Paper · 2023 · Plant Cell Reports

GRF–GIF chimeric proteins enhance in vitro regeneration and Agrobacterium-mediated transformation efficiencies of lettuce (Lactuca spp.)

Tawni Bull; Juan Debernardi; Megan Reeves; et al.

4
claims
8
verbatim quotes
52
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

KEY MESSAGE: GRF-GIF chimeric proteins from multiple source species enhance in vitro regeneration in both wild and cultivated lettuce. In addition, they enhance regeneration in multiple types of lettuce including butterheads, romaines, and crispheads. The ability of plants to regenerate in vitro has been exploited for use in tissue culture systems for plant propagation, plant transformation, and genome editing. The success of in vitro regeneration is often genotype dependent and continues to be a bottleneck for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and its deployment for improvement of some crop species. Manipulation of transcription factors that play key roles in plant development such as BABY BOOM, WUSCHEL, and GROWTH-REGULATING FACTORs (GRFs) has improved regeneration and transformation efficiencies in several plant species. Here, we compare the efficacy of GRF-GIF gene fusions from multiple species to boost regeneration efficiency and shooting frequency in four genotypes of wild and cultivated lettuce (Lactuca spp. L.). In addition, we show that GRF-GIFs with mutated miRNA 396 binding sites increase regeneration efficiency and shooting frequency when compared to controls. We also present a co-transformation strategy for increased transformation efficiency and recovery of transgenic plants harboring a gene of interest. This strategy will enhance the recovery of transgenic plants of other lettuce genotypes and likely other crops in the Compositae family.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GRF-GIF chimeric proteins from multiple species enhance regeneration in wild and cultivated lettuce.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativae0
Treatment
GRF-GIF chimeric proteins from multiple source speciese0
Outcome
in vitro regeneratione0
Direction
enhancee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“GRF-GIF chimeric proteins from multiple source species enhance in vitro regeneration in both wild and cultivated lettuce”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 13–133 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GRF-GIF chimeric proteins enhance regeneration in butterhead, romaine and crisphead lettuce.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativat0
Material
butterheads, romaines, and crispheadse0
Treatment
GRF-GIF chimeric proteins from multiple source speciese1
Outcome
regeneratione0
Direction
enhancee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“they enhance regeneration in multiple types of lettuce including butterheads, romaines, and crispheads”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 148–250 · show in text ↑
t0

“lettuce (Lactuca spp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 114–136 · show in text ↑
e1

“GRF-GIF chimeric proteins from multiple source species”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 13–67 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

GRF-GIF constructs with mutated miRNA 396 binding sites increased lettuce regeneration efficiency and shooting frequency relative to controls.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativat0
Treatment
GRF-GIFs with mutated miRNA 396 binding sitese0
Gene
miRNA 396e0
Outcome
regeneration efficiency and shooting frequencye0
Direction
increasee0
Comparator
controlse0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“GRF-GIFs with mutated miRNA 396 binding sites increase regeneration efficiency and shooting frequency when compared to controls”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1066–1193 · show in text ↑
t0

“lettuce (Lactuca spp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 114–136 · show in text ↑
Method / resourceobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The co-transformation strategy increased transformation efficiency and recovery of transgenic lettuce plants.

Taxon
lettuceLactuca sativat0
Outcome
transformation efficiency and recovery of transgenic plantse0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparatorValue

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Lactuca sativa
Lactuca sativa · Taxonen:User:Geographer · CC BY 1.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“a co-transformation strategy for increased transformation efficiency and recovery of transgenic plants harboring a gene of interest”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1211–1342 · show in text ↑
t0

“lettuce (Lactuca spp.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 114–136 · show in text ↑

climate site · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results

11 papers: 6 positive, 5 negative or no effect

5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

7 papers more in this group

See all 11 papers →

loss of function · growth · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Results agree

3 papers: 3 positive, 0 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.