Cited by 254CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringGenetically Modified Organisms ResearchPlant Genetic and Mutation Studies

Genome editing in cotton with the CRISPR/cas9 system

Open access
Gao, Wei, Long, Lu, Tian, Xinquan, Xu, Fuchun, Liu, Ji, Singh, Prashant K., Botella, Jose R., Song, Chunpeng·2017·Frontiers in Plant Science

Abstract

Genome editing is an important tool for gene functional studies as well as crop improvement. The recent development of the CRISPR/Cas9 system using single guide RNA molecules (sgRNAs) to direct precise double strand breaks in the genome has the potential to revolutionize agriculture. Unfortunately, not all sgRNAs are equally efficient and it is difficult to predict their efficiency by bioinformatics. In crops such as cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.), with labor-intensive and lengthy transformation procedures, it is essential to minimize the risk of using an ineffective sgRNA that could result in the production of transgenic plants without the desired CRISPR-induced mutations. In this study, we have developed a fast and efficient method to validate the functionality of sgRNAs in cotton using a transient expression system. We have used this method to validate target sites for three different genes GhPDS, GhCLA1, and GhEF1 and analyzed the nature of the CRISPR/Cas9-induced mutations. In our experiments, the most frequent type of mutations observed in cotton cotyledons were deletions (~64%). We prove that the CRISPR/Cas9 system can effectively produce mutations in homeologous cotton genes, an important requisite in this allotetraploid crop. We also show that multiple gene targeting can be achieved in cotton with the simultaneous expression of several sgRNAs and have generated mutations in GhPDS and GhEF1 at two target sites. Additionally, we have used the CRISPR/Cas9 system to produce targeted gene fragment deletions in the GhPDS locus. Finally, we obtained transgenic cotton plants containing CRISPR/Cas9-induced gene editing mutations in the GhCLA1 gene. The mutation efficiency was very high, with 80.6% of the transgenic lines containing mutations in the GhCLA1 target site resulting in an intense albino phenotype due to interference with chloroplast biogenesis.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fpls.2017.01364

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Targeting the GhCLA1 gene in cotton improves drought tolerance.

    “Furthermore, the application of gene editing techniques extends beyond model plants; for example, targeting the GhCLA1 gene in cotton has been shown to improve drought tolerance (Gao et al., 2017).”

    From Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops (2025) · cites this paper as Gao et al., 2017

    The Results section reports CRISPR/Cas9 editing of GhCLA1 in cotton, supporting the targeting part of the claim. It does not report improved drought tolerance; instead, the edited plantlets showed photobleaching and severely stunted growth. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Emonds-Alt B. Coosemans N. Gerards T. Remacle C. Cardol P. (2017). Isolation and characterization of mutants corresponding to the MENA, MENB, MENC and MENE enzymatic steps of 5’-monohydroxyphylloquinone biosynthesis in Chlamydomonas reinhardtii. Plant Physiol. 89 141– 154. 10.1104/pp.16.01332 PMC5299476 27612091 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gao, W., Long, L., Tian, X., Xu, F., Liu, J., Singh, P. K., Botella, J. R., & Song, C.
Affiliations
  • Henan University (CN)
  • Cotton Research Institute (CN)
Venue
Frontiers in Plant Science
Published
2017-08-03
Volume
8
Pages
1364-1364
ISSN
1664-462X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2744117009
Cited by
254
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 4
FWCI
10.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Frontiers in Plant Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (31601344, 31430061)
  • Ministry of Agriculture of the People’s Republic of China (2016ZX08009-003)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Genetic and Mutation Studies
Keywords
CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, cotton, Gossypium hirsutum, transient expression system, homeologous genes, allotetraploid, targeted deletion, transgenic cotton, albino phenotype, chloroplast biogenesis, mutation efficiency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review