CRISPR–Cas9-based genetic engineering for crop improvement under drought stress

References

• Fao F. The impact of disasters and crises on agriculture and food security. Report. 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Martignago D, Rico-Medina A, Blasco-Escámez D, et al. Drought resistance by engineering plant tissue-specific responses. Front Plant Sci. 2020;10:1676.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kogan F, Guo W, Yang W. Drought and food security prediction from NOAA new generation of operational satellites. Geomatics Nat Hazards Risk. 2019;10(1):651–666.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ray RL, Fares A, Risch E. Effects of drought on crop production and cropping areas in Texas. Agric Environ Lett. 2018;3(1):1–5.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liang X-Z, Wu Y, Chambers RG, et al. Determining climate efects on US total agricultural productivity. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2017;114(12):E2285–E2292.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li C, Brant E, Budak H, et al. CRISPR/Cas: a Nobel Prize award-winning precise genome editing technology for gene therapy and crop improvement. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2021;22(4):253–284.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troy TJ, Kipgen C, Pal I. he impacts of climate extremes and irrigation on US crop yields. Environ Res Lett. 2015;10:054013.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zipper SC, Qiu J, Kucharik CJ. Drought efects on US maize and soybean production: spatiotemporal patterns and historical changes. Environ Res Lett. 2016;11:094021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zlatev Z, Lidon FC. An overview on drought induced changes in plant growth, water relationsand photosynthesis. Emir J Food Agr. 2012;24:57–72.
   Google Scholar
• Yigit N, Sevik H, Cetin M, et al. Determination of the effect of drought stress on the seed germination in some plant species. In: Water stress in plants. London, UK: Intech Open; 2016. p. 43–62. doi: 10.5772/63197
   Google Scholar
• Osakabe Y, Osakabe K, Shinozaki K, et al. Response of plants to water stress. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:86.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma A, Wang J, Xu D, et al. Melatonin regulates the functional components of photosynthesis, antioxidant system, gene expression, and metabolic pathways to induce drought resistance in grafted Carya cathayensis plants. Sci Total Environ. 2020;713:136675.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bota J, Medrano H, Flexas J. Is photosynthesis limited by decreased Rubisco activity and RuBP content under progressive water stress? New Phytol. 2004;162(3):671–681.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Flexas J, Bota J, Galmes J, et al. Keeping a positive carbon balance under adverse conditions: responses of photosynthesis and respiration to water stress. Physiol Planta. 2006;127(3):343–352.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mafakheri A, Siosemardeh A, Bahramnejad B, et al. Effect of drought stress on yield, proline, and chlorophyll contents in three chickpea cultivars. Aus J Crop Sci. 2010;4:580.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vurayai R, Emongor V, Moseki B. Effect of water stress imposed at different growth and development stages on morphological traits and yield of bambara groundnuts (Vigna subterranea L. Verdc). Am J Plant Physiol. 2011;6:17–27.
   Google Scholar
• Sharma A, Zheng B. Melatonin mediated regulation of drought stress: physiological and molecular aspects. Plants. 2019;8:190.
   Google Scholar
• Wang T, Zhang H, Zhu H. CRISPR technology is revolutionizing the improvement of tomato and other fruit crops. Hortic Res. 2019;6(1):1–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Queiroz MS, Oliveira CES, Steiner F, et al. Drought stresses on seed germination and early growth of maize and sorghum. J Agric Sci. 2019;11:310–318.
   Google Scholar
• Patanè C, Saita A, Sortino O. Comparative effects of salt and water stress on seed germination and early embryo growth in two cultivars of sweet sorghum. J Agron Crop Sci. 2013;199:30–37.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sourour A, Afef O, Mounir R, et al. A review: morphological, physiological, biochemical and molecular plant responses to water deficit stress. Int J Eng Sci. 2017;6:1–4.
   Google Scholar
• Bhatt RM, Rao NKS. Influence of pod load on response of okra to water stress. Indian J Plant Physiol. 2005;10:54–59.
   Google Scholar
• Razmjoo K, Heydarizadeh P, Sabzalian MR. Effect of salinity and drought stresses on growth parameters and essential oil content of Matricaria chamomile. Int J Agric Biol. 2008;10:451–454.
   Google Scholar
• Gheidary S, Akhzari D, Pessarakli M. Effects of salinity, drought, and priming treatments on seed germination and growth parameters of Lathyrus sativus L. J Plant Nutr. 2017;40(10):1507–1514.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoang TML, Tran TN, Nguyen TKT, et al. Improvement of salinity stress tolerance in rice: challenges and opportunities. Agronomy. 2016;6(4):54.
   Google Scholar
• Khan A, Pan X, Najeeb U, et al. Coping with drought: stress and adaptive mechanisms, and management through cultural and molecular alternatives in cotton as vital constituents for plant stress resilience and fitness. Biol Res. 2018;51(1):47.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shinwari ZK, Jan SA, Nakashima K, et al. Genetic engineering approaches to understanding drought tolerance in plants. Plant Biotechnol Rep. 2020;14:151–162.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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;9:617.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brokowski C, Adli M. CRISPR ethics: moral considerations for applications of a powerful tool. J Mol Biol. 2019;431(1):88–101.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raza A, Charagh S, Razzaq A, et al. Brassicaceae plants response and tolerance to drought stress: physiological and molecular interventions. In: The plant family brassicaceae. Singapore: Springer; 2020. p. 229–261. doi: 10.1007/978-981-15-6345-4_7
   Google Scholar
• Hyun TK. CRISPR/Cas-based genome editing to improve abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Botanica Serbica. 2020;44(2):121–127.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi J, Gao H, Wang H, et al. ARGOS 8 variants generated by CRISPR‐Cas9 improve maize grain yield under field drought stress conditions. Plant Biotechnol J. 2017;15(2):207–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakashima K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K, Shinozaki K. The transcriptional regulatory network in the drought response and its crosstalk in abiotic stress responses including drought, cold, and heat. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:170.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh D, Laxmi A. Transcriptional regulation of drought response: a tortuous network of transcriptional factors. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barbosa EGG, Leite JP, Marin SRR, et al. Overexpression of the ABA-dependent AREB1 transcription factor from Arabidopsis thaliana improves soybean tolerance to water deficit. Plant Mol Biol Rep. 2013;31(3):719–730.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fujita Y, Fujita M, Satoh R, et al. AREB1 is a transcription activator of novel ABRE-dependent ABA signaling that enhances drought stress tolerance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2005;17(12):3470–3488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oh SJ, Song SI, Kim YS, et al. Arabidopsis CBF3/DREB1A and ABF3 in transgenic rice increased tolerance to abiotic stress without stunting growth. Plant Physiol. 2005;138(1):341–351.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Todaka D, Shinozaki K, Yamaguchi-Shinozaki K. Recent advances in the dissection of drought-stress regulatory networks and strategies for development of drought-tolerant transgenic rice plants. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida T, Fujita Y, Sayama H, et al. AREB1, AREB2, and ABF3 are master transcription factors that cooperatively regulate ABRE‐dependent ABA signaling involved in drought stress tolerance and require ABA for full activation. Plant J. 2010;61(4):672–685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghatak A, Chaturvedi P, Weckwerth W. Cereal crop proteomics: systemic analysis of crop drought stress responses towards marker-assisted selection breeding. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:757.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li XY, Liu X, Yao Y, et al. Overexpression of Arachis hypogaea AREB1 gene enhances drought tolerance by modulating ROS scavenging and maintaining endogenous ABA content. Int J Mol Sci. 2013;14(6):12827–12842.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merlot S, Leonhardt N, Fenzi F, et al. Constitutive activation of a plasma membrane H(+)- ATPase prevents abscisic acid-mediated stomatal closure. EMBO J. 2007;26:3216‒3226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaganathan D, Ramasamy K, Sellamuthu G, et al. CRISPR for Crop Improvement: an Update Review. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:985.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shan Q, Wang Y, Li J, et al. Targeted genome modification of crop plants using a CRISPR-Cas system. Nat Biotechnol. 2013;31(8):686–688.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh B, Kukreja S, Goutam U. Milestones achieved in response to drought stress through reverse genetic approaches. In: F1000Research. 2018. p. 7. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15606.1)
   Google Scholar
• Pandey P, Irulappan V, Bagavathiannan MV, et al. Impact of combined abioticand biotic stresses on plant growth and avenues for crop improvement by exploiting physio-morphological traits. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:537.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fang Y, Xiong L. General mechanisms of drought response and their application in drought resistance improvement in plants. Cell Mol Life Sci. 2015;72(4):673‒689.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kumar VS, Verma RK, Yadav SK, et al. CRISPR-Cas9 mediated genome editing of drought and salt tolerance (OsDST) gene in indica mega rice cultivar MTU1010. In: PHYSIOLOGY AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF PLANTS. 2020. doi: 10.1007/s12298-020-00819-w.Epub 2020 May 10.
   Google Scholar
• Li R, Liu C, Zhao R, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated SlNPR1 mutagenesis reduces tomato plant drought tolerance. BMC Plant Biol. 2019;19(1):1–13.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bhat JA, Ali S, Salgotra RK, et al. Genomic selection in the era of next generation sequencing for complex traits in plant breeding. Front Genet. 2016;7:221.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng L, Wang H, Sun C, et al. Efficient generation of pink-fruited tomatoes using CRISPR/Cas9 system. J Genet Genom= Yi Chuan Xue Bao. 2018;45(1):51.
   Google Scholar
• Osakabe Y, Watanabe T, Sugano SS, et al. Optimization of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing to modify abiotic stress responses in plants. Sci Rep. 2016;6:26685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park JJ, Dempewolf E, Zhang W, et al. RNA-guided transcriptional activation via CRISPR/dCas9 mimics overexpression phenotypes in Arabidopsis. PLoS ONE. 2017;12:e0179410.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu X, Kriz AJ, Sharp PA. Target specificity of the CRISPR-Cas9 system. Quan Biol. 2014;2:59–70.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 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):1713–1726.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ou W, Mao X, Huang C, et al. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of the KUP family under abiotic stress in cassava (Manihot esculenta Crantz). Front Physiol. 2018;9:17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ye J, Yang H, Shi H, et al. The MAPKKK gene family in cassava: genome-wide identification and expression analysis against drought stress. Sci Rep. 2017;7:14939.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• He P, Zhao P, Wang L, et al. The PIN gene family in cotton (Gossypium hirsutum): genome-wide identification and gene expression analyses during root development and abiotic stress responses. BMC Genomics. 2017;18:507.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dass A, Abdin MZ, Reddy VS, et al. Isolation and characterization of the dehydration stress inducible GhRDL1 promoter from the cultivated upland cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). J Plant Biochem Biotechnol. 2017;26(1):113–119.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Ma J, Zhang X, et al. A novel non-specific lipid transfer protein gene from sugarcane (NsLTPs), obviously responded to abiotic stresses and signaling molecules of SA and MeJA. Sugar Tech. 2017;19:17–25.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim D, Alptekin B, Budak H. CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing in wheat. Funct Integr Genomics. 2018;18:31–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arroyo-Herrera A, Figueroa-Yanez L, Castano E, et al. A novel Dreb2-type gene from Carica papaya confers tolerance under abiotic stress. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult. 2016;125(1):119–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouzroud S, Gasparini K, Hu G, et al. Down Regulation and Loss of Auxin Response Factor 4 Function Using CRISPR/Cas9 Alters Plant Growth, Stomatal Function and Improves Tomato Tolerance to Salinity and Osmotic Stress. Genes (Basel). 2020;11(3):272.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paixão JFR, Gillet FX, Ribeiro TP, et al. Improved drought stress tolerance in Arabidopsis by CRISPR/dCas9 fusion with a histone acetyltransferase. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kulik A, Wawer I, Krzywi´nska E, et al. SnRK2 protein kinases–key regulators of plant response to abiotic stresses. Omics A J Integr Biol. 2011;15(12):859–872.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Umezawa T, Yoshida R, Maruyama K, et al. SRK2C, a SNF1-related protein kinase 2, improves drought tolerance by controlling stress-responsive gene expression in Arabidopsis thaliana. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2004;101(49):17306–17311.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zafar SA, Zaidi SSEA, Gaba Y, et al. Engineering abiotic stress tolerance via CRISPR/Cas-mediated genome editing. J Exp Bot. 2020;71(2):470–479.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang L, Chen L, Li R, et al. Reduced drought tolerance by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated SlMAPK3 mutagenesis in tomato plants. J Agric Food Chem. 2017;65(39):8674–8682.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abdelrahman M, Al-Sadi AM, Pour-Aboughadareh A, et al. Genome editing using CRISPR/Cas9–targeted mutagenesis: an opportunity for yield improvements of crop plants grown under environmental stresses. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2018;131:31–36.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tran MT, Doan DTH, Kim J, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-based precise excision of SlHyPRP1 domain (s) to obtain salt stress-tolerant tomato. Plant Cell Rep. 2020 1–13. doi: 10.1007/s00299-020-02622-z.Epub 2020 Oct 19.
   Google Scholar
• Debbarma J, Sarki YN, Saikia B, et al. Ethylene response factor (ERF) family proteins in abiotic stresses and CRISPR–Cas9 genome editing of ERFs for multiple abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants: a review. Mol Biotechnol. 2019;61(2):153–172.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Qayyum A, Razzaq A, Ahmad M, et al. Water stress causes differential effects on germination indices, total soluble sugar, and proline content in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. Afr J Biotechnol. 2011;10:14038–14045.
   Google Scholar
• Zia R, Nawaz MS, Siddique MJ, et al. Plant survival under drought stress: implications, adaptive responses, and integrated rhizosphere management strategy for stress mitigation. In: Microbiological research. 2020. p. 126626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2020.126626
   Google Scholar
• Shimatani Z, Fujikura U, Ishii H, et al. Inheritance of co-edited genes by CRISPR-based targeted nucleotide substitutions in rice. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2018;131:78–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pereira A. Plant abiotic stress challenges from the changing environment. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1123.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sander JD, Joung JK. CRISPR-Cas systems for editing, regulating and targeting genomes. Nature Biotechnol. 2014;32:347.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sasano Y, Nagasawa K, Kaboli S, et al. CRISPR-PCS: a powerful new approach to inducing multiple chromosome splitting in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Sci Rep. 2016;6:30278.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jain M. Function genomics of abiotic stress tolerance in plants: a CRISPR approach. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xing HL, Dong L, Wang ZP, et al. A CRISPR/Cas9 toolkit for multiplex genome editing in plants. BMC Plant Biol. 2014;14:327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muntazir M, Javaid AB, Mir ZA, et al. CRISPR/Cas approach: a new way of looking at plant-abiotic interactions. J Plant Physiol. 2018;224–225:156–162.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li H, Qi M, Sun M, et al. Tomato transcription factor SlWUS plays an important role in tomato flower and locule development. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:457.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ma X, Nicole MC, Meteignier LV, et al. Different roles for RNA silencing and RNA processing components in virus recovery and virus-induced gene silencing in plants. J Exp Bot. 2015;66(3):919–932.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rodríguez-Leal D, Lemmon ZH, Man J, et al. Engineering quantitative trait variation for crop improvement by genome editing. Cell. 2017;171(2):470–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oltman AE, Jervis SM, Drake MA. Consumer attitudes and preferences for fresh market tomatoes. J Food Sci. 2014;79(10):S2091–S2097.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ballester AR, Molthoff J, de Vos R, et al. Biochemical and molecular analysis of pink tomatoes: deregulated expression of the gene encoding transcription factor SlMYB12 leads to pink tomato fruit color. Plant Physiol. 2010;152(1):71–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lin T, Zhu G, Zhang J, et al. Genomic analyses provide insights into the history of tomato breeding. Nat Genet. 2014;46(11):1220–1226.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Čermák T, Baltes NJ, Čegan R, et al. High-frequency, precise modification of the tomato genome. Genome Biol. 2015;16(1):232.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Filler Hayut S, Bessudo CM, Levy AA. Targeted recombination between homologous chromosomes for precise breeding in tomato. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):15605.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ito Y, Nishizawa-Yokoi A, Endo M, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of the RIN locus that regulates tomato fruit ripening. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2015;467(1):76–82.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lang Z, Wang Y, Tang K, et al. (2017). Critical roles of DNA demethylation in the activation of ripening-induced genes and inhibition of ripening-repressed genes in tomato fruit. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114( 22), E4511–E4519. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705233114
   Google Scholar
• Uluisik S, Chapman NH, Smith R, et al. Genetic improvement of tomato by targeted control of fruit softening. Nat Biotechnol. 2016;34(9):950–952.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yu QH, Wang B, Li N, et al. CRISPR/Cas9-induced targeted mutagenesis and gene replacement to generate long-shelf life tomato lines. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Honma Y, Adhikari PB, Kuwata K, et al. High-quality sugar production by osgcs1 rice. Commun Biol. 2020;3(1):1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li R, Zhang L, Wang L, et al. Reduction of tomato-plant chilling tolerance by CRISPR–Cas9-mediated SlCBF1 mutagenesis. J Agric Food Chem. 2018;66(34):9042–9051.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li X, Wang Y, Liu Y, et al. Base editing with a Cpf1–cytidine deaminase fusion. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(4):324–327.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun Y, Jiao G, Liu Z, et al. Generation of high-amylose rice through CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis of starch branching enzymes. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:298.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang J, Zhang H, Botella JR, et al. Generation of new glutinous rice by CRISPR/Cas9‐targeted mutagenesis of the Waxy gene in elite rice varieties. J Integr Plant Biol. 2018;60(5):369–375.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Jiao G, Sun Y, et al. Modification of starch composition, structure and properties through editing of TaSBEIIa in both winter and spring wheat varieties by CRISPR/Cas9. Plant Biotechnol J. 2021;19(5):937–951.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ozseyhan ME, Kang J, Mu X, et al. Mutagenesis of the FAE1 genes significantly changes fatty acid composition in seeds of Camelina sativa. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2018;123:1–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li R, Fu D, Zhu B, et al. CRISPR/Cas9‐mediated mutagenesis of lncRNA1459 alters tomato fruit ripening. Plant J. 2018;94(3):513–524.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Komor AC, Kim YB, Packer MS, et al. Programmable editing of a target base in genomic DNA without double-stranded DNA cleavage. Nature. 2016;533(7603):420–424.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anzalone AV, Randolph PB, Davis JR, et al. Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA. Nature. 2019;576(7785):149–157.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang CC, Li Y, Feng XZ, et al. Circular RNA circ_0001287 inhibits the proliferation, metastasis, and radiosensitivity of non-small cell lung cancer cells by sponging microRNA miR-21 and up-regulating phosphatase and tensin homolog expression. Bioengineered. 2021;12(1):414–425.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu HH, Tian X, Li YJ, et al. Microarray-based analysis of stress-regulated microRNAs in Arabidopsis thaliana. Rna. 2008;14(5):836–843.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frazier TP, Sun G, Burklew CE, et al. Salt and drought stresses induce the aberrant expression of microRNA genes in tobacco. Mol Biotechnol. 2011;49(2):159–165.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie F, Wang Q, Sun R, et al. Deep sequencing reveals important roles of microRNAs in response to drought and salinity stress in cotton. J Exp Bot. 2015;66(3):789–804.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xie F, Stewart JC, Taki N, et al. High‐throughput deep sequencing shows that micro RNA s play important roles in switchgrass responses to drought and salinity stress. Plant Biotechnol J. 2014;12(3):354–366.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lu S, Sun YH, Shi R, et al. Novel and mechanical stress–responsive microRNAs in Populus trichocarpa that are absent from Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2005;17(8):2186–2203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar