Advertisement

Genomic Approaches to Abiotic Stresses in Mungbean

  • Thomas J. Noble
  • Brett Williams
  • Thi My Linh Hoang
  • Sudipta Shekhar Das Bhowmik
  • Grace Zi Hao Tan
  • Sagadevan MundreeEmail author
Chapter
  • 26 Downloads
Part of the Compendium of Plant Genomes book series (CPG)

Abstract

Mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) R. Wilczek var. radiata) is an important legume crop widely produced and consumed throughout Southeast Asia, cultivated on more than 6 million hectares worldwide. Minimizing the impact climate variability has on production is vital to smallholder farmers rely on mungbeans as a source of income and nutrition Abiotic stress factors such as drought, water availability, heat and salinity pose a major risk to global food security. Variability in the climate and the increasing demand for food crops means innovative approaches must be implemented now to secure the food of tomorrow. Conventional breeding programs lead by the World Vegetable Centre and the Australian National Mungbean Improvement Program have dramatically increased the yields, reliability and sustainability of mungbean crops worldwide. Breeders and researchers are building on that foundational work through the implementation of genomic technologies. Sequencing the genomes of large diverse sets of mungbean germplasm aims to quantify how the genetic diversity present among the world’s mungbean collections and to identify genes associated with agronomically important traits. By combining sequence and phenotyping data regions of the genome associated with important traits link to, the maintenance of photosynthetic pathways and water-use efficiency can be targeted. Once identified, those pathways can be directly manipulated using genome-editing tools reduce current breeding times by more than half. Although abiotic stressors pose an immediate and extensive risk, fortunately the technologies and researchers needed to address the issues exist today.

Keywords

Mungbean Abiotic Stress Molecular markers Breeding 

References

  1. Abd-Alla M, Vuong T, Harper J (1998) Genotypic differences in dinitrogen fixation response to NaCl stress in intact and grafted soybean. Crop Sci 38:72–77Google Scholar
  2. ACIAR (2016) Establishing the international mungbean improvement network [Online]. Available: https://www.aciar.gov.au/project/CIM/2014/079. Accessed 11 Feb 2018]
  3. Agrawal RL (1998) Fundamentals of plant breeding and hybrid seed production. Science Publishers, IncGoogle Scholar
  4. Ahmed S, Higuchi H, Nawata E, Sakuratani T (2002) Effects of exogenous ABA and ethylene application and waterlogging on photosynthesis in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczak). Japanese J Trop Agric (Japan)Google Scholar
  5. Ahmed S, Nawata E, Sakuratani T (2006) Changes of endogenous ABA and ACC, and their correlations to photosynthesis and water relations in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczak cv. KPS1) during waterlogging. Environ Exp Bot 57:278–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. AMA (2015) Australian Mungbean Association about us [Online]. http://www.mungbean.org.au/about-us.html. Australian Mungbean Association (AMA). Available: http://www.mungbean.org.au/about-us.html#industry-size-and-value. Accessed 15 Oct 2018
  7. Ayers RS, Westcot DW (1985) Water quality for agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations RomeGoogle Scholar
  8. Baloda A, Madanpotra S (2017) Transformation of Mungbean plants for salt and drought tolerance by introducing a gene for an osmoprotectant glycine betaine. J Plant Stress Physiol 3:5–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borlaug NE (1983) Contributions of conventional plant breeding to food production. Science 219:689PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Castañeda-Álvarez NP, Khoury CK, Achicanoy HA, Bernau V, Dempewolf H, Eastwood RJ, Guarino L, Harker RH, Jarvis A, Maxted N, Müller JV, Ramirez-Villegas J, Sosa CC, Struik PC, Vincent H, Toll J (2016) Global conservation priorities for crop wild relatives. Nature Plants 2:16022PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cominelli E, Conti L, Tonelli C, Galbiati M (2013) Challenges and perspectives to improve crop drought and salinity tolerance. New Biotechnol 30:355–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Daryanto S, Wang L, Jacinthe PA (2017) Global synthesis of drought effects on cereal, legume, tuber and root crops production: a review. Agric Water Manag 179:18–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Day L (2013) Proteins from land plants—potential resources for human nutrition and food security. Trends Food Sci Technol 32:25–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Deshmukh R, Sonah H, Patil G, Chen W, Prince S, Mutava R, Vuong T, Valliyodan B, Nguyen HT (2014) Integrating omic approaches for abiotic stress tolerance in soybean. Front Plant Sci 5:244.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00244CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. Dhanapal AP, Ray JD, Singh SK, Hoyos-Villegas V, Smith JR, Purcell LC, Andy King C, Cregan PB, Song Q, Fritschi FB (2015) Genome-wide association study (GWAS) of carbon isotope ratio (δ13C) in diverse soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] genotypes. Theor Appl Genet 128:73–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Eckardt NA (2009) The future of science: food and water for life. Plant Cell 21:368–372PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Eynard A, Lal R, Wiebe K (2005) Crop response in salt-affected soils. J Sustain Agric 27:5–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. FAO (2009a) Declaration of the world summit on food security. World Summit on Food Security RomeGoogle Scholar
  19. FAO (2009b) Declaration of the world summit on food security. 16–18 November, Rome. http://www.fao.org/wsfs/world-summit/wsfs-challenges/en/
  20. FAO (2012) World water day 2012 celebration. UN Conference Centre, Bangkok, 22 March 2012. http://www.fao.org/asiapacific/rap/home/meetings/list/detail/en/?meetings_id=637&year=2012
  21. Fatokun CA, Menancio-Hautea DI, Danesh D, Young ND (1992) Evidence for orthologous seed weight genes in cowpea and mung bean based on RFLP mapping. Genetics 132:841–846PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Fernandez G, Shanmugasundaram S (1987) The AVRDC mungbean improvement program. The past, present and future, pp 58–70Google Scholar
  23. Fernandez G, Shanmugasundaram S, Mclean B (1988) The AVRDC mungbean improvement program: the past, present and future. In: Mungbean. Proceedings of the second international symposium, Bangkok, Thailand. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center, Tainan, Taiwan, pp 58–70Google Scholar
  24. Flint-Garcia SA, Thornsberry JM, Buckler EST (2003) Structure of linkage disequilibrium in plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 54:357–374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ghanbari M, Javan SM (2015) Study the response of mung bean genotypes to drought stress by multivariate analysis. Int J Agric Innov Res 3:1298–1302Google Scholar
  26. Ghosh S, Mitra S, Paul A (2015) Physiochemical studies of sodium chloride on mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek) and its possible recovery with spermine and gibberellic acid. The Sci World J, 858016.  https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/858016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hanumantharao B, Nair RM, Nayyar H (2016) Salinity and high temperature tolerance in mungbean [Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek] from a physiological perspective. Front Plant Sci 7:957Google Scholar
  28. Hasanuzzaman M, Hossain MA, Da Silva JAT, Fujita M (2012) Plant response and tolerance to abiotic oxidative stress: antioxidant defense is a key factor. Crop stress and its management: perspectives and strategies. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  29. Heffner EL, Sorrells ME, Jannink JL (2009) Genomic selection for crop improvement. Crop Sci 49:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hill WG (2010) Understanding and using quantitative genetic variation. Philos T R Soc B 365:73–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hörtensteiner S (2009) Stay-green regulates chlorophyll and chlorophyll-binding protein degradation during senescence. Trends Plant Sci 14:155–162PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huang X, Han B (2014) Natural variations and genome-wide association studies in crop plants. Ann Rev Plant Biol 65:531–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hwang EY, Song Q, Jia G, Specht JE, Hyten DL, Costa J, Cregan PB (2014) A genome-wide association study of seed protein and oil content in soybean. BMC Genom 15:1Google Scholar
  34. Ihsan MZ, Shahzad N, Kanwal S, Naeem M, Khaliq A, El-Nakhlawy FS, Matloob A (2013) Potassium as foliar supplementation mitigates moisture induced stresses in mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) as revealed by growth, photosynthesis, gas exchange capacity and Zn analysis of shoot. Int J Agronom Plant Prod 4:3828–3835Google Scholar
  35. Isemura T, Kaga A, Tabata S, Somta P, Srinives P, Shimizu T, Jo U, Vaughan DA, Tomooka N (2012) Construction of a genetic linkage map and genetic analysis of domestication related traits in mungbean (Vigna radiata). PLoS ONE 7:e41304PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jiang GL (2013) Molecular markers and marker-assisted breeding in plants. Plant breeding from laboratories to fields. InTechGoogle Scholar
  37. Jiang H, Li M, Liang N, Yan H, Wei Y, Xu X, Liu J, Xu Z, Chen F, Wu G (2007) Molecular cloning and function analysis of the stay green gene in rice. The Plant J 52:197–209PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Kang YJ, Kim SK, Kim MY, Lestari P, Kim KH, Ha BK, Jun TH, Hwang WJ, Lee T, Lee J, Shim S, Yoon MY, Jang YE, Han KS, Taeprayoon P, Yoon N, Somta P, Tanya P, Kim KS, Gwag J-E, Moon J-K, Lee Y-H, Park B-S, Bombarely A, Doyle JJ, Jackson SA, Schafleitner R, Srinives P, Srinives RK, Lee S-H (2014) Genome sequence of mungbean and insights into evolution within Vigna species. Nat Commun 5:5443Google Scholar
  39. Kaur R, Bains T, Bindumadhava H, Nayyar H (2015) Responses of mungbean (Vigna radiata L.) genotypes to heat stress: effects on reproductive biology, leaf function and yield traits. Scientia Horti 197:527–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kim SK, Nair RM, Lee J, Lee SH (2015) Genomic resources in mungbean for future breeding programs. Front Plant Sci 6:626PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Kochian LV, Hoekenga OA, Pineros MA (2004) How do crop plants tolerate acid soils? Mechanisms of aluminum tolerance and phosphorous efficiency. Annu Rev Plant Biol 55:459–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kochian LV, Piñeros MA, Liu J, Magalhaes JV (2015) Plant adaptation to acid soils: the molecular basis for crop aluminum resistance. Ann Rev Plant Biol 66:571–598CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kole (2007) Genome mapping and molecular breeding in plants. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  44. Kramer PJ, Boyer JS, Carlson W (1997) Water relations of plants and soils. Forest Sci 43:151–152Google Scholar
  45. Kumar S, Kalita A, Srivastava R, Sahoo L (2017) Co-expression of Arabidopsis NHX1 and bar improves the tolerance to salinity, oxidative stress, and herbicide in transgenic mungbean. Front Plant Sci 8:1896PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kumari P, Varma S (1983) Genotypic differences in flower production/shedding and yield in mungbean (Vigna radiata). Indian J Plant Physiol 26:402–405Google Scholar
  47. Kump KL, Bradbury PJ, Wisser RJ, Buckler ES, Belcher AR, Oropeza-Rosas MA, Zwonitzer JC, Kresovich S, Mcmullen MD, Ware D, Balint-Kurti PJ, Holland JB (2011) Genome-wide association study of quantitative resistance to southern leaf blight in the maize nested association mapping population. Nature Genet 43:163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lambrides C, Godwin I (2007) Mungbean. Pulses, sugar and tuber crops. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  49. Lambrides CJ, James AT, Lawn RJ, Williams RW (1999) Cross fertility of australian accessions of wild mungbean (Vigna radiata ssp. sublobata) with green gram (V. radiata ssp. radiata) and black gram (V. mungo). Australian J Bot 47:601–610CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lawn RJ, Rebetzke GJ (2006) Variation among Australian accessions of the wild mungbean (Vigna radiata ssp sublobata) for traits of agronomic, adaptive, or taxonomic interest. Australian J Agric Res 57:119–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Li YH, Zhou G, Ma J, Jiang W, Jin LG, Zhang Z, Guo Y, Zhang J, Sui Y, Zheng L, Zhang S, Zuo Q, Shi X, Li Y, Zhang, W, Hu Y, Kong G, Hong, H, Tan B, Song J, Liu Z, Wang Y, Ruan H, Yeung CKL, Liu J, Wang H, Zhang L, Guan R, Wang K, Li W, Chen S, Chang R, Jiang Z, Jackson SA, Li R, Qiu LJ (2014) De novo assembly of soybean wild relatives for pan-genome analysis of diversity and agronomic traits. Nature Biotechnol 32:1045PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Liu C, Wu J, Wang L, Fan B, Cao Z, Su Q, Zhang Z, Wang Y, Tian J, Wang S (2017) Quantitative trait locus mapping under irrigated and drought treatments based on a novel genetic linkage map in mungbean (Vigna radiata L.). Theor Appl Genet 130:2375–2393PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Lyngkjær MF, Newton AC, Atzema JL, Baker SJ (2000) The Barley mlo-gene: an important powdery mildew resistance source. Agronomie 20:745–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mcmullen MD, Kresovich S, Villeda HS, Bradbury P, Li H, Sun Q, Flint-Garcia S, Thornsberry J, Acharya C, Bottoms C, Brown P, Browne C, Eller M, Guill K, Harjes C, Kroon D, Lepak N, Mitchell SE, Peterson B, Pressoir G, Romero S, Rosas MO, Salvo S, Yates H, Hanson M, Jones E, Smith S, Glaubitz JC, Goodman M, Ware D, Holland JB, Buckler ES (2009) Genetic properties of the maize nested association mapping population. Science 325:737–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Meena RS, Yadav RS (2014) Phenological performance of groundnut varieties under sowing environments in hyper arid zone of Rajasthan, India. J Appl Nat Sci 6:344–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Meena RS, Varma D (2016) Mungbean yield and nutrient uptake performance in response of NPK and lime levels under acid soil in Vindhyan region, India. J Appl Nat Sci 8:860–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Minhas P, Sharma D, Khosla B (1990) Mungbean response to irrigation with waters of different salinities. Irrigation Sci 11:57–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Moody D, Emebiri L, Spackman M, Mekuria G (2003) Breeding for qualitative and quantitative traits using markers. In: Proceedings of a joint meeting of the 11th Australian barley technical symposium and the 53rd Australian cereal chem conference, Glenelg, SAGoogle Scholar
  59. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Nahar K, Hasanuzzaman M, Suzuki T, Fujita M (2017) Polyamines-induced aluminum tolerance in mung bean: a study on antioxidant defense and methylglyoxal detoxification systems. Ecotoxicol 26:58–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Noble TJ, Tao Y, Mace ES, Williams B, Jordan DR, Douglas CA, Mundree SG (2018) Characterization of linkage disequilibrium and population structure in a mungbean diversity panel. Front Plant Sci 8:2102PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Ota M, Fukushima H, Kulski JK, Inoko H (2007) Single nucleotide polymorphism detection by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism. Nat Protoc 2:2857PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Panda SK, Baluška F, Matsumoto H (2009) Aluminum stress signaling in plants. Plant Signal Behav 4:592–597PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Pandey R, Herrera W, Villegas A, Pendleton J (1984) Drought response of grain legumes under irrigation gradient: III. Plant growth 1. Agronomy J 76:557–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Pang Q, Chen S, Dai S, Chen Y, Wang Y, Yan X (2010) Comparative proteomics of salt tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana and Thellungiella halophila. J Proteome Res 9:2584–2599PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paterson AH (2008) Genomics of sorghum. Int J Plant Genomics Article ID 362451, 6 pagesGoogle Scholar
  67. Pavan S, Jacobsen E, Visser RGF, Bai Y (2009) Loss of susceptibility as a novel breeding strategy for durable and broad-spectrum resistance. Mol Breed 25:1PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Postel SL (2000) Entering an era of water scarcity: the challenges ahead. Ecol Appl 10:941–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rafiei M, Shirvan AM (2009) Yield reaction and morphological characteristics of some mung bean genotypes to drought stress. J Mod Agric Knowl 5:67–76Google Scholar
  70. Ranawake A, Dahanayaka N, Amarasingha U, Rodrigo W, Rodrigo U (2011) Effect of water stress on growth and yield of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.). Trop Agric Res Ext 14:76–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rispail N, Rubiales D (2016) Genome-wide identification and comparison of legume MLO gene family. Sci Rep 6:32673PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Saha P, Chatterjee P, Biswas AK (2010) NaCl pretreatment alleviates salt stress by enhancement of antioxidant defense system and osmolyte accumulation in mungbean (Vigna radiata L. Wilczek). Indian J Exp Biol 48:593–600PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Sahoo DP, Kumar S, Mishra S, Kobayashi Y, Panda SK, Sahoo L (2016) Enhanced salinity tolerance in transgenic mungbean overexpressing Arabidopsis antiporter (NHX1) gene. Mol Breed 36:144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Sahoo L, Jaiwal PK (2009) Asiatic beans. Compendium of Transgenic Crop Plants, pp 115–132Google Scholar
  75. Saini R, Singh RP, Jaiwal PK (2007) Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated transfer of Phaseolus vulgaris α-amylase inhibitor-1 gene into mungbean Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek using bar as selectable marker. Plant Cell Rep 26:187–198PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  76. Sarkar M, Datta S, Kundagrami S (2017) Global climate change and mung bean production: a roadmap towards future sustainable agriculture. Sustaining future food security in changing environmentsGoogle Scholar
  77. Schafleitner R, Nair RM, Rathore A, Wang YW, Lin CY, Chu SH, Lin PY, Chang JC, Ebert AW (2015) The AVRDC—the world vegetable center mungbean (Vigna radiata) core and mini core collections. BMC Genom 16:344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Sehrawat N, Jaiwal P, Yadav M, Bhat K, Sairam R (2013) Salinity stress restraining mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek) production: gateway for genetic improvement. Int J Agric Crop Sci 6:505Google Scholar
  79. Shah T, Andleeb T, Lateef S, Noor MA (2018) Genome editing in plants: advancing crop transformation and overview of tools. Plant Physiol Biochem 131:12–21PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Shanmugasundaram S, Keatinge J, Hughes J (2009) The mungbean transformation: diversifying crops, defeating malnutrition. IDEAS Working Paper Series from RePEcGoogle Scholar
  81. Singh D, Singh B (2011) Breeding for tolerance to abiotic stresses in mungbean. J Food Leg 24:83–90Google Scholar
  82. Sinha SK (1977) Food legumes: distribution, adaptability and biology of yield. FAOGoogle Scholar
  83. Thudi M, Upadhyaya HD, Rathore A, Gaur PM, Krishnamurthy L, Roorkiwal M, Nayak SN, Chaturvedi SK, Basu PS, Gangarao NVPR, Fikre A, Kimurto P, Sharma PC, Sheshashayee MS, Tobita S, Kashiwagi J, Ito O, Killian A, Varshney RK (2014) Genetic dissection of drought and heat tolerance in chickpea through genome-wide and candidate gene-based Association mapping approaches. PLoS ONE 9:e96758PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Tickoo J, Mahto GR, Manji C (1996) Plant type in mungbean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). In: Asthana AN, Kim DH (eds) Proceeding of recent Advances in mungbean research. Indian Society of Pulses Research, Kanpur, India, pp 197–213Google Scholar
  85. Turan S, Cornish K, Kumar S (2012) Salinity tolerance in plants: breeding and genetic engineering. Aust J Crop Sci 6:1337Google Scholar
  86. United Nations DOEASA, Population Division (2017) World population prospects: the 2017 revision, world population 2017 Wallchart. ST/ESA/SER.A/398Google Scholar
  87. Upadhyaya HD, Bajaj D, Narnoliya L, Das S, Kumar V, Gowda CLL, Sharma S, Tyagi AK, Parida SK (2016) Genome-wide scans for delineation of Candidate genes regulating seed-protein content in chickpea. Front Plant Sci 7:302.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00302CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  88. Varshney RK, Nayak SN, May GD, Jackson SA (2009) Next-generation sequencing technologies and their implications for crop genetics and breeding. Trends Biotechnol 27:522–530PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Vijayan S, Beena M, Kirti P (2006) Simple and effective regeneration of mungbean (Vigna radiata (L) Wilczek) using cotyledonary node explants. J Plant Biochem Biotechnol 15:131–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Vikram P, Swamy BM, Dixit S, Singh R, Singh BP, Miro B, Kohli A, Henry A, Singh N, Kumar A (2015) Drought susceptibility of modern rice varieties: an effect of linkage of drought tolerance with undesirable traits. Sci Rep 5:14799PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Wang F, Wang C, Liu P, Lei C, Hao W, Gao Y, Liu YG, Zhao K (2016) Enhanced rice blast resistance by CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the ERF transcription factor gene OsERF922. PLoS ONE 11:e0154027PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Wetterstrand K (2018) DNA sequencing costs: data from the NHGRI genome sequencing program (GSP) [Online]. Available: https://www.genome.gov/27541954/dna-sequencing-costs-data/. Accessed 11 Feb 2018
  93. Xu RF, Li H, Qin RY, Li J, Qiu CH, Yang YC, Ma H, Li L, Wei PC, Yang JB (2015) Generation of inheritable and “transgene clean” targeted genome-modified rice in later generations using the CRISPR/Cas9 system. Sci Rep 5:11491PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Young ND, Kumar L, Menancio-Hautea D, Danesh D, Talekar NS, Shanmugasundarum S, Kim DH (1992) RFLP mapping of a major bruchid resistance gene in mungbean (Vigna radiata, L. Wilczek). Theor Appl Genet 84:839–844PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Yu J, Holland JB, Mcmullen MD, Buckler ES (2008) Genetic design and statistical power of nested association mapping in maize. Genetics 178:539–551PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Zhang J, Zhang H, Botella JR, Zhu JK ( 2018) Generation of new glutinous rice by CRISPR/Cas9‐targeted mutagenesis of the Waxy gene in elite rice varieties. J Integr Plant Biol 60:369–375PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Zhou Z, Jiang Y, Wang Z, Gou Z, Lyu J, Li W, Yu Y, Shu L, Zhao Y, Ma Y, Fang C, Shen Y, Liu T, Li C, Li Q, Wu M, Wang M, Wu Y, Dong Y, Wan W, Wang X, Ding Z, Gao Y, Xiang H, Zhu B, Lee S-H, Wang H, Tian Z (2015) Resequencing 302 wild and cultivated accessions identifies genes related to domestication and improvement in soybean. Nat Biotechnol 33:408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Zsögön A, Cermak T, Voytas D, Peres LEP (2017) Genome editing as a tool to achieve the crop ideotype and de novo domestication of wild relatives: Case study in tomato. Plant Sci 256:120–130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas J. Noble
    • 1
  • Brett Williams
    • 1
  • Thi My Linh Hoang
    • 1
  • Sudipta Shekhar Das Bhowmik
    • 1
  • Grace Zi Hao Tan
    • 1
  • Sagadevan Mundree
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Centre for Tropical Crops and Biocommodities, Queensland University of TechnologyBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations