Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of Tree Fruit Crops: Methods, Progress, and Challenges

Abstract

Genetic engineering based on Agrobacterium-mediated transformation has been a desirable tool to manipulate single or multiple genes of existing genotypes of woody fruit crops, for which conventional breeding is a difficult and lengthy process due to heterozygosity, sexual incompatibility, juvenility, or a lack of natural sources. To date, successful transformation has been reported for many fruit crops. We review the major progress in genetic transformation of these fruit crops made in the past 5 years, emphasizing reproducible transformation protocols as well as the strategies that have been tested in fruit crops. While direct transformation of scion cultivars was mostly used for fruit quality improvement, biotic and abiotic tolerance, and functional gene analysis, transgrafting on genetically modified (GM) rootstocks showed a potential to produce non-GM fruit products. More recently, genome editing technology has demonstrated a potential for gene(s) manipulation of several fruit crops. However, substantial efforts are still needed to produce plants from gene-edited cells, for which tremendous challenge remains in the context of either cell’s recalcitrance to regeneration or inefficient gene-editing due to their polyploidy. We propose that effective transient transformation and efficient regeneration are the key for future utilization of genome editing technologies for improvement of fruit crops.

Introduction

Fruits and nuts (F&N) provide essential nutrients for human growth and health. There are 494 culinary fruits (excluding fruit vegetables such as watermelons and tomatoes) and 14 nuts listed as of submission in Wikipedia. The increasing consumer awareness regarding health benefits and growing population worldwide are boosting a market for more and higher-quality fruits and nuts. For example, the total global production of fresh fruit increased from 13.6 million metric tons in 1996 to 33.3 million metric tons in 2016 (FAO). On the other hand, many adverse impacts, including emerging diseases (e.g., citrus greening and papaya ringspot virus), abiotic stress (e.g., salt, drought, and extreme temperatures) due to global warming, and natural resource depletion (e.g., land and water) due to the growing population, have threatened fruit yield and quality of F&N crops (Gottwald, 2010; Castillo et al., 2011; Fiore et al., 2018). Thus, the major task for F&N breeders is to develop new cultivars with improved resistance to diseases and abiotic stress, and higher productivity. Conventional breeding for many F&N crops often takes a few to over 10 years due to their long juvenile periods and asexual propagation nature (Janick, 2005). Utilization of biotechnology in breeding is an efficient alternative allowing for the manipulation of gene(s) of interest (GOI) through genetic engineering in shorter period of time, relative to conventional breeding. The efficiency of biotechnology application in breeding has become evident with the successes achieved via Agrobacterium-mediated transformation (Figure 1 and Table 1), and carries a great potential with increased availability of sequenced genomes of F&N crops that can be used by technical advances such as gene editing for trait improvement (Table 2).

FIGURE 1

New biotechnological tools revolutionized plant breeding and offered new and effective ways for plant breeders to manipulate traits at the levels of individual gene(s) or gene blocks (Gelvin, 2012; Hiei et al., 2014; Nester, 2014). Except for the widely commercialized virus-resistant papaya produced in 1992 through biolistic-mediated transformation (Fitch et al., 1992), virus-resistant plum (Ravelonandro et al., 1997; Scorza et al., 2001, 2007) and non-browning apples (Waltz, 2015) have been both produced by Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. The transgenic plum is on the horizon to be commercially released and the non-browning apples are in the stores. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation protocols for stable and transient expression remain a major platform for gene editing technologies in F&N species (Table 1). In this review, we summarize the availability of reliable transformation protocols and discuss recent progress, current constraints, and future perspectives of application of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation for the improvement of woody F&N crops.

History of Genetic Transformation of F&N Crops (Figure 1)

Phase I (1985–2000)

Development of transformation protocols. After success in Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated stable transformation of tobacco plants (Horsch et al., 1985), substantial effort was made to develop A. tumefaciens-mediated transformation protocols for F&N crops (Kole and Hall, 2008), such as apple (Yao et al., 1995), pear (Mourgues et al., 1996), plum (Mante et al., 1991), cherry rootstock (Gutierrez-Pesce et al., 1998), grapes (Mullins et al., 1990), walnuts (Mcgranahan et al., 1988), kiwifruits (Uematsu et al., 1991), citrus (Cervera et al., 1998), and European chestnuts (Seabra and Pais, 1998).

Phase II (2001–2015)

RNA interference (RNAi) technologies. The efforts to develop/improve transformation protocols for more F&N crops or cultivars continued and as a result blueberry (Song and Sink, 2004) and sour cherry (Song and Sink, 2006) were transformed. RNAi was used to suppress either virus RNAs or plant endogenous RNAs in plum (Scorza et al., 2004, 2013), cherry (Song et al., 2013), and apple (Saurabh et al., 2014; Waltz, 2015). On the other hand, driven by advances in sequencing, cloning, and RNAi technologies, functional gene analysis became the major focus for the F&N crops, and workable transformation protocols had been developed, including transient expression systems (Scorza et al., 2013). The recombination/excision systems [e.g., Cre/LoxP and Flp-FRT (flippase recognition target)] have been demonstrated to be effective in producing selectable marker gene (SMG)-free apple (Kost et al., 2015; Krens et al., 2015), apricot (Petri et al., 2012), and citrus (Zou et al., 2013). The most significant progress at this stage include: (1) Deregulation of transgenic plum with plum pox virus (PPV) resistance (Scorza et al., 2007, 2013); and (2) Commercialization of non-browning apples (Waltz, 2015).

Phase III (2015–Present)

Precision breeding. Gene editing technologies have become powerful tools to precisely manipulate nucleic acids in a plant cell. The very first attempts of these technologies in apple (Nishitani et al., 2016), grape (Ren et al., 2016; Nakajima et al., 2017; Wang X.H. et al., 2018), sweet orange and grapefruit (Jia and Wang, 2014; Zhang F. et al., 2017), and kiwifruit (Wang Z. et al., 2018) have relied on the use of Agrobacterium to produce stable transgenic plants expressing either editing reagents or small RNAs inducers. Ideally, transient expression of editing reagents leading to stable editing of a GOI or a regulatory DNA sequence, similar to those demonstrated in annual crops (Svitashev et al., 2016; Liang et al., 2018), will be the next step for F&N plants.

Transformation Protocols for Woody Fruit and Nut Crops

The current transformation protocols rely on procedures mainly developed between 1990 and 2000. Within the group of F&N species, the majority (over 95%) are still recalcitrant for transformation, and most of the transgenic F&N crops were produced using A. tumefaciens-mediated transformation (Singh and Sansavini, 1998; Kole and Hall, 2008). The scarce availability of regenerable explant sources and the time required to produce transgenic individuals are the major constraints (Figure 2). For example, only 16 papers on developing or optimizing Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of F&N crops have been published since 2014, but regardless of these excellent efforts, little break-through in terms of transformed species and transformation frequency has been made (Table 1).

FIGURE 2

Key Limitations for Transformation of F&N Crops

Efficient protocols for transformation rely on effective gene delivery, easy but accurate selection, and prolific regeneration from treated explants (Figure 2).

Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer is a powerful tool for delivery of transgenes although optimal conditions for efficient gene delivery vary for different species, genotypes and strains of Agrobacterium (Wang, 2015). Transfer DNA (T-DNA) has been shown to be a consistent carrier for a considerable variety of cargoes ranging from conventional expression cassettes used for GOIs, to the current RNA hairpin inducers (Song et al., 2013) or shuttle vectors for secondary DNA-replicons used in gene editing (Baltes et al., 2014). A. tumefaciens is preferable to biolistic guns for stable transformation of F&N crops due mainly to its low cost in operation and the high potential in producing transformations with a low-copy number of the inserted sequence (such as GOI) (Gelvin, 2012). A. tumefaciens with ACC deaminase activity has been developed to improve transformation frequency of annual plants through reducing ethylene levels in plants (Nonaka and Ezura, 2014), although it has not been tested in F&N crops. Up to now, gene delivery is not a key limitation for transformation of F&N crops, A. tumefaciens-mediated transformation remains the major approach (Tables 1–3).

Within the protocols for transformation of F&N crops, the effective selection is achieved mainly by using a SMG conferring resistance to the plant against either an antibiotic or an herbicide (Miki and McHugh, 2004). Three major SMG for plant transformation include the neomycin phosphotransferase II (nptII) gene that confers kanamycin resistance, the hygromycin-B-phosphotransferase gene (hph) conferring hygromycin B resistance, and the bar gene conferring resistance to phosphinothricin, a glutamine synthetase inhibitor produced by plants from the herbicide bialophos (Miki and McHugh, 2004). The nptII is, to date, the most widely used SMG for the transformation of F&N crops (Kole and Hall, 2008). However, effective selection of transformed cells without assistance of SMGs remains a key limitation for plant transformation.

In general, plants with high regeneration capability from non-meristem containing explants are amenable for genetic transformation. Unlike annual crops (e.g., wheat, maize, rice, and soybean), the cultivated F&N crops, for example, blueberries (Song and Hancock, 2012) and cherries (Song, 2014; Zong et al., 2018), are often clonally propagated; to maintain genetic stability, regeneration from explants of clonally propagated tissues is preferable. Lack of available explants sources (e.g., seedlings) makes plant regeneration studies for F&N crops a lengthy process (Figure 3), because in many instances an efficient micropropagation system has to be established for obtaining regenerable explants (e.g., leaves and petioles) prior to regeneration studies (Kole and Hall, 2008). Optimal conditions for both micropropagation and regeneration are determined by many factors (e.g., blueberries) (Liu et al., 2010; Figure 3). In addition, little has been documented on the potential impacts of plant-Agrobacterium interaction on plant regeneration. Finally, for some extremely recalcitrant species in the group (e.g., Prunus persica) species, regeneration can be achieved mostly on the basis of the use of seed explants (Song, 2014; Petri et al., 2018; Zong et al., 2018). In terms of using transgenes to improve regeneration efficiency, one report demonstrated that constitutive expression of the class I KNOX gene of maize increased production of adventitious shoots from leaf explants of plum (Srinivasan et al., 2011). More recently, overexpression of morphogenic regulators, i.e., maize Baby boom and maize Wuschel2, has been demonstrated to be effective in improving monocot transformation (Artlip et al., 2016); and the potential for use of these genes for F&N crops has been recently demonstrated in citrus (Miki and McHugh, 2004).

FIGURE 3

Recent Developments in Genetic Engineering of F&N Crops

Genetic transformation of F&N crops might be necessary when a breeding goal is not easily achievable through traditional breeding approaches (Singh and Sansavini, 1998). Of many approaches developed, gene addition and gene subtraction are two basic strategies for GM trait development (Pena and Seguin, 2001).

Transgrafting

Grafting by artificially conjoining different vascular systems (i.e., rootstock and scion) is a widely used agricultural practice with over 3000-year history for horticultural crops, especially for F&N crops (Jensen et al., 2012; Nawaz et al., 2016; Chitarra et al., 2017). Traditionally, grafting is used to produce plants for asexual propagation, altered plant vigor and architecture, increased tolerance to biotic/abiotic stresses, precocity, and higher yield. The term transgrafting was introduced when GE rootstocks were used in grafting in 1990 (Haroldsen et al., 2012; Figure 4). To date, long-distance transportation of transgene-derived small interfering RNAs (siRNA) from rootstock to non-transgenic sweet cherry scions have been verified by small RNA sequencing (Zhao and Song, 2014). For large mRNA molecules, qRT-PCR analysis detected short-distance transported mRNAs of the reporter of the red fluorescent protein gene (DsRED) from transgenic rootstock to non-transgenic scion of walnut (Juglans regia) (Liu et al., 2017); in contrast, for long-distance (>1 m) transportation, the transgene (e.g., the SMG nptII gene) was not detected in non-transgenic sweet cherry scions grafted on transgenic rootstock through RT-PCR (Zhao and Song, 2014). More recently, a new study has suggested that cell-to-cell movement of mRNAs is selective (Luo et al., 2018). In fact, interaction of transgenic rootstocks and non-transgenic scions in transgrafted plants through either the mobile transgenic products or immobile transgenic products has been demonstrated to be effective in facilitating changes in non-transgenic scions directly or indirectly (Smolka et al., 2010; Song et al., 2015; Artlip et al., 2016); this is also well-supported by recent studies of grafting in non-transgenic rootstocks and scions (Jensen et al., 2012; Chitarra et al., 2017). Using transgenic apple rootstock expressing the root-inducing rolB gene of Agrobacterium rhizogenes T-DNA reduced the vegetative growth of nontransgenic scions (Smolka et al., 2010). Thus, transgenic rootstocks have the potential to expand the use of transgenesis for production of non-transgenic F&N crops (Haroldsen et al., 2012).

FIGURE 4

FastTrack Breeding

The long juvenile phase exhibited by several F&N crops can severely limit the traditional breeding efforts which are dependent on the ability to make genetic crosses (Janick, 2005). “FastTrack breeding” as demonstrated in many recent publications is done through the manipulation of flowering pathway genes to hasten flowering (Figure 5 and Table 3; Petri et al., 2018). Stable transformation of elite cultivars by either overexpression of flower promoting genes (e.g., FLOWERING LOCUS T, SUPPRESSOR OF OVEREXPRESSION OF CONSTANS 1, LEAFY, and APETALA1) or repression of flower repressing genes (e.g., TERMINAL FLOWER 1) is an effective approach to enable a fast introduction of genes of interest from wild germplasm through the early flowering seedlings from both crosses and backcrosses (Figure 5A). This approach relies on efficient transformation systems for elite cultivars and low cross-incompatibility between the transformed elite cultivars and donor plants. Transgrafting on transgenic rootstocks can affect flowering in non-transgenic scions (Artlip et al., 2016), suggesting that there is a potential to use a rootstock overexpressing FT to promote early flowering of the scions from juvenile seedlings, although this potential has not yet successful been demonstrated for trees (Zhang et al., 2010; Srinivasan et al., 2012; Figure 5B). Alternatively, transient transformation using virus vectors either to enhance expression of flower promoting genes expression or to repress flower repressing genes has showed a potential in promoting flowering of juvenile plants (Yamagishi et al., 2014; Velazquez et al., 2016).

FIGURE 5

Selectable Marker Gene-Free Plants and Intragenesis

The negative perception of transgenic plants by consumers spurred research to develop either plants modified with plant derived sequences (intragenesis) or transgenic plants from which the SMG was removed (Figure 6). While these strategies have the potential to allay consumer fears, both approaches are currently regulated as transgenic plants worldwide (Holme et al., 2013).

FIGURE 6

Transgenesis without a SMG or with a plant-derived SMG is preferable to SMG-containing transgenic products by the public (Miki and McHugh, 2004). To date, plant-derived reporters, for example, the genes regulating anthocyanin biosynthesis have been successfully used as alternative to non-plant-derived reporters [i.e., green fluorescent protein (GFP), β-glucuronidase (GUS)] for transformation (Krens et al., 2015; Kandel et al., 2016; Dutt et al., 2018). Co-transformation enables production of SMG-free GM crops through the crosses for the segregation of SMG-removal transformants in next generation, but this is not desirable for asexually propagated F&N crops. The recombination/excision systems [e.g., Cre/LoxP and Flp-FRT (flippase recognition target)] are effective in generating SMG-free apple (Kost et al., 2015; Krens et al., 2015), apricot (Petri et al., 2012), grape (Dalla Costa et al., 2016), and citrus (Zou et al., 2013).

Intragenesis is desirable for food crops because it relies on the gene pool for conventional breeding. Technically, intragenesis is more challenging than SMG-assisted transgenesis (Figure 6). Previous studies have demonstrated the potential of production of intragenic apples and citrus (An et al., 2013; Kost et al., 2015; Krens et al., 2015).

Genome Editing

Genome editing technologies provide powerful tools for precise manipulation of targeted genome sequence(s) for crop improvement (Arora and Narula, 2017; Limera et al., 2017). Remarkably, these technologies make it possible to edit or excise a specific gene in a genome without introduction of any extra DNA.

Programmable DNA binding proteins such zinc finger (ZF) and transcription activator-like effector (TALE) emerged as the first generation engineered nucleases to create targeted mutagenesis, which is an alternative to classical protocols for random mutagenesis. These tools have a recognition capability of specific target DNA sequences based on customized arrangements of one (TALE) or three (ZF) nucleotides, and in such way bringing to these places a nuclease (for instance C-terminal domain of FokI) which disrupts DNA adjacent to the recognition zones. Both ZF- and TALE-nucleases, require two effectors (left and right) in order to define the nuclease cutting site (Gaj et al., 2013). Prior to the wide application of these technologies for F&N crops, a more powerful gene editing tool -The clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas9 mediated gene editing technology was developed (Jinek et al., 2012). The CRISPR/Cas9 has been a revolutionary molecular tool since its discovery as an adaptive line of defense against viral infection in Archaea (Mojica et al., 2000). This system operates through guide RNAs (gRNAs) that contain specific sequences designed according to their targets in the genome. The Cas nuclease (commonly Cas9), when directed by the gRNA generates a double strand break adjacent to the gRNA’s annealing location allowing for a target-specific mutagenesis. More recently, CRISPR/Cpf1, another CRISPR/Cas system that overcomes some of the CRISPR/Cas9 system limitations, has been found more efficient at DNA editing (Ledford, 2015; Zetsche et al., 2015; Fonfara et al., 2016; Jia et al., 2017a).

Delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 components into the plant cell has been achieved by either transgenic or non-transgenic approaches (Table 2). To date, as proof-of-concept, CRISPR/Cas9 guided DNA editing through stable transformation has been demonstrated in four major fruit crops [i.e., apple (Nishitani et al., 2016), grape (Ren et al., 2016; Nakajima et al., 2017; Wang X.H. et al., 2018), sweet orange and grapefruit (Jia and Wang, 2014; Zhang F. et al., 2017), and kiwifruit (Wang Z. et al., 2018)], suggesting that the CRISPR/Cas9 is suitable for precise gene knockout. The main constraint using stable transformation is that unlike annual crops, from which gene editing associated transgenes can be effectively segregated post editing through traditional crosses, breeding out the transgenes through crosses for F&N crops is undesirable and will eliminate the identity of the clonally propagated variety. Transient transformation without stable integration of the CRISPR/Cas9 components is possible and desirable for gene editing (Chen et al., 2018); whereas technically it is very challenging to identify the targeted mutant cells caused by the CRISPR/Cas9 due to the lack of SMG for transformed plant cells (Table 2). Non-transgene-involved gene editing by using guide gRNA-Cas9/Cpf1 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex is ideal for protoplasts of F&N crops and has been demonstrated in apple and grape cells (Malnoy et al., 2016). An alternative approach has been the use of DNA-replicon strategy (Baltes et al., 2014), based on the Bean yellow dwarf virus (BeYDV) genome structure in the absence of proteins required for its infection and mobility (i.e., disarmed virus). This allowed a high copy number in the cell without the insertion of the replicon into the plant genome (Gil-Humanes et al., 2017). Despite these improvements in the genetic engineering area, it is extremely challenging to induce plant regeneration from protoplast cells in F&N species (Table 2). Again, the main challenge for using gene editing technologies to improve the F&N crops remains the lack of efficient regeneration systems.

Genes and Traits

Regardless of the approach, genetic engineering of the F&N crops aims to modify selected traits through manipulation of targeted gene(s) or gene regulatory sequence(s). The progress made in genetic engineering for fruit crops prior to 2013 has been well-documented (Rai and Shekhawat, 2014).

More recently (2014-present), progress has been made for A. tumefaciens-mediated transformation of nine F&N crops using 24 genes for improving seven traits (Table 2). This progress has demonstrated that A. tumefaciens-mediated transformation is a powerful tool and remains a major approach for improvement of F&N crops. In this regard, the availability of genome drafts in several F&N species allow for the advance toward improved and safer application of techniques such as RNAi and CRISPR/Cas editing. Interference of target mRNAs using artificial microRNAs, or editing of on-target and effect over off-target loci can be assessed by ex-ante analyses using dedicated designers which predict these activities in an efficient rate (Doench et al., 2014; Castro et al., 2016). For instance, computing of protospacer adjacent motifs (PAMs) for Cas9 over a target genome allows for a first-dimension analysis of the putative cut sites for the nuclease upon gRNA leadership. In that way, Wang et al. (Peng et al., 2017) described the occurrence of more than 35 million PAMs in the grapevine genome and similar developments for other species are becoming available tools (Wang Y. et al., 2016; Pulido-Quetglas et al., 2017).

Concluding Remarks

Low success rate and recalcitrance of some species to transformation remain as major challenges for adoption of the new breeding techniques to fruit crops. As those challenges are overcome, several new technologies based on Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, such as transgrafting, fast-track breeding, intragenesis, and genome editing will be employed more frequently for solving problems facing tree fruit industry worldwide.

References

• 1

  AnC. F.OrbovicV.MouZ. L. (2013). An efficient intragenic vector for generating intragenic and cisgenic plants in citrus.Am. J. Plant Sci.42131–2137. 10.4236/ajps.2013.411265

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AroraL.NarulaA. (2017). gene editing and crop improvement using CRISPR-Cas9 system.Front. Plant Sci.8:1932. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01932

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  ArtlipT. S.WisniewskiM. E.AroraR.NorelliJ. L. (2016). An apple rootstock overexpressing a peach CBF gene alters growth and flowering in the scion but does not impact cold hardiness or dormancy.Hortic. Res.3:16006. 10.1038/hortres.2016.6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  BaltesN. J.Gil-HumanesJ.CermakT.AtkinsP. A.VoytasD. F. (2014). DNA replicons for plant genome engineering.Plant Cell26151–163. 10.1105/tpc.113.119792

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  CastilloX. A. O.FerminG.TabimaJ.RojasY.TennantP. F.FuchsM.et al (2011). Phylogeography and molecular epidemiology of Papaya ringspot virus.Virus Res.159132–140. 10.1016/j.virusres.2011.04.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  CastroA.QuirozD.SanchezE.MicconoM. D.AguirreC.RamirezA.et al (2016). Synthesis of an artificial Vitis vinifera miRNA 319e using overlapping long primers and its application for gene silencing.J. Biotechnol.233200–210. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2016.06.028

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  CerveraM.PinaJ. A.JuarezJ.NavarroL.PenaL. (1998). Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of citrange: factors affecting transformation and regeneration.Plant Cell Rep.18271–278. 10.1007/s002990050570

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  ChenL.LiW.Katin-GrazziniL.DingJ.GuX.LiY.et al (2018). A method for the production and expedient screening of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated non-transgenic mutant plants.Hortic. Res.5:13. 10.1038/s41438-018-0023-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  ChitarraW.PerroneI.AvanzatoC. G.MinioA.BoccacciP.SantiniD.et al (2017). Grapevine grafting: scion transcript profiling and defense-related metabolites induced by rootstocks.Front. Plant Sci.8:654. 10.3389/fpls.2017.00654

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  CollierR.ThomsonJ. G.ThilmonyR. (2018). A versatile and robust Agrobacterium-based gene stacking system generates high-quality transgenic Arabidopsis plants.Plant J.95573–583. 10.1111/tpj.13992

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  DaiH. Y.LiW. R.MaoW. J.ZhangL.HanG. F.ZhaoK.et al (2014). Development of an efficient regeneration and Agrobacterium-mediated transformation system in crab apple (Malus micromalus) using cotyledons as explants.In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant501–8. 10.1007/s11627-013-9544-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  DaiL. M.ZhouQ.LiR. M.DuY. J.HeJ.WangD.et al (2015). Establishment of a picloram-induced somatic embryogenesis system in Vitis vinifera cv. chardonnay and genetic transformation of a stilbene synthase gene from wild-growing Vitis species.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.121397–412. 10.1007/s11240-015-0711-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  DaleJ.JamesA.PaulJ. Y.KhannaH.SmithM.Peraza-EcheverriaS.et al (2017). Transgenic Cavendish bananas with resistance to Fusarium wilt tropical race 4.Nat. Commun.8:1496. 10.1038/s41467-017-01670-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  Dalla CostaL.PiazzaS.CampaM.FlachowskyH.HankeM. V.MalnoyM. (2016). Efficient heat-shock removal of the selectable marker gene in genetically modified grapevine.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.124471–481. 10.1007/s11240-015-0907-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  De PaepeA.De BuckS.HoorelbekeK.NolfJ.PeckI.DepickerA. (2009). High frequency of single-copy T-DNA transformants produced by floral dip in CRE-expressing Arabidopsis plants.Plant J.59517–527. 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2009.03889.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  DoenchJ. G.HartenianE.GrahamD. B.TothovaZ.HegdeM.SmithI.et al (2014). Rational design of highly active sgRNAs for CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene inactivation.Nat. Biotechnol.321262–1267. 10.1038/nbt.3026

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  DuttM.ZambonF. T.ErpenL.SorianoL.GrosserJ. (2018). Embryo-specific expression of a visual reporter gene as a selection system for citrus transformation.PLoS One13:e0190413. 10.1371/journal.pone.0190413

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  FioreA.LardoE.MontanaroG.LaterzaD.LoiudiceC.BerlocoT.et al (2018). Mitigation of global warming impact of fresh fruit production through climate smart management.J. Clean Prod.1723634–3643. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.08.062

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  FitchM. M. M.ManshardtR. M.GonsalvesD.SlightomJ. L.SanfordJ. C. (1992). Virus resistant papaya plants derived from tissues bombarded with the coat protein gene of papaya ringspot virus.Nat. Biotechnol.101466–1472. 10.1038/nbt1192-1466

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  FonfaraI.RichterH.BratovicM.Le RhunA.CharpentierE. (2016). The CRISPR-associated DNA-cleaving enzyme Cpf1 also processes precursor CRISPR RNA.Nature532517–521. 10.1038/nature17945

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  GajT.GersbachC. A.BarbasC. F.III (2013). ZFN, TALEN, and CRISPR/Cas-based methods for genome engineering.Trends Biotechnol.31397–405. 10.1016/j.tibtech.2013.04.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  GelvinS. B. (2012). Traversing the Cell: Agrobacterium T-DNA’s journey to the host genome.Front. Plant Sci.3:52. 10.3389/fpls.2012.00052

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  Gil-HumanesJ.WangY. P.LiangZ.ShanQ. W.OzunaC. V.Sanchez-LeonS.et al (2017). High-efficiency gene targeting in hexaploid wheat using DNA replicons and CRISPR/Cas9.Plant J.891251–1262. 10.1111/tpj.13446

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  GottwaldT. R. (2010). Current epidemiological understanding of citrus huanglongbing.Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.48119–139. 10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114418

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  Gutierrez-PesceP.TaylorK.MuleoR.RuginiE. (1998). Somatic embryogenesis and shoot regeneration from transgenic roots of the cherry rootstock Colt (Prunus avium x P-pseudocerasus) mediated by pRi 1855 T-DNA of Agrobacterium rhizogenes.Plant Cell Rep.17574–580. 10.1007/s002990050445

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  HaoG.StoverE.GuptaG. (2016). Overexpression of a modified plant thionin enhances disease resistance to citrus canker and huanglongbing (HLB).Front. Plant Sci.7:1078. 10.3389/fpls.2016.01078

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  HaroldsenV. M.SzczerbaM. W.AktasH.Lopez-BaltazarJ.OdiasM. J.Chi-HamC. L.et al (2012). Mobility of transgenic nucleic acids and proteins within grafted rootstocks for agricultural improvement.Front. Plant Sci.3:39. 10.3389/fpls.2012.00039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  HemmerC.DjennaneS.AckererL.HleibiehK.MarmonierA.GerschS.et al (2018). Nanobody-mediated resistance to Grapevine fanleaf virus in plants.Plant Biotechnol. J.16660–671. 10.1111/pbi.12819

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  HieiY.IshidaY.KomariT. (2014). Progress of cereal transformation technology mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens.Front. Plant Sci.5:628. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00628

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  HolmeI. B.WendtT.HolmP. B. (2013). Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development.Plant Biotechnol. J.11395–407. 10.1111/pbi.12055

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 31

  HorschR. B.FryJ. E.HoffmannN. L.EichholtzD.RogersS. G.FraleyR. T. (1985). A simple and general-method for transferring genes into plants.Science2271229–1231. 10.1126/science.227.4691.1229

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  HuW.LiW.XieS. X.FagundezS.McAvoyR.DengZ. N.et al (2016). Kn1 gene overexpression drastically improves genetic transformation efficiencies of citrus cultivars.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.12581–91. 10.1007/s11240-015-0931-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  HutabaratO. S.FlachowskyH.RegosI.MiosicS.KaufmannC.FaramarziS.et al (2016). Transgenic apple plants overexpressing the chalcone 3-hydroxylase gene of Cosmos sulphureus show increased levels of 3-hydroxyphloridzin and reduced susceptibility to apple scab and fire blight.Planta2431213–1224. 10.1007/s00425-016-2475-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  JanickJ. (2005). The origins of fruits, fruit growing, and fruit breeding.Plant Breed. Rev.25255–320. 10.1002/9780470650301.ch8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  JensenP. J.HalbrendtN.FazioG.MakalowskaI.AltmanN.PraulC.et al (2012). Rootstock-regulated gene expression patterns associated with fire blight resistance in apple.BMC Genomics13:9. 10.1186/1471-2164-13-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  JiaH.XuJ.OrbovicV.ZhangY.WangN. (2017a). Editing citrus genome via SaCas9/sgRNA system.Front. Plant Sci.8:2135. 10.3389/fpls.2017.02135

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  JiaH. G.WangN. (2014). Targeted genome editing of sweet orange using Cas9/sgRNA.PLoS One9:e93806. 10.1371/journal.pone.0093806

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  JiaH.ZhangY. Z.OrbovićV.XuJ.WhiteF. F.JonesJ. B.et al (2017b). Genome editing of the disease susceptibility gene CsLOB1 in citrus confers resistance to citrus canker.Plant Biotechnol. J.15817–823. 10.1111/pbi.12677

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  JinekM.ChylinskiK.FonfaraI.HauerM.DoudnaJ. A.CharpentierE. (2012). A programmable dual-RNA-guided DNA endonuclease in adaptive bacterial immunity.Science337816–821. 10.1126/science.1225829

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  KandelR.BergeyD. R.DuttM.SittherV.LiZ. T.GrayD. J.et al (2016). Evaluation of a grapevine-derived reporter gene system for precision breeding of Vitis.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.124599–609. 10.1007/s11240-015-0918-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  KoleC.HallT. C. (2008). Transgenic Temperate Fruits and NutsVol. 4Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Google Scholar

• 42

  KostT. D.GesslerC.JanschM.FlachowskyH.PatocchiA.BrogginiG. A. (2015). Development of the first cisgenic apple with increased resistance to fire blight.PLoS One10:e0143980. 10.1371/journal.pone.0143980

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  KrensF. A.SchaartJ. G.van der BurghA. M.Tinnenbroek-CapelI. E.GroenwoldR.KoddeL. P.et al (2015). Cisgenic apple trees; development, characterization, and performance.Front. Plant Sci.6:286. 10.3389/fpls.2015.00286

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  LedfordH. (2015). Bacteria yield new gene cutter.Nature52617–17. 10.1038/nature.2015.18432

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  LiangZ.ChenK. L.ZhangY.LiuJ. X.YinK. Q.QiuJ. L.et al (2018). Genome editing of bread wheat using biolistic delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 &ITin vitro&IT transcripts or ribonucleoproteins.Nat. Protoc.13413–430. 10.1038/nprot.2017.145

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  LiaoX.GuoX.WangQ.WangY.ZhaoD.YaoL.et al (2017). Overexpression of MsDREB6.2 results in cytokinin-deficient developmental phenotypes and enhances drought tolerance in transgenic apple plants.Plant J.89510–526. 10.1111/tpj.13401

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  LimeraC.SabbadiniS.SweetJ. B.MezzettiB. (2017). New biotechnological tools for the genetic improvement of major woody fruit species.Front. Plant Sci.8:1418. 10.3389/fpls.2017.01418

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  LiuC.CallowP.RowlandL. J.HancockJ. F.SongG. Q. (2010). Adventitious shoot regeneration from leaf explants of southern highbush blueberry cultivars.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.103137–144. 10.1007/s11240-010-9755-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  LiuX.WalawageS. L.LeslieC. A.DandekarA. M.TricoliD. M.HuH.et al (2017). In vitro gene expression and mRNA translocation from transformed walnut (Juglans regia) rootstocks expressing DsRED fluorescent protein to wild-type scions.Plant Cell Rep.36877–885. 10.1007/s00299-017-2116-1

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 50

  LloretA.ConejeroA.LeidaC.PetriC.Gil-MunozF.BurgosL.et al (2017). Dual regulation of water retention and cell growth by a stressassociated protein (SAP) gene in Prunus.Sci. Rep.7:332. 10.1038/s41598-017-00471-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  LuoK. R.HuangN. C.YuT. S. (2018). Selective targeting of mobile mRNAs to plasmodesmata for cell-to-cell movement.Plant Physiol.177604–614. 10.1104/pp.18.00107

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  MalnoyM.ViolaR.JungM. H.KooO. J.KimS.KimJ. S.et al (2016). DNA-free genetically edited grapevine and apple protoplast using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoproteins.Front. Plant Sci.7:1904. 10.3389/fpls.2016.01904

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  ManteS.MorgensP. H.ScorzaR.CordtsJ. M.CallahanA. M. (1991). Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of plum (Prunus-Domestica L) hypocotyl slices and regeneration of transgenic plants.Nat. Biotechnol.9853–857. 10.1038/nbt0991-853

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  McgranahanG. H.LeslieC. A.UratsuS. L.MartinL. A.DandekarA. M. (1988). Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of walnut somatic embryos and regeneration of transgenic plants.Nat. Biotechnol.6800–804. 10.1038/nbt0788-800

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  MikiB.McHughS. (2004). Selectable marker genes in transgenic plants: applications, alternatives and biosafety.J. Biotechnol.107193–232. 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2003.10.011

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 56

  MoR. L.HuangY. M.YangS. C.ZhangQ. L.LuoZ. R. (2015). Development of Agrobacterium-mediated transient transformation in persimmon (Diospyros kaki Thunb.).Sci. Hortic.19229–37. 10.1016/j.scienta.2015.05.013

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  MojicaF. J.Diez-VillasenorC.SoriaE.JuezG. (2000). Biological significance of a family of regularly spaced repeats in the genomes of Archaea, Bacteria and mitochondria.Mol. Microbiol.36244–246. 10.1046/j.1365-2958.2000.01838.x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  MossS. M. A.WangT.VoogdC.BrianL. A.WuR.HellensR. P.et al (2018). AcFT promotes kiwifruit in vitro flowering when overexpressed and Arabidopsis flowering when expressed inthe vasculature under its own promoter.Plant Direct2:e00068. 10.1002/pld3.68

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  MourguesF.ChevreauE.LambertC.deBondtA. (1996). Efficient Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and recovery of transgenic plants from pear (Pyrus communis L).Plant Cell Reports16245–249. 10.1007/s002990050216

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  MullinsM. G.TangF. C. A.FacciottiD. (1990). Agrobacterium-mediated genetic-transformation of grapevines - transgenic plants of vitis-rupestris-scheele and buds of Vitis-Vinifera L.Nat. Biotechnol.81041–1045. 10.1038/nbt1190-1041

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  NakajimaI.BanY.AzumaA.OnoueN.MoriguchiT.YamamotoT.et al (2017). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated targeted mutagenesis in grape.PLoS One12:e0177966. 10.1371/journal.pone.0177966

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  NawazM. A.ImtiazM.KongQ.ChengF.AhmedW.HuangY.et al (2016). Grafting. A technique to modify ion accumulation in horticultural crops.Front. Plant Sci.7:1457.

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  NesterE. W. (2014). Agrobacterium: nature’s genetic engineer.Front. Plant Sci.5:730. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00730

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  NewhouseA. E.OakesA. D.PilkeyH. C.RodenH. E.HortonT. R.PowellW. A. (2018). Transgenic American chestnuts do not inhibit germination of native seeds or colonization of Mycorrhizal fungi.Front. Plant Sci.9:1046. 10.3389/fpls.2018.01046

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  NewhouseA. E.Polin-McGuiganL. D.BaierK. A.VallettaK. E. R.RottmannW. H.TschaplinskiT. J.et al (2014). Transgenic American chestnuts show enhanced blight resistance and transmit the trait to T1 progeny.Plant Sci.22888–97. 10.1016/j.plantsci.2014.04.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  NishitaniC.HiraiN.KomoriS.WadaM.OkadaK.OsakabeK.et al (2016). Efficient genome editing in apple using a CRISPR/Cas9 system.Sci. Rep.6:31481. 10.1038/srep31481

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  NonakaS.EzuraH. (2014). Plant-Agrobacterium interaction mediated by ethylene and super-Agrobacterium conferring efficient gene transfer.Front. Plant Sci.5:681. 10.3389/fpls.2014.00681

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  OrbovicV.ShankarA.PeeplesM. E.HubbardC.ZaleJ. (2015). Citrus transformation using mature tissue explants.Methods Mol. Biol.1224259–273. 10.1007/978-1-4939-1658-0_21

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  OrbovićV.FieldsJ. S.SyvertsenJ. P. (2017). Transgenic citrus plants expressing the p35 anti-apoptotic gene have altered response to abiotic stress.Horticulture Environ. Biotechnol.58303–309. 10.1007/s13580-017-0196-z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  Palomo-RiosE.CerezoS.MercadoJ. A.Pliego-AlfaroF. (2017). Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of avocado (Persea americana Mill.) somatic embryos with fluorescent marker genes and optimization of transgenic plant recovery.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.128447–455. 10.1007/s11240-016-1122-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  PenaL.SeguinA. (2001). Recent advances in the genetic transformation of trees.Trends Biotechnol.19500–506. 10.1016/S0167-7799(01)01815-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  PengA. H.ChenS. C.LeiT. G.XuL. Z.HeY. R.WuL.et al (2017). Engineering canker-resistant plants through CRISPR/Cas9-targeted editing of the susceptibility gene CsLOB1 promoter in citrus.Plant Biotechnol. J.151509–1519. 10.1111/pbi.12733

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  PessinaS.AngeliD.MartensS.VisserR. G.BaiY.SalaminiF.et al (2016a). The knock-down of the expression of MdMLO19 reduces susceptibility to powdery mildew (Podosphaera leucotricha) in apple (Malus domestica).Plant Biotechnol. J.142033–2044. 10.1111/pbi.12562

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  PessinaS.LenziL.PerazzolliM.CampaM.Dalla CostaL.UrsoS.et al (2016b). Knockdown of MLO genes reduces susceptibility to powdery mildew in grapevine.Hortic. Res.3:16016. 10.1038/hortres.2016.16

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  PetriC.AlburquerqueN.FaizeM.ScorzaR.DardickC. (2018). Current achievements and future directions in genetic engineering of European plum (Prunus domestica L.).Transgenic Res.27225–240. 10.1007/s11248-018-0072-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  PetriC.Lopez-NogueraS.WangH.Garcia-AlmodovarC.AlburquerqueN.BurgosL. (2012). A chemical-inducible Cre-LoxP system allows for elimination of selection marker genes in transgenic apricot.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.110337–346. 10.1007/s11240-012-0155-4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  Pulido-QuetglasC.Aparicio-PratE.ArnanC.PolidoriT.HermosoT.PalumboE.et al (2017). Scalable design of paired CRISPR guide RNAs for genomic deletion.PLoS Comput. Biol.13:e1005341. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005341

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  RaiM. K.ShekhawatN. S. (2014). Recent advances in genetic engineering for improvement of fruit crops.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.1161–15. 10.1007/s11240-013-0389-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  RavelonandroM.ScorzaR.BachelierJ. C.LabonneG.LevyL.DamsteegtV.et al (1997). Resistance of transgenic Prunus domestica to plum pox virus infection.Plant Dis.811231–1235. 10.1094/PDIS.1997.81.11.1231

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  RenC.LiuX. J.ZhangZ.WangY.DuanW.LiS. H.et al (2016). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated efficient targeted mutagenesis in chardonnay (Vitis vinifera L.).Sci. Rep.6:32289. 10.1038/srep32289

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  RobertsonC. J.ZhangX.GowdaS.OrbovićV.DawsonW. O.MouZ. (2018). Overexpression of the Arabidopsis NPR1 protein in citrus confers tolerance to Huanglongbing.J. Cit. Pathol.5:38911.

  • Google Scholar

• 82

  RoyoC.Torres-PerezR.MauriN.DiestroN.CabezasJ. A.MarchalC.et al (2018). The major origin of seedless grapes is associated with a missense mutation in the MADS-Box gene VviAGL11.Plant Physiol.1771234–1253. 10.1104/pp.18.00259

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  SalvagninU.CarlinS.AngeliS.VrhovsekU.AnforaG.MalnoyM.et al (2016). Homologous and heterologous expression of grapevine E-(beta)-caryophyllene synthase (VvGwECar2).Phytochemistry13176–83. 10.1016/j.phytochem.2016.08.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  SalvagninU.MalnoyM.ThomingG.TasinM.CarlinS.MartensS.et al (2018). Adjusting the scent ratio: using genetically modified Vitis vinifera plants to manipulate European grapevine moth behaviour.Plant Biotechnol. J.,16264–271. 10.1111/pbi.12767

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  SaurabhS.VidyarthiA. S.PrasadD. (2014). RNA interference: concept to reality in crop improvement.Planta239543–564. 10.1007/s00425-013-2019-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  ScorzaR.CallahanA.DardickC.RavelonandroM.PolakJ.MalinowskiT.et al (2013). Genetic engineering of Plum pox virus resistance: ‘HoneySweet’ plum-from concept to product.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.1151–12. 10.1007/s11240-013-0339-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  ScorzaR.CallahanA.LevyL.DamsteegtV.WebbK.RavelonandroM. (2001). Post-transcriptional gene silencing in plum pox virus resistant transgenic European plum containing the plum pox potyvirus coat protein gene.Transgenic Res.10201–209. 10.1023/A:1016644823203

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  ScorzaR.HilyJ. M.CallahanA.MalinowskiT.CambraM.CapoteN.et al (2007). Deregulation of plum pox resistant transgenic plum ‘HoneySweet’.Acta Hortic.738669–673. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.738.88

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  ScorzaR.WebbK.RavelonandroM. (2004). Analysis of methylation and post-transcriptional gene silencing in embryos and seedlings of C5, a transgenic Plum pox virus resistant plum Prunus domestica L.Acta Hortic.657317–320. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2004.657.49

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  SeabraR. C.PaisM. S. (1998). Genetic transformation of European chestnut.Plant Cell Rep.17177–182. 10.1007/s002990050374

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  SgammaT.ThomasB.MuleoR. (2015). Ethylene inhibitor silver nitrate enhances regeneration and genetic transformation of Prunus avium (L.) cv Stella.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.12079–88. 10.1007/s11240-014-0581-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  SidorovaT.MikhailovR.PushinA.MiroshnichenkoD.DolgovS. (2017). A non-antibiotic selection strategy uses the phosphomannose-isomerase (PMI) gene and green fluorescent protein (GFP) gene for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Prunus domestica L. leaf explants.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.128197–209. 10.1007/s11240-016-1100-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  SinghZ.SansaviniS. (1998). “Genetic transformation and fruit crop improvement,” in Plant Breeding ReviewsVol. 16ed.JanickJ. (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons), 87–134.

  • Google Scholar

• 94

  SmolkaA.LiX. Y.HeikeltC.WelanderM.ZhuL. H. (2010). Effects of transgenic rootstocks on growth and development of non-transgenic scion cultivars in apple.Transgenic Res.19933–948. 10.1007/s11248-010-9370-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  SongG. Q. (2014). Recent Advances and Opportunities in Cherry Biotechnology.Acta Hortic.102089–97. 10.17660/ActaHortic.2014.1020.11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  SongG. Q. (2015). Blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.).Methods Mol. Biol.1224121–131. 10.1007/978-1-4939-1658-0_11

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  SongG. Q.ChenQ. X. (2018). Overexpression of the MADS-box gene K-domain increases the yield potential of blueberry.Plant Sci.27622–31. 10.1016/j.plantsci.2018.07.018

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  SongG. Q.GaoX. (2017). Transcriptomic changes reveal gene networks responding to the overexpression of a blueberry DWARF AND DELAYED FLOWERING 1 gene in transgenic blueberry plants.BMC Plant Biol.17:106. 10.1186/s12870-017-1053-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  SongG.-Q.HancockJ. F. (2012). Recent advances in blueberry transformation.Int. J. Fruit Sci.12316–332. 10.1080/15538362.2011.623083

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  SongG. Q.SinkK. C. (2004). Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.).Plant Cell Rep.23475–484. 10.1007/s00299-004-0842-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  SongG. Q.SinkK. C. (2006). Transformation of Montmorency sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) and Gisela 6 (P-cerasus x P-canescens) cherry rootstock mediated by Agrobacterium tumefaciens.Plant Cell Rep.25117–123. 10.1007/s00299-005-0038-9

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  SongG. Q.SinkK. C.WalworthA. E.CookM. A.AllisonR. F.LangG. A. (2013). Engineering cherry rootstocks with resistance to Prunus necrotic ring spot virus through RNAi-mediated silencing.Plant Biotechnol. J.11702–708. 10.1111/pbi.12060

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  SongG. Q.WalworthA. E.LoescherW. H. (2015). Grafting of genetically engineered plants.J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci.140203–213. 10.21273/JASHS.140.3.203

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 104

  SrinivasanC.DardickC.CallahanA.ScorzaR. (2012). Plum (Prunus domestica) trees transformed with poplar FT1 result in altered architecture, dormancy requirement, and continuous flowering.PLoS One7:e40715. 10.1371/journal.pone.0040715

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  SrinivasanC.LiuZ.ScorzaR. (2011). Ectopic expression of class 1 KNOX genes induce adventitious shoot regeneration and alter growth and development of tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L) and European plum (Prunus domestica L).Plant Cell Rep.30655–664. 10.1007/s00299-010-0993-7

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  SvitashevS.SchwartzC.LendertsB.YoungJ. K.Mark CiganA. (2016). Genome editing in maize directed by CRISPR-Cas9 ribonucleoprotein complexes.Nat. Commun.7:13274. 10.1038/ncomms13274

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  UematsuC.MuraseM.IchikawaH.ImamuraJ. (1991). Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and regeneration of kiwi fruit.Plant Cell Rep.10286–290. 10.1007/BF00193143

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  VelazquezK.AgueroJ.VivesM. C.AlezaP.PinaJ. A.MorenoP.et al (2016). Precocious flowering of juvenile citrus induced by a viral vector based on Citrus leaf blotch virus: a new tool for genetics and breeding.Plant Biotechnol. J.141976–1985. 10.1111/pbi.12555

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  VoogdC.BrianL. A.WangT.AllanA. C.Varkonyi-GasicE. (2017). Three FT and multiple CEN and BFT genes regulate maturity, flowering, and vegetative phenology in kiwifruit.J. Exp. Bot.681539–1553. 10.1093/jxb/erx044

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  WaltzE. (2015). Nonbrowning GM apple cleared for market.Nat. Biotechnol.33326–327. 10.1038/nbt0415-326c

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  WalworthA.SongG. Q. (2018). The cold-regulated genes of blueberry and their response to overexpression of VcDDF1 in several tissues.Int. J. Mol. Sci.19:E1553. 10.3390/ijms19061553

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  WangK. (2015). Preface. Agrobacterium protocols.Methods Mol. Biol.12247–8. 10.1007/978-1-4939-1658-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  WangQ. J.SunH.DongQ. L.SunT. Y.JinZ. X.HaoY. J.et al (2016). The enhancement of tolerance to salt and cold stresses by modifying the redox state and salicylic acid content via the cytosolic malate dehydrogenase gene in transgenic apple plants.Plant Biotechnol. J.141986–1997. 10.1111/pbi.12556

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 114

  WangX. H.TuM. X.WangD. J.LiuJ. W.LiY. J.LiZ.et al (2018). CRISPR/Cas9-mediated efficient targeted mutagenesis in grape in the first generation.Plant Biotechnol. J.16844–855. 10.1111/pbi.12832

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 115

  WangY.LiuX. J.RenC.ZhongG. Y.YangL.LiS. H.et al (2016). Identification of genomic sites for CRISPR/Cas9-based genome editing in the Vitis vinifera genome.BMC Plant Biol.16:96. 10.1186/s12870-016-0787-3

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  WangY.PijutP. M. (2014). Improvement of Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and rooting of black cherry.In Vitro Cell Dev. Biol. Plant50307–316. 10.1007/s11627-014-9608-2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  WangZ.WangS.LiD.ZhangQ.LiL.ZhongC.et al (2018). Optimized paired-sgRNA/Cas9 cloning and expression cassette triggers high-efficiency multiplex genome editing in kiwifruit.Plant Biotechnol. J.161424–1433. 10.1111/pbi.12884

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  WisniewskiM.NorelliJ.ArtlipT. (2015). Overexpression of a peach CBF gene in apple: a model for understanding the integration of growth, dormancy, and cold hardiness in woody plants.Front. Plant Sci.6:85. 10.3389/fpls.2015.00085

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  WuR. M.WangT. C.McGieT.VoogdC.AllanA. C.HellensR. P.et al (2014). Overexpression of the kiwifruit SVP3 gene affects reproductive development and suppresses anthocyanin biosynthesis in petals, but has no effect on vegetative growth, dormancy, or flowering time.J. Exp. Bot.654985–4995. 10.1093/jxb/eru264

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  YamagishiN.KishigamiR.YoshikawaN. (2014). Reduced generation time of apple seedlings to within a year by means of a plant virus vector: a new plant-breeding technique with no transmission of genetic modification to the next generation.Plant Biotechnol. J.1260–68. 10.1111/pbi.12116

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  YangY. J.WangD. F.WangC. S.WangX. H.LiJ. N.WangR. (2017). Construction of high efficiency regeneration and transformation systems of Pyrus ussuriensis maxim.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.131139–150. 10.1007/s11240-017-1271-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  YaoJ. L.CohenD.AtkinsonR.RichardsonK.MorrisB. (1995). Regeneration of transgenic plants from the commercial apple cultivar Royal Gala.Plant Cell Rep.14407–412. 10.1007/BF00234044

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  YouC. X.ZhaoQ.WangX. F.XieX. B.FengX. M.ZhaoL. L.et al (2014). A dsRNA-binding protein MdDRB1 associated with miRNA biogenesis modifies adventitious rooting and tree architecture in apple.Plant Biotechnol. J.12183–192. 10.1111/pbi.12125

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  ZetscheB.GootenbergJ. S.AbudayyehO. O.SlaymakerI. M.MakarovaK. S.EssletzbichlerP.et al (2015). Cpf1 is a single RNA-guided endonuclease of a class 2 CRISPR-Cas system.Cell163759–771. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.038

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  ZhangF.LeBlancC.IrishV. F.JacobY. (2017). Rapid and efficient CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in Citrus using the YAO promoter.Plant Cell Rep.361883–1887. 10.1007/s00299-017-2202-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  ZhangH.HarryD. E.MaC.YuceerC.HsuC. Y.VikramV.et al (2010). Precocious flowering in trees: the FLOWERING LOCUS T gene as a research and breeding tool in Populus.J. Exp. Bot.612549–2560. 10.1093/jxb/erq092

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  ZhangH. Y.LiuH. M.LiuX. Z. (2015). Production of transgenic kiwifruit plants harboring the SbtCry1Ac gene.Genet. Mol. Res.148483–8489. 10.4238/2015.July.28.16

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  ZhangJ.TianJ.TaiD. Q.LiK. T.ZhuY. J.YaoY. C. (2016). An optimized TRV-based virus-induced gene silencing protocol for Malus crabapple.Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult.126499–509. 10.1007/s11240-016-1019-0

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  ZhangY. Y.ZhangD. M.ZhongY.ChangX. J.HuM. L.ChengC. Z. (2017). A simple and efficient in planta transformation method for pommelo (Citrus maxima) using Agrobacterium tumefaciens.Sci. Hortic.214174–179. 10.1016/j.scienta.2016.11.033

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  ZhaoD.SongG. Q. (2014). Rootstock-to-scion transfer of transgene-derived small interfering RNAs and their effect on virus resistance in nontransgenic sweet cherry.Plant Biotechnol. J.121319–1328. 10.1111/pbi.12243

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  ZhaoQ.RenY. R.WangQ. J.YaoY. X.YouC. X.HaoY. J. (2016). Overexpression of MdbHLH104 gene enhances the tolerance to iron deficiency in apple.Plant Biotechnol. J.141633–1645. 10.1111/pbi.12526

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  ZongX.ChenQ.NagatyM. A.KangY.LangG. A.SongG.-Q. (2018). Adventitious shoot regeneration and Agrobacterium tumefaciens -mediated transformation of leaf explants of sweet cherry (Prunus avium L.).J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol.94229–236. 10.1080/14620316.2018.1470908

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  ZouX. P.PengA. H.XuL. Z.LiuX. F.LeiT. G.YaoL. X.et al (2013). Efficient auto-excision of a selectable marker gene from transgenic citrus by combining the Cre/loxP system and ipt selection.Plant Cell Rep.321601–1613. 10.1007/s00299-013-1470-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar