Skip to main content
F1000Research logoLink to F1000Research
. 2018 Aug 17;7:1311. [Version 1] doi: 10.12688/f1000research.15606.1

Milestones achieved in response to drought stress through reverse genetic approaches

Baljeet Singh 1, Sarvjeet Kukreja 2, Umesh Goutam 1,a
PMCID: PMC6290974  PMID: 30631439

Abstract

Drought stress is the most important abiotic stress that constrains crop production and reduces yield drastically. The germplasm of most of the cultivated crops possesses numerous unknown drought stress tolerant genes. Moreover, there are many reports suggesting that the wild species of most of the modern cultivars have abiotic stress tolerant genes. Due to climate change and population booms, food security has become a global issue. To develop drought tolerant crop varieties knowledge of various genes involved in drought stress is required. Different reverse genetic approaches such as virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), clustered regularly interspace short palindromic repeat (CRISPR), targeting induced local lesions in genomes (TILLING) and expressed sequence tags (ESTs) have been used extensively to study the functionality of different genes involved in response to drought stress. In this review, we described the contributions of different techniques of functional genomics in the study of drought tolerant genes.

Keywords: VIGS, CRISPR, TILLING, ESTs, Drought stress, Climate change, Reverse Genetics, Functional genomics

Introduction

Nowadays, global food security has becomes a major challenge due to the extreme changes to the climate and increases in the global population 1. Therefore, plants are growing under various kinds of unfavourable environmental stresses such as drought, salinity, heat, cold and oxidative stresses which are retarding the growth and yield 2, 3. Of these, drought stress is the most predominant abiotic stress making this situation worse. Over the last decade, climate change has been increasing the frequency drought conditions and reduced the crop yield ( Table 1) by affecting the basic plant growth processes such as seed germination, photosynthesis, source sink relationships, turgor pressure, cell division and elongation, enzyme activities, and secondary metabolites production 1424. In addition, drought can also increase the production and accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in plants which leads to oxidative stress too 25, 26. Several genes that express under drought conditions are involved in the regulation of all these processes and pathways. In recent years, many drought tolerant genes have been identified in major food crops and still there are numerous genes taking part in drought stress whose functions are unknown. With the help of available genomic and transcriptomic data reverse genetic approaches accelerated the investigations of gene function under different abiotic stresses 27.

Table 1. Yield loss in various crops under different drought conditions.

Crop Yield loss (approx. %) References
Wheat 57
21
26
4
5
6
Rice 53–92 7
Maize 63–87
40
40
8
5
6
Chickpea 45–69 9
Soybean 46–71 10
Sunflower 60 11
Potato 17 12
Barley 37–41 13

From the perspective of crop improvement, transgenic approaches have been successfully used in many crops. However, development of stable transgenic lines is relatively expensive, time consuming and a laborious task. Moreover, it is not successful in many cultivated crops and slows down the investigations into specific gene 28. In contrast, there are several techniques available for the study of these genes which give prompt results and have other advantages over transgenic techniques for analysis of target gene(s) such as virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), clustered regularly interspace short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-Cas9 system, targeting induced local lesions in genomes (TILLING) and expressed sequence tags (ESTs) 2932.

VIGS

It is a simple, rapid, reliable and cost-effective post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) technique for the study of endogenous genes. It is a powerful tool for the mining and study of genes involved in drought tolerance ( Table 2). In VIGS a 200-400bp long fragment of the target gene is selected and cloned into a viral vector which infects the plant and triggers the silencing of that particular gene 29, 55. For efficient gene silencing the selection of the target fragment is very crucial. This technology can be used for forward and reverse genetics for both monocotyledonous and dicotyledonous plants 56, 57. There is no requirement of stable plant transformants in VIGS technology 58. Moreover, a number of different genes can be studied simultaneously and a specific target can also be silenced individually through this technology 59, 60. Many VIGS vectors have been developed for different crops by modifying plant viruses and have been used successfully for the functional study of genes expressed under drought stress 6164. These VIGS vectors along with the target gene can be inoculated into the plants by different methods such as agrodrench, needleless syringe inoculation, agro inoculation, prick inoculation, and biolistic inoculation 29, 65.

Table 2. Successfully confirmed genes via different virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) systems.

Viral vector Type Crop Target gene Reference
BSMV (Barley Stripe Mosaic Virus) RNA virus Wheat




Barley
TaEra1,
TaSal1
TaBTF3
TaPGR5
TdAtg8
HvHVA1
HvDhn6
HvEXPB7
HvATG6
33
33
34
35
36
37
37
38
39
TRV (Tobacco Rattle Virus) RNA virus Tomato





Pyrus betulaefolia
Chili pepper
Cotton
Sllea4
SpMPK1,
SpMPK2,
SpMPK3
SlMPK4
SlSR1L
SlJUB1
PbrMYB21
CaPO2
CaMLO2
CaAIR1
CaAIP1
CaWDP1
GhMKK3
GhWRKY27a
40
41
41
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
TYLCCNV (Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl China Virus) DNA virus Tomato SlGRX1 53
CLCrV(Cotton Leaf Crumple Virus) DNA virus Cotton GhNAC79 54

Plants have adopted many molecular mechanisms to withstand different abiotic stress, and a number of stress related genes get stimulated under stress conditions 66, 67. Among them, MAPKs (Mitogen Activated Protein Kinases) are the most important enzymes for the plant growth and development and also play an important role in signal transduction under extreme conditions 6872. The role of different MAPKs under drought stress has been studied through VIGS technology. The silencing of genes SpMAPK1, SpMAPK2, SpMAPK3 in Solanum pimpinellifolium, SlMPK in Solanum Lycopersicum and GhMKK3 in Gossypium hirsutum reduced the drought tolerance in silenced plants 41, 42, 51.

In addition, various transcriptional factors regulate the plants behaviour in response to environmental conditions 73. The WRKYs transcription factors play crucial role in the plant development under drought stress 74. In cotton the VIGS of GhWRKY27a enhanced the tolerance against drought stress 52. Further, another family of transcriptional factor, NAC, plays an important role under drought 75. Silencing of the GhNAC79 and JUB1 genes in cotton and tomato respectively made the plants more sensitive to drought 44, 54. In addition, PbrMYB21 gene belonging to MYB family of transcription factors (TFs) studied in Pyrus betulaefolia. The PbrMYB21 silenced plants exhibited decreased drought tolerance in comparison to control plants 45. Beside these, SR/CAMTA proteins from a small family of TFs and silencing of SISR1L and SlGRX1 genes from this resulted in decreased tolerance against drought stress in tomato 43, 53.

Beside these, autophagy, a protein degradation process induced in plants in response to environmental stimuli, has been reported to be involved due to the involvement of autophagy-related genes (ATG) under drought stress 7678. The ATG8 gene in wheat and ATG6 and its orthologs get induced in wheat, rice and barley in response to multiple abiotic stresses. Barley stripe mosaic virus (BSMV) based VIGS system was used for their functionality under drought stress. The results indicated the active participation of ATG genes in various survival mechanisms used by plants under drought 36, 39. In spite of these, many drought tolerant genes have been reported in weeds and also wild species of major cultivars. For instance, ApDRI15 gene in a weed named, Alternanthera philoxeroidsi has been identified as a drought tolerant gene through VIGS 79.

Expressed sequence tags (ESTs)

It is a sequence based technique that can be used to identify or study genes. ESTs can be generated from cDNA libraries 80. Functional studies of specific genes using this technique, can provide results in a cost-effective manner 81. Large scale EST sequencing has been performed in various crops and in several crops it is in progress. Millions of ESTs of different crops are available at Expressed Sequence Tags Database of National Center of Biotechnology Information. To identify drought stress responsive genes, first cDNA libraries are developed from plants growing under stressed conditions or from drought challenged tissues of drought responsive genotypes. Then by sequencing the clones ESTs can be identified 80, 82. ESTs provide high quality transcripts for investigation of genes as functional markers under stress conditions. During the last two decades, drought responsive genes have been identified and studied by ESTs in a number of crops such as common beans 83, barley 84, chickpea 8588, sorghum 89, 90, rice 9194, Camelina sativa 95, wheat 96, 97 Kodo millet 98, pearl millet 99, 100, sweet potato 101, rapeseed 102, Peanut 103, and Ammopiptanthus mongolicus 104. Analysis by BLASTX or qRT-PCR can be performed to find the most promising ESTs 82.

TILLING

With the advancements in high-throughput techniques genomes of a large number of crops are available now which present a number of new opportunities for the application of traditional mutation based reverse genetic techniques 105. TILLING is a nontransgenic method used to study allelic variations in the target gene in a mutant population and the effect of the mutant gene is studied from the changes in plant phenotypes 28, 106, 107. It is a quick and comparatively cheap method for the screening of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) in the target sequence. These point mutations in the target genes can be identified by PCR 105, 108. Moreover, this technique is applicable to any plant species whose genome sequence is available, regardless of its ploidy levels. In TILLING, to induce mutations in plant genome chemical mutagens are used that generated random mutations 105. In most of the experiments, to generate the TILLING population ethymethansulfonate (EMS) is used as a mutagen 30. However, to study the polymorphism developed, due to environmental conditions, a modified technique called as EcoTILLING has been developed. It seems a more promising strategy to study the genes related to abiotic stresses 109, 110.

CRISPR Technology

CRISPR (Clustered Regularly Interspace Short Palindromic Repeat)/ CRISPR-associated nuclease protein (Cas) 9 technology based upon plant antiviral defense mechanisms, offered various new opportunities for researchers. It is relatively simple, easy, less cytotoxic and very efficient targeted genome editing technology in comparison to traditional techniques used for the same purpose 111, 112. CRISPR/CAS9 based gene editing technology has become common practice in various labs. It involves the use of the CAS9 endonuclease, originally derived from Streptococcus pyogenes, and a guide RNA which leads CAS9 to the target sequence working together and generate double stranded DNA breaks which are later repaired by the error prone non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) method or by the homology directed repair (HDR) pathway 113, 114. Recently, this technology has been used extensively for crop improvement 31, 115120. This system has been successfully used to study the genes involved in drought stress ( Table 3) in model plant Arabidopsis 121 and also in a number of crops such as soybean, maize 114, 122, rice 123, tomato 124.

Table 3. Recent examples of drought associated genes studied by clustered regularly interspace short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas9.

Sr. No. Crop Gene Name Reference
1. Arabidopsis mir169a 113
2. Arabidopsis UGT79B2,UGT79B3 121
3. Maize ARGOS8 114
4. Tomato slmapk3 124
5. Arabidopsis, Poplar PtoMYB216 125
6. Rice OsSAPK2 123

Conclusion and future perspectives

Severe droughts are becoming more common every year and are reducing crop yield considerably. There is an urgent need for drought tolerant varieties. Breeding and transgenic approaches could solve this problem but the knowledge of molecular mechanisms and genes taking part in drought tolerance is essential. Several reverse genetic techniques have proved their potential in many crops and some are still evolving. During the last decade, the genomes of several crops were successfully sequenced, various new VIGS systems have been developed for different crops 104131 and CRISPR has become the most powerful tool for genome editing 126131. Thus, these techniques can play a pivotal role in crop improvement and can contribute highly in the development of drought tolerant varieties.

Data availability

No data are associated with this article

Funding Statement

The author(s) declared that no grants were involved in supporting this work.

[version 1; referees: 2 approved]

References

  • 1. Lesk C, Rowhani P, Ramankutty N: Influence of extreme weather disasters on global crop production. Nature. 2016;529(7584):84–7. 10.1038/nature16467 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2. Nouri MZ, Moumeni A, Komatsu S: Abiotic Stresses: Insight into Gene Regulation and Protein Expression in Photosynthetic Pathways of Plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2015;16(9):20392–416. 10.3390/ijms160920392 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3. Mickelbart MV, Hasegawa PM, Bailey-Serres J: Genetic mechanisms of abiotic stress tolerance that translate to crop yield stability. Nat Rev Genet. 2015;16(4):237–51. 10.1038/nrg3901 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4. Balla K, Rakszegi M, Li Z, et al. : Quality of winter wheat in relation to heat and drought shock after anthesis. Czech J Food Sci. 2011;29(2):117–28. 10.17221/227/2010-CJFS [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5. Fahad S, Bajwa AA, Nazir U, et al. : Crop Production under Drought and Heat Stress: Plant Responses and Management Options. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1147. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01147 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6. Daryanto S, Wang L, Jacinthe PA: Global Synthesis of Drought Effects on Maize and Wheat Production. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0156362. 10.1371/journal.pone.0156362 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7. Lafitte HR, Yongsheng G, Yan S, et al. : Whole plant responses, key processes, and adaptation to drought stress: the case of rice. J Exp Bot. 2007;58(2):169–75. 10.1093/jxb/erl101 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8. Kamara AY, Menkir A, Badu-Apraku B, et al. : The influence of drought stress on growth, yield and yield components of selected maize genotypes. J Agric Sci. 2003;141(1):43–50. 10.1017/S0021859603003423 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9. Nayyar H, Kaur S, Singh S, et al. : Differential sensitivity of Desi (small-seeded) and Kabuli (large-seeded) chickpea genotypes to water stress during seed filling: Effects on accumulation of seed reserves and yield. J Sci Food Agric. 2006;86(13):2076–82. 10.1002/jsfa.2574 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10. Samarah NH, Mullen RE, Cianzio SR, et al. : Dehydrin-like proteins in soybean seeds in response to drought stress during seed filling. Crop Sci. 2006;46(5):2141–50. 10.2135/cropsci2006.02.0066 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11. Mazahery-Laghab H, Nouri F, et al. : Effects of the reduction of drought stress using supplementary irrigation for sunflower (Helianthus annuus) in dry farming conditions. Pajouheshva Sazandegi Agron Hortic. 2003;59:81–6. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 12. Deblonde PMK, Ledent JF: Effects of moderate drought conditions on green leaf number, stem height, leaf length and tuber yield of potato cultivars. Eur J Agron. 2001;14(1):31–41. 10.1016/S1161-0301(00)00081-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13. Jamieson PD, Martin RJ, Francis GS: Drought influences on grain yield of barley, wheat, and maize. New Zeal J Crop Hortic Sci. 1995;23(1):55–66. 10.1080/01140671.1995.9513868 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14. Basu S, Ramegowda V, Kumar A, et al. : Plant adaptation to drought stress [version 1; referees: 3 approved]. F1000Res. 2016;5: pii: F1000 Faculty Rev-1554. 10.12688/f1000research.7678.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15. Tietjen B, Schlaepfer DR, Bradford JB, et al. : Climate change-induced vegetation shifts lead to more ecological droughts despite projected rainfall increases in many global temperate drylands. Glob Chang Biol. 2017;23(7):2743–54. 10.1111/gcb.13598 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16. Flexas J, Bota J, Loreto F, et al. : Diffusive and metabolic limitations to photosynthesis under drought and salinity in C 3 plants. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2004;6(3):269–79. 10.1055/s-2004-820867 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17. Lobell DB, Schlenker W, Costa-Roberts J: Climate trends and global crop production since 1980. Science. 2011;333(6042):616–20. 10.1126/science.1204531 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18. Si C, Zhang JY, Xu HC: [Advances in studies on growth metabolism and response mechanisms of medicinal plants under drought stress]. Zhongguo Zhong Yao Za Zhi. 2014;39(13):2432–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19. Yordanov I, Velikova V, Tsonev T: Plant responses to drought, acclimation, and stress tolerance. Photosynthetica. 2000;38(2):171–86. 10.1023/A:1007201411474 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20. Barnabás B, Jäger K, Fehér A: The effect of drought and heat stress on reproductive processes in cereals. Plant Cell Environ. 2008;31(1):11–38. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2007.01727.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21. Kaya MD, Okçu G, Atak M, et al. : Seed treatments to overcome salt and drought stress during germination in sunflower ( Helianthus annuus L.). Eur J Agron. 2006;24(4):291–5. 10.1016/j.eja.2005.08.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22. Farooq M, Wahid A, Kobayashi N, et al. : Plant drought stress: effects, mechanisms and management. Agron Sustain Dev. 2009;29(1):185–212. 10.1051/agro:2008021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23. Hussain M, Malik MA, Farooq M, et al. : Improving drought tolerance by exogenous application of glycinebetaine and salicylic acid in sunflower. J Agron Crop Sci. 2008;194(3):193–9. 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00305.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24. Praba ML, Cairns JE, Babu RC, et al. : Identification of physiological traits underlying cultivar differences in drought tolerance in rice and wheat. J Agron Crop Sci. 2009;195(1):30–46. 10.1111/j.1439-037X.2008.00341.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25. Pastori GM, Foyer CH: Common components, networks, and pathways of cross-tolerance to stress. The central role of "redox" and abscisic acid-mediated controls. Plant Physiol. 2002;129(2):460–8. 10.1104/pp.011021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26. Nagahatenna DS, Langridge P, Whitford R: Tetrapyrrole-based drought stress signalling. Plant Biotechnol J. 2015;13(4):447–59. 10.1111/pbi.12356 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27. Azevedo H, Silva-Correia J, Oliveira J, et al. : A strategy for the identification of new abiotic stress determinants in Arabidopsis using web-based data mining and reverse genetics. OMICS. 2011;15(12):935–47. 10.1089/omi.2011.0083 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28. Slade AJ, Knauf VC: TILLING moves beyond functional genomics into crop improvement. Transgenic Res. 2005;14(2):109–15. 10.1007/s11248-005-2770-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29. Senthil-Kumar M, Mysore KS: Tobacco rattle virus-based virus-induced gene silencing in Nicotiana benthamiana. Nat Protoc. 2014;9(7):1549–62. 10.1038/nprot.2014.092 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30. Tadele Z: Drought Adaptation in Millets.In: Abiotic and Biotic Stress in Plants - Recent Advances and Future Perspectives2016. 10.5772/61929 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31. Khatodia S, Bhatotia K, Passricha N, et al. : The CRISPR/Cas Genome-Editing Tool: Application in Improvement of Crops. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:506. 10.3389/fpls.2016.00506 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32. Mohanta TK, Bashir T, Hashem A, et al. : Genome Editing Tools in Plants. Genes (Basel). 2017;8(12): pii: E399. 10.3390/genes8120399 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33. Manmathan H, Shaner D, Snelling J, et al. : Virus-induced gene silencing of Arabidopsis thaliana gene homologues in wheat identifies genes conferring improved drought tolerance. J Exp Bot. 2013;64(5):1381–92. 10.1093/jxb/ert003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34. Kang G, Li G, Ma H, et al. : Proteomic analysis on the leaves of TaBTF3 gene virus-induced silenced wheat plants may reveal its regulatory mechanism. J Proteomics. 2013;83:130–43. 10.1016/j.jprot.2013.03.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35. Wang Y, He X, Ma W, et al. : Wheat PROTON GRADIENT REGULATION 5 is involved in tolerance to photoinhibition. J Integr Agric. 2014;13(6):1206–15. 10.1016/S2095-3119(13)60604-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36. Kuzuoglu-Ozturk D, Cebeci Yalcinkaya O, Akpinar BA, et al. : Autophagy-related gene, TdAtg8, in wild emmer wheat plays a role in drought and osmotic stress response. Planta. 2012;236(4):1081–92. 10.1007/s00425-012-1657-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37. Liang J, Deng G, Long H, et al. : Virus-induced silencing of genes encoding LEA protein in Tibetan hulless barley ( Hordeum vulgare ssp. vulgare) and their relationship to drought tolerance. Mol Breed. 2012;30(1):441–51. 10.1007/s11032-011-9633-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38. He X, Zeng J, Cao F, et al. : HvEXPB 7, a novel β-expansin gene revealed by the root hair transcriptome of Tibetan wild barley, improves root hair growth under drought stress. J Exp Bot. 2015;66(22):7405–19. 10.1093/jxb/erv436 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39. Zeng X, Zeng Z, Liu C, et al. : A barley homolog of yeast ATG6 is involved in multiple abiotic stress responses and stress resistance regulation. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2017;115:97–106. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2017.03.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40. Senthil-Kumar M, Udayakumar M: High-throughput virus-induced gene-silencing approach to assess the functional relevance of a moisture stress-induced cDNA homologous to lea4. J Exp Bot. 2006;57(10):2291–302. 10.1093/jxb/erj200 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41. Li C, Yan JM, Li YZ, et al. : Silencing the SpMPK1, SpMPK2, and SpMPK3 genes in tomato reduces abscisic acid-mediated drought tolerance. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(11):21983–96. 10.3390/ijms141121983 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42. Virk N, Liu B, Zhang H, et al. : Tomato SlMPK4 is required for resistance against Botrytis cinerea and tolerance to drought stress. Acta Physiol Plant. 2013;35(4):1211–21. 10.1007/s11738-012-1160-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 43. Li X, Huang L, Zhang Y, et al. : Tomato SR/CAMTA transcription factors SlSR1 and SlSR3L negatively regulate disease resistance response and SlSR1L positively modulates drought stress tolerance. BMC Plant Biol. 2014;14(1):286. 10.1186/s12870-014-0286-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44. Thirumalaikumar VP, Devkar V, Mehterov N, et al. : NAC transcription factor JUNGBRUNNEN1 enhances drought tolerance in tomato. Plant Biotechnol J. 2018;16(2):354–366. 10.1111/pbi.12776 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45. Li K, Xing C, Yao Z, et al. : PbrMYB21, a novel MYB protein of Pyrus betulaefolia, functions in drought tolerance and modulates polyamine levels by regulating arginine decarboxylase gene. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017;15(9):1186–203. 10.1111/pbi.12708 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46. Choi HW, Hwang BK: The pepper extracellular peroxidase CaPO2 is required for salt, drought and oxidative stress tolerance as well as resistance to fungal pathogens. Planta. 2012;235(6):1369–82. 10.1007/s00425-011-1580-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47. Lim CW, Lee SC: Functional roles of the pepper MLO protein gene, CaMLO2, in abscisic acid signaling and drought sensitivity. Plant Mol Biol. 2014;85(1–2):1–10. 10.1007/s11103-013-0155-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48. Park C, Lim CW, Baek W, et al. : RING Type E3 Ligase CaAIR1 in Pepper Acts in the Regulation of ABA Signaling and Drought Stress Response. Plant Cell Physiol. 2015;56(9):1808–19. 10.1093/pcp/pcv103 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49. Park C, Lim CW, Lee SC: The pepper RING-Type E3 ligase, CaAIP1, functions as a positive regulator of drought and high salinity stress responses. Plant Cell Physiol. 2016;57(10):2202–12. 10.1093/pcp/pcw139 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50. Park C, Lim WC, Baek W, et al. : The pepper WPP domain protein, CaWDP1, acts as a novel negative regulator of drought stress via ABA signaling. Plant Cell Physiol. 2017;58(4):779–88. 10.1093/pcp/pcx017 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51. Wang C, Lu W, He X, et al. : The Cotton Mitogen-Activated Protein Kinase Kinase 3 Functions in Drought Tolerance by Regulating Stomatal Responses and Root Growth. Plant Cell Physiol. 2016;57(8):1629–42. 10.1093/pcp/pcw090 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52. Yan Y, Jia H, Wang F, et al. : Overexpression of GhWRKY27a reduces tolerance to drought stress and resistance to Rhizoctonia solani infection in transgenic Nicotiana benthamiana. Front Physiol. 2015;6:265. 10.3389/fphys.2015.00265 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53. Guo Y, Huang C, Xie Y, et al. : A tomato glutaredoxin gene SlGRX1 regulates plant responses to oxidative, drought and salt stresses. Planta. 2010;232(6):1499–509. 10.1007/s00425-010-1271-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54. Guo Y, Pang C, Jia X, et al. : An NAM Domain Gene, GhNAC79, Improves Resistance to Drought Stress in Upland Cotton. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1657. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01657 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55. Tasaki K, Terada H, Masuta C, et al. : Virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) in Lilium leichtlinii using the Cucumber mosaic virus vector. Plant Biotechnol. 2016;33(5):373–81. 10.5511/plantbiotechnology.16.1018a [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56. Ramegowda V, Mysore KS, Senthil-Kumar M: Virus-induced gene silencing is a versatile tool for unraveling the functional relevance of multiple abiotic-stress-responsive genes in crop plants. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:323. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00323 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57. Becker A, Lange M: VIGS--genomics goes functional. Trends Plant Sci. 2010;15(1):1–4. 10.1016/j.tplants.2009.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58. Sahu PP, Puranik S, Khan M, et al. : Recent advances in tomato functional genomics: utilization of VIGS. Protoplasma. 2012;249(4):1017–27. 10.1007/s00709-012-0421-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59. Purkayastha A, Dasgupta I: Virus-induced gene silencing: a versatile tool for discovery of gene functions in plants. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2009;47(11–12):967–76. 10.1016/j.plaphy.2009.09.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60. Fernandez-Pozo N, Rosli HG, Martin GB, et al. : The SGN VIGS tool: user-friendly software to design virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) constructs for functional genomics. Mol Plant. 2015;8(3):486–8. 10.1016/j.molp.2014.11.024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61. Ratcliff F, Martin-Hernandez AM, Baulcombe DC, et al. : Technical Advance. Tobacco rattle virus as a vector for analysis of gene function by silencing. Plant J. 2001;25(2):237–45. 10.1046/j.0960-7412.2000.00942.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62. Robertson D: VIGS vectors for gene silencing: many targets, many tools. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2004;55(1):495–519. 10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63. Igarashi A, Yamagata K, Sugai T, et al. : Apple latent spherical virus vectors for reliable and effective virus-induced gene silencing among a broad range of plants including tobacco, tomato, Arabidopsis thaliana, cucurbits, and legumes. Virology. 2009;386(2):407–16. 10.1016/j.virol.2009.01.039 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64. Lange M, Yellina AL, Orashakova S, et al. : Virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) in plants: an overview of target species and the virus-derived vector systems. Methods Mol Biol. 2013;975:1–14. 10.1007/978-1-62703-278-0_1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65. Corbin C, Lafontaine F, Sepúlveda LJ, et al. : Virus-induced gene silencing in Rauwolfia species. Protoplasma. 2017;254(4):1813–8. 10.1007/s00709-017-1079-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66. Gao JP, Chao DY, Lin HX: Toward Understanding Molecular Mechanisms of Abiotic Stress Responses in Rice. Rice. 2008;1(1):36–51. 10.1007/s12284-008-9006-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 67. Shivani, Dwivedi DK, Husain R, et al. : Physiological, Morphological and Molecular Mechanisms for Drought Tolerance in Rice. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6(7):4160–73. 10.20546/ijcmas.2017.607.431 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68. Ara H, Sinha AK: Conscientiousness of mitogen activated protein kinases in acquiring tolerance for abiotic stresses in plants. Proc Indian Natl Sci Acad. 2014;80(2):211–9. Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 69. Nakagami H, Pitzschke A, Hirt H: Emerging MAP kinase pathways in plant stress signalling. Trends Plant Sci. 2005;10(7):339–46. 10.1016/j.tplants.2005.05.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 70. Pitzschke A, Schikora A, Hirt H: MAPK cascade signalling networks in plant defence. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2009;12(4):421–6. 10.1016/j.pbi.2009.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 71. Zhang S, Klessig DF: MAPK cascades in plant defense signaling. Trends Plant Sci. 2001;6(11):520–7. 10.1016/S1360-1385(01)02103-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 72. Romeis T: Protein kinases in the plant defence response. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2001;4(5):407–14. 10.1016/S1369-5266(00)00193-X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 73. Guo R, Yu F, Gao Z, et al. : GhWRKY3, a novel cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.) WRKY gene, is involved in diverse stress responses. Mol Biol Rep. 2011;38(1):49–58. 10.1007/s11033-010-0076-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 74. Zhang T, Huang L, Wang Y, et al. : Differential transcriptome profiling of chilling stress response between shoots and rhizomes of Oryza longistaminata using RNA sequencing. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):e0188625. 10.1371/journal.pone.0188625 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 75. Nuruzzaman M, Sharoni AM, Kikuchi S: Roles of NAC transcription factors in the regulation of biotic and abiotic stress responses in plants. Front Microbiol. 2013;4:248. 10.3389/fmicb.2013.00248 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 76. Liu Y, Xiong Y, Bassham DC: Autophagy is required for tolerance of drought and salt stress in plants. Autophagy. 2009;5(7):954–63. 10.4161/auto.5.7.9290 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 77. Nolan TM, Brennan B, Yang M, et al. : Selective Autophagy of BES1 Mediated by DSK2 Balances Plant Growth and Survival. Dev Cell. 2017;41(1):33–46.e7. 10.1016/j.devcel.2017.03.013 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 78. Wang W, Xu M, Wang G, et al. : Autophagy: An Important Biological Process That Protects Plants from Stressful Environments. Front Plant Sci. 2017;7:2030. 10.3389/fpls.2016.02030 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 79. Bai C, Wang P, Fan Q, et al. : Analysis of the Role of the Drought-Induced Gene DRI15 and Salinity-Induced Gene SI1 in Alternanthera philoxeroides Plasticity Using a Virus-Based Gene Silencing Tool. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1579. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01579 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 80. Blair MW, Hurtado N, Chavarro CM, et al. : Gene-based SSR markers for common bean ( Phaseolus vulgaris L.) derived from root and leaf tissue ESTs: an integration of the BMc series. BMC Plant Biol. 2011;11:50. 10.1186/1471-2229-11-50 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 81. Bouchez D, Höfte H: Functional genomics in plants. Plant Physiol. 1998;118(3):725–32. 10.1104/pp.118.3.725 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 82. Mir RR, Zaman-Allah M, Sreenivasulu N, et al. : Integrated genomics, physiology and breeding approaches for improving drought tolerance in crops. Theor Appl Genet. 2012;125(4):625–45. 10.1007/s00122-012-1904-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 83. Yao LM, Wang B, Cheng LJ, et al. : Identification of key drought stress-related genes in the hyacinth bean. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e58108. 10.1371/journal.pone.0058108 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 84. Radwan A, Ali RMIA, Nada A, et al. : Isolation and characterization of some drought-related ESTs from barley. African J Biotechnol. 2015;14(9):794–810. 10.5897/AJB2014.14273 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 85. Ramalingam A, Kudapa H, Pazhamala LT, et al. : Gene Expression and Yeast Two-Hybrid Studies of 1R-MYB Transcription Factor Mediating Drought Stress Response in Chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.). Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:1117. 10.3389/fpls.2015.01117 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 86. Deokar AA, Kondawar V, Jain PK, et al. : Comparative analysis of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) between drought-tolerant and -susceptible genotypes of chickpea under terminal drought stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2011;11:70. 10.1186/1471-2229-11-70 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 87. Varshney RK, Hiremath PJ, Lekha P, et al. : A comprehensive resource of drought- and salinity- responsive ESTs for gene discovery and marker development in chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.). BMC Genomics. 2009;10:523. 10.1186/1471-2164-10-523 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 88. Jain D, Chattopadhyay D: Analysis of gene expression in response to water deficit of chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) varieties differing in drought tolerance. BMC Plant Biol. 2010;10:24. 10.1186/1471-2229-10-24 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 89. Woldesemayat AA, Van Heusden P, Ndimba BK, et al. : An integrated and comparative approach towards identification, characterization and functional annotation of candidate genes for drought tolerance in sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). BMC Genet. 2017;18(1):119. 10.1186/s12863-017-0584-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 90. Srinivas G, Satish K, Madhusudhana R, et al. : Exploration and mapping of microsatellite markers from subtracted drought stress ESTs in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. Theor Appl Genet. 2009;118(4):703–17. 10.1007/s00122-008-0931-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 91. Nie YY, Zhang L, Wu YH, et al. : Retracted: Screening of candidate genes and fine mapping of drought tolerance quantitative trait loci on chromosome 4 in rice ( Oryza sativa L.) under drought stress. Ecol Evol. 2015;5(21):5007–15. 10.1002/ece3.1786 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 92. Xia H, Zheng X, Chen L, et al. : Genetic differentiation revealed by selective loci of drought-responding EST-SSRs between upland and lowland rice in China. PLoS One. 2014;9(10):e106352. 10.1371/journal.pone.0106352 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 93. Gorantla M, Babu PR, Reddy Lachagari VB, et al. : Identification of stress-responsive genes in an indica rice ( Oryza sativa L.) using ESTs generated from drought-stressed seedlings. J Exp Bot. 2007;58(2):253–65. 10.1093/jxb/erl213 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 94. Hadiarto T, Tran LS: Progress studies of drought-responsive genes in rice. Plant Cell Rep. 2011;30(3):297–310. 10.1007/s00299-010-0956-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 95. Kanth BK, Kumari S, Choi SH, et al. : Generation and analysis of expressed sequence tags (ESTs) of Camelina sativa to mine drought stress-responsive genes. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015;467(1):83–93. 10.1016/j.bbrc.2015.09.116 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 96. Chen ZY, Guo XJ, Chen ZX, et al. : Genome-wide characterization of developmental stage- and tissue-specific transcription factors in wheat. BMC Genomics. 2015;16(1):125. 10.1186/s12864-015-1313-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 97. Ergen NZ, Budak H: Sequencing over 13 000 expressed sequence tags from six subtractive cDNA libraries of wild and modern wheats following slow drought stress. Plant Cell Environ. 2009;32(3):220–36. 10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01915.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 98. Siddappa N, Raghu GK, Devaraj VR: Identification of Drought-Responsive Transcripts in Kodo Millet ( Paspalumscrobiculatum L). Int J Innov Res Dev. 2016;5(11). Reference Source [Google Scholar]
  • 99. Shivhare R, Lata C: Exploration of Genetic and Genomic Resources for Abiotic and Biotic Stress Tolerance in Pearl Millet. Front Plant Sci. 2017;7:2069. 10.3389/fpls.2016.02069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 100. Choudhary M, Jayanand, Padaria JC: Transcriptional profiling in pearl millet ( Pennisetum glaucum L.R. Br.) for identification of differentially expressed drought responsive genes. Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2015;21(2):187–96. 10.1007/s12298-015-0287-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 101. Kim YH, Jeong JC, Lee HS, et al. : Comparative characterization of sweetpotato antioxidant genes from expressed sequence tags of dehydration-treated fibrous roots under different abiotic stress conditions. Mol Biol Rep. 2013;40(4):2887–96. 10.1007/s11033-012-2304-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 102. Shamloo-Dashtpagerdi R, Razi H, Ebrahimie E: Mining expressed sequence tags of rapeseed ( Brassica napus L.) to predict the drought responsive regulatory network. Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2015;21(3):329–40. 10.1007/s12298-015-0311-5 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 103. Pruthvi V, Rama N, Govind G, et al. : Expression analysis of drought stress specific genes in Peanut ( Arachis hypogaea, L.). Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2013;19(2):277–81. 10.1007/s12298-012-0156-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 104. Liu M, Shi J, Lu C: Identification of stress-responsive genes in Ammopiptanthus mongolicus using ESTs generated from cold- and drought-stressed seedlings. BMC Plant Biol. 2013;13(1):88. 10.1186/1471-2229-13-88 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 105. Kurowska M, Daszkowska-Golec A, Gruszka D, et al. : TILLING: a shortcut in functional genomics. J Appl Genet. 2011;52(4):371–90. 10.1007/s13353-011-0061-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 106. Moens CB, Donn TM, Wolf-Saxon ER, et al. : Reverse genetics in zebrafish by TILLING. Brief Funct Genomic Proteomic. 2008;7(6):454–9. 10.1093/bfgp/eln046 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 107. Dwivedi SL, Scheben A, Edwards D, et al. : Assessing and Exploiting Functional Diversity in Germplasm Pools to Enhance Abiotic Stress Adaptation and Yield in Cereals and Food Legumes. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1461. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01461 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 108. Comai L, Henikoff S: TILLING: practical single-nucleotide mutation discovery. Plant J. 2006;45(4):684–94. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02670.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 109. Akpinar BA, Lucas SJ, Budak H: Genomics approaches for crop improvement against abiotic stress. ScientificWorldJournal. 2013;2013: 361921. 10.1155/2013/361921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 110. Yu S, Liao F, Wang F, et al. : Identification of rice transcription factors associated with drought tolerance using the Ecotilling method. PLoS One. 2012;7(2):e30765. 10.1371/journal.pone.0030765 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 111. Qi X, Liu C, Song L, et al. : PaCYP78A9, a Cytochrome P450, Regulates Fruit Size in Sweet Cherry ( Prunus avium L.). Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:2076. 10.3389/fpls.2017.02076 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 112. Romay G, Bragard C: Antiviral Defenses in Plants through Genome Editing. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:47. 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00047 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 113. Zhao Y, Zhang C, Liu W, et al. : An alternative strategy for targeted gene replacement in plants using a dual-sgRNA/Cas9 design. Sci Rep. 2016;6: 23890. 10.1038/srep23890 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 114. 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. 10.1111/pbi.12603 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 115. Sun Y, Zhang X, Wu C, et al. : Engineering Herbicide-Resistant Rice Plants through CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Homologous Recombination of Acetolactate Synthase. Mol Plant. 2016;9(4):628–631. 10.1016/j.molp.2016.01.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 116. Cardi T, D’Agostino N, Tripodi P: Genetic Transformation and Genomic Resources for Next-Generation Precise Genome Engineering in Vegetable Crops. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:241. 10.3389/fpls.2017.00241 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 117. Arora L, Narula A: Gene Editing and Crop Improvement Using CRISPR-Cas9 System. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1932. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01932 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 118. Zhang K, Raboanatahiry N, Zhu B, et al. : Progress in Genome Editing Technology and Its Application in Plants. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:177. 10.3389/fpls.2017.00177 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 119. Cao HX, Wang W, Le HT, et al. : The Power of CRISPR-Cas9-Induced Genome Editing to Speed Up Plant Breeding. Int J Genomics. 2016;2016: 5078796. 10.1155/2016/5078796 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 120. Noman A, Aqeel M, He S: CRISPR-Cas9: Tool for Qualitative and Quantitative Plant Genome Editing. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1740. 10.3389/fpls.2016.01740 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 121. Li P, Li YJ, Zhang FJ, et al. : The Arabidopsis UDP-glycosyltransferases UGT79B2 and UGT79B3, contribute to cold, salt and drought stress tolerance via modulating anthocyanin accumulation. Plant J. 2017;89(1):85–103. 10.1111/tpj.13324 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 122. Chilcoat D, Liu ZB, Sander J: Use of CRISPR/Cas9 for Crop Improvement in Maize and Soybean. Prog Mol Biol Transl Sci. 2017;149:27–46. 10.1016/bs.pmbts.2017.04.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 123. Lou D, Wang H, Liang G, et al. : OsSAPK2 Confers Abscisic Acid Sensitivity and Tolerance to Drought Stress in Rice. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:993. 10.3389/fpls.2017.00993 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 124. Wang L, Chen L, Zhao R, et al. : Reduced Drought Tolerance by CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated SlMAPK3 Mutagenesis in Tomato Plants. J Agric Food Chem. 2017;65(39):8674–8682. 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b02745 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 125. Xu C, Fu X, Liu R, et al. : PtoMYB170 positively regulates lignin deposition during wood formation in poplar and confers drought tolerance in transgenic Arabidopsis. Tree Physiol. 2017;37(12):1713–26. 10.1093/treephys/tpx093 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 126. Kumar J, Gunapati S, Kumar J, et al. : Virus-induced gene silencing using a modified betasatellite: a potential candidate for functional genomics of crops. Arch Virol. 2014;159(8):2109–13. 10.1007/s00705-014-2039-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 127. Kushwaha NK, Chakraborty S: Chilli leaf curl virus-based vector for phloem-specific silencing of endogenous genes and overexpression of foreign genes. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;101(5):2121–9. 10.1007/s00253-016-7964-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 128. Ido Y, Nakahara KS, Uyeda I: White clover mosaic virus-induced gene silencing in pea. J Gen Plant Pathol. 2012;78(2):127–32. 10.1007/s10327-012-0360-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 129. Liou MR, Huang YW, Hu CC, et al. : A dual gene-silencing vector system for monocot and dicot plants. Plant Biotechnol J. 2014;12(3):330–43. 10.1111/pbi.12140 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 130. Mei Y, Zhang C, Kernodle BM, et al. : A Foxtail mosaic virus Vector for Virus-Induced Gene Silencing in Maize. Plant Physiol. 2016;171(2):760–72. 10.1104/pp.16.00172 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 131. Yamagishi M, Masuta C, Suzuki M, et al. : Peanut stunt virus-induced gene silencing in white lupin ( Lupinus albus). Plant Biotechnol. 2015;32(3):181–91. 10.5511/plantbiotechnology.15.0521a [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 132. Yang N, Wang R, Zhao Y: Revolutionize Genetic Studies and Crop Improvement with High-Throughput and Genome-Scale CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing Technology. Mol Plant. 2017;10(9):1141–1143. 10.1016/j.molp.2017.08.001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 133. Hussain B, Lucas SJ, Budak H: CRISPR/Cas9 in plants: at play in the genome and at work for crop improvement. Brief Funct Genomics. 2018. 10.1093/bfgp/ely016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 134. Gao C: The future of CRISPR technologies in agriculture. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2018;19(5):275–276. 10.1038/nrm.2018.2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
F1000Res. 2018 Dec 10. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.17024.r40635

Referee response for version 1

Pardeep Kumar Bhardwaj 1

The review entitled “Milestones achieved in response to drought stress through reverse genetic approaches” by Singh et al., presents recent advances in understanding the response of drought stress in crop plants using reverse genetic technologies. It is well known that drought stress is major concern in the era of climate change. Therefore, it is important to address the recent updates on drought stress response in crop plants to scientific communities. The review article is written and organized very well but minor points need to be taken care.

  1. Authors have explained several techniques available to study the functionality of different genes involved in response to drought stress but should also include the advantages of these techniques in monocots/dicots.

  2. In VIGS, authors should explain the functional analysis of DREB transcription factors using VIGS technology citing some latest references.

  3. In ESTs analysis, authors should include the analysis of drought responsive ESTs generated through chemical priming studied in crop plants.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

F1000Res. 2018 Oct 31. doi: 10.5256/f1000research.17024.r38198

Referee response for version 1

Elangovan Mani 1

Title: Ok, it represents the article well 

Abstract: Ok, it provide the central idea about the article precisely. However, authors can expand it a little more.

Keywords:  Authors should arrange them alphabetically

Introduction: At the end of first paragraph, authors suggested about available transcriptomic data. I believe there they can add some references of available transcriptomes related to the topic. Overall, it has been written fine.

VIGS: Authors provided all the required information related to this technology. However, there are some bioinformatics tools, which helps in the selection of target fragment within the gene. They can add these too.

Expressed sequence tags (ESTs):  Ok

TILLING: Ok

CRISPR Technology: Ok

Conclusion: Ok, Nicely written.

To summarize, the review by Singh et al. presents our current knowledge of many genes deciphered by reverse genetic technologies: VIGS, EST, TILLING and CRISPR. The tables represents ample amount of information in a well-organised way. Overall, the Review provides a useful compilation of subject matter related to addressed topic in a coherent way.

I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    No data are associated with this article


    Articles from F1000Research are provided here courtesy of F1000 Research Ltd

    RESOURCES