Transgene-Free Genome Editing: Strategies for Generating Null Segregant Plants in Modern Crop Breeding

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of current methodologies for generating transgene-free, genome-edited plants, known as null segregants. It explores the foundational principles driving this technology, details cutting-edge techniques from Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression to ribonucleoprotein (RNP) delivery and graft-mobile editing systems, and addresses key challenges in optimization and efficiency. Aimed at researchers and scientists in agricultural biotechnology and drug development, the content also examines regulatory considerations and comparative analyses of method effectiveness across various plant species, offering a vital resource for advancing crop improvement and pharmaceutical applications.

Understanding Null Segregants: The Foundation of Transgene-Free Plant Genome Editing

Null segregants are a specific class of organisms derived from genetic modification processes but are argued to contain no lingering vestiges of the technology after the segregation of chromosomes or deletion of genetic insertions. According to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), null segregants (also called negative segregants) are "plants that lack the transgenic event and can be produced, for example, by self-fertilisation of hemizygous GM plants, or from crosses between hemizygous GM plants and non-GM plants" [1]. These organisms occupy a unique regulatory position – they are derivatives of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) but are considered non-transgenic because they have lost the inserted transgenes through genetic segregation or excision processes [1].

The fundamental characteristic of null segregants is that they are products of gene technology where the intended genetic change has been achieved without the permanent incorporation of foreign DNA. This distinguishes them from traditional GMOs and places them at the heart of current regulatory debates in plant biotechnology and crop development [1]. The rationale behind calls to deregulate null segregants is that these organisms contain "no genetic modifications" in their final state, despite having undergone genetic modification during their production [1].

Generation Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Several strategic approaches have been developed for generating null segregants, which can be categorized into three major methodologies [1]:

Elimination via Genetic Segregation

This approach involves crossing genetically modified plants with non-modified plants to produce offspring that segregate for the transgene. The protocol involves:

• Generation of hemizygous GM plants: Create plants containing the gene editing construct integrated at a single locus.
• Cross-pollination: Cross hemizygous GM plants with non-GM plants or self-fertilize hemizygous plants.
• Selection and screening: Identify null segregants among the progeny that have lost the transgene through Mendelian segregation.
• Molecular verification: Use PCR-based methods and sequencing to confirm the absence of transgenes while verifying the desired genetic edits.

Transient Expression from DNA Vectors

This method utilizes temporary expression of gene editing components without stable integration:

• Vector design: Construct plasmids containing gene editing machinery (e.g., CRISPR-Cas9 and guide RNAs) with minimal bacterial backbone sequences.
• Plant transformation: Introduce vectors into plant cells using Agrobacterium-mediated transformation or biolistics.
• Transient expression window: Allow sufficient time for gene editing to occur (typically 3-4 days) without stable integration [2].
• Plant regeneration: Regenerate plants from transformed cells under selective conditions using appropriate hormone regimes.
• Screening: Identify plants containing the desired edits but lacking the vector DNA.

DNA-Independent Editor Delivery

This approach completely avoids DNA integration by using:

• Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex formation: Pre-assemble Cas9 protein with guide RNA in vitro [1].
• Delivery into plant cells: Introduce RNPs directly into plant protoplasts via polyethylene glycol (PEG)-mediated transformation or electroporation.
• Plant regeneration: Regenerate whole plants from edited protoplasts using appropriate tissue culture protocols.
• Characterization: Screen regenerated plants for desired mutations and confirm absence of foreign DNA.

Table 1: Comparison of Null Segregant Generation Methods

Method	Key Features	Editing Efficiency	Technical Complexity	Regulatory Advantage
Genetic Segregation	Relies on Mendelian inheritance; requires sexual crossing	Variable; depends on segregation patterns	Low to moderate	Well-established process; familiar to breeders
Transient Expression	Time-limited expression; no stable integration	Moderate to high	Moderate	Reduced integration risk; shorter timeline
DNA-Free Delivery (RNPs)	No DNA involved; minimal off-target effects	Moderate	High (requires protoplast handling)	No foreign DNA; simplified regulatory path

Characterization and Verification Protocols

Molecular Analysis Workflow

Comprehensive characterization of putative null segregants requires multiple verification steps:

• PCR-based screening:

  • Design primers specific to vector backbone elements (e.g., bacterial antibiotic resistance genes, origins of replication)
  • Include positive controls using gene-specific primers to detect desired edits
  • Use multiplex PCR to simultaneously screen for presence of edits and absence of vector sequences

• Southern blot analysis:

  • Perform using digoxigenin-labeled probes targeting vector sequences
  • Use high-stringency conditions to detect even low-copy number integrations
  • Include appropriate positive and negative controls

• Whole genome sequencing:

  • Conduct 30x coverage whole genome sequencing to comprehensively assess the genome
  • Use bioinformatics pipelines to identify any vector sequence insertions
  • Analyze potential off-target effects at predicted off-target sites

• Phenotypic confirmation:

  • Verify the presence of desired traits through phenotypic assays
  • Conduct multi-generation stability studies to ensure trait heritability

Quantitative Analysis of Editing Efficiency

The following table summarizes key performance metrics for null segregant generation based on published studies:

Table 2: Efficiency Metrics for Null Segregant Production

Crop Species	Method	Editing Efficiency	Null Segregant Recovery Rate	Time to Null Segregant
Tobacco	Transient Expression	45-78%	25-40%	1 generation
Tomato	RNP Delivery	35-62%	15-30%	1-2 generations
Soybean	Genetic Segregation	22-45%	50% (Mendelian)	2 generations
Citrus	Transient Expression [2]	Up to 17x improvement with chemical selection	Not specified	1 generation
Rice	tRNA-based Multiplex [3]	High efficiency in cereals	Not specified	1-2 generations

Applications in Crop Improvement

Null segregant technology has been successfully applied in numerous crop improvement programs:

Disease Resistance

• Citrus canker resistance: Researchers used RNPs with multiple crRNAs targeting the CsLOB1 susceptibility gene in citrus, generating edited plants with long deletions and inversions while remaining transgene-free [3].
• Grapevine downy mildew resistance: Simultaneous disruption of DMR6-1 and DMR6-2 susceptibility genes produced edited plants with reduced susceptibility to Plasmopara viticola [3].

Quality Improvement

• Wheat quality enhancement: Editing of polyphenol oxidase (PPO) genes resulted in substantially reduced enzymatic browning, improving flour and dough quality [3].
• Soybean allergen reduction: Multiplex CRISPR-Cas9 targeting of GmP34 and homologous genes produced lines with reduced allergenic proteins in seeds [3].

Accelerated Breeding

• Reverse breeding applications: Using null segregants in schemes where one parent is genetically engineered to prevent recombination during gamete production, enabling the perpetuation of desired F1 hybrid phenotypes [1].
• Rapid cycle breeding: Over-expression of flowering genes in juvenile plants to reduce generation time, with null segregants obtained from offspring of hemizygous parents [1].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Null Segregant Research

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Considerations
Editor Delivery Systems	Agrobacterium strains, PEG transformation reagents, Gene guns	Introduction of editing components into plant cells	Strain efficiency, cytotoxicity, cell viability
Nuclease Systems	Cas9, Cas12a, Cas12f, base editors [3]	Targeted DNA modification	Size constraints, editing window, PAM requirements
Guide RNA Design	CRISPR gRNAs, tRNA-processing systems, ribozyme-based systems [3]	Target sequence recognition	On-target efficiency, off-target potential, multiplexing capability
Selection Agents	Kanamycin, hygromycin, visual markers (Ruby reporter) [2] [3]	Identification of transformed cells/plants	Concentration optimization, species-specific sensitivity
Regeneration Media	Hormone cocktails (auxins, cytokinins), nutrient formulations	Plant regeneration from edited cells	Genotype-specific optimization, developmental stage
Screening Tools	PCR primers, Southern blot reagents, sequencing kits	Verification of edits and transgene absence	Sensitivity, specificity, comprehensive coverage
Bioinformatics Tools	gRNA design software, off-target prediction algorithms, sequence analysis platforms	Experimental design and data analysis	Database quality, algorithm accuracy, user interface

Regulatory Framework and Future Perspectives

The regulatory status of null segregants remains complex and varies across jurisdictions. The core debate centers on whether these organisms should be subject to GMO regulations, as they are products of gene technology but lack transgenic elements in their final state [1]. The international regulatory landscape is evolving, with recent developments in the European Union proposing categorization of new genomic techniques (NGTs) that could impact null segregant regulation [4].

The "new combination of heritable material" phrase used in many regulatory frameworks presents a particular challenge for null segregants, as they may contain precisely targeted mutations without introduced foreign DNA [1]. Current trends suggest increasing adoption of product-based rather than process-based regulatory approaches, which may facilitate the commercialization of null segregants in agricultural systems.

Future developments in null segregant technology will likely focus on improving efficiency through advanced delivery methods, enhancing specificity through novel editor systems, and expanding applications to more crop species. The integration of tissue culture-free transformation methods [5] with null segregant production represents a particularly promising direction for accelerating crop improvement programs while addressing regulatory concerns. As the technology matures, harmonization of international regulatory standards will be crucial for realizing the full potential of null segregants in global agricultural systems.

The development of transgene-free genome-edited plants represents a pivotal advancement in agricultural biotechnology, directly addressing the primary regulatory and commercial hurdles that have constrained traditional genetically modified organisms (GMOs). By achieving precise genetic modifications without integrating foreign DNA sequences into the plant genome, these null segregants circumvent the complex GMO regulatory frameworks of many countries, significantly accelerating their path to commercialization. This approach is particularly transformative for perennial crops and vegetatively propagated species, where the lengthy deregulation process has historically discouraged innovation. The following application notes and protocols detail the scientific methodologies and regulatory rationale underpinning this emerging paradigm, providing researchers with practical frameworks for implementing these technologies across diverse crop systems.

The global regulatory landscape for genetically engineered crops remains fragmented, creating significant commercial barriers for developers. International instruments such as the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety (CPB) were originally developed for transgenic organisms containing foreign DNA, creating legal ambiguity for gene-edited products that may contain only minor, targeted modifications indistinguishable from conventional breeding outcomes [6]. This regulatory uncertainty exemplifies the "pacing problem," where legal systems struggle to adapt to rapid technological innovation [6].

The critical distinction lies in the presence or absence of recombinant DNA in the final plant product. Organisms developed through modern genome editing techniques that do not contain stable-integrated foreign DNA sequences (transgenes) are increasingly being classified separately from traditional GMOs in several key agricultural markets [6]. Countries including Argentina, Brazil, India, and China have implemented more flexible regulatory approaches that may exempt certain categories of gene-edited products from stringent GMO regulation, particularly when no novel combination of genetic material is present or when the same genetic outcome could have been achieved through conventional breeding methods [6]. This emerging regulatory distinction forms the commercial imperative for developing transgene-free editing approaches.

Quantitative Analysis of Regulatory Advantages

The commercial implications of the transgene-free approach are substantial, affecting both development timelines and market access. The following tables summarize key quantitative data and regulatory distinctions.

Table 1: Comparative Regulatory Treatment of Genome-Edited Plants Across Key Regions

Region/Country	Regulatory Approach	Transgene-Free Product Status	Key Regulatory Determinants
European Union	Process-based [6]	Typically regulated as GMOs [6]	Precautionary Principle; historical process focus
United States	Product-based [6]	Often exempt from biotechnology regulation [6]	Presence of foreign DNA; product characteristics
Argentina	Flexible precautionary [6]	Case-by-case exemptions possible [6]	Novel combination of genetic material
Japan	Product-based [6]	Approved for market (e.g., high-GABA tomato) [6]	Distinction from transgenic organisms
Philippines	Adapted biosafety guidelines [6]	Incorporated through updated guidelines [6]	Scientific basis for regulatory updates

Table 2: Efficiency Metrics for Transgene-Free Editing Systems

Editing System	Efficiency Rate	Key Applications	Notable Advantages
Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression (Improved method)	17x more efficient than 2018 version [2]	Citrus; various dicot species [2]	Kanamycin selection; wide species applicability
Protoplast RNP editing	17.3% and 6.5% for two sgRNAs in carrot [7]	Carrot; species with established protoplast systems [7]	DNA-free; no vector design required
Virus-induced genome editing (VIGE)	Up to 100% heritable mutation rate in tomato [7]	Tomato; Nicotiana benthamiana [7]	Tissue culture-free; genotype-independent
In planta genome editing (IPGEC)	High-efficiency editing in citrus [7]	Citrus; woody perennial species [7]	Bypasses tissue culture; no somaclonal variation

Experimental Protocols for Transgene-Free Plant Production

Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Expression with Kanamycin Selection

This protocol, adapted from Li et al. with significantly enhanced efficiency, utilizes transient expression of CRISPR components without genomic integration, followed by kanamycin selection to identify successfully edited cells [2].

Materials and Reagents

• Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain EHA105 or similar
• Binary vector with Cas9 and sgRNA expression cassettes
• Plant explants (citrus epicotyls or species-appropriate tissue)
• Kanamycin-containing selection medium
• Acetosyringone solution (100 μM)
• Regeneration-promoting transcription factors (e.g., WUS, STM, IPT) [7]
• T-DNA delivery enhancers [7]

Procedure

• Vector Construction: Assemble a T-DNA binary vector containing:

  • A plant codon-optimized Cas9 gene driven by a strong constitutive promoter
  • sgRNA expression cassette(s) targeting gene(s) of interest
  • Regeneration-promoting transcription factors (WUS, STM, IPT) to enhance recovery of edited cells [7]
  • T-DNA delivery enhancers to improve transformation efficiency [7]

• Agrobacterium Preparation:

  • Transform the binary vector into Agrobacterium tumefaciens
  • Inoculate a single colony in 5 mL liquid LB medium with appropriate antibiotics
  • Culture at 28°C with shaking (200 rpm) for 24 hours until OD600 reaches 0.8-1.0
  • Centrifuge at 5000 × g for 10 minutes and resuspend in induction medium containing 100 μM acetosyringone
  • Incubate at 28°C with shaking for 4-6 hours

• Plant Transformation:

  • Prepare explants from sterile seedlings (for citrus: 2-week-old epicotyls sectioned into 1 cm segments)
  • Immerse explants in the Agrobacterium suspension for 30 minutes with gentle agitation
  • Blot dry on sterile filter paper and co-culture on solid medium for 3 days in the dark at 25°C

• Selection and Regeneration:

  • Transfer explants to selection medium containing 50-100 mg/L kanamycin
  • Culture for 3-4 days only with kanamycin to select for cells that temporarily expressed the CRISPR constructs [2]
  • Transfer to regeneration medium without antibiotics to allow growth of edited cells
  • Subculture developing shoots every 3-4 weeks until rooted plantlets form

• Molecular Confirmation:

  • Extract genomic DNA from regenerated plantlets
  • Perform PCR amplification of target regions
  • Use restriction enzyme digestion or sequencing to confirm editing efficiency
  • Conduct Southern blotting or whole genome sequencing to verify absence of T-DNA integration

Virus-Induced Genome Editing (VIGE) with Compact Nucleases

This tissue culture-free method utilizes engineered viruses to deliver editing components systemically, particularly effective with compact nucleases that overcome viral vector size limitations [7].

Materials and Reagents

• Potato virus X (PVX) or Tobacco rattle virus (TRV) vectors
• Compact nuclease (e.g., AsCas12f, TnpB ISYmu1) [7]
• Guide RNA constructs
• Agrobacterium strains for viral delivery
• Cas9-expressing plant lines (for VIGE systems requiring pre-existing Cas9)

Procedure

• Viral Vector Engineering:

  • Engineer viral vectors to express compact nucleases (approximately one-third the size of SpCas9) and guide RNAs [7]
  • For TRV systems, clone mobile RNA-fused gRNAs for transport to meristematic tissues

• Plant Inoculation:

  • For in planta infection, infiltrate 2-3 leaf stage seedlings with Agrobacterium containing viral vectors
  • Apply reduced light conditions post-inoculation to enhance heritable editing rates [7]
  • For Cas9-expressing lines, inoculate with viral vectors carrying only guide RNAs

• Systemic Infection and Editing:

  • Allow viral spread throughout the plant for 2-3 weeks
  • Monitor for viral symptoms and tissue-specific editing efficiency
  • For heritable editing, collect seeds from infected plants and screen progeny

• Selection of Edited Lines:

  • Screen T1 generation for edited loci using PCR-based methods
  • Select transgene-free lines lacking both viral vector and nuclease transgenes
  • Confirm stable inheritance of edits in T2 generation

Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Delivery to Protoplasts

This DNA-free approach delivers pre-assembled Cas protein-gRNA complexes directly to protoplasts, eliminating the possibility of transgene integration [7].

Materials and Reagents

• CRISPR-Cas9 or Cas12a ribonucleoprotein complexes
• Plant protoplasts (carrot, citrus, or species-appropriate)
• Polyethylene glycol (PEG) transformation solution
• Protoplast culture media
• Regeneration media

Procedure

• RNP Complex Assembly:

  • Pre-assemble Cas9 or Cas12a protein with synthetic guide RNAs
  • For multiplex editing, assemble with multiple guide RNAs targeting the same gene for larger deletions [7]
  • Incubate at 25°C for 15 minutes to form functional RNP complexes

• Protoplast Transformation:

  • Isolate protoplasts from leaf tissue or cell suspension cultures
  • Mix 2 × 10^5 protoplasts with 10-20 μg RNP complexes
  • Add 40% PEG solution to final concentration of 20%
  • Incubate for 15 minutes at room temperature
  • Wash with W5 solution to remove PEG

• Plant Regeneration:

  • Culture transformed protoplasts in appropriate medium
  • Monitor cell division and microcallus formation
  • Transfer developing calli to regeneration medium
  • Regenerate whole plants through organogenesis or embryogenesis

Visualizing Transgene-Free Editing Workflows

Regulatory Decision Pathway for Genome-Edited Plants

Transgene-Free Editing Methodology Comparison

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Transgene-Free Plant Genome Editing

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function	Application Notes
CRISPR Nucleases	SpCas9, LbCas12a, AsCas12f, TnpB [7]	DNA cleavage at target sites	Compact nucleases (AsCas12f) enable viral delivery [7]
Delivery Vectors	Agrobacterium binary vectors, viral vectors (TRV, PVX) [7]	Delivery of editing components	Viral vectors enable tissue culture-free editing [7]
RNP Components	Recombinant Cas protein, synthetic sgRNAs	DNA-free editing	Pre-assembled complexes eliminate DNA integration
Selection Agents	Kanamycin (transient selection) [2]	Enrichment of edited cells	Short-term (3-4 day) application for transient expression [2]
Regeneration Enhancers	WUS, STM, IPT transcription factors [7]	Improved recovery of edited plants	Critical for difficult-to-transform species
Editing Confirmation	PCR primers, restriction enzymes, sequencing assays	Verification of edits and transgene-free status	Essential for regulatory documentation

The strategic development of transgene-free genome-edited plants addresses the fundamental regulatory challenges that have impeded commercialization of genetically improved crops. Methodologies including Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression, viral delivery systems, and RNP-based approaches provide researchers with multiple pathways to achieve precise genetic modifications without foreign DNA integration. The commercial imperative for these approaches is underscored by evolving global regulatory frameworks that increasingly distinguish between transgenic organisms and those edited without stable incorporation of recombinant DNA.

Future advancements will likely focus on enhancing the efficiency of editing and regeneration across diverse crop species, particularly recalcitrant perennial and woody plants. Emerging technologies such as prime editing, base editing, and epigenetic modulation offer additional pathways for precise genetic improvement while maintaining a transgene-free status. As regulatory systems continue to evolve toward more scientifically-grounded, product-based approaches, transgene-free genome editing is positioned to become a cornerstone of sustainable crop improvement strategies, balancing innovation with responsible governance to address pressing agricultural challenges.

Genome editing technologies, particularly the CRISPR/Cas system, have revolutionized genetic engineering by enabling precise modifications within an organism's DNA. A significant advancement in this field is the development of methods that avoid the stable integration of foreign DNA, thereby producing transgene-free edited organisms. These products, often termed null segregants, are genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that have been processed to eliminate all transgenic sequences, leaving only the intended edit in the genome [8].

The drive towards transgene-free editing is particularly strong in plant sciences and agriculture. Generating plants without foreign DNA is crucial for simplifying regulatory approval, enhancing consumer acceptance, and applying the technology to perennial crops with long life cycles where segregating out transgenes through conventional breeding is impractical [2] [9]. This article outlines the core principles and detailed protocols for achieving genome editing without foreign DNA integration, providing a toolkit for researchers focused on generating null segregants.

Core Principles and Methodologies

The creation of transgene-free edited organisms relies on principles that deliver editing reagents transiently, ensuring they perform their function without integrating into the host genome. The following sections detail the primary technological approaches.

Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Complex Delivery

The delivery of pre-assembled Cas9 protein and guide RNA (gRNA) as a ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complex is a cornerstone of DNA-free editing [10].

• Principle: Purified Cas9 protein is mixed with in vitro-transcribed gRNA to form a complex in a test tube. This RNP complex is then delivered directly into plant cells, typically through polyethylene glycol (PEG)-mediated transfection of protoplasts (plant cells without cell walls). Once inside the cell, the complex immediately migrates to the nucleus and creates double-strand breaks at the target site. The RNP is then rapidly degraded by cellular proteases, leaving no foreign DNA footprint [10].
• Key Advantage: This method drastically reduces the chances of off-target effects and insertional mutagenesis because the editing activity is transient. It also avoids the need for species-specific promoters to express Cas9, making it broadly applicable across diverse species [10].

Transient DNA Expression

This approach uses conventional DNA vectors to carry CRISPR/Cas components but leverages techniques that prevent their stable integration into the host chromosome.

• Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Transformation: Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a common tool for delivering gene-editing reagents (within a T-DNA plasmid) into plant cells. In standard practice, the T-DNA integrates permanently into the plant genome. However, by altering the culture conditions or timing, researchers can achieve transient expression, where the editing machinery is produced from the T-DNA before it integrates. The cells that were successfully edited but did not integrate the T-DNA are then identified and regenerated [2] [9].
• Virus-Induced Genome Editing (VIGE): Engineered plant viruses can be used as vectors to deliver gRNAs and sometimes Cas9 into plant cells. These viruses replicate and spread systemically, leading to high levels of editing reagent expression without integrating into the host plant's genome. This is a highly efficient method for in planta editing [11].

Mobile RNA and Grafting

A more recent innovation uses the plant's own vascular system to deliver editing reagents.

• Principle: CRISPR/Cas9 mRNA and gRNA are engineered to include tRNA-like sequences (TLS), which act as motifs that enable the RNAs to be transported over graft junctions [12].
• Protocol: A non-transgenic wild-type plant (the scion) is grafted onto a transgenic rootstock that is genetically modified to produce these mobile TLS-fused RNAs. The editing reagents are transported from the rootstock into the scion, where they enter the cells and create heritable edits in the germline. The seeds produced by the wild-type scion are therefore edited but completely free of transgenes, as the rootstock's DNA never enters the scion [12].

Selection Strategies for Transgene-Free Edited Cells

Identifying the rare cells that are edited but lack the transgene is a major challenge, especially in plants that are not easily regenerated from single cells. Advanced co-editing strategies have been developed to overcome this.

• Co-editing of a Marker Gene: Editing reagents are designed to simultaneously target a trait gene of interest and a marker gene (e.g., the ALS gene). A successful edit in the ALS gene can confer herbicide resistance, providing a simple positive selection for edited cells during tissue culture [9].
• Negative Selection with the FCY-UPP System: A genetic circuit containing the FCY (cytosine deaminase) and UPP (uracil phosphoribosyltransferase) genes is included in the delivered T-DNA. In the presence of the compound 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC), this system produces a toxic metabolite that kills any cell in which the T-DNA is stably integrated. Therefore, only edited cells that have lost the T-DNA (transgene-free edited cells) can survive on a 5-FC-containing medium [9].

The table below summarizes the key characteristics of these major approaches.

Table 1: Comparison of Primary Transgene-Free Genome Editing Methods

Method	Key Principle	Editing Efficiency	Key Advantage	Primary Limitation
RNP Delivery [10]	Direct delivery of pre-assembled Cas9-gRNA complex	Variable; can be high in amenable systems	No foreign DNA; low off-target risk	Protoplast regeneration required
Transient DNA Expression [2]	Short-term expression from non-integrated T-DNA	Can be high with optimization	Leverages established Agrobacterium protocols	Screening required to exclude integration events
Mobile RNA & Grafting [12]	Graft-mobile RNAs edit wild-type scion germline	~1/1000 transcript delivery ratio	Bypasses tissue culture; applicable to many crops	Efficiency can be low
Virus-Delivered Editing [11]	Systemic delivery via engineered plant viruses	High, due to viral amplification	High efficiency; no tissue culture needed	Limited cargo capacity; potential bio-containment issues

Quantitative Data and Efficiency

The efficiency of generating transgene-free edited plants varies significantly based on the method, species, and target tissue. Recent research demonstrates substantial improvements.

Table 2: Reported Efficiencies of Transgene-Free Editing Systems

Species	Method	Key Improvement	Reported Efficiency	Reference
Citrus	Agrobacterium transient + Kanamycin	Kanamycin pulse to suppress unedited cells	17x more efficient than 2018 method	[2]
Arabidopsis thaliana	Grafting with TLS motifs	Mobile editing of scion germline	Heritable edits in wild-type scion progeny	[12]
Poplar	Co-editing (CBE on ALS & Pt4CL1)	Positive herbicide selection for edits	~7% of regenerants edited at both target genes	[9]
Mushroom (P. ostreatus)	Trans-nuclei CRISPR/Cas9	RNP transfer between fused nuclei	Successful gene knockout; verified foreign-DNA-free	[13]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: RNP Delivery into Plant Protoplasts

This protocol is adapted from studies on DNA-free editing in plants and mushrooms [13] [10].

Key Research Reagent Solutions:

• Cas9 Nuclease: Purified recombinant Cas9 protein.
• gRNA: Chemically synthesized or in vitro-transcribed target-specific gRNA.
• Protoplast Isolation Enzyme Solution: A mixture of cellulases and pectinases to digest plant cell walls.
• PEG Solution: Polyethylene glycol (e.g., PEG 4000) to facilitate membrane fusion.
• W5 and WI Solutions: Salt and osmoticum solutions for protoplast washing and culture.

Methodology:

• Isolate Protoplasts: Harvest young plant leaves or cultured cells. Slice tissue thinly and incubate in the protoplast isolation enzyme solution for several hours in the dark with gentle shaking.
• Purify Protoplasts: Filter the digest through a nylon mesh to remove debris. Pellet the protoplasts by gentle centrifugation and wash with W5 solution. Resuspend in WI solution and count cell density.
• Assemble RNP Complex: For a single reaction, mix 10 µg of Cas9 protein with a 3-5x molar excess of gRNA. Incubate at 25°C for 15 minutes to form the RNP complex.
• Transfect Protoplasts: Combine 100 µL of protoplast suspension (e.g., 2x10^5 cells) with the pre-assembled RNP. Add an equal volume of 40% PEG solution, mix gently by inversion, and incubate for 20-30 minutes.
• Regenerate Plants: Dilute the transfection mixture step-wise with WI solution to reduce PEG toxicity. Culture the transfected protoplasts in a suitable medium to regenerate cell walls and initiate cell division. Under appropriate hormonal regimes, induce embryogenesis and organogenesis to regenerate whole plants.

Protocol 2: Transgene-Free Editing via Grafting

This protocol is based on the graft-mobile editing system developed for Arabidopsis and Brassica rapa [12].

Key Research Reagent Solutions:

• Transgenic Rootstock Seeds: Seeds of a line expressing TLS-fused Cas9 and TLS-fused gRNA, often under an inducible promoter.
• Wild-type Scion Seeds: Seeds of the genotype to be edited.
• Grafting Supplies: Fine tweezers, razor blades, and sterile plastic plates for hypocotyl grafting.
• Inducing Agent: e.g., Estradiol for estradiol-inducible systems.

Methodology:

• Generate Transgenic Rootstocks: Create a plant line stably expressing a Cas9-TLS fusion and a gRNA-TLS fusion.
• Grafting: Sow rootstock and wild-type scion seeds. When seedlings have developed a hypocotyl of suitable length, perform hypocotyl grafting. Using a razor blade, cut the wild-type seedling (scion) and place it onto the decapitated transgenic rootstock. Secure the graft junction with a silicon tube or clip.
• Incubate and Induce: Maintain grafted plants in a high-humidity chamber for 1-2 weeks to allow the graft union to heal. Apply the inducing agent (e.g., estradiol) to trigger the expression of the mobile Cas9 and gRNA transcripts in the rootstock.
• Harvest and Screen Progeny: Allow the grafted plant to grow, flower, and set seed. Collect seeds (T1) from the wild-type scion. Genotype the T1 plants to identify those carrying the desired heritable edits. These plants will be transgene-free, as the mobile RNAs did not reverse-transcribe and integrate.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Transgene-Free Genome Editing

Research Reagent / Tool	Function / Explanation	Example Use Cases
Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Complex [10]	Pre-assembled Cas9-gRNA; enables immediate editing without transcription/translation.	DNA-free editing in protoplasts; reduces off-target effects.
tRNA-like Sequence (TLS) Motifs [12]	RNA tags that facilitate long-distance movement of transcripts through the plant vasculature.	Graft-mobile editing from rootstock to wild-type scion.
Cytosine Base Editor (CBE) [9]	Fusion protein that converts a C•G base pair to T•A without causing double-strand breaks.	Co-editing of the ALS gene to create a selectable herbicide resistance trait.
FCY-UPP Negative Selection System [9]	A two-enzyme system that converts 5-FC into a toxic compound, killing transgenic cells.	Selection of transgene-free edited cells in tissue culture.
Agrobacterium Strains [2]	A natural bacterium engineered to deliver T-DNA containing editing reagents into plant cells.	Standard for plant transformation; can be optimized for transient expression.

Workflow and Pathway Visualizations

The following diagrams illustrate the logical workflow for two primary methods described in this article.

Diagram 1: Transgene-free editing workflows.

Diagram 2: Co-editing and negative selection logic.

The journey from traditional genetic modification to contemporary precision editing represents a paradigm shift in agricultural biotechnology. Traditional genetically modified organisms (GMOs) involve the introduction of foreign DNA, often from distantly related species, into a plant's genome to confer desired traits such as insect resistance or herbicide tolerance [14]. This process, exemplified by Bt crops containing genes from Bacillus thuringiensis, results in random and unpredictable insertion of genetic material into the host genome [14]. In contrast, precision editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas systems, enable targeted modifications within a plant's existing genetic blueprint without necessarily incorporating foreign DNA sequences [14] [15]. This fundamental distinction frames the ongoing revolution in how scientists approach genetic improvement of crops, moving from transgenic approaches to precise genome surgery that mimics natural genetic variation.

The core innovation of precision editing lies in its ability to make specific, targeted changes to an organism's DNA—such as inactivating, modifying, or correcting specific genes—without introducing genes from unrelated species [2] [15]. As Dawn Cayabyab, a Ph.D. student at UC Davis, explains: "CRISPR is a gene editing tool that we can think of as a pair of molecular scissors, and we can take those scissors and guide them to a specific location in the genome and make a precise cut in the DNA" [15]. This technological evolution has created new possibilities for developing improved crop varieties while addressing some of the regulatory and public acceptance challenges associated with traditional GMOs.

Comparative Analysis: Traditional GMOs vs. Precision Editing

Fundamental Mechanistic Differences

The distinction between traditional genetic engineering and precision editing begins at the mechanistic level. Traditional genetic engineering relies on the random insertion of foreign DNA into the plant genome using methods such as Agrobacterium-mediated transformation or biolistic delivery [14]. This process typically introduces gene sequences from unrelated species along with regulatory elements like promoters and terminators, plus selectable marker genes (often antibiotic resistance genes) to identify successfully transformed cells [14]. The random nature of this integration means researchers have limited control over where in the genome the foreign DNA inserts, potentially leading to unintended disruptions of existing genes or regulatory elements.

Precision editing, particularly CRISPR-Cas systems, operates through a fundamentally different mechanism involving targeted double-strand breaks (DSBs) in DNA [14] [16]. The system consists of a Cas nuclease (e.g., Cas9) that acts as molecular scissors, directed by a guide RNA (gRNA) that is complementary to a specific target DNA sequence [16] [17]. When the Cas nuclease creates a DSB at the target site, the cell's innate DNA repair mechanisms are activated—primarily non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology-directed repair (HDR) [16]. The NHEJ pathway is error-prone and often results in small insertions or deletions (indels) that can disrupt gene function, while HDR can enable precise sequence modifications when a repair template is provided [16].

Table 1: Key Differences Between Traditional GMOs and Precision Editing

Feature	Traditional GMOs	Precision Editing (CRISPR)
Genetic Material	Introduces foreign DNA from different species	Typically edits existing genes without foreign DNA [15]
Integration Site	Random and unpredictable insertion	Precise, targeted modifications [14]
Development Time	Lengthy process	Faster breeding and trait development [15]
Regulatory Status	Strict GMO regulations in many regions	Variable; some countries exempt transgene-free edits from GMO regulations [14]
Public Perception	Often negative due to "foreign DNA" concerns	Generally more positive as no foreign DNA added [15] [18]
Typical Applications	Transgenic traits like Bt insect resistance	Gene knockouts, precise nucleotide changes, trait enhancement [14] [19]

Editing Outcomes and Classification

Precision editing techniques can be categorized based on the type of genetic modification they produce. Site-Directed Nuclease 1 (SDN1) approaches introduce targeted breaks that are repaired by NHEJ, creating small indels that disrupt gene function without adding new genetic material [14]. SDN2 strategies use a repair template to introduce specific point mutations or small sequence changes through HDR [14]. SDN3 approaches involve inserting larger DNA sequences, such as entire genes, at specific locations in the genome [14]. The regulatory classification of these different approaches varies globally, with SDN1 and SDN2 often receiving different treatment from SDN3 modifications, which are typically regulated as traditional GMOs [14].

Table 2: Classification of Genome Editing Applications

Editing Type	Process	Outcome	Regulatory Status in Some Regions
SDN1	Nuclease-induced DSB repaired by NHEJ	Small indels, gene knockouts	Often considered non-GMO (US, Argentina, Brazil) [14]
SDN2	DSB repaired using short repair template	Specific point mutations or small edits	Often considered non-GMO (US, Argentina, Brazil) [14]
SDN3	DSB repaired using large repair template	Insertion of entire genes or large sequences	Typically regulated as GMO [14]
Base Editing	Chemical conversion of one base to another	Single nucleotide changes without DSB	Variable; often grouped with SDN1/SDN2 [9]
Prime Editing	Search-and-replace mechanism	Precise edits without DSB	Emerging technology with evolving regulation

The Null Segregant Concept in Plant Breeding

Definition and Significance

Null segregants, also referred to as negative segregants, represent a critical concept in modern plant breeding using precision editing technologies. These are organisms that are derived from genetically modified parents but have segregated away from the transgenes used in the editing process [8]. According to definitions from regulatory bodies like the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), null segregants "lack the transgenic event and can be produced, for example, by self-fertilization of hemizygous GM plants, or from crosses between hemizygous GM plants and non-GM plants" [8]. In essence, while these plants are products of genetic engineering, they themselves contain no foreign DNA—all transgenic components have been eliminated through Mendelian segregation.

The significance of null segregants lies in their potential to bypass stringent GMO regulations in some jurisdictions while still benefiting from precision breeding technologies [8]. From a regulatory perspective, the question of whether null segregants should be considered GMOs remains contentious. Some argue that since the process of their development involved genetic engineering, they should be regulated as GMOs, while others contend that the final product is indistinguishable from what could occur through conventional breeding or natural mutations and should therefore not be subject to GMO regulations [8]. This debate has substantial implications for the commercialization and public acceptance of edited crops.

Applications in Crop Improvement

Null segregants have been utilized in several innovative breeding strategies. In accelerated breeding, transgenic approaches can be used to shorten the juvenile stage of plants, particularly useful in long-lived species like fruit trees, with null segregants arising from offspring when one parent was hemizygous for the transgene [8]. Reverse breeding employs genetic engineering to create elite F1 hybrids that can be perpetuated indefinitely, with null segregants separated from those containing the transgene [8]. Similarly, biased mutagenesis with segregation uses site-directed nucleases to create point mutations, with offspring without the nuclease genes arising through segregation [8].

Experimental Protocols for Transgene-Free Plant Production

Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Expression

The production of transgene-free edited plants using Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression has been successfully demonstrated in various crops, including citrus and poplar trees [9]. The following protocol outlines the key steps for achieving transgene-free editing through this approach:

• Vector Design and Construction: Design T-DNA vectors containing expression cassettes for CRISPR components (Cas nuclease and gRNAs) along with the FCY-UPP negative selection system. The FCY (fluorocytosine deaminase) and UPP (uracil phosphoribosyl transferase) genes produce cytotoxic compounds in the presence of 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC), enabling negative selection against transgenic plants [9]. For enhanced efficiency, incorporate an efficient cytosine base editor (CBE) system, such as one based on hA3A-Y130 cytidine deaminase, which has shown high efficiency in rice, tomato, and poplar [9].

• Plant Transformation: Transform plant explants using Agrobacterium tumefaciens carrying the constructed vectors. Standard transformation protocols specific to the target crop species should be followed. For citrus and poplar, use established transformation methods with appropriate tissue types [9].

• Transient Expression and Editing: Allow transient expression of CRISPR/Cas components for a limited period (typically 3-4 days) without selecting for stable integration. During this window, genome editing occurs in some cells without stable integration of foreign DNA [9].

• Positive Selection for Edited Cells: Transfer transformed tissues to selection media containing herbicides corresponding to edited genes (e.g., chlorsulfuron for plants with edited ALS genes). Only cells that have undergone successful editing will survive, providing enrichment for edited events [9].

• Regeneration and Screening: Regenerate plants from selected tissues and perform molecular screening (e.g., PCR, sequencing) to identify plants with desired edits. Monitor for the presence of transgenes using specific markers.

• Negative Selection for Transgene-Free Plants: Apply negative selection using 5-FC containing medium. Plants that have stably integrated the T-DNA (including the FCY-UPP system) will be sensitive to 5-FC and die, while transgene-free edited plants will survive [9].

Advanced Method for Enhanced Efficiency

A refined method developed by Li's research team significantly improves the efficiency of producing transgene-free edited plants [2]. This approach incorporates kanamycin treatment during the early stages of the editing process to enhance selection efficiency:

• Agrobacterium Infection: Infect plant explants with Agrobacterium carrying CRISPR/Cas constructs designed for transient expression.

• Kanamycin-Assisted Selection: Treat Agrobacterium-infected plant cells with kanamycin for 3-4 days during the genome editing process. Since resistance to kanamycin is linked to the expression of CRISPR genes, this short treatment inhibits the growth of non-infected cells while allowing successfully edited cells to proliferate [2].

• Plant Regeneration: Regenerate plants from the selected cells under non-selective conditions to allow recovery and growth.

• Transgene-Free Plant Identification: Screen regenerated plants for the absence of transgenes using PCR and other molecular techniques. The improved method has demonstrated 17 times higher efficiency in producing genome-edited citrus plants compared to previous approaches [2].

This method is particularly valuable for perennial crops and vegetatively propagated species that have lengthy life cycles or complex breeding systems, making transgene segregation through conventional crossing impractical [2] [9].

Critical Safety Considerations and Risk Assessment

Structural Variations and Genomic Integrity

While CRISPR technology has revolutionized genome engineering, recent studies have revealed previously undervalued genomic alterations that raise substantial safety concerns [16]. Beyond well-documented off-target effects, CRISPR-Cas systems can induce large structural variations (SVs), including chromosomal translocations and megabase-scale deletions [16]. These extensive genomic rearrangements are particularly pronounced in cells treated with DNA-PKcs inhibitors, which are sometimes used to enhance homology-directed repair [16].

The mechanisms underlying these unintended effects stem from the complex cellular response to double-strand breaks. When multiple DSBs occur simultaneously or in close proximity, repair pathways can join incorrect ends, leading to chromosomal rearrangements such as translocations between different chromosomes or large deletions between two cleavage sites on the same chromosome [16]. Traditional sequencing methods based on short-read amplicon sequencing often fail to detect these large-scale alterations because the rearrangements may delete primer-binding sites, rendering them "invisible" to standard analysis [16]. This limitation can lead to overestimation of precise editing efficiency and underestimation of genotoxic risks.

Mitigation Strategies for Safe Genome Editing

Several strategies have been developed to minimize risks associated with precision editing:

• Alternative HDR Enhancement: Rather than using DNA-PKcs inhibitors that exacerbate structural variations, consider transient inhibition of 53BP1, which has not been associated with increased translocation frequencies [16].

• Editing Verification: Employ multiple detection methods including long-read sequencing, CAST-Seq, and LAM-HTGTS to comprehensively identify structural variations that short-read sequencing might miss [16].

• High-Fidelity Systems: Use engineered Cas variants with enhanced specificity (e.g., HiFi Cas9) or base editors that minimize DNA breaks to reduce off-target effects [16] [20].

• Delivery Optimization: Utilize ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes rather than plasmid-based delivery to limit the duration of nuclease activity and reduce off-target effects [9].

• Comprehensive Risk Assessment: Conduct thorough molecular characterization of edited lines, including analysis of potential impacts on neighboring genes and regulatory elements, especially when large structural variations are detected [16].

Research Reagent Solutions for Transgene-Free Editing

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Transgene-Free Genome Editing

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Editor Systems	Cas9, Cas12a, hA3A-Y130 cytosine base editor (CBE)	Core editing machinery for inducing targeted genetic modifications [9] [17]
Delivery Vectors	pYPQ132B, pYPQ133B, pYPQ265E2 with TLS mobile RNA	T-DNA vectors for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation; mobile RNA tags enhance editing range [9]
Selection Systems	ALS/SU resistance, FCY-UPP negative selection	Positive selection for edited cells (herbicide resistance) and negative selection against transgenes (5-FC sensitivity) [9]
Chemical Enhancers	Kanamycin, AZD7648, pifithrin-α	Kanamycin enriches edited cells; DNA-PKcs inhibitors enhance HDR but increase SV risk; p53 inhibitors may reduce chromosomal aberrations [2] [16]
Detection Tools	CAST-Seq, LAM-HTGTS, long-read sequencing	Comprehensive identification of structural variations and precise editing verification [16]

The evolution from traditional genetic modification to precision editing represents a fundamental transformation in agricultural biotechnology. While traditional GMOs rely on random insertion of foreign DNA, precision editing technologies like CRISPR-Cas systems enable targeted, specific modifications without necessarily incorporating exogenous genetic material [14] [15]. The development of transgene-free edited plants, particularly null segregants that retain desired edits while eliminating all transgenic components, offers a promising pathway for addressing regulatory concerns and public acceptance issues that have hampered traditional GMO adoption [8] [9].

Future advancements in precision editing will likely focus on improving specificity and reducing unintended genomic alterations [16] [20]. Emerging technologies such as base editing and prime editing that minimize DNA breaks show particular promise for safer genome modifications [20]. Additionally, the integration of precision editing with digital agriculture platforms represents an exciting frontier for optimizing crop performance in specific environmental conditions [19]. As regulatory frameworks continue to evolve globally, the distinction between different types of genetic modifications based on process versus product will be crucial for determining the commercialization pathway for edited crops [14] [18].

The successful implementation of precision editing technologies requires careful consideration of both technical efficiency and safety parameters. By employing robust protocols for producing transgene-free edited plants and conducting comprehensive molecular characterization to identify potential unintended edits, researchers can harness the full potential of these transformative technologies while addressing legitimate safety concerns [16] [9]. The ongoing refinement of precision editing tools and methods promises to accelerate the development of improved crop varieties that can contribute to global food security in the face of climate change and population growth.

Genome editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas systems, have revolutionized plant biotechnology by enabling precise modifications to an organism's DNA. The development of transgene-free edited plants represents a crucial advancement, as these plants contain desired genetic traits without integration of foreign DNA (transgenes) such as the CRISPR-Cas9 system itself. This distinction is critical for regulatory approval, public acceptance, and simplifying the breeding process, as these plants are not classified as genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in many jurisdictions [2] [21].

The principle of creating transgene-free plants leverages transient expression of editing reagents, where the CRISPR-Cas machinery is active in cells only long enough to create the desired genetic change but does not integrate into the plant's genome. This approach is particularly valuable for perennial crops and vegetatively propagated species where genetic segregation through multiple generations of seeding is impractical due to long life cycles or clonal propagation systems [2] [9]. For biomedical research, transgene-free plants can serve as optimized production systems for pharmaceutical compounds without the regulatory complications associated with transgenic plants.

Key Applications in Crop Improvement

Disease Resistance

Transgene-free editing has shown remarkable success in developing disease-resistant crops, offering sustainable solutions to devastating plant pathogens.

Citrus Greening Resistance: Researchers have applied transgene-free editing to combat Huanglongbing (citrus greening disease), which has destroyed approximately 70% of citrus trees in Florida. By using Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression of CRISPR components followed by kanamycin selection, scientists successfully edited genes to develop citrus varieties with natural immunity to the pathogen [2].

Banana Fusarium Wilt Resistance: In bananas, researchers have developed an Agrobacterium-based system that uses a three-tiered approach: enrichment of T-DNA-containing cells by antibiotic selection, transient CRISPR/Cas9 editing, and negative selection against T-DNA-integrated cells using 5-FC. This system successfully edited genes in the carotenoid biosynthesis pathway as a model for developing disease-resistant Cavendish bananas [22].

Nutritional Quality and Food Security

Enhancing the nutritional content of crops through genome editing addresses global malnutrition challenges while avoiding GMO regulations.

High-GABA Tomatoes: Japanese researchers developed the "Sicilian Rouge High GABA" tomato variety using CRISPR-Cas9 to modify the SlGAD3 gene, resulting in tomatoes with significantly elevated GABA (γ-aminobutyric acid) content. GABA is a functional food component known to reduce blood pressure and induce relaxation in humans. This represented the first direct-to-consumer launch of an unprocessed genome-edited crop [23].

High-Oleic Soybeans: The American company Calyxt developed a soybean line called Calyno using TALEN technology to increase oleic acid content in its oil. The improved oil profile offers health benefits and enhanced stability without the need for hydrogenation [23].

Agronomic Traits

Editing agronomically important genes can improve yield, storage characteristics, and farming efficiency.

Herbicide-Tolerant Crops: Base editing strategies targeting the acetolactate synthase (ALS) gene have successfully conferred herbicide resistance in crops including citrus, poplar, wheat, and rice. The co-editing approach allows for positive selection of edited cells using herbicides while maintaining the transgene-free status [9] [24].

Non-Browning Fruits: Researchers have successfully reduced enzymatic browning in various fruits including lychee and banana by editing genes involved in polyphenol oxidase pathways, extending shelf life and reducing food waste [25].

Improved Root Architecture: Editing root development genes in crops like tomatoes has demonstrated potential for enhancing drought tolerance and nutrient uptake efficiency [24].

Table 1: Quantitative Outcomes of Transgene-Free Editing in Various Crops

Crop Species	Target Gene	Editing Efficiency	Key Outcome	Method
Carrot	Acid soluble invertase isozyme II	17.28% (sgRNA1), 6.45% (sgRNA2)	Sucrose accumulation in taproot	Cas9-RNP transfection [26]
Banana	Phytoene desaturase (pds), Lycopene β-cyclase (LCYb)	25% (pds), 27.2% (LCYb)	Visual markers (albino, pink) for editing confirmation	Agrobacterium with 5-FC counter-selection [22]
Citrus, Poplar	ALS, CsNPR3 (citrus), Pt4CL1 (poplar)	Higher in poplar than citrus	Herbicide resistance, null alleles of target genes	CBE co-editing with FCY-UPP selection [9]
Tomato	SlGAD3	Not specified	High GABA accumulation	CRISPR-Cas9 [23]
Raspberry	Phytoene desaturase	19%	DNA-free editing, maintained elite cultivar genetics	RNP complexes [24]

Biomedical Research Models

While the search results focus primarily on agricultural applications, transgene-free edited plants show significant potential for biomedical research, particularly in producing pharmaceutical compounds, vaccines, and research reagents without the complications of transgenic systems.

Plant-Made Pharmaceuticals: Transgene-free editing can optimize medicinal plants to produce higher yields of active pharmaceutical compounds. A recent review highlights applications in regulating secondary metabolism and enhancing active ingredient yield and quality in medicinal plants [24].

Low-Allergenicity Crops: Researchers at Kansas State University are using CRISPR-Cas9 to tackle gluten allergenicity in wheat, potentially developing wheat varieties safer for individuals with celiac disease or gluten sensitivities [25].

Nutrient-Dense Crops: Companies like Pairwise are developing crops with enhanced nutritional profiles, including greens with higher antioxidant content and seeds with improved protein quality, addressing global malnutrition challenges [23] [24].

Experimental Protocols for Transgene-Free Plant Editing

Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Expression with Kanamycin Selection

This protocol, optimized for citrus and other perennial crops, achieves a 17-fold improvement in editing efficiency compared to earlier methods [2] [27].

Workflow Overview:

Detailed Procedure:

• Vector Construction: Clone CRISPR-Cas9 components (Cas9 nuclease and gene-specific sgRNAs) into a T-DNA binary vector lacking plant selection markers.

• Agrobacterium Preparation:

  • Transform the construct into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain EHA105.
  • Inoculate a single colony in 5 mL YEP medium with appropriate antibiotics.
  • Grow overnight at 28°C with shaking at 200 rpm until OD600 reaches 0.8-1.0.
  • Centrifuge at 5,000 × g for 10 minutes and resusdate pellet in induction medium to OD600 = 0.5.

• Plant Transformation:

  • Use surface-sterilized leaf segments or other explants from the target species.
  • Immerse explants in the Agrobacterium suspension for 20 minutes with gentle agitation.
  • Blot dry on sterile filter paper and co-cultivate on solid medium for 3 days at 25°C in darkness.

• Kanamycin Selection:

  • Transfer explants to regeneration medium containing 100 mg/L kanamycin.
  • Maintain selection for 3-4 days only to eliminate uninfected cells while allowing transiently expressing cells to survive.
  • Transfer to antibiotic-free medium for shoot regeneration.

• Regeneration and Screening:

  • Regenerate shoots on MS medium with appropriate plant growth regulators.
  • Root regenerated shoots on rooting medium with activated charcoal.
  • Perform molecular characterization (PCR, sequencing) to confirm editing and absence of T-DNA integration.

Critical Notes: The brief kanamycin exposure (3-4 days) is essential as it selectively enriches for Agrobacterium-infected cells where editing occurs transiently, without allowing stable integration events to dominate. Resistance to kanamycin is linked to the expression of CRISPR-related genes during the transient editing window [2].

DNA-Free Editing Using Cas9-Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Complexes

This protocol demonstrates efficient production of transgene-free edited carrot plants through direct delivery of preassembled Cas9 protein and sgRNA complexes [26].

Workflow Overview:

Detailed Procedure:

• Protoplast Isolation:

  • Finely chop sterile carrot root or leaf tissue into thin slices.
  • Digest tissue in enzyme solution (1.5% cellulase, 0.4% macerozyme, 0.4 M mannitol, 20 mM KCl, 20 mM MES, pH 5.7, 10 mM CaCl₂) for 16 hours at 25°C with gentle shaking.
  • Filter through 100 μm mesh and wash protoplasts with W5 solution (154 mM NaCl, 125 mM CaCl₂, 5 mM KCl, 2 mM MES, pH 5.7).
  • Purify by centrifugation at 100 × g for 4 minutes and resuspend in MMG solution (4 mM MES, 0.4 M mannitol, 15 mM MgCl₂, pH 5.7) at a density of 8.0 × 10⁵ protoplasts/mL.

• RNP Complex Assembly:

  • For one transfection, combine 200 pmol sgRNA (2 μL of 100 μM stock) with 20 μg (2 μL) of Cas9-GFP protein (10 μg/μL).
  • Add 2 μL of 1× PBS buffer (pH 7.4) to make a total volume of 6 μL.
  • Incubate at room temperature for 10 minutes to allow complex formation.

• Protoplast Transfection:

  • Add 200 μL of protoplast suspension to the 6 μL RNP complex.
  • Slowly add 206 μL of freshly prepared 40% PEG solution (40% PEG-4000, 0.2 M mannitol, 0.1 M CaCl₂) and mix gently by pipetting.
  • Incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes.
  • Dilute slowly with 4 mL W5 solution and mix carefully.
  • Centrifuge at 100 × g for 4 minutes and resuspend pellet in 10 mL protoplast culture medium (CPP).

• Protoplast Culture and Plant Regeneration:

  • Culture transfected protoplasts in CPP medium at 25°C in darkness.
  • After 7-10 days, transfer developing microcalli to regeneration medium.
  • Regenerate shoots on MS medium with 0.1 mg/L NAA and 0.2 mg/L BAP.
  • Root regenerated shoots on half-strength MS medium with 1% sucrose and 0.1 mg/L IBA.

• Molecular Analysis:

  • Extract genomic DNA from regenerated plant leaves.
  • Amplify target region by PCR using gene-specific primers.
  • Analyze edits by restriction enzyme digestion (if edit disrupts a restriction site) and Sanger sequencing.
  • Use tools like DECODR for analyzing complex editing patterns in heterozygous or biallelic lines [26].

Cytosine Base Editing with FCY-UPP Counter-Selection

This protocol enables transgene-free base editing in citrus and poplar using a co-editing strategy with positive and negative selection systems [9].

Workflow Overview:

Detailed Procedure:

• Vector Construction:

  • Clone a highly efficient cytosine base editor (CBE) based on hA3A-Y130 cytidine deaminase into a binary vector.
  • Include sgRNA expression cassettes targeting both the ALS gene (for selection) and your gene of interest.
  • Incorporate the FCY-UPP counter-selection cassette (FCY: fluorocytosine deaminase; UPP: uracil phosphoribosyl transferase).

• Plant Transformation and Selection:

  • Transform citrus or poplar explants using standard Agrobacterium-mediated methods.
  • After co-cultivation, transfer explants to selection medium containing chlorsulfuron (0.5-5 nM) to select for cells with edited ALS genes.
  • Regenerate shoots on selective medium for 4-6 weeks.

• Counter-Selection for Transgene-Free Plants:

  • Transfer regenerated shoots to medium containing 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC, 100-200 mg/L).
  • Culture for 2-3 weeks; plants with integrated T-DNA will express FCY-UPP enzymes that convert 5-FC to cytotoxic 5-fluorouracil, leading to cell death.
  • Only transgene-free edited shoots will survive this counter-selection.

• Molecular Characterization:

  • Extract genomic DNA from 5-FC resistant shoots.
  • Perform PCR with primers specific to the T-DNA region to confirm absence of integration.
  • Sequence the target regions to verify base editing efficiency and patterns.
  • For citrus CsNPR3 and poplar Pt4CL1 genes, identify plants with premature stop codons indicating null alleles.

Table 2: Selection Systems for Transgene-Free Editing

Selection Method	Mechanism	Advantages	Limitations	Applicable Species
Kanamycin transient selection [2]	Brief antibiotic exposure enriches transfected cells	17x efficiency improvement, simple application	Limited to species sensitive to kanamycin	Citrus, wide species range
FCY-UPP counter-selection [9]	5-FC converted to toxic 5-FU in transgenic cells	Effective elimination of transgenic events	Requires additional genetic elements	Citrus, poplar
Herbicide resistance (ALS editing) [9]	Base editing creates herbicide-resistant alleles	Direct selection of edited cells, visual confirmation	Lower efficiency for biallelic edits	Citrus, poplar, multiple crops
Visual markers (LCYb editing) [22]	Edits cause visible color changes (pink, albino)	Screening without selection agents, non-destructive	Limited to genes with visible phenotypes	Banana, tomato

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Transgene-Free Genome Editing

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function	Application Notes
Editor Platforms	CRISPR-Cas9, Cas12a (Cpf1), TALENs, Zinc Finger Nucleases	Create DNA double-strand breaks at target sites	Cas9-RNP preferred for DNA-free editing; base editors for precise nucleotide changes [26] [25]
Delivery Systems	Agrobacterium tumefaciens (EHA105, GV3101), PEG-mediated transfection, Biolistics	Introduce editing reagents into plant cells	Agrobacterium for transient expression; PEG for protoplast transfection [2] [26]
Selection Agents	Kanamycin, Chlorsulfuron, 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC)	Enrich for edited cells and eliminate transgenic events	Brief kanamycin exposure (3-4 days) for transient enrichment [2]
Plant Culture Media	MS Medium, Protoplast Culture Medium (CPP), MMG Solution, W5 Solution	Support plant cell growth, division and regeneration	CPP medium essential for protoplast development into microcalli [26]
Detection Tools	DECODR, CRISPR-BETS, PCR-RFLP, Sanger Sequencing, Whole Genome Sequencing	Verify edits and confirm transgene-free status	DECODR analyzes complex Sanger sequencing traces from edited lines [26]

Regulatory Considerations and Global Landscape

The regulatory classification of transgene-free edited plants varies significantly across jurisdictions, impacting research priorities and commercial development strategies.

Product vs. Process-Based Regulation: Most countries are shifting toward product-based regulatory frameworks that focus on the characteristics of the final plant rather than the method used to develop it. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and other Latin American countries employ case-by-case assessments, classifying edited plants as conventional if they lack foreign DNA [21]. Canada's "Plants with Novel Traits" framework similarly focuses on the trait itself rather than the breeding method [21].

Regional Approaches: The United States has implemented the SECURE rule to revise oversight of genetically engineered organisms, though it faced legal challenges [28]. In Asia, China has established streamlined approval processes requiring 1-2 years for genome-edited products, while India excludes SDN1 and SDN2 products from GMO regulations if they contain no foreign DNA [21]. The European Union continues to classify most genome-edited organisms as GMOs, though proposals for differentiated regulation are under consideration [21].

Impact on Research Direction: These regulatory differences significantly influence research and development priorities, with more activity in crops and traits likely to gain regulatory approval in target markets. The emergence of transgene-free editing methods directly addresses regulatory concerns in many jurisdictions, potentially accelerating the commercialization of edited crops [21] [23].

Methodological Innovations: Techniques for Generating Transgene-Free Edited Plants

In the pursuit of developing transgene-free genome-edited plants, genetic segregation remains a foundational and widely adopted strategy. This process involves the selective breeding of primary transgenic plants (T0) to separate the desired genome edit from the CRISPR-Cas9 transgenes through meiotic recombination and Mendelian inheritance. For many annual crops, this method provides a reliable pathway to obtain "null segregants" – plants that carry the intended genetic edit but lack the foreign DNA construct used to create it. This Application Note details the experimental framework for efficiently eliminating transgenes through traditional breeding, a critical step for regulatory compliance and public acceptance of genome-edited crops.

Principle of Transgene Segregation

The genetic principle underlying transgene elimination relies on the behavior of independently assorting loci during meiosis. When a transgene integrates at a single locus in a heterozygous T0 plant, it typically follows dominant inheritance patterns. The initial crosses and selfing generations produce progeny with predictable segregation ratios, allowing breeders to identify individuals that have retained the edit while losing the transgene.

Molecular Basis of Segregation: During plant transformation, transgene integration into the plant genome is a complex process that can involve single or multiple copies, sometimes accompanied by molecular rearrangements [29]. When successfully integrated at a single locus, the transgene is inherited sexually as a dominant trait, often conforming to a 3:1 Mendelian ratio in the first segregating generation (T1) when T0 plants are self-pollinated [29]. However, non-Mendelian segregation occurs at a frequency of 10-50% due to unstable transmission of the transgene or poor expression [29].

Table 1: Theoretical Segregation Ratios for Different Transgene Integration Patterns

Integration Pattern	T1 Generation (Selfing)	T2 Generation (Selfing)	Transgene-Free Edit Recovery
Single Locus, Heterozygous	3:1 (Resistant:Sensitive)	-	25% in T2
Single Locus, Homozygous	All resistant	3:1 (Resistant:Sensitive)	25% in T2
Two Unlinked Loci	15:1 (Resistant:Sensitive)	63:1 (Resistant:Sensitive)	Complex, requires additional generations
Multiple Linked Loci	Variable, may require molecular analysis	Variable	Requires recombination between loci

Experimental Workflow for Efficient Transgene Elimination

The following workflow outlines a systematic approach for generating transgene-free edited plants through genetic segregation. This process typically requires 1-3 generations depending on the crop's life cycle and the complexity of transgene integration.

Protocol: Generational Advancement and Selection

Materials Required:

• T0 transgenic plant with confirmed genome edit
• Appropriate growth facilities (greenhouse or growth chambers)
• Selection agents (antibiotics or herbicides depending on marker system)
• DNA extraction kits
• PCR reagents for transgene detection and edit verification
• Agar plates for seed sterilization and germination

Procedure:

• T0 to T1 Generation:

  • Self-pollinate the primary transgenic (T0) plant and collect seeds.
  • Germinate T1 seeds on selective medium (e.g., kanamycin-containing medium for NptII selection marker).
  • Record segregation ratio of resistant to sensitive seedlings.
  • Transfer resistant seedlings to soil and grow to maturity.
  • Collect leaf tissue for molecular analysis from individual plants.

• Molecular Analysis of T1 Plants:

  • Extract genomic DNA from each T1 plant.
  • Perform PCR with transgene-specific primers (e.g., Cas9, guide RNA construct) to confirm presence/absence.
  • Perform PCR amplification of the target region and sequence to verify editing.
  • Identify plants that are positive for the edit but negative for the transgene.

• T1 to T2 Generation:

  • Self-pollinate selected edit-positive/transgene-negative T1 plants.
  • Collect and sow seeds without selection to assess segregation.
  • Analyze T2 progeny for edit homozygosity and confirm transgene absence.
  • Select lines with stable, homozygous edits and no detectable transgene.

Table 2: Example Segregation Data from Tobacco Transformation Experiment [29]

Transformation Event	T1 Segregation Ratio	T2 Segregation Pattern	Interpretation
L1-X-1	3:1	3:1	Single locus integration
L1-X-2	15:1	63:1	Two unlinked loci
L1-X-3	No segregation	No segregation	Complex, potentially multiple linked copies
L1-X-4	3:1	3:1	Single locus, stable inheritance
L1-X-5	15:1	Complex, non-Mendelian	Unstable locus or recombination

Selection Strategies and Molecular Confirmation

Selectable Marker Systems

The choice of selectable marker significantly impacts the efficiency of identifying transgene-free plants. Kanamycin resistance mediated by the NptII gene is widely used, where resistant seedlings contain the transgene while sensitive ones are potentially transgene-free [2] [29]. Herbicide resistance genes targeting the ALS gene can also serve as effective selection systems [9].

Molecular Verification Techniques

Multiplex PCR Analysis: Implement PCR-based screening with multiple primer sets:

• Transgene-specific primers (e.g., Cas9, promoter sequences)
• Edit-specific primers to detect targeted mutations
• Endogenous control primers to confirm DNA quality

Sequencing-Based Confirmation: Use Sanger sequencing or next-generation sequencing of the target region to characterize the exact edit and confirm homozygosity. Tools like DECODR can help deconvolute complex editing patterns in heterozygous or biallelic lines [26].

Southern Blot Analysis: For comprehensive transgene copy number assessment, particularly when multiple insertions are suspected.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Transgene Segregation Studies

Reagent/Resource	Function	Example Application
NptII selection system	Kanamycin resistance for transgenic selection	Selecting transformed seedlings at T1 generation [29]
ALS gene editing system	Herbicide resistance for selection	Positive selection of edited events without antibiotic resistance genes [9]
Cas9/gRNA detection primers	PCR verification of transgene presence	Monitoring transgene elimination across generations
Target-specific sequencing primers	Verification of edit integrity	Confirming stable inheritance of the desired edit
FCY-UPP counter-selection system	Negative selection against transgenes	Selecting transgene-free plants via 5-FC media [9]

Comparison with Alternative Transgene-Free Methods

While genetic segregation is effective for many species, alternative strategies have emerged that eliminate or reduce the need for generational advancement:

Grafting-Based Approaches: Wild-type scions grafted onto transgenic rootstocks expressing mobile CRISPR/Cas9 components can receive editing components and produce edited seeds in one generation, bypassing the need for segregation [12].

Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Delivery: Direct introduction of pre-assembled Cas9-gRNA complexes into protoplasts enables editing without DNA integration, as demonstrated in carrot with 17.28% editing efficiency [26].

Viral Delivery Systems: Engineered tobacco rattle virus (TRV) vectors can deliver compact editing systems like TnpB, creating heritable edits without stable transgene integration [30].

Troubleshooting and Optimization

Challenge: Low Efficiency of Transgene-Free Recovery

• Solution: Increase population size in segregating generations to improve chances of obtaining the desired genotype.

Challenge: Complex Integration Patterns

• Solution: Use advanced molecular techniques like Southern blotting or whole-genome sequencing to characterize integration sites and copy numbers.

Challenge: Linkage Between Edit and Transgene

• Solution: Perform additional generations of crossing or outcrossing to wild-type plants to enable recombination.

Challenge: Extended Breeding Cycles in Perennial Crops

• Solution: Implement early flowering technologies or speed breeding protocols to reduce generation time.

Genetic segregation remains a robust, well-established method for generating transgene-free genome-edited plants, particularly for annual crops with short life cycles. By implementing the protocols outlined in this Application Note, researchers can efficiently eliminate transgenic elements while preserving the desired edits. The integration of appropriate selection strategies, molecular verification techniques, and troubleshooting approaches ensures successful production of null segregants suitable for further breeding and regulatory approval.

Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression is a pivotal technique in plant biotechnology for achieving rapid, high-level gene expression without the integration of foreign DNA into the host genome. Within the context of generating transgene-free genome-edited plants, this method serves as a critical delivery mechanism for CRISPR/Cas components, allowing for targeted mutagenesis while enabling the subsequent selection of null segregants—edited plants that have segregated away from the transgene cargo [8] [2]. This approach accelerates the development of non-genetically modified (non-GMO) improved crop varieties, aligning with regulatory streamlining and public acceptance goals [8].

Mechanism of Transient Transformation

The process leverages the natural DNA transfer capability of Agrobacterium tumefaciens. In transient transformation, the transferred T-DNA, containing the gene(s) of interest, remains episomal in the plant cell nucleus. It is transcribed and translated without integrating into the plant chromosomes, resulting in a temporary burst of gene expression that typically peaks within 2-4 days post-infection. The transgene-free genome editing process can be visualized as a multi-stage workflow.

Key Experimental Parameters and Optimization

Optimizing delivery conditions is paramount for maximizing transient expression efficiency, which directly influences the success of subsequent genome editing. The following parameters have been systematically tested in model species.

Optimized Parameters for Transient Expression

Table 1: Key parameters for optimizing Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression. Data synthesized from studies on alfalfa and buckwheat [31] [32].

Parameter	Optimal Condition	Impact on Efficiency
Explant Type	Young leaves, cotyledons	3-week-old segmented alfalfa leaves showed highest GUS positivity [32].
Bacterial Density (OD₆₀₀)	0.6	Balanced between T-DNA delivery and tissue overgrowth [32].
Acetosyringone	150 µM	Phenolic compound that induces Agrobacterium virulence genes; crucial for efficient T-DNA transfer [32].
Co-cultivation Period	3 days	Found optimal for common and Tartary buckwheat [31].
Additives	Silver Nitrate (75 µM), Calcium Chloride (4 mM)	Silver nitrate acts as an ethylene inhibitor, reducing tissue senescence. Calcium chloride may improve membrane stability [32].
Selection Agent	Hygromycin, Kanamycin	Kanamycin used for 3-4 days enriches edited citrus cells, boosting efficiency 17-fold [2].

Reporter Systems for Validation

The success of transient transformation is typically confirmed using reporter genes:

• GUS (β-glucuronidase): Expression is confirmed histochemically by the formation of an indigo-blue precipitate [31] [32].
• GFP (Green Fluorescent Protein): Expression is confirmed via fluorescence microscopy, serving as a vital visual marker without requiring substrates [31] [32].

Detailed Protocol for Leaf Explant Transformation

This protocol is adapted from established methods in alfalfa and buckwheat, suitable for a variety of dicotyledonous species [31] [32].

Materials Preparation

• Plant Material: 3-week-old in vitro-grown plantlets.
• Agrobacterium Strain: A. tumefaciens carrying a binary vector (e.g., pCAMBIA1304) with the gene(s) of interest and reporter genes (GUS/GFP).
• Culture Media: Liquid and solid co-cultivation media appropriate for the plant species, supplemented with acetosyringone.
• Antibiotics: For bacterial selection (e.g., kanamycin, rifampicin) and plant selection (e.g., hygromycin).

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Agrobacterium Preparation:

  • Inoculate a single colony of the engineered Agrobacterium into liquid medium with appropriate antibiotics.
  • Grow the culture overnight at 28°C with shaking until it reaches the optimal OD₆₀₀ of 0.6 [32].
  • Pellet the bacteria by centrifugation and resuspend in fresh liquid co-cultivation medium containing 150 µM acetosyringone.

• Explant Preparation and Infection:

  • Aseptically harvest young leaves from 3-week-old plantlets.
  • Gently wound the leaves using a scalpel to create entry points for the bacteria [32].
  • Immerse the explants in the Agrobacterium suspension for 20-30 minutes, with occasional gentle agitation.

• Co-cultivation:

  • Blot the explants dry on sterile filter paper and transfer them to solid co-cultivation medium.
  • Co-cultivate for 3 days in the dark at 25°C [31].

• Transient Expression Analysis:

  • After co-cultivation, analyze the explants directly for reporter gene expression.
  • For GUS, perform histochemical staining and quantify blue spots [31] [32].
  • For GFP, observe under a fluorescence microscope [31].

Application in Transgene-Free Genome Editing

The primary application of transient expression in modern plant biotechnology is to create null segregants—genome-edited plants that are free of any foreign transgenes [8] [2]. This is achieved by transiently delivering CRISPR/Cas9 machinery (guide RNA and Cas nuclease) into plant cells. The machinery edits the target genomic locus but is subsequently degraded. Plants regenerated from edited cells are screened to identify those where the transgenes have been lost. These null segregants contain the desired genetic edit but lack the external DNA used to create it, which can significantly alter their regulatory status [8]. A recent study in citrus demonstrated that a 3-4 day kanamycin treatment during the editing process could increase the efficiency of recovering edited plants by 17-fold, as it selectively enriches for cells that have taken up the editing constructs [2].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential reagents for Agrobacterium-mediated transient transformation and their functions.

Reagent / Material	Function / Role in the Process
pCAMBIA1304 Vector	A binary vector containing reporter genes (GUS, GFP) and a hygromycin selection marker, all driven by the CaMV 35S promoter [32].
Acetosyringone	A phenolic compound that induces the Agrobacterium vir genes, which are essential for the T-DNA transfer process [32].
Silver Nitrate (AgNO₃)	An ethylene action inhibitor that reduces tissue senescence during the co-cultivation phase, improving transformation efficiency [32].
Hygromycin B	An antibiotic used as a selectable marker to inhibit the growth of non-transformed plant cells, allowing for the enrichment of transformed tissue [32].
Kanamycin	An alternative antibiotic selection agent; short-term (3-4 day) application can efficiently enrich for cells transiently expressing CRISPR/Cas components [2].
β-glucuronidase (GUS)	A reporter enzyme that, when detected histochemically, provides visual confirmation of successful transient transformation through a blue precipitate [31] [32].

The advent of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) technology has revolutionized genetic engineering, offering unprecedented precision in genome modification. Among the various delivery methods for CRISPR components, Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes—pre-assembled complexes of Cas9 protein and guide RNA (gRNA)—have emerged as a powerful strategy for achieving transgene-free genome editing [33]. This approach is particularly valuable in plant biotechnology, where regulatory concerns and public acceptance often hinge on the presence of foreign DNA in final products [34] [11].

RNP delivery offers several distinct advantages over DNA-based methods. The transient presence of RNP complexes in cells minimizes off-target effects and eliminates the risk of foreign DNA integration into the host genome [34] [35]. Since RNPs are active immediately upon delivery and degrade rapidly within cells, this method also reduces cellular toxicity and avoids the unpredictable effects associated with stable transformation [35] [36]. Furthermore, RNP delivery enables precise dosage control, allowing researchers to titrate concentrations for optimal editing efficiency while maintaining specificity [37] [33]. These characteristics make RNP-mediated editing particularly suitable for generating null segregants—edited plants without any integrated transgenes—which is a crucial consideration for commercial crop development and regulatory compliance [26] [11].

Mechanisms and Molecular Principles

RNP Complex Assembly and Structure

The CRISPR-Cas9 RNP complex consists of two fundamental components: the Cas9 endonuclease protein and a guide RNA (gRNA). The gRNA is a synthetic chimera that combines the functions of the natural crRNA (CRISPR RNA) and tracrRNA (trans-activating crRNA) into a single molecule [35]. This gRNA directs the Cas9 protein to specific genomic loci through complementary base pairing [35].

The assembly process begins with the in vitro complexing of purified Cas9 protein with synthetically produced gRNA. The Cas9 protein features a bilobed architecture composed of nuclease (NUC) and recognition (REC) lobes [35]. The NUC lobe contains the HNH and RuvC nuclease domains, responsible for cleaving the target and non-target DNA strands, respectively [35]. For efficient editing in plant cells, the Cas9 protein typically requires nuclear localization signals (NLSs) to facilitate transport through the nuclear pore complex [37]. Studies in rice and citrus protoplasts have demonstrated that NLSs are essential for achieving high editing efficiency with RNP delivery [37].

DNA Cleavage and Repair Mechanisms

Upon entry into the nucleus, the RNP complex scans the genome for protospacer adjacent motif (PAM) sequences—short, specific nucleotide motifs adjacent to the target site (5'-NGG for SpCas9) [35]. Once the RNP identifies a PAM sequence, the gRNA base-pairs with the complementary DNA strand, forming an R-loop structure that positions the Cas9 nuclease domains for precise double-strand break (DSB) induction [35].

The cellular repair of these DSBs occurs primarily through two distinct pathways:

• Non-Homologous End Joining (NHEJ): An error-prone repair pathway that often results in small insertions or deletions (indels) at the break site. When these indels occur within coding sequences, they can disrupt the reading frame, leading to gene knockout [35].
• Homology-Directed Repair (HDR): A precise repair pathway that utilizes a donor DNA template to incorporate specific genetic changes at the break site. While less frequent than NHEJ in most plant cells, HDR enables precise gene editing or gene insertion [35].

The following diagram illustrates the complete workflow from RNP complex assembly through DNA repair:

Quantitative Analysis of Editing Efficiency

Editing Efficiency Across Plant Species

RNP-mediated genome editing has demonstrated remarkable efficiency across diverse plant species. The following table summarizes key performance metrics from recent studies:

Table 1: Editing Efficiency of RNP Delivery in Various Plant Systems

Plant Species	Target Gene	Delivery Method	Editing Efficiency	Reference
Maize	Liguleless1 (LIG)	Biolistic delivery	2.4%-9.7% of regenerated plants	[36]
Maize	Male fertility (MS45)	Biolistic delivery	47% of regeneration events	[36]
Carrot	Acid soluble invertase isozyme II	PEG-mediated protoplast transfection	6.45%-17.28% of regenerated plants	[26]
Rice	DROOPING LEAF (DL)	PEG-mediated protoplast transfection	Up to 100% in callus lines	[38]
Citrus	Various targets	PEG-mediated protoplast transfection	Nearly 100% in protoplast systems	[37]

Comparative Efficiency: RNP vs. DNA Delivery

Direct comparisons between RNP and DNA-based delivery methods reveal important efficiency differences:

Table 2: RNP vs. DNA-Based Delivery Methods

Parameter	RNP Delivery	DNA Vector Delivery	Significance
Off-target mutation frequency	Greatly reduced	Higher	RNP delivery shows improved specificity [36]
Editing speed	Immediate activity	Requires transcription/translation	RNP enables faster editing [35]
Biallelic mutation rate	~10% of regenerated plants	~80% of regenerated plants	DNA delivery more frequently produces biallelic mutations [36]
Chlorsulfuron-resistant maize recovery	Successful with HDR	Successful with HDR	Both methods enable precise gene editing [36]
Regulatory status	Transgene-free, potentially non-GMO	Contains foreign DNA, classified as GMO	RNP-edited plants face fewer regulatory hurdles [34] [2]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

RNP Complex Preparation and Protoplast Transfection

This protocol for carrot protoplast transfection [26] can be adapted for other plant species with appropriate modifications to the culture media.

Materials:

• Purified Cas9 protein (commercially available, e.g., IDT)
• Synthetic sgRNA (target-specific, resuspended in nuclease-free IDTE buffer)
• Polyethylene glycol (PEG) solution (40%)
• Protoplast culture media
• Mannitol-based MMG solution (4 mM MES hydrate [pH 5.7], 0.4 M mannitol, 15 mM MgCl₂)

Procedure:

• RNP Complex Assembly:

  • Combine 200 pmol of sgRNA (2 μL of 100 μM stock) with 20 μg of Cas9 protein (2 μL of 10 μg/μL stock) and 2 μL of 1X PBS buffer (pH 7.4) for a total volume of 6 μL.
  • Incubate the mixture at room temperature for 10 minutes to allow proper RNP complex formation [26].

• Protoplast Transfection:

  • Resuspend isolated protoplasts in MMG solution at a concentration of 8.0 × 10⁵ protoplasts per mL.
  • Add 200 μL of protoplast suspension to the assembled RNP complexes.
  • Slowly add 206 μL of freshly prepared 40% PEG solution to the protoplast-RNP mixture and mix gently by pipetting.
  • Incubate the transfection mixture at room temperature for 15 minutes [26].

• Post-Transfection Processing:

  • Gently add 4 mL of W5 solution (2 mM MES hydrate [pH 5.7], 154 mM NaCl, 125 mM CaCl₂, 5 mM KCl) to the protoplast-RNP-PEG mixture.
  • Centrifuge the samples at 100 × g for 4 minutes at room temperature.
  • Resuspend the protoplast pellet in 10 mL of appropriate protoplast culture media (CPP media for carrot) [26].

• Plant Regeneration:

  • Culture transfected protoplasts following species-specific regeneration protocols.
  • For carrot, employ established procedures for callus induction, embryogenesis, and plant regeneration [26].

Biolistic Delivery for Plant Tissues

For species where protoplast regeneration is challenging, biolistic delivery offers an effective alternative:

Materials:

• Gold particles (0.6 μm)
• RNP complexes (assembled as described above)
• Helium gene gun
• Plant embryo tissues

Procedure:

• Preparation of RNP-Coated Microcarriers:

  • Adsorb pre-assembled RNP complexes onto gold microparticles according to standard biolistic protocols.
  • For maize, co-bombard with "helper genes" (e.g., maize ODP2 and WUS transcription factors) to improve transformation efficiency [36].

• Bombardment and Selection:

  • Deliver RNP-coated particles into immature maize embryos using a helium gene gun.
  • For selection-based experiments, transfer embryos to appropriate selection media (e.g., chlorsulfuron for ALS2-edited events) 2-3 days post-bombardment [36].

• Analysis and Regeneration:

  • Harvest tissue samples 48 hours post-bombardment to assess initial editing efficiency via amplicon deep sequencing.
  • Regenerate plants from edited calli using standard regeneration protocols for the target species [36].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful implementation of RNP-mediated genome editing requires carefully selected reagents and materials. The following table outlines essential components and their functions:

Table 3: Essential Reagents for RNP-Mediated Genome Editing in Plants

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function	Considerations
Cas9 Proteins	SpCas9, LbCas12a, AsCas12a Ultra	DNA cleavage enzyme	NLS tagging essential for nuclear localization; Cas12a recognizes T-rich PAMs [37]
Guide RNAs	sgRNA, crRNA	Target recognition and complex stabilization	2 nmol synthesis scale sufficient for multiple transfections; modifications may enhance stability [26]
Delivery Materials	PEG, Gold microparticles, Lipofection reagents	Cellular delivery of RNPs	PEG for protoplasts; biolistics for tissues; advanced methods (nanoparticles) emerging [34] [36]
Protoplast Isolation	Cellulase, Pectolyase, Mannitol solutions	Cell wall digestion for protoplast generation	Enzyme concentrations and incubation times vary by species [37] [26]
Plant Culture Media	CPP media (carrot), MT media (citrus), MS media	Support growth and regeneration of edited cells	Species-specific formulations required [37] [26]
Selection Agents	Kanamycin, Chlorsulfuron, Bialaphos	Enrichment for edited cells (when using donor DNA)	Chemical selection can improve editing efficiency [2] [36]

Technical Considerations and Optimization Strategies

Enhancing Editing Efficiency

Several factors critically influence the success of RNP-mediated genome editing in plants:

• Nuclear Localization Signals: The presence of efficient NLS tags on Cas9 proteins is indispensable for nuclear import and editing activity. Studies comparing Cas12a variants with and without NLS demonstrated that NLS-tagged versions achieved significantly higher editing rates in rice and citrus protoplasts [37].

• RNP Concentration and Molar Ratios: Optimization of Cas9:gRNA ratios can dramatically affect editing outcomes. Research indicates that a 1:1 molar ratio of Cas12a:crRNA is sufficient for efficient genome editing in plant protoplasts, though higher ratios (e.g., 1:5) may be beneficial for certain applications [37].

• Temperature Regime: Cas12a nucleases exhibit temperature-sensitive activity, with optimal performance at higher temperatures (32°C vs. 25°C). Implementing a moderate heat treatment (32°C for 48-72 hours) post-transfection can significantly enhance editing efficiency for Cas12a RNPs [37].

Species-Specific Adaptation

The regenerative capacity of plant tissues varies considerably across species and represents a major bottleneck in RNP-mediated editing. While model plants like tobacco and rice show high regeneration efficiency from protoplasts, many woody species and cereals remain recalcitrant [34]. Recent advances in plant growth regulator combinations and tissue culture methodologies have begun to address these challenges. For instance, the inclusion of specific transcription factors (e.g., WUSCHEL, BABY BOOM) in bombardment experiments has improved regeneration in maize [36].

Additionally, genotype selection plays a crucial role in editing success. Using cultivars with established regeneration protocols significantly enhances the recovery of edited plants. For example, the japonica cultivar 'Nipponbare' in rice and 'Hamlin sweet orange' line H89 in citrus have proven particularly amenable to RNP-mediated editing [37].

Emerging Trends and Future Perspectives

The field of RNP-mediated genome editing continues to evolve rapidly, with several promising developments on the horizon. Nanoparticle-based delivery systems show particular potential for overcoming the limitations of current physical methods, offering improved efficiency and potentially broader host range [34] [39]. Similarly, cell-penetrating peptides and biologically derived vesicles are being explored as more biocompatible alternatives to conventional transfection methods [34] [35].

The application of RNP editing is also expanding beyond annual crops to include perennial species and woody plants. Recent studies have demonstrated successful editing in apple, poplar, oil palm, rubber tree, and grapevine, though challenges related to delivery and regeneration remain significant [34]. The development of species-specific regeneration protocols will be essential for unlocking the full potential of RNP technology in these economically important plants.

From a regulatory perspective, the transgene-free nature of RNP-edited plants positions them favorably for commercial development. As regulatory frameworks for genome-edited crops continue to evolve worldwide, RNP-based approaches are likely to play an increasingly prominent role in crop improvement programs [2] [11].

The pursuit of transgene-free genome-edited plants represents a central goal in modern plant breeding, aimed at combining the precision of genetic editing with the regulatory simplicity and public acceptance of non-transgenic crops. A significant breakthrough in this field is the development of graft-mobile editing systems, which enable the production of edited plants without integrating foreign DNA into the final progeny's genome. This approach cleverly utilizes plant biology, employing transgenic rootstocks to deliver editing components to grafted wild-type scions (shoots), resulting in heritable genetic edits while the editing machinery itself is not integrated into the offspring. This application note details the protocols and underlying principles for implementing this technology, positioning it within the broader research objective of efficiently generating null segregants—edited plants that are free of any transgene sequences [40] [41] [42].

Key Principles and Mechanism of Action

The graft-mobile editing system overcomes a major bottleneck in plant genome editing: the lengthy and often difficult process of eliminating CRISPR-Cas9 transgenes to obtain null segregants. Conventional methods require multiple generations of outcrossing or complex regeneration procedures, which are time-consuming, costly, and unfeasible for many crop species [40] [43].

The core innovation lies in engineering the CRISPR-Cas9 system to be root-to-shoot mobile. This is achieved by fusing the Cas9 messenger RNA and guide RNA (gRNA) transcripts to tRNA-like sequences (TLS), which act as molecular signals for long-distance RNA movement within the plant's vascular system [40] [41]. In practice, a transgenic rootstock, which produces these mobile TLS-fused RNAs, is grafted with a wild-type, non-transgenic scion. The editing components move from the rootstock into the scion, where they travel to the meristems and floral tissues. There, the Cas9 protein is translated and, complexed with the gRNA, induces double-strand breaks in the target DNA. Crucially, because the editing machinery is delivered as RNA and not stably integrated into the scion's genome, the seeds produced by these edited flowers can yield progeny that are genotypically edited but transgene-free [40] [42].

Table 1: Core Components of the Graft-Mobile Editing System

Component	Role and Characteristics	Key Features
TLS Motifs	RNA mobility signals; enable long-distance transport of fused transcripts from roots to shoots.	Two variants used: TLS1 (tRNAMet) and TLS2 (tRNAMet-ΔDT, lacking D and T loops) [40].
Cas9-TLS Transcript	Encodes the Cas9 nuclease; fused to a TLS motif for mobility.	Driven by an inducible promoter (e.g., estradiol-inducible); translated into functional protein in scion cells [40].
gRNA-TLS Transcript	Specifies the genomic target for editing; fused to a TLS motif for mobility.	Driven by constitutive Pol-III promoters (e.g., U6-26, U6-29); remains functional despite TLS fusion [40].
Transgenic Rootstock	Serves as the source of mobile editing components.	Stably expresses Cas9-TLS and gRNA-TLS constructs; provides the foundation for grafted plants [40] [41].
Wild-Type Scion	Non-transgenic shoot grafted onto the rootstock; receives mobile RNAs and produces edited seeds.	The target for editing; all edits occur in its cells and germline, leading to transgene-free offspring [40] [42].

Application Notes and Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Vector Construction for Mobile CRISPR/Cas9 System

This protocol outlines the steps for creating the genetic constructs necessary to produce mobile Cas9 and gRNA transcripts.

• Step 1: Clone Cas9 Coding Sequence

  • Isolate the zCas9 (a plant-optimized Cas9) coding sequence.
  • Clone it downstream of a tightly regulated estradiol-inducible promoter to control the expression of Cas9.
  • Engineer a fusion by appending a TLS motif (TLS1 or TLS2) to the 3' end of the Cas9 coding sequence, preserving the motif's secondary structure [40].

• Step 2: Assemble gRNA Expression Cassettes

  • Design two gRNAs targeting distinct sites in your gene of interest to create a genomic deletion.
  • Clone each gRNA sequence under the control of strong, constitutive Pol-III promoters, such as U6-26 or U6-29.
  • Fuse the chosen TLS motif to the 3' end of each gRNA transcript. A short poly-A tail may be added downstream of the TLS.
  • Verify via RNA co-fold structure prediction software that the TLS fusion does not disrupt the essential secondary structure of the gRNA [40].

• Step 3: Final Assembly and Transformation

  • Assemble the Cas9-TLS and gRNA-TLS expression cassettes into a single T-DNA binary vector suitable for Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation.
  • Include plant selection markers (e.g., hygromycin or kanamycin resistance) within the T-DNA.
  • Transform the final vector into Agrobacterium tumefaciens and subsequently generate stable transgenic plants (e.g., in Arabidopsis thaliana) to be used as rootstocks [40].

Protocol 2: Grafting and Production of Transgene-Free Edited Plants

This protocol covers the grafting procedure and subsequent steps to obtain edited offspring.

• Step 1: Plant Growth and Grafting

  • Grow the transgenic rootstock seedlings and wild-type scion seedlings (e.g., Arabidopsis Col-0) side-by-side.
  • Perform hypocotyl grafting when seedlings are at an appropriate developmental stage (e.g., 5-7 days old). The graft involves attaching a wild-type scion onto a transgenic rootstock.
  • Allow grafts to heal and plants to grow under standard conditions [40].

• Step 2: Induction of Editing

  • Once grafts are established, induce the expression of the Cas9-TLS transgene in the rootstock by applying estradiol to the growth medium or via direct application.
  • This triggers the production of mobile Cas9-TLS and gRNA-TLS transcripts, which travel into the scion [40].

• Step 3: Detection of Early Editing Events

  • Phenotypic Screening: For visible phenotypes, screen scion leaves. For example, in the NIA1 editing experiment, chlorotic leaves on scions grown on NH4-deficient medium indicated successful editing [40].
  • Molecular Confirmation: Harvest tissue from the wild-type scion and perform genomic PCR across the target site. Analyze the products by agarose gel electrophoresis (to detect deletions) or Sanger sequencing to confirm editing efficiency [40].

• Step 4: Harvesting Transgene-Free Seeds

  • Allow the grafted plants to mature and set seeds from the flowers of the wild-type scion.
  • Collect seeds (T1 generation) from the scion.
  • Germinate T1 seeds and screen for the desired genetic edit using PCR/sequencing. The absence of the Cas9 transgene and selectable marker genes can be confirmed simultaneously using the same genomic DNA [40] [41] [42].

Experimental Validation and Key Data

Initial validation in Arabidopsis thaliana demonstrated the system's efficacy. Research showed that while standard Cas9 and gRNA transcripts were not mobile, the TLS-fused versions were successfully detected in grafted wild-type scions [40].

Table 2: Quantitative Results from Graft-Mobile Editing in Arabidopsis

Parameter	Cas9-TLS1 × gNIA1-TLS1	Cas9-TLS2 × gNIA1-TLS2	Control (No TLS)
Plants with mutant scion leaves	20/28 plants (71.4%)	26/30 plants (86.7%)	0/20 plants (0%)
Detection of NIA1 deletion in scions	4/4 replicates (100%)	4/4 replicates (100%)	Not detected
RT-qPCR estimated root-to-shoot delivery	~1/1000 transcripts	~1/1000 transcripts	Not applicable
Detection of mobile transcripts in adult flowers/siliques	3/4 replicates	3/4 replicates	0/4 replicates

The system's versatility was further proven through inter-species grafting. Shoots of the crop plant oilseed rape (Brassica rapa) were grafted onto transgenic Arabidopsis rootstocks producing the mobile CRISPR/Cas9 RNAs. This successfully led to the production of edited oilseed rape plants, highlighting the technology's potential for application in crops that are difficult to transform directly [40] [41] [42].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Graft-Mobile Editing Experiments

Research Reagent	Function and Application
TLS Motif Plasmids	Source plasmids containing the TLS1 (tRNAMet) and TLS2 (tRNAMet-ΔDT) sequences for PCR amplification and fusion cloning [40].
Estradiol-Inducible Vector	Binary vector where Cas9 expression is controlled by an estradiol-inducible promoter, allowing temporal control over editing [40].
Pol-III Promoter Vectors (U6-26, U6-29)	Vectors containing strong, constitutive U6 promoters for driving high levels of gRNA expression [40].
zCas9 Sequence	A plant-optimized version of the Streptococcus pyogenes Cas9 gene, codon-optimized for higher expression and efficiency in plants [40].
Hygromycin/Kanamycin Selection	Antibiotic resistance markers used for selecting stable transgenic plant lines during the rootstock generation phase [40].
Grafting Support Setup	Micropore tape, silicone tubing, or specialized grafting clips to provide physical support and maintain humidity at the graft junction during healing.

Regulatory and Practical Implications

The graft-mobile editing system directly addresses the challenge of generating null segregants. These are organisms derived from genetically modified parents but which themselves no longer contain any foreign genetic material [1]. The technology produces such plants in a single generation, bypassing the need for the transgene elimination steps required by conventional methods. This has significant implications for both the efficiency of plant breeding and the regulatory status of the final edited products, as they contain no persistent recombinant DNA [40] [42] [1]. This system is particularly promising for many agriculturally important plant species that are difficult or impossible to modify with existing transformation and regeneration methods, potentially accelerating the development of climate-resilient and sustainable crop varieties [41] [43] [42].

The generation of transgene-free genome-edited plants is a pivotal goal in modern plant biotechnology, mitigating regulatory concerns and enabling the commercial application of edited crops. Within this framework, virus-based transient expression systems have emerged as powerful tools for delivering genome-editing reagents without the integration of foreign DNA into the plant genome. These systems facilitate the rapid production of null segregants—edited plants that have segregated away from the initial transgene—by enabling transient, high-level expression of editors like CRISPR/Cas9 or more compact alternatives such as TnpB. By bypassing the need for stable transformation and the associated lengthy tissue culture processes, viral vectors significantly accelerate the research and development pipeline for novel, edited plant lines.

Viral vectors are engineered from plant viruses to act as delivery vehicles for foreign genetic material into plant cells. Their utility in genome editing stems from their natural ability to infect hosts systemically and produce high levels of protein or RNA in a transient manner. Key classes of viruses used for this purpose include geminiviruses (DNA viruses), tobamoviruses, and tobacco rattle virus (TRV, an RNA virus). The core principle involves modifying the viral genome to carry a gene of interest—such as a nuclease or a guide RNA—while disabling its pathogenic functions. When introduced into plants via methods like agroinfiltration, these vectors can transiently express the editing machinery, leading to targeted genomic changes without the permanent incorporation of viral or editing-component DNA.

Table 1: Comparison of Major Viral Vector Systems for Plant Genome Editing

Virus Type	Example	Cargo Capacity	Key Features and Applications	Editing Outcome
Geminivirus	Bean Yellow Dwarf Virus (BeYDV)	Medium	DNA virus; used in geminiviral replicon (GVR) systems for high-level, transient protein expression [44] [45].	Somatic and heritable edits possible [46].
Tobamovirus	Tobacco Mosaic Virus (TMV)	Medium	RNA virus; robust systemic movement; high yield protein expression [44].	Primarily somatic editing.
Tobravirus	Tobacco Rattle Virus (TRV)	Small	RNA virus; excellent for systemic delivery of small cargo like gRNAs or compact nucleases (e.g., TnpB) [47].	Demonstrated germline editing and inheritance in Arabidopsis [47].

Application Notes: Enabling Transgene-Free Editing

Viral vectors are particularly suited for strategies aimed at generating null segregants. Their transient nature means the editing components are only present for a short duration, reducing the chance of random integration. The following applications highlight their utility:

• Rapid Evaluation of Editing Efficiency: Viral systems, especially those based on geminiviral replicons (GVRs), allow for high-level transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 components in leaves. This enables rapid prototyping and efficiency testing of multiple guide RNAs (gRNAs) in species like Nicotiana benthamiana within one to two weeks, prior to embarking on lengthy stable transformation [45]. This pre-screening de-risks projects and saves valuable time.
• Delivery of Compact Editing Systems: A major advancement involves using viral vectors to deliver entire editing systems. The limited cargo capacity of many viruses has been circumvented by using ultra-compact RNA-guided endonucleases like TnpB (approximately 400 amino acids). Recent research has successfully engineered TRV to carry both the TnpB gene and its guide RNA (ωRNA), achieving heritable, transgene-free edits in Arabidopsis thaliana without the need for tissue culture [47]. This paves the way for single-step editing in a wider range of species.
• Facilitation of DNA-Free Workflows: While not entirely DNA-free (viral constructs are initially built in plasmids), the use of viral vectors represents a DNA-free delivery method into the final plant product. The viral RNA or DNA replicons do not integrate into the host genome, and the infection is typically cleared by the plant. This allows for the regeneration of edited plants from tissue or the collection of seeds where edits have entered the germline, from which null segregants can be isolated in the next generation [46] [1].

Table 2: Quantitative Analysis of Editing Outcomes from Recent Viral Vector Applications

Vector System	Nuclease	Target Plant	Key Outcome Metric	Reported Efficiency/Value
Geminiviral Replicon (GVR)	SpCas9	Nicotiana benthamiana	Transient editing efficiency across 20 targets [45]	Wide range (e.g., <0.1% to >30%) [45]
Tobacco Rattle Virus (TRV)	ISYmu1 TnpB	Arabidopsis thaliana	Germline editing efficiency [47]	Heritable edits obtained in next generation [47]
Agrobacterium Transient	SpCas9	Citrus	Improved editing efficiency with chemical selection [2]	17x more efficient plant production [2]
RNA Aptamer-Assisted (3WJ-4×Bro/Cas9)	SpCas9	Arabidopsis thaliana	Homozygous mutation rate in T1 generation [48]	1.78% [48]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Viral Vector-Based Genome Editing Experiments

Reagent/Material	Function and Importance in the Workflow
Binary Vector Backbones (e.g., pBYR2eFa-U6-sgRNA)	Plasmid systems designed for easy cloning of gRNA sequences and subsequent mobilization into Agrobacterium [45].
Agrobacterium tumefaciens Strain (e.g., GV3101)	The standard bacterial workhorse for delivering viral vector plasmids into plant cells via agroinfiltration [44] [47].
Model Plants (N. benthamiana, N. tabacum)	Ideal host plants for transient assays due to susceptibility to Agrobacterium and many viruses, and ease of growth [44] [45].
Ultra-Compact Nuclease (e.g., TnpB ISYmu1)	Enables packaging of a full RNA-guided nuclease system into small-capacity viral vectors like TRV for transgene-free editing [47].
RNA Aptamer Reporter (e.g., 3WJ-4×Bro)	An RNA-based fluorescent reporter that can be fused to Cas9 transcripts, enabling visual tracking of editing component expression without a protein tag [48].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Rapid Assessment of gRNA Efficiency Using Geminiviral Replicons

This protocol describes a method for transiently expressing CRISPR/Cas9 components in N. benthamiana leaves to assess the editing efficiency of multiple gRNAs before stable transformation [45].

Materials:

• Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101
• Binary GVR vectors: pIZZA-BYR-SpCas9 and pBYR2eFa-U6-sgRNA [45]
• Nicotiana benthamiana plants (4-5 weeks old)
• Infiltration buffer (10 mM MES, 10 mM MgCl₂, 150 µM Acetosyringone, pH 5.6)

Method:

• Clone gRNAs: Insert the 20-nt target sequences for your gRNAs into the pBYR2eFa-U6-sgRNA vector using Golden Gate or restriction-ligation cloning.
• Transform Agrobacterium: Introduce the pIZZA-BYR-SpCas9 plasmid and the individual pBYR2eFa-U6-sgRNA plasmids into A. tumefaciens via electroporation or freeze-thaw transformation.
• Prepare Agrobacterium Cultures:
  • Inoculate single colonies of each strain into liquid media with appropriate antibiotics and incubate at 28°C for 24-48 hours.
  • Centrifuge the cultures and resuspend the pellets in infiltration buffer to an optical density at 600 nm (OD₆₀₀) of 0.5 for each strain.
  • Mix the pIZZA-BYR-SpCas9 suspension with each pBYR2eFa-U6-sgRNA suspension in a 1:1 ratio. Let the mixture sit for 2-3 hours at room temperature.
• Agroinfiltrate Plants: Using a needleless syringe, press the tip against the abaxial (lower) side of a N. benthamiana leaf and gently inject the bacterial suspension. Infiltrate multiple leaves per gRNA construct.
• Incubate and Sample: Maintain infiltrated plants under standard growth conditions for 5-7 days.
• Analyze Editing:
  • Harvest infiltrated leaf discs.
  • Extract genomic DNA.
  • Quantify editing efficiency using a high-sensitivity method like targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq) as described in Protocol 3 [45].

Protocol 2: TRV-Mediated Delivery of TnpB for Transgene-Free Editing

This protocol outlines the process for using a modified Tobacco Rattle Virus (TRV) to deliver the compact TnpB editor for germline editing in Arabidopsis [47].

Materials:

• TRV1 and TRV2 plasmid vectors
• TRV2-ISYmu1 construct (with TnpB-ωRNA expression cassette)
• Agrobacterium tumefaciens
• Arabidopsis thaliana plants (pre-bolting stage, ~4-5 weeks old)

Method:

• Engineer TRV Vector: Clone the ISYmu1 TnpB and its specific ωRNA into the TRV2 vector under a suitable promoter (e.g., pPEBV), followed by an HDV ribozyme sequence and a tRNAIleu to enhance systemic movement [47].
• Prepare Agrobacterium Mixture:
  • Transform A. tumefaciens with the TRV1 and the engineered TRV2-ISYmu1 plasmids.
  • Grow cultures to an OD₆₀₀ of ~1.0.
  • Mix the TRV1 and TRV2-ISYmu1 cultures in a 1:1 ratio and resuspend in transformation buffer (5% sucrose, 0.05% Silwet L-77).
• Agroflood Infection:
  • Submerge the inflorescences of A. thaliana plants into the Agrobacterium mixture for 5-10 seconds, ensuring full coverage of floral tissues.
  • Lay the treated plants on their side, cover with a transparent dome or film to maintain high humidity, and leave in the dark for 24 hours before returning to normal growth conditions.
• Seed Collection and Screening:
  • Allow treated plants to set seeds (T1 generation).
  • Sow T1 seeds and screen for the desired phenotypic change (e.g., white speckles for a PDS knockout) or genotype by PCR.
  • Select plants showing evidence of editing and grow to produce the T2 generation.
• Identify Null Segregants:
  • In the T2 generation, screen individuals for the stable inheritance of the edit and the absence of the TnpB transgene using specific PCR assays.
  • Select plants that are homozygous for the edit but lack the viral T-DNA. These are the transgene-free null segregants [47] [1].

Protocol 3: Quantifying Editing Efficiency with Targeted Amplicon Sequencing

Accurate quantification of editing efficiency, especially from heterogeneous transient assays, is crucial. Targeted amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq) is considered the gold standard [45].

Materials:

• Plant genomic DNA
• High-fidelity DNA polymerase (e.g., Q5)
• PCR primers flanking the target site (with overhangs for index attachment)
• Library preparation kit for Illumina sequencing
• Illumina sequencing platform

Method:

• DNA Extraction: Extract high-quality genomic DNA from pooled agroinfiltrated leaf tissue (for transient assays) or individual plant lines.
• Primary PCR (Amplification):
  • Set up a PCR reaction with gene-specific primers that bind ~150-300 bp upstream and downstream of the target site. These primers should have overhangs compatible with Illumina index primers.
  • Run the PCR and purify the resulting amplicon product.
• Indexing PCR (Barcoding):
  • Perform a second, limited-cycle PCR using the purified primary PCR product as template. Use primers that add unique dual indices (i7 and i5) and full Illumina sequencing adapters to each sample.
  • Purify the final library.
• Library QC and Sequencing:
  • Quantify the library using a fluorometric method and check its size distribution using a bioanalyzer or tapestation.
  • Pool equimolar amounts of each barcoded library and sequence on an Illumina MiSeq or HiSeq platform with a paired-end run (2x250 bp or 2x300 bp is typical).
• Bioinformatic Analysis:
  • Demultiplex the sequencing data to assign reads to individual samples.
  • Align the reads to the reference amplicon sequence using tools like BWA or CRISPResso2.
  • Quantify the percentage of reads containing insertions, deletions (indels), or other mutations at the target site. This percentage represents the editing efficiency [45].

Advanced Applications and Integrated Workflows

RNA Aptamer-Assisted Systems for Visual Screening

An advanced application involves the use of RNA aptamers to improve the selection of edited plants. In one system, the engineered 3WJ-4×Bro RNA aptamer is fused to the 3'UTR of the Cas9 mRNA. This aptamer binds a small, cell-permeable fluorogen, causing it to fluoresce. This allows for visual tracking of Cas9 expression at the RNA level without fusing a large protein like GFP, which can interfere with Cas9 activity. This system has been shown to improve transformation efficiency, mutation rates, and the accuracy of identifying Cas9-free mutants in the T2 generation compared to traditional GFP-based methods [48].

Integration with Chemical Selection for Enhanced Efficiency

Transient expression methods can be combined with chemical selection to dramatically improve the recovery of edited events. For instance, in citrus, a kanamycin selection step applied for just 3-4 days during the transient expression of CRISPR components via Agrobacterium prevented the growth of non-transformed cells. This gave successfully edited cells a competitive advantage, resulting in a 17-fold increase in the efficiency of recovering genome-edited plants compared to the original transient method without selection [2]. This principle can be adapted for use with viral vectors in systems where a selectable marker is co-delivered or built into the vector.

The generation of transgene-free genome-edited plants is a paramount goal in modern plant biotechnology, crucial for functional genomics research, crop improvement, and navigating regulatory landscapes. A core challenge in this process lies in the initial selection of successfully edited cells amidst a majority of unmodified ones, and the subsequent elimination of the editing machinery to produce "null segregants"—plants that carry the desired genetic edit but are free of foreign DNA. This application note details three principal selection strategies—kanamycin resistance, herbicide resistance, and counter-selection markers—framed within the context of generating these transgene-free edited plants. We provide a comparative analysis of these systems, detailed protocols for their implementation, and a curated toolkit of essential reagents to equip researchers with practical methodologies for advancing null segregant research.

Comparative Analysis of Selection Markers

The choice of a selection strategy is pivotal and depends on the target organism, the transformation method, and the desired outcome. The table below summarizes the key characteristics, applications, and performance metrics of the three primary selection systems discussed in this note.

Table 1: Comparison of Selection and Counter-Selection Strategies for Transgene-Free Editing

Strategy	Mode of Action	Commonly Used Genes	Typical Working Concentration	Primary Application	Key Advantage
Kanamycin Resistance	Positive Selection	nptII (Neomycin Phosphotransferase)	50–100 mg/L [2] [49]	Selection of transformed cells during initial editing phase.	Well-established, high efficiency; recently used to enrich Agrobacterium-infected cells in transient systems, boosting editing efficiency 17-fold [2].
Herbicide Resistance	Positive Selection	ALS (Acetolactate Synthase)	Varies by herbicide (e.g., Chlorsulfuron) [9]	Co-editing strategy; selection of edited cells without transgene integration.	Enables direct selection of genome-edited cells based on a modified native gene, facilitating transgene-free plant recovery [9].
Counter-Selection (e.g., 5-FC/FCY-UPP)	Negative Selection	FCY (Fluorocytosine Deaminase) & UPP (Uracil Phosphoribosyl Transferase)	~5-FC containing medium [9]	Counter-selection against transgene-integrated cells in later stages.	Selects for transgene-free plants; cells retaining the FCY-UPP transgene convert 5-FC to toxic 5-fluorouracil, leading to death [9].

Detailed Protocols for Selection and Counter-Selection

Protocol: Kanamycin Selection for Enhanced Transient Editing

This protocol, adapted from a recent study in citrus, uses kanamycin not for selecting stable transformants, but to enrich plant cells that have been successfully infected by Agrobacterium and are transiently expressing the CRISPR/Cas9 machinery. This enrichment dramatically increases the efficiency of recovering transgene-free edited plants [2].

• Vector Design and Agrobacterium Preparation: Clone your CRISPR/Cas9 construct (with guide RNAs targeting your gene of interest) into a standard binary vector containing a kanamycin resistance gene (e.g., nptII).
• Transformation and Co-cultivation: Infect plant explants (e.g., citrus epicotyls) with the Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain carrying the construct using established methods for your plant species. Co-cultivate for 3-4 days to allow for T-DNA transfer and transient expression.
• Kanamycin Treatment for Enrichment: Following co-cultivation, transfer the explants to a regeneration medium supplemented with kanamycin (e.g., 100 mg/L). Culture the explants for only 3-4 days on this selective medium.
  • Rationale: This short pulse of kanamycin selection inhibits the growth of non-infected cells. Because kanamycin resistance is linked to the transient presence of the T-DNA, successfully infected cells—which are the ones most likely to be edited—are able to grow.
• Remove Kanamycin and Regenerate: After the brief selection period, transfer the explants to a regeneration medium without antibiotics or with a non-selective antibiotic to eliminate Agrobacterium.
• Plant Regeneration and Screening: Continue with standard regeneration protocols to recover whole plants. Screen the regenerated plants for the desired genetic edits and confirm the absence of the CRISPR/Cas9 transgenes via PCR and sequencing.

Protocol: Herbicide Resistance Co-editing Strategy

This protocol employs a co-editing strategy where a base editor is used to simultaneously introduce a desired trait mutation and a selectable point mutation in a native gene like ALS [9].

• Vector Design for Co-editing: Construct a vector for transient expression containing a cytosine base editor (CBE) and two sgRNAs:
  • sgRNA1: Targets a specific site in the ALS gene. A successful C→T base edit will confer resistance to chlorsulfuron or other sulfonylurea herbicides.
  • sgRNA2: Targets your gene of interest (GOI) to create a loss-of-function mutation or a beneficial allele.
• Plant Transformation and Regeneration under Selection: Introduce the vector into plant cells (e.g., citrus or poplar) via Agrobacterium-mediated transient transformation. Regenerate plants directly on medium containing the appropriate herbicide (e.g., chlorsulfuron).
• Selection Principle: Only cells that have undergone a successful base edit at the ALS locus will survive and regenerate into shoots on the herbicide-containing medium. Because the editing reagents are transiently present, a proportion of these herbicide-resistant plants will also carry the desired edit in the GOI and will be transgene-free.
• Molecular Confirmation: Genotype the herbicide-resistant regenerants for both the ALS edit (confirming resistance) and the edit in the GOI. Screen for the absence of the base editor transgene to identify transgene-free, edited plants.

Protocol: FCY-UPP Counter-Selection for Transgene-Free Plants

The FCY-UPP system is a powerful negative selection tool used to eliminate cells that have stably integrated the transgene, thereby enriching for transgene-free edited plants [9].

• Vector Design with FCY-UPP: Incorporate the FCY (fluorocytosine deaminase) and UPP (uracil phosphoribosyltransferase) genes into your CRISPR/Cas9 or base editing T-DNA construct. These genes serve as a counter-selectable marker.
• Primary Selection and Plant Regeneration: Transform plants and initially select for transformants using a standard positive selectable marker (e.g., hygromycin resistance) present on the same T-DNA. Regenerate putative transgenic plants.
• Counter-Selection with 5-FC: Take the regenerated plants and culture them on a medium containing 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC).
  • Mechanism of Action: In cells that have retained the FCY-UPP transgene, the FCY enzyme converts 5-FC to 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). The UPP enzyme then further converts 5-FU into toxic metabolites that are incorporated into RNA and DNA, leading to cell death. Only transgene-free cells, which lack the FCY-UPP genes, survive this counter-selection.
• Recovery of Transgene-Free Plants: The plants that survive on the 5-FC medium are highly likely to be free of the entire T-DNA, including the CRISPR/Cas9 machinery. These plants should be thoroughly molecularly characterized to confirm the presence of the desired edit and the absence of all transgenes.

Diagram 1: Workflow for generating transgene-free edited plants via transient expression or counter-selection.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents

Successful implementation of the aforementioned strategies relies on a core set of biological reagents and chemical compounds. The following table details these essential components.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Selection-Based Plant Genome Editing

Reagent / Component	Function	Example Use Cases
Kanamycin Sulfate	Aminoglycoside antibiotic for positive selection.	Selection of plant cells transiently or stably expressing the nptII gene during transformation [2] [49].
Chlorsulfuron	Sulfonylurea herbicide for positive selection.	Selection of plant cells with edited ALS gene in a co-editing strategy [9].
5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC)	Prodrug for negative/counter-selection.	Counter-selection against plant cells retaining the FCY-UPP transgene system [9].
Binary Vector with nptII	Plasmid for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation.	Standard vector for delivering CRISPR/Cas9 constructs; provides kanamycin resistance in plants [2] [49].
Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	Genome editing tool for C→T conversions.	Used in co-editing strategies to create dominant herbicide resistance mutations (e.g., in ALS) alongside edits in a gene of interest [9].
FCY-UPP Expression Cassette	Genetic construct for negative selection.	Incorporated into T-DNA to enable counter-selection of transgene-free plants on 5-FC containing medium [9].
Acetosyringone	Phenolic compound inducing Agrobacterium virulence genes.	Added to co-cultivation media to enhance T-DNA transfer efficiency during transformation [49].

The path to generating transgene-free genome-edited plants is critically dependent on robust selection strategies. Kanamycin resistance remains a powerful tool for initial selection, particularly with its recent innovative application in enriching transiently edited cells. Herbicide resistance co-editing strategies represent a forward-thinking approach that directly selects for the edited event itself. Finally, counter-selection systems like FCY-UPP provide a crucial final clean-up step to eliminate residual transgenes. The protocols and reagents outlined herein provide a concrete framework for researchers to effectively integrate these selection strategies into their workflows, accelerating the creation of null segregants for both fundamental research and the development of improved, non-transgenic crop varieties.

Optimization Strategies: Enhancing Efficiency and Overcoming Technical Hurdles

The generation of transgene-free genome-edited plants, or null segregants, is a critical goal in modern plant biotechnology, simplifying regulatory approval and enhancing public acceptance [2] [9]. A significant challenge in this process is achieving high editing efficiency in the initial transformation event to reduce the laborious and time-consuming screening process for identifying successfully edited, transgene-free lines. This Application Note details practical chemical and molecular strategies to boost genome editing efficiency within the context of transgene-free plant research. We provide summarized quantitative data, detailed protocols for key experiments, and a curated list of research reagents to facilitate the implementation of these methods.

Chemical Treatments to Enhance Editing Efficiency

Chemical treatments can significantly improve the efficiency of identifying and regenerating edited cells by selectively favoring their growth over non-edited cells. The table below summarizes key chemical treatments used in recent studies.

Table 1: Chemical Treatments for Enhancing Editing Efficiency in Plants

Chemical Treatment	Concentration Used	Plant Species	Primary Function	Reported Outcome
Kanamycin [2]	Not Specified	Citrus	Selective agent for cells transiently expressing CRISPR genes	17x increase in efficiency over previous method
Chlorsulfuron [9]	Not Specified	Citrus, Poplar	Herbicide for positive selection of ALS-edited cells	Selects cells with base edits conferring herbicide resistance
5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC) [9]	Not Specified	Citrus, Poplar	Negative selection agent against transgenic plants	Selects transgene-free plants by eliminating cells with FCY-UPP transgenes

The following diagram illustrates how these chemical treatments are integrated into a workflow for generating transgene-free plants.

Molecular Enhancements for Efficient Editing

Beyond chemical selection, strategic molecular tool design is crucial for improving the frequency and precision of edits.

Advanced Editor Systems and Delivery Methods

The choice of editor and its delivery method directly impacts editing efficiency.

• Cytosine Base Editors (CBE): The use of a highly efficient CBE based on hA3A-Y130 cytidine deaminase has proven effective for base editing in species like citrus and poplar [9]. This system facilitates single-nucleotide changes without creating double-strand breaks.
• Co-editing Strategy: A powerful approach involves simultaneously editing a herbicide resistance gene (e.g., ALS) and a gene of interest. This allows for easy positive selection of edited events using herbicides like chlorsulfuron, dramatically enriching for plants that also carry the desired edit in the target gene [9].
• Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Delivery: Transient delivery of pre-assembled Cas9 protein and sgRNA complexes as RNPs into protoplasts is a potent method for achieving transgene-free edits. A study in carrot reported editing rates of 17.28% and 6.45% for two different sgRNAs using this method [26].
• Anti-CRISPR Proteins for Safety: While not a direct efficiency boost, the delivery of cell-permeable anti-CRISPR proteins (e.g., the LFN-Acr/PA system) can deactivate Cas9 after editing is complete. This reduces off-target effects, increasing the overall specificity and safety of the editing process, which is vital for therapeutic and agricultural applications [50].

Table 2: Molecular Tools and Their Impact on Editing Efficiency

Molecular Tool/Strategy	Key Feature	Application in Transgene-Free Editing	Reported Efficiency
hA3A-Y130 CBE [9]	Highly efficient cytidine deaminase	Base editing in citrus and poplar	Higher editing in poplar than citrus; low biallelic efficiency
Co-editing (ALS + GOI) [9]	Enriches for desired edits via selection	Positive selection with herbicide	7-9% of resistant plants edited at both target sites
RNP Delivery [26]	Transient activity, no foreign DNA	Direct editing of protoplasts in carrot	Up to 17.28% edited regenerants
Mobile RNA (TLS2) [9]	Potential movement to neighbor cells	Attempt to increase editing in non-transgenic cells	Reduced efficiency in study

AI-Assisted Experimental Design

The complexity of choosing the right CRISPR systems, guide RNAs (gRNAs), and delivery methods can be a barrier. CRISPR-GPT is an LLM (Large Language Model) agent system designed to act as an AI co-pilot. It assists researchers in:

• Selecting the optimal CRISPR system and delivery method for their specific experimental organism and goal [51].
• Designing highly specific guide RNAs (gRNAs) to maximize on-target efficiency [51].
• Planning validation assays and analyzing resulting data [51]. This AI-guided approach has been successfully used to design knockout and epigenetic activation experiments that succeeded on the first attempt, even when performed by junior researchers [51].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Transgene-Free Genome Editing Experiments

Reagent / Tool	Function / Description	Example Use Case
Cas9 Nuclease	Protein that creates double-strand breaks at target DNA sites.	Core component of RNP complexes for protoplast transfection [26].
Synthetic sgRNA	Chemically synthesized guide RNA that directs Cas9 to the target locus.	Component of RNP complexes; avoids DNA-based expression [26].
Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	Fusion protein that catalyzes C•G to T•A conversion without double-strand breaks.	Precise base editing in citrus and poplar for herbicide resistance [9].
FCY-UPP Cytotoxin System	A negative selection marker; cells expressing these genes die on 5-FC medium.	Selection of transgene-free plants post-editing [9].
ICE Analysis Tool	Software (Inference of CRISPR Edits) for analyzing Sanger sequencing data.	Determines editing efficiency and indel profiles from Sanger data [52].
DECODR Algorithm	Web tool for deconvoluting complex Sanger sequencing traces.	Predicts specific mutations in biallelic or heterozygous edited lines [26].

Detailed Protocols

Protocol 1: Boosting Efficiency with Kanamycin in Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation

This protocol is adapted from a study in citrus that achieved a 17-fold increase in editing efficiency [2].

Application: Suitable for plant species amenable to Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, especially where transient expression is used to avoid T-DNA integration.

Reagents:

• Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain carrying the CRISPR/Cas9 construct.
• Plant explants for transformation.
• Kanamycin sulfate.
• Standard plant tissue culture media and supplies.

Procedure:

• Inoculation: Infect plant explants with Agrobacterium containing the CRISPR/Cas9 transgene using standard co-cultivation techniques.
• Short-term Kanamycin Treatment: After co-cultivation, transfer the explants to a regeneration medium containing a plant-tissue-culture-appropriate concentration of kanamycin.
• Critical Duration: Culture the explants on the kanamycin-containing medium for a short period of 3-4 days only. This brief exposure is sufficient to inhibit the growth of non-transformed cells but allows cells that were successfully infected and transiently expressed the CRISPR machinery (and the linked kanamycin resistance gene) to survive and initiate editing.
• Remove Selection: Transfer explants to a standard regeneration medium without kanamycin to allow for the growth and development of edited cells into shoots.
• Regeneration and Screening: Regenerate whole plants from the shoots and perform molecular analyses (e.g., PCR, sequencing) to identify transgene-free edited lines.

Protocol 2: Transgene-Free Plant Generation via RNP Transfection of Protoplasts

This protocol is adapted from a successful study in carrot [26] and is applicable to species with established protoplast regeneration systems.

Application: Ideal for generating transgene-free edited plants without the need for genetic segregation, particularly in vegetatively propagated crops.

Reagents:

• Cas9 protein (e.g., from IDT).
• Synthetic sgRNAs targeting gene of interest.
• Plant material for protoplast isolation.
• Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) solution (e.g., 40%).
• Protoplast culture media (e.g., CPP media), W5 solution, MMG solution.

Procedure:

• RNP Complex Assembly:
  • For one transfection, gently mix:
    • 200 pmol of synthetic sgRNA.
    • 20 μg of Cas9 protein.
    • 2 μL of 1X PBS buffer (pH 7.4).
  • Incubate the mixture at room temperature for 10 minutes to allow RNP complex formation.

• Protoplast Transfection:

  • Isolate protoplasts from the target plant species and resuspend in MMG solution at a density of ~8.0 x 10^5 protoplasts per mL.
  • Add the pre-assembled RNP complex (6 μL total volume) to 200 μL of the protoplast suspension.
  • Slowly add 206 μL of freshly prepared 40% PEG solution to the protoplast-RNP mixture and mix gently by pipetting.
  • Incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes.

• Washing and Culture:

  • Gently add 4 mL of W5 solution to the protoplast-RNP-PEG mixture to stop the transfection.
  • Centrifuge at 100 x g for 4 minutes at room temperature.
  • Carefully remove the supernatant and resuspend the protoplast pellet in 10 mL of protoplast culture media (CPP).

• Regeneration and Genotyping:

  • Culture the protoplasts and regenerate whole plants using established protocols for the specific plant species.
  • Isolate genomic DNA from regenerated plants and amplify the target region by PCR.
  • Analyze edits using Sanger sequencing and tools like DECODR or ICE to characterize mutations (homozygous, biallelic, heterozygous) [52] [26].

The logical flow of this protocol, from design to analysis, is summarized in the following workflow.

A significant hurdle in plant genome editing is transformation recalcitrance, where many agronomically important crops resist the introduction of foreign DNA, making the creation of transgene-free edited plants challenging [53] [54]. For vegetatively propagated species like citrus and poplar, or many legume crops, this challenge is compounded by long life cycles and the difficulty of segregating out transgenes through successive generations [2] [53] [9]. This application note details targeted strategies and protocols to overcome species-specific barriers, enabling efficient production of transgene-free, genome-edited plants for breeding and research. By focusing on methods that avoid stable transgene integration, these approaches align with regulatory simplicity and enhanced consumer acceptance.

Key Challenges and Targeted Solutions

The table below summarizes the major challenges associated with recalcitrant crops and the specific solutions developed to address them.

Table 1: Key Challenges and Targeted Solutions for Recalcitrant Crops

Challenge	Impact on Transgene-Free Editing	Proposed Solution	Applicable Crops
Low Transformation Efficiency [53]	Limits the pool of cells receiving editing reagents, reducing the number of editable events.	Agrobacterium-mediated transient transformation [2] [9]; Weakening plant immune response during co-cultivation [54].	Most legumes (e.g., cowpea, chickpea), perennial crops [53] [54].
Difficulty in Regenerating Transformed/Edited Cells [54]	Edited cells fail to develop into whole plants.	Optimized hormone balance in culture media; Use of morphogenic regulators (e.g., ARR10, GRF-GIF chimeras) [54].	Cereals, woody perennials (citrus, poplar) [54].
Selection of Transgene-Free, Edited Cells	Hard to distinguish non-transgenic edited cells from non-edited or stably transformed ones.	Co-editing of a selectable marker gene (e.g., ALS) with the gene of interest [9]; Negative selection with FCY-UPP/5-FC against transgenic cells [9].	Citrus, poplar, and other crops amenable to herbicide or negative selection [9].
Lengthy Life Cycles & Vegetative Propagation [2]	Precludes practical transgene segregation through selfing over generations.	Direct production of transgene-free edited plants in the T0 generation via transient expression [2] [9].	Citrus, poplar, potato, cassava [2] [9].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Solutions

The following table catalogs key reagents and their functions for implementing these advanced genome-editing protocols.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Transgene-Free Genome Editing

Research Reagent / Solution	Function and Application in Experiments
CRISPR/Cas9 or CBE Plasmids [2] [9]	Engineered for transient expression; delivers the nuclease or base editor machinery without genomic integration.
Agrobacterium tumefaciens Strain [2] [9]	The most common vehicle for delivering T-DNA containing genome-editing reagents into plant cells.
Kanamycin Selection [2]	A short-term (3-4 days) selective agent to enrich for plant cells that were successfully infected by Agrobacterium and are transiently expressing the editing machinery.
Herbicides (e.g., Chlorsulfuron) [9]	Selects for plant cells where the endogenous Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) gene has been successfully co-edited to confer resistance.
FCY-UPP Cytotoxin System + 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC) [9]	A negative selection system. Cells that have stably integrated the T-DNA (expressing FCY and UPP enzymes) convert 5-FC into a toxic compound, killing them. Only transgene-free cells survive.
Cytokinin & Auxin Plant Growth Regulators [54]	Used in specific ratios in tissue culture media to induce callus formation and subsequent shoot regeneration (e.g., 2,4-D, NAA for auxin).
Morphogenic Regulators (e.g., GRF-GIF) [54]	Chimeric transcription factors that boost plant regeneration capacity, increasing the chance of recovering whole plants from edited cells.

Detailed Experimental Workflow and Protocol

This section provides a detailed methodology for generating transgene-free edited plants in recalcitrant species, integrating the solutions from Table 1.

The diagram below illustrates the integrated experimental workflow for obtaining transgene-free edited plants.

Step-by-Step Protocol

Step 1: Vector Construction and Agrobacterium Preparation

• Construct Design: Assemble a T-DNA vector containing expression cassettes for: a) a CRISPR-based editor (e.g., Cas9 nuclease or a Cytosine Base Editor - CBE); b) guide RNA(s) targeting both your gene of interest and a selectable marker gene like ALS; and c) the FCY-UPP counter-selection cassette [9]. For perennial plants like citrus and poplar, a CBE system has proven effective [9].
• Agrobacterium Transformation: Introduce the final construct into a suitable Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain (e.g., EHA105 or GV3101) [9].

Step 2: Plant Transformation and Transient Editing

• Explant Preparation: Surface-sterilize and prepare explants suitable for the target species. For citrus, epicotyl segments are commonly used; for poplar and legumes, cotyledonary nodes or leaf discs are typical [53] [9].
• Co-cultivation: Immerse explants in the Agrobacterium suspension for a defined period (e.g., 30 minutes). Blot dry and co-cultivate on a medium without antibiotics for 2-3 days to allow for T-DNA transfer and transient expression of the editing machinery [2] [9]. To enhance efficiency, consider adding kanamycin for a short period (3-4 days) post-co-cultivation to inhibit the growth of non-infected cells [2].

Step 3: Positive Selection for Edited Events

• Following co-cultivation, transfer explants to a regeneration medium containing a selective agent corresponding to your co-edited marker.
• For the ALS co-editing strategy, use an herbicide like chlorsulfuron. Only cells that have undergone successful base editing of the ALS gene, conferring resistance, will survive and begin to form calli and shoots [9].

Step 4: Regeneration and Negative Selection Against Transgenics

• Regeneration: Culture the herbicide-resistant shoots on a regeneration medium optimized with the appropriate balance of auxins and cytokinins to promote shoot elongation and development. The use of morphogenic regulators like GRF-GIF chimeras can significantly improve regeneration efficiency in recalcitrant genotypes [54].
• Counter-Selection: To eliminate plants with stably integrated T-DNA, transfer regenerated shoots to a medium containing 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC). Plants expressing the FCY-UPP genes (from the T-DNA) will convert 5-FC into a toxic compound and die. Only transgene-free, edited plants will survive this step [9].

Step 5: Molecular Confirmation

• Genotyping: Perform PCR and sequencing on the surviving plants to confirm: a) the desired edits in both the gene of interest and the ALS marker; and b) the absence of the T-DNA (e.g., Cas9, FCY-UPP genes), confirming their transgene-free status [2] [9].
• Homozygosity Screening: For species where feasible, self-pollinate the T0 plants and screen the T1 progeny to identify homozygous, transgene-free lines.

Data Presentation and Analysis

The success of these strategies is quantified by key metrics such as editing efficiency and the rate of transgene-free plant recovery. The following table compiles data from relevant studies.

Table 3: Quantitative Outcomes of Transgene-Free Editing Strategies in Various Crops

Plant Species	Editing System	Key Strategy	Editing Efficiency (Transgenic)	Transgene-Free Recovery Rate	Reference
Citrus	Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	Co-editing of ALS & CsNPR3; FCY-UPP negative selection	Not explicitly stated	Demonstrated, albeit with low biallelic efficiency	[9]
Poplar	Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	Co-editing of ALS & Pt4CL1; FCY-UPP negative selection	Higher than in citrus	A fraction of chlorsulfuron-resistant plants were edited	[9]
Citrus (Previous Method)	CRISPR/Cas9	Agrobacterium transient expression	Baseline (2018 method)	Baseline (2018 method)	[2]
Citrus (Optimized Method)	CRISPR/Cas9	Agrobacterium transient expression + kanamycin pulse	17x more efficient than baseline	Implied to be higher due to increased editing efficiency	[2]
Legumes (General)	CRISPR/Cas9	Overcoming transformation recalcitrance	Highly variable; often <15% transformation efficiency	Directly hindered by low transformation rates	[53]

Troubleshooting and Technical Notes

• Low Editing Efficiency: Ensure the activity of your editor (CBE/Cas9) is high in your target species. Optimize the duration of co-cultivation and the viability of your Agrobacterium culture. The use of a kanamycin pulse can dramatically improve efficiency by suppressing non-transformed cells [2].
• High Escape Rate in Negative Selection: The concentration of 5-FC and the duration of exposure in the negative selection step must be optimized. Incomplete counter-selection can leave stably transformed plants among the population [9].
• Poor Regeneration: This is a major bottleneck. Systematically optimize the plant growth regulator composition in your media. Incorporating regeneration-boosting transcription factors like ARR10 or GRF-GIF can be a powerful solution for recalcitrant genotypes [54].
• Plant Immune Response: The Agrobacterium infection itself can trigger a plant defense response that hampers transformation. Research is ongoing into transiently weakening this immune response (e.g., by silencing key defense genes) to improve transformation rates in recalcitrant species [54].

A significant challenge in plant genome editing is the frequent emergence of chimeric tissues, where edited and non-edited cells coexist within the same regenerated plant. This chimerism poses a major obstacle for both functional analysis and breeding, as it can obscure phenotypic outcomes and complicate the recovery of stable, uniformly edited progeny. Within the broader objective of generating transgene-free, null segregant plants, overcoming chimerism is a critical step to ensure that the desired genetic modifications are transmitted uniformly to the next generation. This Application Note details current, advanced methodologies designed to minimize or eliminate chimerism by targeting single cells and employing DNA-free editing techniques, thereby promoting the recovery of uniformly edited plants.

The table below summarizes the key performance metrics of three primary strategies for reducing chimerism, as reported in recent literature.

Table 1: Quantitative Comparison of Strategies for Reducing Chimerism in Plant Genome Editing

Strategy	Key Reagents & Selection Agents	Reported Editing Efficiency	Uniform Editing (Non-Chimerism) Rate	Key Advantages
Protoplast Transfection with RNPs [55] [26]	Cas9 protein, synthetic sgRNA, PEG, Kanamycin [2]	6.45% - 17.28% (carrot) [26]	High (Plants regenerated from a single, edited protoplast) [55]	DNA-free, no transgene integration, minimal off-target effects [55]
Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Expression [2] [9]	Agrobacterium strain, CBE plasmid, Kanamycin, Chlorsulfuron [9]	17x more efficient than prior method (citrus) [2]	Selected via co-editing of ALS gene [9]	High efficiency, applicable to a wide range of species, no stable T-DNA integration [2]
Co-Editing with Negative Selection [9]	Cytosine Base Editor (CBE), FCY-UPP genes, 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC), Chlorsulfuron [9]	7%-9% biallelic editing (poplar) [9]	Selects for transgene-free, edited plants [9]	Simultaneously selects for editing and against transgene integration.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

DNA-Free Editing via Protoplast Transfection and Regeneration

This protocol, adapted for grapevine and carrot, utilizes preassembled Cas9 ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) to edit individual protoplasts, ensuring non-chimeric plants are regenerated from a single edited cell [55] [26].

• Step 1: Protoplast Isolation from Embryogenic Callus

  • Incubate 1 gram of embryogenic callus in 13 mL of enzymatic mixture (1% cellulase Onozuka R-10, 0.3% macerozyme R-10, 0.2% hemicellulase in Gamborg B5 medium with 0.45 M mannitol, pH 5.7) [55].
  • Mix on a tilt shaker at 25°C for 16 hours in the dark.
  • Filter the suspension through a 60 μm nylon sieve and collect protoplasts by centrifugation at 80 g for 4 minutes (no brake).
  • Purify protoplasts on a 16% (w/v) sucrose cushion (centrifuge at 90 g, 4 min, no brake) and resuspend in MMG solution (4 mM MES, 0.4 M mannitol, 15 mM MgCl₂, pH 5.7) [55]. Assess viability using FDA staining [55].

• Step 2: RNP Complex Assembly and Transfection

  • Assembly: For a single transfection, gently mix 200 pmol of synthetic sgRNA with 20 μg of Cas9 protein and 2 μL of 1X PBS buffer (pH 7.4). Incubate at room temperature for 10 minutes to form the RNP complex [26].
  • Transfection: Add the 6 μL RNP complex to 200 μL of protoplasts (density ~8.0 × 10^5 per mL) in MMG solution. Slowly add 206 μL of freshly prepared 40% PEG solution, mixing gently by pipetting. Incubate for 15 minutes at room temperature [26].
  • Washing: Gently add 4 mL of W5 solution (2 mM MES, 154 mM NaCl, 125 mM CaCl₂, 5 mM KCl, pH 5.7) to stop the reaction. Centrifuge at 100 g for 4 minutes and resuspend the pellet in 10 mL of protoplast culture media [26].

• Step 3: Plant Regeneration from Protoplasts

  • Culture the transfected protoplasts in a thin layer of liquid Nitsch and Nitsch-based medium (NNp) in the dark [55].
  • As protoplasts divide and form microcalli, transfer them to a solid embryo development medium (e.g., GS1CA) to promote somatic embryogenesis [55].
  • Subsequently, transfer developed embryos to regeneration media to induce shoot and root formation [26].

Transient Expression with Co-Editing and Negative Selection

This protocol for citrus and poplar uses transient T-DNA expression to achieve editing while employing a dual selection system to isolate transgene-free, edited plants [9].

• Step 1: Vector Design and Agrobacterium Transformation

  • Construct a T-DNA vector containing expression cassettes for:
    • A cytosine base editor (CBE) and sgRNAs targeting both a herbicide resistance gene (e.g., ALS) and your gene of interest (GOI).
    • The FCY-UPP negative selection marker cassette [9].
  • Introduce the final vector into an appropriate Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain.

• Step 2: Plant Transformation and Transient Editing

  • Inoculate explants (e.g., leaf discs, stem segments) with the Agrobacterium suspension.
  • Co-cultivate for a short period (typically 3-4 days) to allow for transient expression of the editing machinery without stable integration of the T-DNA [2] [9].

• Step 3: Selection of Edited Events

  • Primary Selection (for editing): Transfer explants to regeneration media containing the herbicide chlorsulfuron. Only cells successfully edited at the ALS locus will survive and regenerate into shoots [9].

• Step 4: Negative Selection (against transgenes)

  • Secondary Selection: Excise regenerated shoots and culture on medium containing 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC). Cells that have stably integrated the FCY-UPP transgene will convert 5-FC into a cytotoxic compound and die. Only transgene-free plants (escapes) will survive [9].

• Step 5: Molecular Validation

  • Perform PCR and sequencing on the surviving plants to confirm:
    • Successful editing at the GOI.
    • Absence of the Cas9 and FCY-UPP transgenes.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents

Table 2: Essential Reagents for Protocols Aimed at Reducing Chimerism

Reagent / Solution	Function / Purpose	Example Composition / Notes
Enzymatic Mixture [55]	Digests cell wall to release protoplasts.	1% Cellulase Onozuka R-10, 0.3% Macerozyme R-10, 0.2% Hemicellulase in osmoticum [55].
Cas9 Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) [55] [26]	DNA-free editing machinery; minimizes off-targets and prevents transgene integration.	Preassembled complex of purified Cas9 protein and synthetic sgRNA [26].
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) [26]	Facilitates the delivery of RNPs into protoplasts.	Used at 40% concentration for transfection [26].
MMG Solution [55] [26]	Resuspension medium for protoplasts prior to transfection.	4 mM MES, 0.4 M mannitol, 15 mM MgCl₂ (pH 5.7) [55].
W5 Solution [55] [26]	Washing and dilution solution to stop PEG transfection.	2 mM MES, 154 mM NaCl, 125 mM CaCl₂, 5 mM KCl (pH 5.7) [55].
Cytosine Base Editor (CBE) [9]	Enables precise C•G to T•A base changes without double-strand breaks; used for co-editing strategies.	e.g., hA3A-Y130 CBE for efficient editing in plants [9].
FCY-UPP Cytotoxin System [9]	Negative selection marker to eliminate transgenic cells.	Converts 5-FC into toxic 5-fluorouracil, killing cells with stably integrated T-DNA [9].
Herbicide (e.g., Chlorsulfuron) [9]	Positive selection agent for cells edited in the ALS gene.	Selects for successfully edited events during regeneration [9].

Within the pursuit of generating transgene-free genome-edited plants (null segregants), the efficient selection of correctly edited events while minimizing the number of escape (non-edited) and false positive (transgenic) plants is a critical research bottleneck. This challenge is particularly acute for vegetatively propagated and perennial crops, such as citrus and poplar, where lengthy life cycles and reproductive systems make the segregation of transgenes through conventional crossing nearly impossible [2] [9]. This document outlines advanced strategies and detailed protocols to optimize selection systems, thereby enhancing the efficiency of producing transgene-free, genome-edited plants for research and breeding.

Quantitative Comparison of Selection Systems

The performance of a selection system is primarily measured by its editing efficiency and its ability to minimize escapes. The table below summarizes published data from different selection strategies in plant systems.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of Different Selection Strategies for Transgene-Free Genome Editing

Selection Strategy	Plant Species	Reported Editing Efficiency	Key Advantage	Key Limitation
Chemical Selection (Kanamycin) with Transient Expression [2]	Citrus	17x more efficient than prior method	Highly effective for selecting cells with transient CRISPR expression; simple.	Relies on antibiotic resistance linked to transient expression.
Co-editing with ALS Herbicide Resistance [9]	Citrus, Poplar	Low efficiency for biallelic edits	Direct phenotypic selection for a edited trait (herbicide resistance).	High number of herbicide selection escapes reported.
FCY-UPP Negative Selection [9]	Citrus, Poplar	Effective selection of transgene-free plants demonstrated	Positively selects for plants without the transgene.	A small fraction of escaping plants can be detected.
DNA-free RNP Delivery [56]	Various (via protoplasts)	N/A (Varies by protocol)	Inherently transgene-free; no foreign DNA.	Protoplast regeneration is a major bottleneck for many crops.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Enhanced Transient Expression with Kanamycin Selection

This protocol, adapted from Li et al., uses kanamycin to enrich for plant cells that have undergone transient Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, thereby increasing the likelihood of recovering genome-edited events [2].

Workflow Overview:

Materials:

• Agrobacterium tumefaciens Strain: EHA105 or GV3101.
• Vector: T-DNA binary vector containing your gene-specific sgRNA(s), a plant codon-optimized Cas9 nuclease, and a kanamycin resistance gene.
• Plant Material: Sterile explants (e.g., leaf discs, epicotyl segments).
• Culture Media: Co-cultivation media, selection media (containing kanamycin), regeneration media.
• Antibiotics: Kanamycin, Timentin/Carbenicillin.

Step-by-Step Method:

• Vector Preparation: Transform the CRISPR/Cas9 construct into your Agrobacterium strain.
• Agrobacterium Culture: Grow a liquid culture of the transformed Agrobacterium to an OD₆₀₀ of ~0.5-1.0. Pellet the cells and resuspend in a liquid co-cultivation medium.
• Inoculation: Immerse explants in the Agrobacterium suspension for 10-30 minutes with gentle agitation.
• Co-cultivation: Blot-dry the explants and transfer them to solid co-cultivation medium. Incubate in the dark at 22-25°C for 2-3 days.
• Transient Kanamycin Selection: Transfer explants to a selection/regeneration medium containing kanamycin (concentration must be pre-determined for the species, e.g., 100 mg/L) and Timentin (to kill Agrobacteria). Crucially, maintain explants on this medium for only 3-4 days [2].
• Release from Selection: After the short kanamycin pulse, transfer explants to a standard regeneration medium containing Timentin but without kanamycin.
• Regeneration and Screening: Allow shoots to develop. Regenerated shoots should be screened by PCR (see section 3.3) for the desired genome edits and the absence of the Cas9 transgene.

Protocol 2: Co-editing and Negative Selection with FCY-UPP

This advanced strategy combines positive selection for an edit (herbicide resistance) with negative selection against the transgene (FCY-UPP), dramatically reducing the number of escapes and false positives [9].

Workflow Overview:

Materials:

• Vector: A T-DNA vector containing:
  • A cytosine base editor (CBE, e.g., hA3A-Y130).
  • sgRNA targeting the Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) gene to confer herbicide resistance.
  • sgRNA targeting your Gene of Interest (GOI).
  • The FCY-UPP negative selection marker.
• Chemicals: Chlorsulfuron (or similar ALS-inhibiting herbicide), 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC), Timentin.

Step-by-Step Method:

• Plant Transformation: Transform explants with the Agrobacterium strain harboring the multi-component vector via a standard protocol.
• Positive Selection (for editing): Culture the explants on regeneration medium containing a selective dose of chlorsulfuron. Only plant cells where the ALS gene has been successfully base-edited to confer resistance will survive and regenerate into shoots.
• Shoot Propagation: Regenerate shoots from the herbicide-resistant tissue.
• Negative Selection (against transgene): Excise individual shoots and transfer them to a rooting or propagation medium supplemented with 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC). The FCY and UPP enzymes convert non-toxic 5-FC into toxic compounds. Only transgene-free plants (lacking the FCY-UPP genes) will survive [9]. Plants that stably integrated the T-DNA will die.
• Comprehensive Genotyping: Screen the 5-FC-resistant plants for:
  • The desired base-edit in the ALS gene (Sanger Sequencing).
  • The desired edit in your GOI (Sanger Sequencing).
  • The absence of the CBE and FCY-UPP transgenes (PCR with transgene-specific primers).

Protocol 3: Molecular Screening for Edits and Transgenes

A. DNA Extraction: Use a reliable CTAB-based or commercial kit method to extract high-quality genomic DNA from young leaf tissue.

B. Detection of Genome Edits:

• PCR Amplification: Design primers flanking the target site(s) for both the GOI and the selection gene (e.g., ALS). Amplify the region using a high-fidelity PCR enzyme.
• Edit Analysis:
  • Restriction Fragment Length Polymorphism (RFLP): If the edit creates or destroys a restriction site, digest the PCR product and analyze via gel electrophoresis.
  • Sanger Sequencing: The most direct method. Clone the PCR product or sequence it directly. For direct sequencing of a heterozygous edit, use tracking of indels by decomposition (TIDE) or similar software to deconvolute the chromatogram.
  • Next-Generation Sequencing (NGS): For a comprehensive view, especially in polyploid species or to detect a wide range of mutations, amplicon-based NGS is the gold standard [56].

C. Detection of Transgenes (Null Segregant Screening):

• Perform PCR with primers specific to the transgenes used in the vector (e.g., Cas9, FCY-UPP, viral promoters). A transgene-free plant should yield no PCR product. Always include positive (plasmid DNA) and negative (wild-type plant DNA) controls.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Reagents for Optimizing Transgene-Free Plant Selection

Reagent / Solution	Function / Rationale	Example Use
Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	Catalyzes C•G to T•A conversions without causing double-strand breaks; ideal for creating gain-of-function herbicide resistance [9].	Used in co-editing strategies to create herbicide-resistant selectable markers.
ALS Gene Target	A common target for base editing to confer resistance to sulfonylurea herbicides. Provides a powerful positive selection for edited cells [9].	sgRNA targeting conserved regions of the endogenous ALS gene.
FCY-UPP Cytotoxin System	A negative selection marker. Plants retaining the transgene convert 5-FC to toxic compounds, killing them and leaving only transgene-free plants [9].	Counter-selection against T-DNA integration after initial positive selection.
Kanamycin (for Transient Selection)	An antibiotic that inhibits the growth of non-transformed plant cells. Short-term exposure selects for cells that underwent transient transformation [2].	3-4 day pulse on kanamycin-containing media after Agrobacterium co-cultivation.
Agrobacterium tumefaciens	The most common delivery method for genome editing reagents. Can be used for both stable and transient transformation [56] [9].	Delivery of T-DNA containing CRISPR/Cas9, base editors, and selection genes.
Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Complexes	Pre-assembled complexes of Cas9 protein and sgRNA. Enables DNA-free editing, eliminating the risk of transgene integration [56].	Direct delivery into protoplasts via PEG-mediated transformation or biolistics.

Mobile ribonucleic acids (RNAs) are defined as RNA molecules that can move from their cell of origin to adjacent or distant cells, and in some cases, even across species boundaries [57]. This intercellular and systemic movement allows these molecules to act as sophisticated signaling entities, silencing gene expression or directing epigenetic modifications in recipient cells [57]. In plants, this movement occurs through two primary pathways: cell-to-cell transport via plasmodesmata, and long-distance movement through the vascular system, particularly the phloem [57]. The discovery of this phenomenon has opened transformative possibilities for plant biotechnology, particularly for generating transgene-free genome-edited plants—organisms where the genetic modifications are present but the foreign DNA used to create them has been removed [9].

The application of mobile RNA technology is particularly valuable for creating null segregants, which are progeny plants that have inherited the desired genetic edit but have segregated away (and thus lack) the transgenes used in the editing process, such as those encoding CRISPR-Cas9 or base editors [8] [9]. For vegetatively propagated crops and perennial species like citrus and poplar trees—which have lengthy life cycles and complex breeding systems that make genetic segregation of transgenes particularly challenging—obtaining transgene-free edited plants in the T0 generation is a significant hurdle [9]. Mobile RNA technology offers an innovative solution by enabling the transient movement of editing components, such as CRISPR-Cas9 mRNA and single guide RNAs (sgRNAs), into plant cells without the need for stable integration of foreign genes into the plant genome [9].

Recent advances have demonstrated that fusing editing components to specific mobile RNA motifs can facilitate their movement between cells. For instance, the tRNA-like structure (TLS) has been identified as a motif that enables the long-distance transport of RNA molecules through the plant vascular system [9]. This review details the principles, protocols, and applications of mobile RNA technology for improving the intercellular movement of genome-editing components, with a specific focus on achieving efficient transgene-free editing in plants.

Key Principles of RNA Mobility

Mechanisms of RNA Movement

The mobility of RNA molecules within plants is a finely regulated process. Small non-coding RNAs (sRNAs), including small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) and microRNAs (miRNAs), are key players in this systemic signaling system [57]. These sRNAs are produced through the action of DICER-like (DCL) enzymes and are subsequently loaded into Argonaute (AGO) proteins to form the core of the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC) [57]. Once formed, this complex can direct the silencing of complementary target mRNA sequences in recipient cells. The mobility of these RNA molecules is not random; specific sequence motifs and structural features determine their transport potential. For example, the TLS2 mobile RNA motif has been successfully used to enhance the mobility of genome-editing components in grafting-based approaches and has been explored in virus-induced editing systems [9].

Information Theory Perspective on RNA Signaling

From a theoretical standpoint, for an mRNA to function as an effective long-distance signal, it must be successfully encoded in the source tissue, transported through the phloem, and then decoded to activate a specific downstream response in the recipient tissue [58]. While transcriptomic studies of phloem sap and grafted plants have identified hundreds to thousands of putatively mobile mRNAs, only a small fraction of these have been definitively linked to signaling functions [58]. It is crucial to distinguish true signaling molecules from background transcriptional noise or potential contaminants. Recent meta-analyses of mobile mRNA datasets have raised important questions about the extent of long-distance mRNA communication, noting that a significant percentage of previously identified mobile transcripts could be explained by technological noise, biological variation, or incomplete genome assemblies [59]. This underscores the necessity of employing stringent bioinformatic pipelines and validation methods when characterizing mobile RNAs [58] [59].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Engineering Mobile RNA Vectors for Genome Editing

This protocol describes the process of constructing vectors that fuse genome-editing components with mobile RNA motifs to create transgene-free edited plants, as demonstrated in citrus and poplar trees [9].

Materials and Reagents

• Vector Backbones: pYPQ132B, pYPQ133B, pYPQ134B, pYPQ265E2 (or similar vectors containing cytosine base editors, or CBEs).
• Mobile RNA Motif: Synthesized TLS2 sequence (or other validated mobile RNA motifs).
• Enzymes: BsmBI (Esp3I), T4 DNA Ligase, NEBuilder HiFi DNA Assembly Master Mix.
• Oligonucleotides: Designed and annealed sgRNAs targeting your genes of interest (e.g., ALS and a co-edited gene like CsNPR3 in citrus or Pt4CL1 in poplar).
• Selection Cassette: Synthesized FCY-UPP cytotoxin counter-selection cassette.
• Agrobacterium tumefaciens strains (e.g., EHA105, GV3101) for plant transformation.

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Vector Assembly: a. Synthesize the double-stranded DNA fragment for the TLS2 mobile RNA motif. b. Using a HiFi DNA assembly kit, clone the TLS2 fragment into the multiple cloning site of your chosen CBE vector (e.g., pYPQ265E2). This creates a vector where the CBE is fused to the mobile RNA tag. c. Design and synthesize complementary oligonucleotides for the sgRNAs targeting your genes. Anneal these oligos to form double-stranded sgRNA inserts. d. Ligate the annealed sgRNA inserts into the BsmBI (Esp3I) sites of the mobile RNA-containing vector (e.g., pYPQ132, pYPQ133, pYPQ134). This creates the final editing vector(s) expressing mobile CBE mRNA and mobile sgRNAs.

• Incorporation of Selection Markers: a. To enable selection of transgene-free plants, clone the FCY-UPP expression cassette into the T-DNA region of your assembled vector. This two-enzyme system converts the non-toxic 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC) into toxic compounds, killing any plant cells that have stably integrated the T-DNA.

• Transformation and Verification: a. Introduce the final assembled vector into your Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain using freeze-thaw or electroporation. b. Verify the correctness of the plasmid in Agrobacterium by colony PCR and restriction digestion.

Protocol 2: Plant Transformation and Selection of Transgene-Free Edited Plants

This protocol uses the mobile RNA vectors from Protocol 1 in citrus and poplar, but can be adapted for other plant species amenable to Agrobacterium-mediated transformation.

Materials and Reagents

• Plant Material: Sterile explants for transformation (e.g., citrus epicotyl segments, poplar leaf discs).
• Culture Media: Appropriate co-cultivation, shooting, and rooting media for your plant species.
• Selection Agents: Chlorsulfuron (or other imidazolinone/sulfonylurea herbicide for ALS selection), 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC).
• DNA Extraction Kits for genotyping.
• PCR Reagents for amplification of target sites.
• Restriction Enzymes or T7 Endonuclease I for edit detection, or reagents for sequencing.

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation: a. Prepare a liquid culture of Agrobacterium harboring the mobile RNA editing vector and dilute to an optimal OD₆₀₀ (e.g., 0.5-1.0). b. Infect your plant explants with the Agrobacterium suspension for a defined period (e.g., 15-30 minutes). c. Co-cultivate the explants on appropriate medium for 2-3 days in the dark. This step allows for transient expression of the editing components, which is crucial for the mobile RNAs to move into cells without T-DNA integration.

• Primary Selection for Genome-Edited Events: a. After co-cultivation, transfer explants to shooting medium containing a suitable concentration of chlorsulfuron. The edited CBE introduces a point mutation in the ALS gene, conferring herbicide resistance. Only cells that have successfully been base-edited (either through direct transformation or via mobile RNA movement) will survive and regenerate.

• Counter-Selection for Transgene-Free Plants: a. Once shoots regenerate on chlorsulfuron-containing medium, transfer them to a medium supplemented with 5-FC. b. The FCY-UPP enzymes produced from stably integrated T-DNA will convert 5-FC into cytotoxic compounds, eliminating transgenic plants. c. Only transgene-free plants—where the editing components were transiently expressed and/or moved via mobile RNAs but the T-DNA was not integrated—will survive on the 5-FC medium.

• Molecular Confirmation: a. Extract genomic DNA from 5-FC-resistant shoots. b. Use PCR to amplify the genomic regions targeted for editing (e.g., ALS and your co-target gene). c. Confirm the presence of the desired base edits by Sanger sequencing or next-generation sequencing. d. Perform rigorous PCR assays using primers specific to the T-DNA backbone (e.g., Cas9, FCY-UPP) to confirm the absence of integrated transgenes.

Data Presentation and Analysis

Quantitative Analysis of Editing Efficiencies

The following table summarizes key quantitative data from a study that implemented a mobile RNA and co-editing strategy in citrus and poplar, highlighting the efficiency of generating transgene-free edited plants [9].

Table 1: Editing Efficiency in Citrus and Poplar Using a CBE Co-editing Strategy

Species	Target Gene(s)	Herbicide-Resistant Shoots Regenerated	Shows Biallelic Editing in Target Genes	Editing Efficiency Boost from Mobile RNA (TLS2)	Successful Transgene-Free Plants Recovered
Citrus	ALS + CsNPR3	Limited number	Low efficiency	No; reduction observed	Yes (via FCY-UPP counter-selection)
Poplar	ALS + Pt4CL1	Higher number than citrus	~7-9% of resistant shoots	No; reduction observed	Yes (via FCY-UPP counter-selection)

Key Reagent Solutions for Mobile RNA Experiments

The table below catalogs essential reagents and their functions for conducting mobile RNA-based genome editing experiments.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Mobile RNA-Mediated Genome Editing

Reagent / Tool Name	Function and Application in Experiments
Cytosine Base Editor (CBE) - hA3A-Y130 variant	Catalyzes precise C-to-T base conversions without causing double-strand breaks. Used to create specific point mutations (e.g., in the ALS gene for herbicide resistance). [9]
TLS2 Mobile RNA Motif	An RNA sequence tag that facilitates the long-distance movement of transcripts it is fused to. Used to enhance the intercellular travel of CBE mRNA and sgRNAs. [9]
FCY-UPP Counter-Selection Cassette	A two-gene system that converts 5-FC into cytotoxic compounds. Used to selectively eliminate plant cells that have stably integrated the T-DNA, thereby enriching for transgene-free edited plants. [9]
Agrobacterium tumefaciens (e.g., EHA105)	A standard vehicle for the transient and stable delivery of T-DNA containing genome-editing reagents into plant cells. [9]
Chlorsulfuron (Herbicide)	A sulfonylurea herbicide that inhibits the native ALS enzyme. Used as a positive selection agent to identify plant cells that have acquired herbicide resistance via CBE editing of the ALS gene. [9]
5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC)	A non-toxic pro-drug. Used in counter-selection medium to kill transgenic cells expressing the FCY-UPP genes, allowing only transgene-free plants to survive. [9]

Pathway and Workflow Visualization

Workflow for Generating Transgene-Free Plants

The following diagram illustrates the complete experimental workflow for generating transgene-free, genome-edited plants using mobile RNA technology and counter-selection.

Diagram 1: Workflow for Transgene-Free Plant Generation

Mechanism of Mobile RNA Action

This diagram details the cellular and systemic movement of mobile RNA-fused editing components from transformed cells to neighboring non-transgenic cells.

Diagram 2: Mobile RNA Movement Mechanism

Mobile RNA technology represents a frontier in plant genetic engineering, offering a viable pathway to generate transgene-free, genome-edited plants, especially in challenging perennial and vegetatively propagated crops. While current studies, such as those in citrus and poplar, demonstrate the feasibility of this approach using CBE and mobile RNA motifs like TLS2, editing efficiencies remain low and the impact of the mobility tag is not always positive [9]. Future research should focus on optimizing mobile RNA motifs to enhance the efficiency of intercellular transport without compromising the stability or function of the editing components. Furthermore, exploring tissue-specific promoters and viral delivery systems in conjunction with mobile RNAs could provide more robust and reliable editing outcomes. As regulatory frameworks for gene-edited plants continue to evolve globally, the ability to produce precise, transgene-free edits will be crucial for the adoption of this technology in agriculture [60]. Mobile RNA technology, therefore, stands as a pivotal tool in the quest to develop improved, sustainable crop varieties with greater precision and consumer acceptance.

Within plant biotechnology, the generation of transgene-free genome-edited plants is a critical goal for both regulatory approval and public acceptance. This document details specific, refined protocols that have demonstrated significant improvements in the efficiency of producing these so-called null segregants. The following case studies and methodologies provide actionable workflows for researchers aiming to integrate these advances into their own programs for plant genetic improvement.

Case Studies in Efficiency Improvement

Recent research has yielded substantial gains in efficiency through refined selection methods, novel delivery systems, and optimized editing tools. The table below summarizes key quantitative outcomes from three prominent case studies.

Table 1: Case Studies of Efficiency Improvements in Transgene-Free Plant Genome Editing

Case Study (Plant Species)	Refinement Method	Key Efficiency Outcome	Reference
Citrus [2]	Short-duration kanamycin selection during Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression.	17-fold increase in edited plant regeneration compared to the 2018 method [2].
Carrot [26]	Direct delivery of pre-assembled Cas9-Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes into protoplasts.	Achieved 17.28% and 6.45% editing rates in regenerated plants for two different sgRNAs [26].
Tomato, Tobacco, Citrus, Potato [61]	Co-editing of the endogenous ALS gene with a gene of interest via transient expression of a cytosine base editor (CBE).	Biallelic/homozygous transgene-free mutation rates among herbicide-resistant transformants ranged from 8% to 50% [61].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Enhanced Selection for Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Editing

This protocol, optimized for citrus, uses a short antibiotic treatment to enrich for edited cells immediately after transformation [2].

• Key Reagents: Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain carrying the CRISPR/Cas9 T-DNA, kanamycin sulfate, plant culture media specific for the target species (e.g., citrus).
• Procedure:
  • Inoculation: Infect plant explants with Agrobacterium containing the CRISPR/Cas9 construct.
  • Co-cultivation: Co-cultivate explants and Agrobacterium for a standard duration (e.g., 3 days).
  • Kanamycin Selection: Transfer explants to a regeneration medium containing kanamycin. Critically, restrict the selection window to only 3-4 days [2]. This brief exposure inhibits the growth of non-transformed cells but allows cells that were successfully infected and transiently expressed the editing machinery to survive and proliferate.
  • Regeneration and Screening: After the short selection, transfer explants to a kanamycin-free regeneration medium. Regenerate whole plants and screen for successful edits using molecular methods (e.g., PCR and sequencing).

Protocol 2: Protoplast Transfection with Cas9 Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Complexes

This DNA-free method avoids the use of Agrobacterium and is exemplified by its application in carrot [26].

• Key Reagents: Cas9 nuclease protein, synthetic sgRNA, Plant Protoplast Isolation Kit, Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) solution (e.g., 40% PEG), Protoplast Culture Media (CPP), W5 solution.
• Procedure:
  • RNP Complex Assembly: For transfecting ~8.0 × 10^5 protoplasts, gently mix 200 pmol of synthetic sgRNA with 20 μg of Cas9 protein in 1X PBS buffer. Incubate at room temperature for 10 minutes to form the RNP complex [26].
  • Protoplast Transfection: Resuspend freshly isolated protoplasts in MMG solution. Add the pre-assembled RNP complex, then slowly add an equal volume of freshly prepared 40% PEG solution. Mix gently and incubate at room temperature for 15 minutes.
  • Washing and Culture: Gently dilute the protoplast-RNP-PEG mixture with a large volume of W5 solution and centrifuge. Resuspend the protoplast pellet in protoplast culture media (CPP).
  • Regeneration and Genotyping: Culture protoplasts to regenerate calli and subsequently whole plants. Isolate genomic DNA from regenerated plants and screen for edits. For initial screening, a restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) assay can be used if the edit disrupts a known restriction site, followed by Sanger sequencing for confirmation [26].

Protocol 3: Co-Editing Strategy Using an Endogenous Selection Marker (ALS Gene)

This strategy uses a cytosine base editor (CBE) to simultaneously confer herbicide resistance and edit a gene of interest, allowing for direct selection of edited, transgene-free plants [9] [61].

• Key Reagents: Agrobacterium strain with T-DNA containing CBE and sgRNA expression cassettes targeting the ALS gene and the gene(s) of interest, culture media containing a sulfonylurea herbicide (e.g., chlorsulfuron).
• Procedure:
  • Vector Construction: Design a T-DNA vector for transient expression. It should contain a CBE and sgRNAs targeting the Pro188 residue (or equivalent) of the plant's ALS gene and the desired gene(s) of interest. An FCY-UPP counter-selection cassette can also be included to aid in selecting against stable T-DNA integration [9].
  • Transformation and Selection: Transform plant tissues with Agrobacterium and culture them on medium containing the appropriate herbicide. The CBE introduces point mutations in the ALS gene, conferring resistance and allowing only successfully edited cells to grow [61].
  • Regeneration and Screening: Regenerate plants from herbicide-resistant tissues. Molecularly screen the regenerated plants (T0 generation) for the desired edits in the target gene and for the absence of integrated T-DNA.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents for Transgene-Free Genome Editing Protocols

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Example Use Case
Cas9 Ribonucleoprotein (RNP)	Pre-complexed Cas9 protein and sgRNA; enables DNA-free editing with reduced off-target effects and no transgene integration.	Direct delivery into protoplasts for generating edited carrot plants [26].
Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	Catalyzes precise C•G to T•A base conversions without causing double-strand breaks; enables gain-of-function mutations.	Used to mutate the ALS gene to create a dominant herbicide resistance selectable marker [9] [61].
Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) Gene	An endogenous plant gene; a single base change can confer resistance to sulfonylurea herbicides, serving as a powerful positive selection marker for edited cells.	Co-editing target for selecting transgene-free, herbicide-resistant plants in tomato, tobacco, and citrus [61].
FCY-UPP Counter-Selection System	A two-gene system (FCY + UPP) that converts non-toxic 5-fluorocytosine (5-FC) into toxic compounds; selects against cells that have stably integrated the T-DNA.	Used in citrus and poplar to selectively eliminate transgenic plants, enriching for transgene-free edited plants [9].
tRNA-like Sequence (TLS) Motifs	RNA motifs that, when fused to transcripts, facilitate their long-distance movement through the plant's vascular system.	Fused to Cas9 and gRNA transcripts to enable heritable editing in wild-type scions grafted onto transgenic rootstocks [12].
DECODR Software	A computational tool for deconvoluting complex Sanger sequencing data from genome-edited samples; accurately determines indel frequencies and sequences.	Used to identify homozygous, biallelic, and heterozygous mutations in edited carrot lines [26].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for selecting and implementing the appropriate protocol refinement based on the target plant species and desired outcome.

Validation and Analysis: Assessing Editing Success and Method Efficacy

The generation of transgene-free genome-edited plants is a critical step in the development of improved crop varieties. For regulatory compliance and public acceptance, it is imperative to not only confirm the intended genomic edit but also to provide conclusive evidence that no foreign DNA, such as CRISPR-Cas9 transgenes, remains in the final plant line. This application note details standardized protocols for the molecular characterization of such plants, providing a framework to confirm both successful target editing and transgene-free status.

Key Methodologies for Generating Transgene-Free Edited Plants

Several advanced strategies have been developed to produce edited plants without integrated transgenes. The table below summarizes the most prominent techniques.

Table 1: Comparison of Methods for Generating Transgene-Free Genome-Edited Plants

Method	Core Principle	Reported Efficiency	Key Advantages	Example Crop
Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Expression [2]	Uses Agrobacterium to deliver editing reagents without stable DNA integration.	17x more efficient than the 2018 version [2].	Simple; applicable to a wide range of species; no foreign DNA in genome [2].	Citrus [2]
RNP Delivery to Protoplasts [26]	Direct delivery of pre-assembled Cas9 protein and sgRNA (ribonucleoproteins) into plant protoplasts.	Editing rates of 17.28% and 6.45% for two different sgRNAs [26].	Completely DNA-free; no need for segregation; low off-target risk [26].	Carrot [26]
Transgene Killer CRISPR (TKC2) [62]	A "suicide" cassette eliminates the transgenic elements after editing is complete.	Up to 100% transgene-free progeny in T0 generation [62].	Dramatically reduces laborious screening; visual tracking with RUBY reporter [62].	Rice [62]

The following workflow outlines the general process for generating and confirming transgene-free edited plants, integrating the methods from Table 1.

Experimental Protocols for Molecular Characterization

Protocol: Detection of Target Gene Edits

This protocol is used to confirm that the intended genomic modification has occurred.

Principle: PCR amplification of the target genomic region, followed by analysis to detect induced mutations such as small insertions or deletions (indels).

Materials:

• Plant Tissue: Genomic DNA isolated from leaves of regenerated plants.
• Primers: A pair of primers flanking the CRISPR target site.
• PCR Reagents: DNA polymerase, dNTPs, buffer.
• Restriction Enzymes (if applicable): For restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis, an enzyme whose recognition site overlaps the target site [26].
• Gel Electrophoresis System: For visualizing DNA fragments.
• Sanger Sequencing Reagents: For definitive confirmation of the DNA sequence change [26].

Procedure:

• DNA Extraction: Isolate high-quality genomic DNA from putative edited plants and wild-type controls.
• PCR Amplification: Amplify the target region using gene-specific primers.
• Primary Analysis (RFLP): If the edit disrupts a restriction enzyme site, digest the PCR product with the appropriate enzyme. Analyze the fragments by gel electrophoresis. The loss of the restriction site indicates a successful edit [26].
• Definitive Analysis (Sequencing): Purify the PCR product and submit for Sanger sequencing.
• Sequence Analysis: Analyze the sequencing chromatograms. Clean traces indicate homozygous edits, while messy traces downstream of the cut site suggest biallelic or heterozygous edits. Use bioinformatic tools like DECODR to deconvolute complex sequencing traces and predict the exact mutations in each allele [26].

Protocol: Confirmation of Transgene-Free Status

This protocol is critical for verifying the absence of CRISPR-Cas9 transgenes.

Principle: Highly sensitive PCR-based methods to detect the presence of foreign DNA sequences, such as the Cas9 gene or plasmid backbone.

Materials:

• Plant Tissue: Genomic DNA from edited plants (same as in 2.1).
• Primers and Probes:
  • Test Primers: Specific to the transgene (e.g., Cas9, sgRNA scaffold, or a selection marker like RUBY).
  • Control Primers: Specific to an endogenous reference gene (e.g., HMG for maize).
• qPCR or dPCR Reagents: For sensitive and quantitative detection [63].

Procedure:

• Assay Design: Design event-specific primers and probes for a key component of the transgene cassette.
• DNA Quantification: Precisely quantify DNA concentration and assess purity.
• Digital PCR (Recommended):
  • Partition the PCR reaction into thousands of individual reactions using a chamber-based digital PCR (cdPCR) system.
  • Perform amplification.
  • Count the positive and negative partitions for both the transgene and the endogenous reference gene.
  • Calculation: The GMO content is expressed as the ratio of transgene to reference gene copies. A result of 0% confirms the transgene-free status [63].
• qPCR (Alternative):
  • Perform real-time quantitative PCR with transgene-specific and reference gene-specific assays.
  • Use a standard curve for absolute quantification. The absence of amplification in the transgene assay, while the reference gene amplifies normally, indicates a transgene-free plant.

Table 2: Essential Reagents for Molecular Characterization

Research Reagent	Function	Example/Specification
Cas9 Nuclease	Catalyzes the double-strand break in the DNA at the target site.	Recombinant Cas9-GFP protein (10 µg/µL) [26].
sgRNA	Guides the Cas9 protein to the specific genomic locus.	Synthetic sgRNA, resuspended to 100 µM in nuclease-free buffer [26].
RNP Complex	The functional gene-editing unit for DNA-free editing.	Pre-assembled by mixing Cas9 protein and sgRNA [26].
Endogenous Reference Gene Assay	Internal control for quality and quantity of genomic DNA.	Maize HMG gene assay [63].
Transgene-Specific Assay	Detects the presence of foreign DNA.	Event-specific primers and probes for Cas9 or other vector elements [63].
Digital PCR System	Enables absolute quantification of nucleic acids without a standard curve.	Microfluidic array plate-based system (e.g., QuantStudio Absolute Q) [63].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following diagram illustrates the decision-making pathway for selecting the appropriate confirmation assay based on the experimental goals and available resources.

Concluding Remarks

Robust molecular characterization is the cornerstone of credible transgene-free plant research. The combined use of Sanger sequencing to verify on-target edits and sensitive PCR-based methods (preferably dPCR) to confirm the absence of transgenes provides a comprehensive and defensible analysis. The protocols outlined here, applicable across a wide range of crop species, ensure that researchers can generate high-quality data to support the development of new, improved, and compliant crop varieties.

The generation of transgene-free genome-edited plants, or null segregants, is a critical goal in modern crop breeding. It accelerates the regulatory approval and public acceptance of improved varieties by eliminating foreign DNA integration. Multiple genome editing approaches have been developed to achieve this objective, each with distinct mechanisms and efficiency profiles. This Application Note provides a quantitative comparison of these approaches, detailing their efficiency metrics and experimental protocols to guide researchers in selecting appropriate strategies for transgene-free plant production.

Quantitative Comparison of Transgene-Free Editing Approaches

The efficiency of different transgene-free editing strategies varies significantly based on the delivery method, plant species, and target tissue. The table below summarizes key performance metrics for the primary approaches.

Table 1: Efficiency Metrics of Transgene-Free Genome Editing Approaches in Plants

Editing Approach	Mechanism	Reported Editing Efficiency	Key Advantages	Primary Limitations
Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Expression [2] [64]	Transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 without T-DNA integration.	Citrus: 17x efficiency increase over prior method [2].	High efficiency; applicable to many crops; uses standard transformation protocols [2].	Editing can be chimeric; requires efficient regeneration [64].
Grafting onto Transgenic Rootstocks [12]	Mobile CRISPR/Cas9 transcripts move from transgenic rootstock to wild-type scion.	Heritable edits produced in Arabidopsis and Brassica rapa [12].	Produces directly transgene-free seeds; no culture regeneration needed [12].	Efficiency depends on long-distance RNA mobility; not yet optimized for all species.
DNA-Free RNP Delivery [64]	Direct delivery of pre-assembled Cas9-gRNA ribonucleoproteins.	Carrot: 6.5% to 17.3% editing efficiency [65].	Completely DNA-free; minimal off-target effects [64].	Low efficiency in some species; requires protoplast regeneration.
Haploid Induction Editing (HI-Edit) [64]	Transient editing of haploid inducer lines followed by genome doubling.	Efficient production of edited doubled haploids [64].	Rapid generation of homozygous lines; eliminates segregation need [64].	Limited to species with established haploid induction systems.

Experimental Protocols for Key Approaches

High-Efficiency Transient Expression with Kanamycin Selection

This protocol, optimized for citrus, uses Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression and a brief kanamycin pulse to enrich edited cells [2].

Reagents and Equipment

• Binary Vectors: Agrobacterium binary vectors for Cas9 and sgRNA expression.
• Agrobacterium Strain: Agrobacterium tumefaciens with virulence helper plasmid.
• Plant Material: Sterile explants (e.g., embryonic callus, epicotyl segments).
• Selection Agent: Kanamycin sulfate.
• Culture Media: Co-cultivation media, selection media, and regeneration media.

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Vector Construction: Clone the sgRNA expression cassette into a binary vector containing a plant-codon-optimized Cas9 gene.
• Agrobacterium Preparation: Transform the construct into Agrobacterium and culture to mid-log phase (OD₆₀₀ ≈ 0.5-1.0).
• Plant Transformation:
  • Infect explants with Agrobacterium suspension for 20-30 minutes.
  • Co-culture explants on solid medium for 3 days in the dark.
• Kanamycin Selection: Transfer explants to regeneration medium containing kanamycin (concentration must be optimized for species) for 3-4 days. This brief pulse selects cells that transiently expressed the CRISPR transgenes.
• Regeneration and Screening:
  • Transfer explants to kanamycin-free regeneration media.
  • Regenerate shoots and root to form whole plants.
  • Genotype regenerated plants (T0) by PCR/sequencing to identify edited lines. Select transgene-free plants by PCR for Cas9/sgRNA sequences.

Grafting-Based Transgene-Free Editing

This system uses transgenic rootstocks expressing tRNA-like sequence (TLS)-fused CRISPR/Cas9 transcripts that move into grafted wild-type scions to produce heritable edits [12].

Reagents and Equipment

• TLS-Fused Constructs: Plant transformation vectors with Cas9 and sgRNAs fused to tRNA-like sequences (TLS1 or TLS2).
• Plant Materials: Seeds for generating transgenic rootstocks and wild-type scions.
• Grafting Supplies: Sterile razor blades, grafting clips, sterile plates.

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Generation of Transgenic Rootstocks:
  • Stably transform plants with vectors expressing TLS-fused Cas9 and sgRNAs.
  • Molecularly confirm transgenic lines for Cas9/gRNA expression.
• Grafting:
  • Grow transgenic rootstock and wild-type scion seedlings to appropriate size.
  • Perform hypocotyl grafting using a sterile razor blade. Secure the graft junction with a clip.
• Culture and Induction:
  • Maintain grafted plants under high humidity for 7-10 days to promote healing.
  • If using an inducible system, apply inducer (e.g., estradiol).
• Seed Collection and Screening:
  • Collect seeds (T1) from the grafted wild-type scion.
  • Germinate T1 seeds and genotype for target gene edits. All edited progeny should be transgene-free.

Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: Experimental Workflow for Transgene-Free Plant Genome Editing

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Transgene-Free Genome Editing

Reagent / Tool	Function	Example Application
TLS (tRNA-like sequence) motifs [12]	Enables long-distance movement of RNA molecules across graft junctions.	Graft-mobile editing; fusion to Cas9/gRNA transcripts facilitates root-to-shoot transport [12].
Dual Geminiviral Replicon (GVR) System [45]	Enhances transient expression levels through viral replicons.	Boosts CRISPR reagent expression in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves for pre-testing sgRNA efficiency [45].
Kanamycin Selection [2]	Short-term antibiotic selection enriches for cells with transient CRISPR expression.	3-4 day pulse in citrus to selectively grow edited cells without stable transgene integration [2].
Ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) [65] [64]	Pre-assembled Cas9 protein and gRNA complexes for DNA-free editing.	Direct delivery into carrot protoplasts; achieves up to 17.3% editing efficiency with zero transgene integration [65].
Targeted Amplicon Sequencing (AmpSeq) [45]	High-sensitivity NGS method for quantifying editing efficiency.	Gold-standard method for accurate measurement of editing frequency and characterization of edits [45].

The development of transgene-free genome-edited plants is a paramount objective in modern plant biotechnology, serving to streamline regulatory approval and enhance public acceptance. This endeavor is particularly critical for perennial and vegetatively propagated crops, where lengthy life cycles and complex breeding systems make the segregation of transgenes through traditional crossing exceptionally challenging [2] [9]. The performance of genome editing systems, however, is not uniform; it exhibits significant variation across different plant species, influenced by factors such as transformation efficiency, regeneration capacity, and innate cellular machinery [45] [9]. This application note synthesizes recent advances and provides detailed protocols for generating null segregants in a range of model and crop plants, with a specific focus on quantifying and comparing species-specific editing success rates.

Performance Data Across Plant Species

Quantitative data on editing efficiency is crucial for selecting the appropriate gene-editing platform and experimental design for a target species. The following tables summarize performance metrics from recent studies.

Table 1: Editing Efficiency in Transient Expression Systems

This table compares the performance of different editing systems applied via transient expression in various plant species.

Plant Species	Editing System	Target Gene(s)	Key Efficiency Metric	Reported Outcome
Nicotiana benthamiana [45]	CRISPR-SpCas9 (transient)	20 targets across 6 genes	Wide efficiency range (0.1% to >30%)	Efficiency highly dependent on sgRNA spacer sequence.
Citrus [2]	CRISPR (Agrobacterium transient)	Not Specified	17x more efficient than 2018 method	High efficiency in generating edited plants without foreign DNA integration.
Citrus [9]	Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	ALS & CsNPR3	Low biallelic efficiency	Demonstrated co-editing is possible, but challenging.
Poplar [9]	Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	ALS & Pt4CL1	Higher than citrus, but low biallelic	Co-editing strategy works more efficiently than in citrus.

Table 2: Success Rates for Transgene-Free Plant Recovery

This table outlines the success rates for recovering fully edited, transgene-free plants using positive and negative selection strategies.

Plant Species	Selection Strategy	Editing System	Efficiency of Transgene-Free Edited Plant Recovery	Key Findings
Citrus [9]	Herbicide (Chlorsulfuron) + Cytotoxin (5-FC)	CBE for ALS co-editing	Low	FCY-UPP system enables selection of non-transgenic plants, but overall efficiency is a bottleneck.
Poplar [9]	Herbicide (Chlorsulfuron) + Cytotoxin (5-FC)	CBE for ALS co-editing	~7-9% of herbicide-resistant plants	A small but viable fraction of plants were edited at both target sites and were transgene-free.

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Kanamycin-Assisted Transient Expression for Citrus Editing

This protocol, adapted from Li et al., uses a short kanamycin treatment to dramatically improve the efficiency of recovering transgene-free edited citrus plants [2].

Principle: Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression of CRISPR/Cas9 components is used to edit the plant genome without integrating foreign DNA. A brief kanamycin treatment selectively inhibits the growth of non-transformed cells, enriching the cell population for those that have been successfully edited [2].

Materials:

• Plant Material: Citrus explants (e.g., epicotyl segments).
• Agrobacterium Strain: EHA105 or other suitable strain.
• Vectors: Binary vectors for transient expression of SpCas9 and sgRNA (e.g., pIZZA-BYR-SpCas9 and pBYR2eFa-U6-sgRNA) [45].
• Culture Media: Co-cultivation medium, selection medium containing kanamycin, regeneration medium.

Workflow:

Key Steps:

• Preparation: Surface-sterilize citrus seeds and germinate in vitro. Use epicotyls from 2-week-old seedlings as explants.
• Agrobacterium Transformation: Introduce the transient expression vectors into Agrobacterium.
• Infection & Co-cultivation: Immerse explants in the Agrobacterium suspension for 30 minutes, then co-cultivate on medium for 3 days.
• Kanamycin Selection: Transfer explants to selection medium containing kanamycin (e.g., 100 mg/L) for 3-4 days only. This short duration is critical to eliminate non-transformed cells without allowing stable integration events to dominate.
• Regeneration: Move explants to regeneration medium without antibiotics to promote shoot formation from edited cells.
• Molecular Analysis: Extract genomic DNA from regenerated shoots. Use a combination of PCR-restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) and amplicon sequencing (AmpSeq) to confirm editing events and Sanger sequencing to verify the absence of T-DNA integration [2] [45].

Protocol 2: Co-editing with Base Editors and Negative Selection in Poplar

This protocol describes a strategy for generating transgene-free, base-edited poplar plants using a co-editing and negative selection system [9].

Principle: A cytosine base editor (CBE) is used to simultaneously introduce mutations in a target gene of interest and a selection marker gene (e.g., ALS). Transiently transformed, edited cells are selected positively using herbicide. Subsequently, a negative selection system (FCY-UPP) is applied to eliminate plants that have stably integrated the T-DNA, allowing only transgene-free edited plants to survive [9].

Materials:

• Plant Material: Poplar leaf explants.
• Vectors: T-DNA vectors containing:
  • A highly efficient CBE (e.g., hA3A-Y130 based).
  • sgRNAs for the ALS gene and a target gene (e.g., Pt4CL1).
  • The FCY (flucytosine deaminase) and UPP (uracil phosphoribosyltransferase) genes.
• Chemicals: Chlorsulfuron (herbicide), 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC).

Workflow:

Key Steps:

• Vector Construction: Assemble the T-DNA vector to express the CBE, sgRNAs for ALS and your target gene, and the FCY-UPP cassette.
• Transformation and Co-editing: Transform poplar explants via Agrobacterium. The transiently expressed CBE should introduce mutations in both the ALS locus (conferring herbicide resistance) and the target gene.
• Positive Selection: Transfer explants to regeneration medium containing chlorsulfuron. Only cells with successful ALS editing will survive and regenerate.
• Negative Selection: Excise regenerated shoots and culture on medium containing 5-FC. The FCY-UPP enzymes convert 5-FC into toxic compounds, killing any plant cells that still contain the integrated T-DNA. Only transgene-free plants survive.
• Confirmation: Genotypically confirm base editing at both the ALS and target gene loci in the surviving plants using amplicon sequencing. Verify the absence of the T-DNA via PCR.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents for Transgene-Free Genome Editing

Reagent / Tool	Function / Principle	Application Notes
Agrobacterium tumefaciens	Delivery of T-DNA containing genome editing reagents for transient or stable expression.	The most common delivery method. Can be used for transient expression to avoid stable integration [2] [9].
Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	Catalyzes the direct conversion of a C•G base pair to a T•A base pair without causing a double-strand break.	Ideal for introducing precise point mutations, such as those that confer herbicide resistance in the ALS gene [9].
FCY-UPP Negative Selection System	Negative selection marker. Enzymes convert non-toxic 5-FC into toxic fluorouracil, killing transgenic cells.	Critical for selectively eliminating plants that have stably integrated the T-DNA, enriching for transgene-free edited plants [9].
Kanamycin Selection	Antibiotic that inhibits the growth of non-transformed plant cells.	A short-term (3-4 day) application can enrich for Agrobacterium-infected/edited cells in a transient system without leading to transgenic plants [2].
Targeted Amplicon Sequencing (AmpSeq)	High-throughput sequencing of PCR-amplified target loci to detect and quantify editing events with high accuracy and sensitivity.	Considered the "gold standard" for quantifying editing efficiency, especially in heterogeneous samples [45].
PCR-CE/IDAA	PCR followed by capillary electrophoresis to detect insertions/deletions (InDels) based on fragment size.	A highly accurate and sensitive method for quantifying editing efficiency, benchmarked as a strong alternative to AmpSeq [45].
T7 Endonuclease I (T7E1) Assay	Enzyme that cleaves DNA at mismatches in heteroduplex DNA, indicating the presence of induced mutations.	A common but less quantitative method for initial editing detection. Less sensitive than sequencing-based methods [45].

The journey toward generating transgene-free genome-edited plants is highly species-dependent, as evidenced by the disparate efficiencies observed in citrus and poplar. Success hinges on the intelligent integration of multiple strategies: employing transient expression or editors that minimize DNA damage, leveraging co-editing with visual or selectable markers, and implementing robust positive/negative selection systems to isolate the desired null segregants. The protocols and reagents detailed herein provide a foundational toolkit for researchers to adapt and optimize for their specific crop species, accelerating the development of improved, non-transgenic plant varieties.

The development of transgene-free genome-edited plants represents a paradigm shift in crop improvement, offering a pathway to leverage precision breeding while navigating complex international regulatory landscapes. Unlike traditional genetically modified organisms (GMOs), transgene-free edited plants contain precise genetic modifications without integrated foreign DNA, potentially altering their regulatory status across multiple jurisdictions. This application note provides a comprehensive framework for generating and commercializing transgene-free edited plants, with detailed experimental protocols and analysis of the evolving global regulatory environment. The strategic generation of null segregants—edited plants where the transgenes used for editing have been segregated out—is critical for researchers aiming to develop crops that can meet diverse international standards, reduce regulatory burdens, and achieve greater public acceptance [2] [9].

Global Regulatory Frameworks for Genome-Edited Plants

International regulations for genome-edited plants diverge significantly, primarily distinguished by whether they follow process-based or product-based oversight systems. Researchers must understand these frameworks to design appropriate development strategies.

Comparative Analysis of International Approaches

• Product-Based Systems: Countries including Canada, the United States, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Japan assess the final product's characteristics rather than the technique used for development. Plants without foreign DNA are often exempt from strict GMO regulations [21] [66]. Canada's "Plants with Novel Traits" framework is a leading example, focusing on trait novelty and environmental safety assessment regardless of breeding method [21].
• Process-Based Systems: The European Union historically regulated all genome-edited organisms as GMOs, regardless of their genetic characteristics. However, a 2025 European Council agreement proposes categorizing "New Genomic Technique" plants into two tracks: Category 1 NGT plants (equivalent to conventional plants) would be exempt from GMO requirements, while Category 2 NGT plants would remain under existing GMO rules [4].
• Emerging Flexible Frameworks: The United Kingdom has implemented its post-Brexit Precision Breeding Regulations, creating a streamlined pathway for "Precision-Bred Organisms" defined as plants whose genetic edits could have occurred naturally or through conventional breeding [67]. Similarly, China has shortened approval times for products from New Breeding Techniques to 1-2 years, prioritizing food safety and environmental assessments [21].

Table 1: International Regulatory Approaches to Genome-Edited Plants

Region/Country	Regulatory Approach	Key Characteristics	Status for Transgene-Free Edited Plants
Argentina, Brazil, Chile	Product-based	Case-by-case assessment; conventional status if no new genetic combination [21]	Often exempt from GMO regulation
Canada	Product-based	"Plants with Novel Traits" framework; focuses on final traits [21] [66]	Exempt if no novel traits of concern
United States	Product-based	SECURE rule (currently vacated) evaluated traits, not techniques [28] [68]	Regulatory uncertainty post-SECURE
European Union	Process-based (evolving)	Proposed NGT categories; Category 1 exempt from GMO rules [4]	Potential exemption for Category 1 NGTs
United Kingdom	Product-based	Precision-bred organisms pathway for natural/conventional-like edits [67]	Streamlined approval for PBOs
China	Hybrid	Shortened approval; mandatory labeling; safety assessments [21]	1-2 year approval process
India	Product-based	SDN1/SDN2 products without foreign DNA not considered GMO [21]	Exempt from biosafety assessment
Kenya, Nigeria	Case-by-case	Guidelines distinguishing conventional, intermediate, transgenic products [21]	Flexible, level-based regulation

Experimental Protocols for Transgene-Free Plant Generation

Agrobacterium-Mediated Transient Expression with Co-Editing Selection

This protocol, adapted from research in citrus and poplar systems, uses a co-editing strategy to simultaneously introduce a desired trait and a selectable marker edit, enabling efficient selection of transgene-free edited plants [9].

Materials and Reagents

• Plant Material: Sterile explants suitable for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation (e.g., citrus epicotyl segments, poplar leaf discs).
• Vector System: Binary vector containing:
  • Gene expression cassette for a cytosine base editor (e.g., hA3A-Y130).
  • sgRNA expression cassette targeting the gene of interest.
  • sgRNA expression cassette targeting the Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) gene for herbicide resistance.
  • FCY (Fluorocytosine Deaminase) and UPP (Uracil Phosphoribosyl Transferase) genes for negative selection [9].
• Agrobacterium Strain: A. tumefaciens EHA105 or LBA4404.
• Culture Media:
  • Agrobacterium growth media (YEP or LB with appropriate antibiotics).
  • Co-cultivation media (plant-specific basal salts, vitamins, sucrose, auxins, cytokinins).
  • Selection media I: Herbicide (e.g., chlorsulfuron) for selecting ALS-edited cells.
  • Selection media II: 5-Fluorocytosine (5-FC) for counterselection against transgene-integrated plants.
  • Regeneration media (plant-specific, hormone-adjusted for shoot induction and elongation).

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Vector Construction: Clone sgRNAs targeting your gene of interest and the ALS gene into the CBE vector containing the FCY-UPP cassette. The ALS sgRNA should be designed to create a C→T substitution conferring herbicide resistance [9].
• Agrobacterium Preparation: Transform the assembled vector into Agrobacterium. Inoculate a single colony in liquid media with antibiotics and grow to OD₆₀₀ = 0.5-0.8. Centrifuge and resuspend the bacterial pellet in co-cultivation media.
• Plant Transformation & Co-cultivation: Infect explants with the Agrobacterium suspension for 20-30 minutes. Blot dry and transfer to co-cultivation media for 2-3 days in the dark.
• Primary Selection (Herbicide Resistance): Transfer explants to Selection Media I containing herbicide. Only cells with successful CBE editing of the ALS gene will survive and proliferate. Culture for 4-6 weeks, with subculturing every 2 weeks.
• Shoot Regeneration: Transfer developing calli to regeneration media to promote shoot formation.
• Negative Selection (Transgene Counterselection): Excise developing shoots and transfer to Selection Media II containing 5-FC. The FCY and UPP enzymes convert 5-FC into toxic compounds, eliminating transgenic plants. Only transgene-free edited shoots survive [9].
• Molecular Validation:
  • Genotyping: Use PCR/sequencing of the target regions to confirm editing in both the gene of interest and ALS.
  • Transgene Detection: Perform PCR with primers specific to the vector backbone (e.g., Cas9, bacterial antibiotic resistance) to confirm absence of integrated T-DNA.

Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Transfection into Protoplasts

This protocol delivers preassembled Cas9 protein and sgRNA complexes directly into protoplasts, completely avoiding the use of recombinant DNA and ensuring transgene-free plants from the start, as demonstrated in carrot [26].

Materials and Reagents

• Plant Material: Source leaves for protoplast isolation (e.g., carrot, tobacco, Arabidopsis).
• Enzymes for Cell Wall Digestion: Cellulase and macerozyme in appropriate osmoticum.
• RNP Components:
  • Recombinant Cas9 protein (commercially available, e.g., IDT).
  • Chemically synthesized sgRNA targeting the gene of interest.
• Solutions:
  • W5 solution (2 mM MES pH 5.7, 154 mM NaCl, 125 mM CaCl₂, 5 mM KCl).
  • MMG solution (4 mM MES pH 5.7, 0.4 M mannitol, 15 mM MgCl₂).
  • 40% Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) solution (PEG 4000, 0.2 M mannitol, 0.1 M CaCl₂).
  • Protoplast Culture Media (plant-specific).

Step-by-Step Procedure

• Protoplast Isolation:
  • Slice leaf tissue into thin strips and immerse in enzyme solution.
  • Digest for 6-16 hours in the dark with gentle shaking.
  • Filter the digest through a nylon mesh (70-100 μm) to remove debris.
  • Pellet protoplasts by centrifugation (100 × g, 4-5 minutes) and wash with W5 solution. Resuspend in MMG solution at a density of 2×10⁵ protoplasts/mL [26].
• RNP Complex Assembly:
  • For a single transfection, mix 200 pmol of sgRNA with 20 μg of Cas9 protein in 1X PBS buffer.
  • Incubate at room temperature for 10-15 minutes to form the RNP complex [26].
• Protoplast Transfection:
  • Add 6 μL of the assembled RNP complex to 200 μL of protoplast suspension.
  • Add 206 μL of 40% PEG solution dropwise, mixing gently by pipetting.
  • Incubate at room temperature for 15-30 minutes.
  • Dilute the mixture gradually with 4 mL of W5 solution and centrifuge (100 × g, 4 minutes) to pellet the transfected protoplasts [26].
• Culture and Regeneration:
  • Resuspend the protoplast pellet in 10 mL of protoplast culture media.
  • Culture in the dark to initiate cell division and callus formation.
  • Transfer developing microcalli to solid regeneration media to induce shoots and roots, following established protocols for the specific plant species [26].
• Molecular Analysis:
  • Extract genomic DNA from regenerated plants.
  • Amplify the target region by PCR and sequence to identify mutations. Use restriction enzyme digestion if the edit disrupts a known site [26].

Quantitative Data and Efficiency Analysis

Performance Comparison of Transgene-Free Editing Methods

Table 2: Efficiency Metrics of Transgene-Free Genome Editing Methods

Method	Plant Species	Target Gene(s)	Editing Efficiency	Transgene-Free Efficiency	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Transient Expression with Co-Editing [9]	Citrus, Poplar	CsNPR3 (Citrus), Pt4CL1 (Poplar), ALS	Varies by species; higher in poplar	Successful generation confirmed via FCY-UPP counterselection	Allows in vitro selection for edits; applicable to many crops via Agrobacterium	Lower efficiency for biallelic edits; potential for selection escapes
RNP Transfection [26]	Carrot	Acid Soluble Invertase	17.28% (sgRNA1), 6.45% (sgRNA2)	100% (no DNA integration)	Completely DNA-free; simplified regulatory profile	Protoplast regeneration recalcitrant in many species; high chimerism
Kanamycin-Assisted Transient Editing [2]	Citrus	Model system	17x increase over prior method	Efficient production reported	Simple; improves edited cell recovery	Relies on traditional antibiotic selection

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Transgene-Free Plant Genome Editing

Reagent / Solution	Function / Purpose	Example Specifications / Notes
Cytosine Base Editor (CBE)	Catalyzes C→T base substitutions without double-strand breaks; used for precise gene knock-out or creating herbicide resistance alleles [9].	hA3A-Y130 variant demonstrated high efficiency in plants [9].
Acetolactate Synthase (ALS) Gene Target	A conserved plant gene; specific edits confer resistance to sulfonylurea herbicides, enabling in vitro selection of edited cells [9].	Widely used as a positive selectable marker in co-editing strategies.
FCY-UPP Cytotoxin System	Negative selection system; enzymes convert 5-FC into toxic 5-fluorouracil, eliminating transgenic plants and selecting transgene-free edits [9].	Critical for counterselection against random T-DNA integration.
Cas9 Ribonucleoprotein (RNP)	Preassembled complex of Cas9 protein and sgRNA; enables DNA-free delivery for genome editing, ensuring transgene-free plants [26].	Commercial sources available (e.g., IDT); requires optimized delivery like PEG transfection.
Polyethylene Glycol (PEG) Solution	Mediates the delivery of RNPs or DNA into protoplasts by inducing membrane fusion and uptake [26].	Typically used at 40% concentration; requires precise osmotic conditions.
Protoplast Culture Media	Supports cell wall regeneration, division, and microcallus formation from isolated protoplasts prior to whole-plant regeneration [26].	Formulation is highly species-specific; must maintain osmotic stability.

Compliance Strategy and Commercialization Pathway

Navigating the path from laboratory research to commercial deployment requires careful planning aligned with international standards. Researchers should implement the following strategic approaches:

• Early Regulatory Consultation: Proactively engage with relevant regulatory bodies (e.g., USDA-APHIS in the US, Defra in the UK) through mechanisms like the "Am I Regulated" inquiry to determine the appropriate regulatory pathway before beginning product development [69] [67].
• Documentation and Traceability: Maintain meticulous records of the editing process, including vector construction, screening methodologies, and molecular analyses demonstrating the absence of foreign DNA. This documentation is crucial for regulatory submissions [67].
• Strategic Method Selection: For species with efficient transformation and regeneration systems, Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression with co-editing offers the advantage of selectable editing. For species where protoplast regeneration is well-established, the RNP approach provides the cleanest regulatory profile [9] [26].
• Global Regulatory Monitoring: Stay informed of rapidly changing policies, such as the ongoing trilogue negotiations in the EU regarding NGT categories and the implementation of the UK's Precision Breeding regulations, as these will significantly impact commercialization strategies [4] [67].

The successful development and commercialization of transgene-free genome-edited plants requires the integration of robust experimental protocols with a sophisticated understanding of global regulatory frameworks. The methods detailed herein—Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression with co-editing and selection, and DNA-free RNP delivery—provide powerful tools for generating null segregants that can comply with increasingly product-based regulatory standards. As international policies continue to evolve toward risk-proportionate approaches, these technologies position researchers and developers to address pressing agricultural challenges while meeting diverse international compliance requirements efficiently.

The generation of transgene-free genome-edited plants, or null segregants, represents a pivotal advancement in plant biotechnology, mitigating regulatory concerns and facilitating the commercial development of edited crops [70]. However, the ultimate success of any genome editing project hinges on the rigorous connection between the engineered genotypic change and its consequent phenotypic effect. Phenotypic validation provides the essential functional link that confirms the targeted gene modification has produced the intended trait improvement, thereby validating the entire editing pipeline from transformation to null segregant recovery.

This process is particularly crucial in transgene-free editing because the removal of the CRISPR-Cas9 machinery must be confirmed without compromising the stability and heritability of the edited allele. As global regulatory frameworks for genome-edited plants continue to evolve, with regions like the European Union subjecting them to GMO regulations, robust phenotypic validation becomes indispensable for regulatory compliance and market acceptance [71]. This Application Note provides detailed protocols and frameworks for researchers to reliably connect genotypic changes to functional traits in transgene-free edited plants, enabling accelerated crop improvement programs.

Strategic Approaches for Generating Transgene-Free Edited Plants

Multiple strategies have been developed to produce transgene-free genome-edited plants, each with distinct advantages, limitations, and appropriate use cases. The selection of a strategy often depends on the plant species, transformation efficiency, generation time, and available resources. The table below summarizes the primary approaches used in modern plant genome editing workflows.

Table 1: Comparison of Major Strategies for Generating Transgene-Free Genome-Edited Plants

Strategy	Key Principle	Efficiency Range	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Genetic Segregation	Cross-transgenic edited plants with wild-type to segregate out transgenes in progeny [70]	Varies by species; ~10% transgene-free T1 plants reported in some systems [72]	Technically simple; applicable to most transformable species; no specialized equipment needed	Time-consuming for species with long generation times; not suitable for vegetatively propagated crops
Transient Expression	CRISPR reagents expressed transiently without genomic integration [70]	2.6-86.8% transgene-free edited plants depending on system [70]	Avoids integration entirely; no need for crossing; faster than segregation	Can require optimization; efficiency may be species-dependent
Ribonucleoprotein (RNP) Delivery	Pre-assembled Cas9 protein-gRNA complexes delivered directly to cells [26]	6.45-17.28% editing efficiency in regenerated plants [26]	Completely DNA-free; minimal off-target effects; reduced regulatory concerns	Requires efficient protoplast regeneration system; technically challenging
Grafting-Based Delivery	Mobile CRISPR reagents transported from transgenic rootstock to wild-type scion [12]	Heritable editing achieved in Arabidopsis and Brassica rapa [12]	Eliminates tissue culture; suitable for difficult-to-transform species	Limited to graft-compatible species; efficiency may vary

Detailed Protocols for Transgene-Free Editing and Validation

Grafting-Mediated Genome Editing

The grafting-based approach represents an innovative method for producing transgene-free edited plants without the need for tissue culture or sexual crossing. This system exploits the mobility of tRNA-like sequence (TLS)-fused CRISPR transcripts to travel from transgenic rootstocks to wild-type scions, inducing heritable edits in the reproductive tissues of non-transgenic plants [12].

Table 2: Key Reagents for Grafting-Mediated Genome Editing

Reagent	Type	Function	Example Specifications
TLS-Fused Cas9	DNA construct	Engineered nuclease with mobility motif	TLS1 (tRNAMet) or TLS2 (tRNAMet-ΔDT) fused to zCas9 under estradiol-inducible promoter [12]
TLS-Fused gRNA	DNA construct	Target-specific guide with mobility motif	TLS-fused gRNA under constitutive U6 promoters [12]
Selection Marker	DNA construct	Transgenic plant selection	Hygromycin or kanamycin resistance genes for initial transformant selection [12]

Experimental Workflow:

• Vector Construction: Clone TLS-fused Cas9 and TLS-fused gRNA expression cassettes into transformation vectors with selection markers. The TLS motifs (TLS1 or TLS2) should be added to the 3' end of both Cas9 and gRNA transcripts, preserving their functional folding while enabling mobility [12].

• Rootstock Transformation: Generate transgenic rootstock plants (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana) stably expressing the TLS-fused CRISPR constructs using standard Agrobacterium-mediated transformation and selection on appropriate antibiotics.

• Grafting Procedure:

  • Grow transgenic rootstocks and wild-type scions to the seedling stage (approximately 5-7 days post-germination).
  • Perform hypocotyl grafting using a sharp blade to join transgenic rootstocks with wild-type scions.
  • Maintain grafted plants under high humidity for 5-7 days to promote graft union healing.
  • Induce CRISPR system expression if using inducible promoters (e.g., with estradiol application).

• Molecular Confirmation:

  • 3-4 weeks post-grafting, harvest scion tissues and detect mobile transcripts via RT-PCR using specific primers for Cas9-TLS and gRNA-TLS.
  • Confirm editing efficiency in scion tissues using PCR amplification of target regions followed by restriction enzyme digestion or sequencing.

• Seed Collection and Analysis:

  • Collect seeds from grafted wild-type scions (T1 generation).
  • Screen for edits in the T1 population while confirming transgene-free status through PCR detection of Cas9 and selection markers.
  • Select transgene-free edited plants for phenotypic validation.

RNP-Based Editing in Protoplast Systems

The delivery of pre-assembled CRISPR ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes into protoplasts provides a completely DNA-free approach to genome editing, eliminating the possibility of transgene integration while minimizing off-target effects [26]. This method is particularly valuable for crops where regeneration from protoplasts is well-established.

Experimental Protocol for Carrot Editing [26]:

• Protoplast Isolation:

  • Sterilize and germinate carrot seeds on MS medium.
  • Harvest young leaves from 3-4 week old seedlings and slice into 0.5-1 mm strips.
  • Digest tissue in enzyme solution (1.5% cellulase, 0.4% macerozyme, 0.4 M mannitol, 20 mM KCl, 20 mM MES pH 5.7, 10 mM CaCl₂, 0.1% BSA) for 12-16 hours with gentle shaking (30-40 rpm).
  • Filter through 100 μm mesh and wash protoplasts with W5 solution (154 mM NaCl, 125 mM CaCl₂, 5 mM KCl, 2 mM MES pH 5.7) by centrifugation at 100× g for 4 minutes.
  • Resuspend in MMG solution (4 mM MES pH 5.7, 0.4 M mannitol, 15 mM MgCl₂) at 8.0×10⁵ protoplasts/mL.

• RNP Complex Assembly:

  • For each transfection, combine 200 pmol synthetic sgRNA with 20 μg Cas9-GFP protein in 1× PBS buffer (pH 7.4) to a total volume of 6 μL.
  • Incubate at room temperature for 10 minutes to allow RNP complex formation.

• Protoplast Transfection:

  • Mix 200 μL protoplast suspension with 6 μL assembled RNP complexes.
  • Add 206 μL freshly prepared 40% PEG solution slowly and mix gently by pipetting.
  • Incubate 15 minutes at room temperature.
  • Dilute slowly with 4 mL W5 solution and centrifuge at 100× g for 4 minutes.
  • Resuspend pellet in 10 mL protoplast culture media (CPP).

• Plant Regeneration:

  • Culture transfected protoplasts in the dark at 25°C for 7-10 days until microcalli form.
  • Transfer developing calli to shoot induction media and maintain under 16/8 hour light/dark cycle.
  • Transfer regenerated shoots to rooting media containing appropriate hormones.
  • Acclimate plantlets to soil conditions gradually.

• Genotyping and Transgene-Free Confirmation:

  • Extract genomic DNA from regenerated plant leaves.
  • PCR amplify target regions using gene-specific primers.
  • Analyze edits by restriction enzyme digestion (if edit disrupts site) and Sanger sequencing.
  • Confirm transgene-free status through PCR screening for Cas9 and other vector elements.

Phenotypic Validation Frameworks

Molecular Confirmation of Editing and Transgene-Free Status

Before initiating phenotypic assessments, precise molecular characterization of both the intended edits and the absence of transgenes is essential. This multi-tiered confirmation ensures that observed phenotypic changes can be confidently attributed to the targeted genomic modification rather than random mutations or persistent transgene effects.

Comprehensive Genotyping Workflow:

• Initial Mutation Detection:

  • Design PCR primers flanking the target site (150-300 bp amplicon ideal for sequencing).
  • Amplify target region from edited and control plants.
  • Utilize restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis if editing disrupts a restriction site.
  • For more complex edits, use T7 Endonuclease I or Surveyor assays to detect mismatches in heteroduplex DNA.

• Sequence-Level Characterization:

  • Perform Sanger sequencing of PCR amplicons from initial positive hits.
  • For heterozygous or biallelic edits, use computational tools like DECODR to deconvolute complex sequencing chromatograms [26].
  • Confirm exact sequence changes and predict their molecular consequences (e.g., frameshifts, premature stop codons, amino acid substitutions).

• Transgene-Free Verification:

  • Test for Cas9 presence using primers targeting multiple regions of the Cas9 gene.
  • Screen for selection markers (e.g., hygromycin, kanamycin resistance genes) used in initial transformation.
  • Utilize tools like CTREP-finder for comprehensive analysis of whole genome sequencing data to detect any foreign DNA integration [73].
  • For fluorescent marker-based systems, screen dry seeds or tissues for fluorescence absence [74].

• Off-Target Assessment:

  • Identify potential off-target sites using in silico prediction tools based on sequence similarity to the target site.
  • Amplify and sequence top potential off-target loci (typically 3-5 sites) in confirmed edited lines.
  • For more comprehensive analysis, employ whole genome sequencing when feasible.

Quantitative Phenotypic Assessment

Connecting genotypic changes to meaningful phenotypic traits requires rigorous, quantitative assessment across multiple dimensions. The specific phenotypic assays will depend on the target gene function, but should encompass both direct molecular phenotypes and broader physiological traits.

Table 3: Tiered Framework for Phenotypic Validation of Genome-Edited Plants

Validation Tier	Assessment Methods	Key Metrics	Interpretation
Molecular Phenotype	RNA expression (qRT-PCR), protein quantification (Western blot, ELISA), metabolite profiling	Transcript levels, protein abundance, metabolite concentrations	Confirms functional effect of mutation on direct gene product
Cellular Phenotype	Histology, microscopy, biochemical assays, subcellular localization	Cellular morphology, enzyme activity, protein localization	Assesses impact on cellular function and structure
Plant-Level Traits	Growth measurements, yield components, stress response assays	Plant height, biomass, fruit size, seed number, survival rates	Connects mutation to agriculturally relevant phenotypes
Field Performance	Replicated field trials, multi-environment testing	Yield, quality parameters, agronomic performance	Validates practical utility of the edited trait

Implementing the Phenotypic Validation Pipeline:

• Experimental Design Considerations:

  • Include appropriate controls: wild-type, null segregants (transgene-free edited), and transgenic edited plants if available.
  • Use sufficient biological replication (minimum 8-12 plants per genotype for quantitative traits).
  • Randomize plant positions to minimize environmental bias.
  • For perennial species, plan for multi-season evaluation.

• High-Throughput Phenotyping Technologies:

  • Implement image-based phenotyping for growth dynamics and morphological features.
  • Utilize hyperspectral imaging for physiological traits like photosynthetic efficiency.
  • Employ automated systems for consistent measurement of root architecture, water use efficiency, and stress responses.

• Statistical Analysis:

  • Apply appropriate statistical tests (t-tests, ANOVA) to detect significant differences between edited and control lines.
  • For quantitative trait assessment, calculate effect sizes and confidence intervals.
  • Use multivariate analysis when assessing multiple correlated traits.

Successful generation and validation of transgene-free edited plants requires a comprehensive suite of reagents, tools, and bioinformatics resources. The following table summarizes key components of the modern plant genome editing toolkit.

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for Transgene-Free Editing

Category	Specific Reagents/Tools	Application	Notes
Delivery Systems	Agrobacterium strains (GV3101, EHA105), PEG solution, protoplast isolation enzymes	Delivery of editing reagents	Choice depends on species and method [72] [26]
CRISPR Reagents	Cas9 expression vectors, sgRNA scaffolds, RNP complexes	Genome editing execution	RNPs avoid DNA integration entirely [26]
Selection Systems	Hygromycin, kanamycin, visual markers (DsRED), positive selection (PAR1, ALS)	Identification of edited events	Positive selection enables enrichment without transgene integration [72] [74]
Validation Tools	PCR reagents, restriction enzymes, sequencing primers, DECODR, CTREP-finder	Confirmation of edits and transgene-free status	Bioinformatics tools essential for efficient analysis [73] [26]
Phenotyping Tools	RNA extraction kits, antibody panels, metabolomics platforms, imaging systems	Connecting genotype to phenotype	Tiered approach recommended

Troubleshooting and Optimization

Even with robust protocols, researchers may encounter challenges in efficiently generating and validating transgene-free edited plants. The following table addresses common issues and provides evidence-based solutions.

Table 5: Troubleshooting Guide for Transgene-Free Editing and Validation

Problem	Potential Causes	Solutions	Preventive Measures
Low Editing Efficiency	Inadequate reagent delivery, poor gRNA design, low expression	Optimize delivery conditions; test multiple gRNAs; use validated promoters	Perform gRNA efficiency testing in transient assays; use high-efficiency Cas9 variants
Failure to Obtain Transgene-Free Plants	Complete integration, insufficient screening	Increase population size; implement positive counter-selection (e.g., FCY-UPP) [9]	Use transient expression systems; employ fluorescence-assisted selection [74]
Chimeric Plants	Editing after cell differentiation, incomplete mobility	Regenerate from single cells; use meristem-specific promoters	In grafting, ensure mobile transcripts reach apical meristems [12]
Inconsistent Phenotypes	Somaclonal variation, incomplete editing, genetic background effects	Backcross to parental line; ensure homozygous edits; increase replication	Use early-generation phenotypic assessment with proper controls

The connection between genotypic changes and functional traits through robust phenotypic validation represents the cornerstone of successful transgene-free genome editing in plants. As editing technologies continue to advance, with emerging approaches like prime editing and base editing offering more precise modifications, the importance of rigorous phenotypic validation will only increase [9]. The protocols and frameworks presented here provide researchers with comprehensive tools to not only generate transgene-free edited plants but also to confidently link these genetic changes to meaningful phenotypic improvements.

Future developments in this field will likely focus on increasing the efficiency of transgene-free editing, particularly for recalcitrant species, through improved delivery methods and more effective positive selection systems. Additionally, as regulatory frameworks evolve worldwide, standardized phenotypic validation protocols will become increasingly important for bringing genome-edited crops to market. By implementing the detailed application notes and protocols outlined in this document, researchers can accelerate the development of improved crop varieties while addressing regulatory and consumer concerns associated with transgenic elements.

{ARTICLE CONTENT}

Comparative Analysis: Strengths and Limitations of Each Methodology

The generation of transgene-free genome-edited plants, often termed "null segregants," is a paramount objective in modern plant biotechnology. This process focuses on creating plants that harbor desired genetic modifications but are free from any exogenous DNA used during the editing process, such as CRISPR-Cas9 transgenes [75] [11]. The drive toward null segregants is fueled by two primary factors: regulatory considerations and research and breeding needs. Many countries have established stringent policies for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), and crops containing any CRISPR transgene components are unlikely to receive approval for commercial applications [62] [11]. Furthermore, for functional genomics and stable trait inheritance, the continuous presence of editing transgenes can lead to unpredictable genetic analysis, off-target effects, and complications in assessing the true phenotype of the edited genome [76] [62]. The ultimate goal is to produce edited plants that are materially different from traditional GMOs, potentially alleviating regulatory burdens and accelerating the commercialization of improved crop varieties [11].

The evolution from traditional to modern genome editing technologies has been rapid. Early methods like Zinc Finger Nucleases (ZFNs) and Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases (TALENs) relied on custom-designed protein-DNA interactions and were often expensive and laborious to engineer [75]. The advent of the CRISPR-Cas9 system, which utilizes a guide RNA (gRNA) for DNA recognition, revolutionized the field due to its simplicity, high efficiency, and flexibility [75]. This RNA-dependent DNA targeting mechanism simplifies the experimental design to the synthesis of a short 18-20 bp oligonucleotide, making genome editing accessible and highly adaptable [75]. This review provides a critical comparative analysis of the contemporary methodologies developed to efficiently generate these valuable transgene-free edited plants.

Comparative Analysis of Key Methodologies

A variety of innovative strategies have been developed to produce transgene-free edited plants. The table below provides a systematic comparison of the primary methodologies, highlighting their key principles, strengths, and inherent limitations.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Transgene-Free Genome Editing Methodologies

Methodology	Key Principle	Key Strengths	Major Limitations
Transient Transformation [2]	Short-term expression of CRISPR genes via Agrobacterium without genomic integration.	- Simple, widely applicable.- Avoids complex regeneration.- Particularly useful for perennial crops.	- Editing efficiency can be variable.- Requires optimization for each species.
Self-Elimination (TKC/TKC2) [76] [62]	Use of "suicide cassettes" to selectively eliminate transgenic embryos or pollen.	- Highly efficient (up to 100% transgene-free T1).- Dramatically reduces labor and time.- Visual tracking with reporters like RUBY.	- Complex vector construction.- Potential for transgene "escape" in early versions.
Grafting-Mobile Systems [12]	Fusion of CRISPR components to tRNA-like sequences (TLS) for mobility from transgenic rootstock to wild-type scion.	- Produces heritable edits in one generation.- No culture recovery or selection needed.- Bypasses direct transformation of scion.	- Low transcript delivery ratio (~1:1000).- Efficiency may be target-dependent.- Technically demanding grafting step.
Genetic Segregation [77]	Classical crossing or selfing of T0 plants to segregate away the transgene in progeny.	- Conceptually and technically simple.- No specialized vectors required.- Well-established and universally applicable.	- Time-consuming and labor-intensive.- Requires multiple generations.- Inefficient for multiplex editing.

As illustrated in Table 1, the choice of methodology involves a direct trade-off between technical sophistication and practical efficiency. While simple genetic segregation is universally applicable, its labor and time costs are prohibitive for complex projects involving multiple genes [76] [77]. Conversely, more advanced systems like TKC2 and grafting-mobile editing offer high efficiency and speed but require sophisticated vector engineering and validation [62] [12]. The transient expression method strikes a balance, offering a relatively simple and rapid path to null segregants, especially for species where stable transformation is challenging [2].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

To provide a practical guide for researchers, this section details the experimental workflows for two of the most efficient and recently developed methodologies.

Protocol 1: TKC2 (Transgene-Killer CRISPR Version 2) System

The TKC2 system builds upon the original TKC technology by integrating a visual reporter to enhance the selection of high-efficiency editing events and the identification of transgene-free progeny [62].

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for the TKC2 Protocol

Reagent / Solution	Function / Purpose
TKC2 Plasmid Vector	Contains suicide cassettes, Cas9, gRNA(s), and the RUBY reporter gene for visual selection.
Agrobacterium tumefaciens Strain	Mediates the delivery of the T-DNA from the TKC2 vector into the plant genome.
Plant Callus Induction Medium	Contains auxins and cytokinins to induce the formation of callus tissue from explants (e.g., seeds).
Selection Antibiotics	Select for plant cells that have successfully integrated the T-DNA (e.g., hygromycin).
Plant Regeneration Medium	Contains specific hormone ratios to induce shoot and root formation from edited calli.

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Vector Construction: Clone the desired gRNA sequences and the RUBY reporter into a TKC2 plasmid. The system uses a single promoter to drive a synthetic gene producing gRNA, Cas9, and RUBY simultaneously. The gRNA is placed in an artificial tandem tRNA-gRNA-Ribozyme (inTGR) structure to ensure proper processing [62].
• Plant Transformation: Introduce the constructed TKC2 vector into Agrobacterium and transform the target plant species (e.g., rice callus) using standard Agrobacterium-mediated transformation protocols [62].
• T0 Plant Selection and Analysis:
  • Culture transformed tissues on selection medium.
  • Visually identify transformed T0 plants based on the red pigmentation from the RUBY reporter, which acts as a proxy for strong Cas9/gRNA expression [62].
  • Genotype T0 plants to confirm successful editing at the target genomic loci.
• Production and Screening of T1 Progeny:
  • Self-pollinate the edited T0 plants.
  • Screen T1 seedlings for the absence of red RUBY color, which visually indicates the loss of the CRISPR transgene.
  • Confirm the transgene-free status of pale T1 plants by PCR-based genotyping.
  • Sequence the target genes in transgene-free plants to identify the final null segregants with the desired homozygous mutations [62].

Protocol 2: Grafting-Mobile Genome Editing

This protocol utilizes the long-distance movement of RNA molecules to induce heritable edits in wild-type scions grafted onto transgenic rootstocks, producing transgene-free seeds in a single generation [12].

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Generation of Transgenic Rootstock: Create transgenic plants (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana) that express a Cas9 transcript fused to a tRNA-like sequence (TLS) and TLS-fused gRNAs targeting the gene of interest. An estradiol-inducible promoter is recommended for spatial and temporal control of Cas9 expression [12].
• Grafting: Graft wild-type (non-transgenic) scions onto the transgenic rootstocks. For Arabidopsis, hypocotyl grafting is a standard technique. Ensure successful graft union formation [12].
• Induction of Editing: After graft healing, induce the expression of the Cas9-TLS and gRNA-TLS constructs in the rootstock, for example, by applying estradiol if an inducible system is used [12].
• Transport and Editing: The TLS motifs facilitate the movement of the Cas9 and gRNA transcripts from the rootstock through the phloem into the grafted wild-type scion. These mobile transcripts are functional and can cause edits in the scion's meristems and reproductive tissues [12].
• Harvest and Analysis of Progeny:
  • Collect seeds (T1) from the wild-type scion.
  • Genotype the T1 progeny to identify plants with heritable mutations at the target locus.
  • The resulting mutant plants are inherently transgene-free, as they are derived from a wild-type scion that never integrated the CRISPR transgenes [12].

Critical Data and Technical Considerations

When implementing these protocols, several technical aspects require careful attention to ensure success.

Quantitative Performance Metrics: The efficiency of these systems is a key differentiator. The latest TKC2 system has been reported to generate transgene-free edited progeny with an efficiency of up to 100% in the T0 generation, a significant improvement over traditional methods [62]. The grafting-mobile system, while innovative, operates with a lower transcript delivery ratio, with approximately only 1 out of 1,000 root-produced transcripts successfully delivered to the scion tissues [12]. This can result in variable editing efficiency that may be target-dependent. The transient expression method, when optimized with chemical selection like kanamycin, can achieve a 17-fold increase in efficiency compared to non-optimized transient protocols, making it highly competitive for certain applications [2].

Addressing Off-Target Effects: A universal concern in genome editing is the potential for off-target mutations. While the primary goal of generating null segregants is to remove the source of potential continued off-target activity (the Cas9/gRNA transgene), the initial editing event may still carry this risk [75] [11]. Several strategies can be employed to mitigate this:

• Computational gRNA Design: Carefully design gRNAs with high specificity to minimize sequence similarity to other genomic regions.
• Use of High-Fidelity Cas9 Variants: Engineered Cas9 proteins with enhanced specificity can reduce off-target cleavage [75].
• Rigorous Screening: Potential null segregants should be screened using sensitive methods like whole-genome sequencing or specific off-target detection assays (e.g., Digenome-seq, GUIDE-seq) to identify and eliminate lines with unwanted mutations [75] [11].

Regulatory and Commercial Pathway: The primary motivation for creating null segregants is to navigate the complex global regulatory landscape for genetically modified crops. Organisms that are transgene-free and contain only site-specific edits that could have been achieved through traditional breeding are increasingly being considered as genome-edited organisms (GEOs) rather than GMOs in many jurisdictions [11]. This distinction can significantly streamline the path to field trials and commercial release, making the methodologies described herein not just scientifically valuable, but also commercially critical for the adoption of genome-edited crops.

The comparative analysis presented herein underscores that the field of transgene-free plant genome editing has moved beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. The selection of an optimal methodology must be guided by the specific requirements of the project, including the target plant species, the number of genes to be edited, available time, and technical expertise. For rapid generation of null segregants in a model crop like rice, the TKC2 system offers unparalleled efficiency and visual tracking [62]. For plants that are difficult to transform, the grafting-mobile RNA system provides a revolutionary workaround [12], while transient expression remains a robust and relatively simple option for many species, especially perennials [2].

Future developments in this field will likely focus on increasing the efficiency and scope of these technologies. This includes further optimization of base and prime editing systems for transgene-free applications, refining the control of mobile editing signals, and expanding the toolkit for vegetatively propagated crops. As the global regulatory framework for genome-edited crops continues to evolve, the ability to reliably and efficiently produce null segregants will remain a cornerstone of efforts to develop improved crop varieties for sustainable agriculture. The methodologies detailed in this article provide the foundational protocols for researchers to contribute to this vital and rapidly advancing field.

Conclusion

The development of transgene-free genome-edited plants represents a paradigm shift in crop improvement and pharmaceutical research, offering a path to precision breeding without the regulatory burdens associated with traditional GMOs. Current methodologies—from Agrobacterium-mediated transient expression and RNP delivery to innovative graft-mobile systems—provide researchers with multiple pathways to generate null segregants, each with distinct advantages for different plant species and research applications. While challenges in efficiency and species-specific optimization remain, rapid advancements in editing technologies continue to address these limitations. The future of this field lies in refining these techniques for broader applicability, establishing clear regulatory frameworks, and leveraging these tools to develop improved crop varieties with enhanced nutritional profiles, disease resistance, and pharmaceutical value, ultimately accelerating the translation of plant biotechnology innovations from lab to field and clinic.

References

• 1. Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2022.1064103/full]
• 2. New Method Makes Transgene-Free Gene Editing Even More ... [https://today.uconn.edu/2025/11/new-method-makes-transgene-free-gene-editing-even-more-promising/]
• 3. Editorial: Engineering future crops through genome editing [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12605012/]
• 4. April 2025 Update on Regulation of New Genomic ... [https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/250425-april-2025-update-on-regulation]
• 5. Texas Tech Scientists Develop Novel Acceleration ... [https://www.ttu.edu/now/posts/2025/11/texas-tech-scientists-develop-novel-acceleration-technique-for-crop-creation.php]
• 6. Rethinking gene-edited crop regulation: advancing a Principle ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12629328/]
• 7. CARBON Newsletter (29 April 2025) - Your Latest ... [https://crisprmedicinenews.com/news/carbon-newsletter-29-april-2025-your-latest-news-about-crispr-in-agrobio/]
• 8. Are null segregants new combinations of heritable material ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9871356/]
• 9. Transgene-free genome editing in citrus and poplar trees ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12546424/]
• 10. Strategic transgene-free approaches of CRISPR-based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9958309/]
• 11. CRISPR/Cas system-mediated transgene-free or DNA ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40794116/]
• 12. Heritable transgene-free genome editing in plants by ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-022-01585-8]
• 13. Trans-nuclei CRISPR/Cas9: safe approach for genome ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39738613/]
• 14. GMOs or non-GMOs? The CRISPR Conundrum [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1232938/full]
• 15. How is CRISPR different than GMO foods? [https://clear.ucdavis.edu/explainers/how-crispr-different-gmo-foods]
• 16. The hidden risks of CRISPR/Cas: structural variations and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62606-z]
• 17. Exploring CRISPR-Cas: The transformative impact of gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12506487/]
• 18. Exploring the Biotechnological Future of Genetically ... [https://www.auctoresonline.org/article/exploring-the-biotechnological-future-of-genetically-modified-gm-crops-in-us-agriculture-regulatory-challenges-scientific-foundations-and-pathways-forward]
• 19. CRISPR Agriculture News Today: 7 Powerful Advances in ... [https://farmonaut.com/news/crispr-agriculture-news-today-7-powerful-advances-in-2025]
• 20. Comparing Gene Editing Platforms: CRISPR vs. Traditional ... [https://blog.crownbio.com/comparing-gene-editing-platforms-crispr-vs-traditional-methods]
• 21. Regulatory challenges and global trade implications of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12222225/]
• 22. Transgene-Free, Gene-Edited Cavendish Bananas (Musa ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41159426/?utm_source=FeedFetcher&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=None&utm_content=1xSjLNP-2lGFmiI8iZJcBJ7eQzwrH7r3HJMuwSCBD7uts8h9bB&fc=None&ff=20251030221730&v=2.18.0.post22+67771e2]
• 23. Recent developments, challenges and opportunities in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2025.1568072/full]
• 24. CARBON Newsletter (28 January 2025) - Your Latest ... [https://crisprmedicinenews.com/news/carbon-newsletter-28-january-2025-your-latest-news-about-crispr-in-agrobio/]
• 25. Gene Editing Resource [https://www.isaaa.org/resources/genomeediting/default.asp]
• 26. Generation of transgene-free genome-edited carrot plants ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00299-025-03499-6]
• 27. New Method Makes Transgene-Free Gene Editing Even More ... [https://www.oligo-nucleotide.com/news/new-method-makes-transgene-free-gene-editing-even-more-promising/]
• 28. Viewpoint: The U.S. Congress needs to dramatically and ... [https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2025/11/25/viewpoint-the-u-s-congress-needs-to-dramatically-and-quickly-overhaul-its-regulation-of-agricultural-biotechnology/]
• 29. Genetic approaches for studying transgene inheritance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3459415/]
• 30. Viral delivery of an RNA-guided genome editor for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12095077/]
• 31. Efficient Agrobacterium-Mediated Methods for Transient ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40362662/]
• 32. Improved Protocol for Efficient Agrobacterium-Mediated ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/13/21/2992]
• 33. CRISPR ribonucleoprotein-mediated genetic engineering ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590346221000432]
• 34. CRISPR RNP-Mediated Transgene-Free Genome Editing ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40923633/]
• 35. Strategies in the delivery of Cas9 ribonucleoprotein for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7738854/]
• 36. Genome editing in maize directed by CRISPR–Cas9 ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms13274]
• 37. Highly Efficient Genome Editing in Plant Protoplasts by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8842731/]
• 38. In Planta Processing of the SpCas9–gRNA Complex - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5921533/]
• 39. Principles of CRISPR-Cas9 technology: Advancements in ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1773224724000066]
• 40. Heritable transgene-free genome editing in plants by ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10344777/]
• 41. Grafting and mobile CRISPR for genome editing in plants [https://www.mpg.de/19699730/1221-mopf-graftingmobilerna-149640-x]
• 42. Grafting and Mobile CRISPR Overcomes Limitations of ... [https://www.isaaa.org/kc/cropbiotechupdate/ged/article/default.asp?ID=19963]
• 43. CRISPR/Cas-mediated plant genome editing [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360138523001644]
• 44. Frontiers | Viral - vector for... based transient expression systems [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/education/articles/10.3389/feduc.2025.1598673/full]
• 45. Comprehensive benchmarking of genome editing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12144422/]
• 46. Advances in gene editing without residual transgenes in plants [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8968301/]
• 47. Viral delivery of an RNA-guided genome editor for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-025-01989-9]
• 48. Development of an RNA aptamer-assisted CRISPR/Cas9 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12614593/]
• 49. An optimized protocol for in vitro regeneration and genetic ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-025-11899-x]
• 50. Scientists develop technology that brings new precision to ... [https://www.broadinstitute.org/news/technology-brings-new-precision-to-genome-editing]
• 51. CRISPR-GPT for agentic automation of gene-editing ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41551-025-01463-z]
• 52. How To Use ICE: A Detailed Guide for Analyzing CRISPR ... [https://www.synthego.com/guide/how-to-use-crispr/ice-analysis-guide/]
• 53. Recalcitrance to transformation, a hindrance for genome ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10551638/]
• 54. Opinion Unlocking in vitro transformation of recalcitrant plants [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1360138525001943]
• 55. Regeneration of non-chimeric plants from DNA-free edited ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9752144/]
• 56. Detection of genome in edits —from plants to seed editing [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11627-021-10214-z]
• 57. Mobile RNAs—the magical elf traveling between plant and the ... [https://exrna.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41544-019-0007-z]
• 58. The mRNA mobileome: challenges and opportunities for ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10226602/]
• 59. Re-analysis of mobile mRNA datasets raises questions ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-025-01979-x]
• 60. EU regulation of gene-edited plants—A reform proposal [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2023.1119442/full]
• 61. Genome Editing Tool for Generating Transgene-Free Plants [https://ufinnovate.technologypublisher.com/tech/Genome_Editing_Tool_for_Generating_Transgene-Free_Plants]
• 62. Transgene‐Killer‐CRISPR version 2 (TKC2) eliminates ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12483975/]
• 63. Development of a duplex chamber digital PCR to quantify ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12377078/]
• 64. Transgene-free Genome Editing in Plants [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genome-editing/articles/10.3389/fgeed.2021.805317/full]
• 65. CARBON Newsletter (27 May 2025) - Your Latest ... [https://crisprmedicinenews.com/news/carbon-newsletter-27-may-2025-your-latest-news-about-crispr-in-agrobio/]
• 66. Viewpoint: Gene-edited crops can save the planet—if ... [https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2025/09/11/viewpoint-gene-edited-crops-can-save-the-planet-if-regulators-dont-screw-it-up/]
• 67. UK Finalizes Precision Breeding Rules for Plants: Genetic ... [https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/251125-uk-finalizes-precision-breeding-rules]
• 68. The New China Challenge: Gene Editing on the Farm [https://cepa.org/article/the-new-china-challenge-gene-editing-on-the-farm/]
• 69. Biotechnology Regulatory Services [https://www.aphis.usda.gov/biotechnology]
• 70. Transgene-free Genome Editing in Plants - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8678605/]
• 71. Genome-Edited Plants: Opportunities and Challenges for an ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7920036/]
• 72. A simple and efficient strategy to produce transgene-free ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9888365/]
• 73. CTREP-finder: A web service for quick identification and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772899422000039]
• 74. Identification of Transgene-Free CRISPR-Edited Plants of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2019.01150/full]
• 75. Precision genome editing in plants: state-of-the-art ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7249668/]
• 76. Editing gene families by CRISPR/Cas9 - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8753350/]
• 77. Developing and evaluating CRISPR-Cas9 edited ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666154325001826]