Figure 2.

Genotypic and phenotypic comparison between the Jin668 (WT) and the mutations created by the CRISPR/Cas9 system. (a) Genome editing in the mutant of plant1 and plant3 is shown. The sgRNA target sites and the PAM regions are highlighted in green background and underlined respectively. PAM, protospacer adjacent motif. (b) The WT and mutant plants are shown at full‐bloom stage. (c) The flowers of WT and mutant plants are shown, with petals removed. The anthers of mutants are indehiscence. (d) The pollen grains of WT and mutant plants stained with 1% I₂‐KI solution. The black pollen grains are fertile, and the red pollen grains are sterile. (e–g) Scanning electron microscopy analysis of pollen grains of the Jin668 (e), the mutant plant1 (f) and plant3 (g). Compared with those of Jin668 pollen grains, the mutant pollen grains lacked spines in the pollen wall. (h–j) Transmission electron microscopy analysis of pollen walls from the Jin668 (h) and the mutant plant1 (i) and plant3 (j). (k) The nexine wall thickness of pollen walls from the Jin668 and the mutants plant1 and plant3 at stage 12. At least 10 pollen grains of each genotype were analyzed. The P‐value was calculated by using the Student t‐test (n > 10). The error bars represent standard deviations (SDs). Msp, microspores; DMsp, degenerated microspores; In, intine; NE, nexine; Ba, bacula; Te, tectum. Bars, 10 cm in (b) and (c); 100 μm in (d); 600 μm, 100 μm, 100 μm, 10 μm, 5 μm in (e–g); 2 μm in (h–j).