312(5778): 1392-6. |
| [108] | Zhou Y, Lu D, Li C, et al. Genetic control of seed shattering in rice by the APETALA2 transcription factor shattering abortion1. Plant Cell 2012; 24(3): 1034-48. |
| [109] | Lin Z, Griffith ME, Li X, et al. Origin of seed shattering in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Planta 2007; 226(1): 11-20. |
| [110] | Sun P, Zhang W, Wang Y, et al. OsGRF4 controls grain shape, panicle length and seed shattering in rice. J Integr Plant Biol 2016; 58(10): 836-47. |
| [111] | Santosh Kumar VV, Verma RK, Yadav SK, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 mediated genome editing of drought and salt tolerance (OsDST) gene in indica mega rice cultivar MTU1010. Physiol Mol Biol Plants 2020; 26(6): 1099-110. |
| [112] | Zaka A, Grande G, Coronejo T, et al. Natural variations in the promoter of OsSWEET13 and OsSWEET14 expand the range of resistance against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. PLoS One 2018; 13(9)e0203711 |
| [113] | Zhou J, Peng Z, Long J, et al. Gene targeting by the TAL effector PthXo2 reveals cryptic resistance gene for bacterial blight of rice. Plant J 2015; 82(4): 632-43. |
| [114] | Wang Y, Cheng X, Shan Q, et al. Simultaneous editing of three homoeoalleles in hexaploid bread wheat confers heritable resistance to powdery mildew. Nat Biotechnol 2014; 32(9): 947-51. |
| [115] | Li S, Lin D, Zhang Y, et al. Genome-edited powdery mildew resistance in wheat without growth penalties. Nature 2022; 602(7897): 455-60. |
| [116] | Schaart JG, van de Wiel CCM, Lotz LAP, Smulders MJM. Opportunities for products of new plant breeding techniques. Trends Plant Sci 2016; 21(5): 438-49. |
| [117] | Zhang Y, Bai Y, Wu G, et al. Simultaneous modification of three homoeologs of TaEDR1 by genome editing enhances powdery mildew resistance in wheat. Plant J 2017; 91(4): 714-24. |
| [118] | Wang F, Wang C, Liu P, et al. Enhanced rice blast resistance by CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the ERF transcription factor gene OsERF922. PLoS One 2016; 11(4)e0154027 |
| [119] | Belete T. Defense mechanisms of plants to insect pests: From morphological to biochemical approach. Trends in Technical & Scientific Research 2018; 2(2): 30-8. |
| [120] | Bushra S, Aslam M. Management of Sitotroga cerealella in stored cereal grains: A review. Arch Phytopathol Pflanzenschutz 2014; 47(19): 2365-76. |
| [121] | Chandrashekar A, Satyanarayana KV. Disease and pest resistance in grains of sorghum and millets. J Cereal Sci 2006; 44(3): 287-304. |
| [122] | Lu H, Luo T, Fu H, et al. Resistance of rice to insect pests mediated by suppression of serotonin biosynthesis. Nat Plants 2018; 4(6): 338-44. |
| [123] | Ueno M, Imaoka A, Kihara J, Arase S. Tryptamine pathway‐mediated DNA fragmentation is involved in sekiguchi lesion formation for light-enhanced resistance in lesion mimic mutant of rice to Magnaporthe grisea infection. J Phytopathol 2008; 156(11-12): 715-24. |
| [124] | Van Eck L, Schultz T, Leach JE, et al. Virus-induced gene silencing of WRKY53 and an inducible phenylalanine ammonia-lyase in wheat reduces aphid resistance. Plant Biotechnol J 2010; 8(9): 1023-32. |
| [125] | Wang W, Zhou P, Mo X, et al. Induction of defense in cereals by 4-fluorophenoxyacetic acid suppresses insect pest populations and increases crop yields in the field. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2020; 117(22): 12017-28. |
| [126] | Tyagi S, Kesiraju K, Saakre M, et al. Genome editing for resistance to insect pests: An emerging tool for crop improvement. ACS Omega 2020; 5(33): 20674-83. |
| [127] | Bi HL, Xu J, Tan AJ, Huang YP. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted gene mutagenesis in Spodoptera litura. Insect Sci 2016; 23(3): 469-77. |
| [128] | Zhu GH, Xu J, Cui Z, et al. Functional characterization of SlitPBP3 in Spodoptera litura by CRISPR/Cas9 mediated genome editing. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2016; 75: 1-9. |
| [129] | Koutroumpa FA, Monsempes C, François MC, et al. Heritable genome editing with CRISPR/Cas9 induces anosmia in a crop pest moth. Sci Rep 2016; 6(1): 29620. |
| [130] | Wang J, Zhang H, Wang H, et al. Functional validation of cadherin as a receptor of Bt toxin Cry1Ac in Helicoverpa armigera utilizing the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2016; 76: 11-7. |
| [131] | Huang Y, Chen Y, Zeng B, et al. CRISPR/Cas9 mediated knockout of the abdominal-A homeotic gene in the global pest, diamondback moth (Plutella xylostella). Insect Biochem Mol Biol 2016; 75: 98-106. |
| [132] | Huang L, Zhang R, Huang G, et al. Developing superior alleles of yield genes in rice by artificial mutagenesis using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Crop J 2018; 6(5): 475-81. |
| [133] | Xu F, Tang J, Gao S, Cheng X, Du L, Chu C. Control of rice pre‐harvest sprouting by glutaredoxin‐mediated abscisic acid signaling. Plant J 2019; 100(5): 1036-51. |
| [134] | Hu X, Cui Y, Dong G, et al. Using CRISPR-Cas9 to generate semi-dwarf rice lines in elite landraces. Sci Rep 2019; 9(1): 19096. |
| [135] | Lou D, Wang H, Liang G, Yu D. OsSAPK2 confers abscisic acid sensitivity and tolerance to drought stress in rice. Front Plant Sci 2017; 8: 993. |
| [136] | Shen C, Que Z, Xia Y, et al. Knock out of the annexin gene OsAnn3 via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing decreased cold tolerance in rice. J Plant Biol 2017; 60(6): 539-47. |
| [137] | Ma J, Chen J, Wang M, et al. Disruption of OsSEC3A increases the content of salicylic acid and induces plant defense responses in rice. J Exp Bot 2018; 69(5): 1051-64. |
