The Evolution of Plant Mutagenesis: Advanced Methodologies for Global Crop Improvement and Food Security

1. INTRODUCTION

As the global population is projected to reach nine billion by 2050, the agricultural sector faces an unprecedented challenge to ensure food security through sustainable practices. The generation of novel genetic variation through induced mutation has become a critical tool in this effort, providing the raw material necessary for sustainable agriculture amid dwindling resources. This document serves as a technical synthesis of modern mutagenic tools, evaluating their strategic application in the transformation of modern crop breeding.

The Global Challenge: Why We Can’t Wait for Nature

To ensure global food security, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations estimates that we must increase food production by at least 70% by 2050. This requires an annual incremental production rate increase of 37%. As a future scientist, you must recognize that while traditional natural evolution provides the raw material for life, it moves far too slowly to bridge this gap. To achieve a “low-input” system—a fascinating and necessary option for sustainable agriculture—we must move beyond slow-moving natural selection.

The Hunger Gap

The urgency of our current agricultural crisis is driven by four primary pressures:

• Population Growth: Earth’s population is expected to exceed nine billion by 2050, placing immense demand on existing food supplies.
• Climate Change: Shifting weather patterns and environmental variations are turning previously fertile land into unsuitable areas for crop production.
• Resource Depletion: Land and water resources are finite and decreasing due to urbanization and the need for bioenergy.
• Agrochemical Degradation: The heavy use of agrochemicals has caused serious environmental and health hazards, necessitating the development of crops that produce high yields with fewer chemical inputs.

Because nature moves slowly, humans had to learn how to accelerate the discovery of new plant traits.

The Molecular Blueprint: DNA and the Nature of Errors

At the heart of every plant cell is DNA, a molecular blueprint containing all the instructions for growth. A mutation is a heritable change in this genetic information. When scientists use tools to cause these changes, they create what is known as a molecular lesion—a physical “wound” or glitch in the DNA sequence that can lead to new traits.

• Mutagen: A physical or chemical agent used to intentionally produce a mutation.
• Point Mutation: A “tiny” change involving a single base pair in the DNA sequence.
• Chromosome Break: A “large” structural change where the physical strands of the DNA molecule are snapped or rearranged.
• Mutagenic Efficiency: The “sweet spot” of breeding; it is the ratio of desirable traits created compared to the amount of undesirable damage caused to the plant.

Understanding these errors is the first step toward using them to our advantage. To create these changes, scientists generally choose between a “heavy-duty” approach or a “fine-tuning” approach.

From Mendel to Mutagens: A Brief History of Genetic Discovery

The journey from observing nature to actively modifying it began with a fundamental understanding of heredity and the subsequent discovery that radiation could alter life’s blueprint.

To ground our understanding, we must define the core process at work:

Mutation: A naturally occurring heritable change in the genetic information of an individual. It is the single most significant factor in the evolutionary process, providing the variations that natural selection acts upon.

These discoveries provided the “toolkit” for modern mutagenesis.

2. THE STRATEGIC IMPERATIVE: MUTAGENESIS IN THE FACE OF CLIMATE CHANGE

The strategic necessity of induced mutation arises from the inherent limitations of natural genetic variation and the mounting environmental pressures of the 21st century. Natural evolution moves at a pace far too slow to meet the immediate demand for a minimum 70% increase in food production required to counter climate change and declining arable land. Furthermore, the historical reliance on agrochemicals is increasingly viewed as a liability due to significant health and environmental hazards. Induced mutation offers a sustainable alternative by expanding the available gene pool and uncovering new alleles that do not exist in nature, bypassing the “transgenic norms” that often face prohibitive regulatory costs and consumer resistance.

From a research strategy perspective, the primary advantage of induced mutation is the ability to modify one or two specific traits—such as disease resistance or maturity—without altering the elite genetic background and established performance of a cultivar. This precision allows for the rapid development of climate-resilient varieties that thrive with reduced inputs. The effective deployment of these traits requires a sophisticated understanding of the mutagenic landscape, transitioning from strategic justification to the high-energy physical agents used to catalyze these genetic shifts.

The Toolkit: Physical vs. Chemical Mutagenesis

As a breeder, you will utilize two primary categories of mutagens to induce variation. While both aim to alter DNA, they do so through distinct biological mechanisms.

Comparison of Mutagenic Agents

3. METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK: PHYSICAL MUTAGENIC AGENTS

Physical mutagenesis utilizes various forms of ionizing radiation to disrupt DNA structures, creating heritable genetic changes. These radiations possess high energy levels capable of dislodging electrons from atomic orbits, thereby ionizing the plant genome and causing double-strand breaks. These breaks result in mutations ranging from single-nucleotide point mutations to large-scale chromosomal rearrangements, depending on the Linear Energy Transfer (LET) and dosage applied.

Physical Mutagenesis: High-Energy Irradiation and Particle Bombardment

Ionizing radiation is utilized to bypass natural recombination constraints by delivering high-energy packets directly to the plant genome, facilitating variability that spontaneous processes cannot achieve within commercial timelines.

Ionizing Radiation (Gamma, X-Rays, Neutrons)

Gamma rays, typically sourced from Cobalt-60 (60Co) or Cesium-137 (137Cs), are the most prevalent physical mutagens due to their high penetrating potential. Gamma sources are housed in specialized gamma cell irradiators or chambers for acute or chronic exposure. While X-rays and gamma rays are electromagnetic, neutrons are uncharged particles produced in nuclear reactors, primarily used for dry seeds due to their extreme hazard profile.

Ion Beam Technology

Ion beam irradiation utilizes particle accelerators (cyclotrons) to propel charged ions (e.g., Carbon, Neon, Argon) at 20% to 80% of the speed of light.

• High Linear Energy Transfer (LET): Ion beams provide high LET radiation, which is significantly more effective at inducing biological effects than low-LET gamma rays or electrons.
• Deletion Specifics: Ion beams typically produce high yields of Double-Strand Breaks (DSBs) that the cell struggle to repair, leading to deletions ranging from 1 bp to 230 kbp.
• Breakpoint Dynamics: Crucially, ion beams generate 1–29 bp deletions at DNA flanking sequences at breakpoints, whereas electron irradiation often produces 107 bp duplications. This density of action allows for the induction of a unique mutational spectrum, including total gene loss and frame-shift mutations.

Primary Hazards and Operational Safety

• Penetrating Nature: Physical mutagens dislodge electrons and ionize atoms within biological tissue, necessitating lead/concrete shielding.
• Regulatory Compliance: Only effectively trained and certified individuals may operate these sources, adhering strictly to national statutory requirements.
• Containment: Sources must be encased (often in stainless steel) with strictly controlled, monitored access.

The following table compares the primary physical mutagens utilized in modern research:

The effectiveness of these agents is guided by the concept of radiosensitivity. Strategically, radiosensitivity is defined as a “relative measure that gives an indication of the quantity of recognizable effects of radiation exposure on the irradiated subject.” For the strategist, this metric is a vital risk-mitigation tool; it allows researchers to maximize the frequency of M2 variation while ensuring the survival and viability of the M1 generation. While physical methods cause structural lesions through high-energy bombardment, chemical agents offer a more localized and often milder mutational spectrum.

The Modern Powerhouse: Ion Beams

A significant advancement in physical mutagenesis is the use of Ion Beams. Generated by particle accelerators like cyclotrons using radioisotope sources such as ¹⁴N or ¹²C, Ion Beams possess a high linear energy transfer (LET). This means they deposit a dense amount of energy along their path, creating double-strand DNA breaks that are difficult for a cell to repair. Unlike the point mutations of chemical agents, Ion Beams often result in large deletions and a unique spectrum of variations that are powerful for uncovering new alleles.

Once a mutation is induced, the real work of the breeder—selection—begins.

4. PRECISION BREEDING: CHEMICAL MUTAGENESIS AND THE TILLING REVOLUTION

Chemical mutagens primarily simulate natural mutation processes to produce specific, localized genetic lesions. These agents are favored for their ease of use and high frequency of point mutations, which can generate both loss-of-function and gain-of-function phenotypes without the infrastructure required for irradiation.

Evaluation of Chemical Differentiators

• Alkylating Agents (EMS, MNU, ENU): Ethyl methanesulfonate (EMS) is the industry standard. It selectively alkylates guanine bases, leading to the replacement of cytosine with thymine opposite the O-6-ethyl guanine. This results in GC to AT transitions, accounting for 70%–99% of EMS-induced mutations.
  • Ethyl Methane Sulfonate (EMS): The most utilized alkylating agent. It acts selectively on guanine, causing GC to AT transitions (70–99% of its mutations).
• Sodium Azide (NaN3): This agent is unique in its metabolic activation into an organic metabolite that induces point mutations. However, it is a common misconception that NaN3 is “mild”; it frequently induces chromosomal abnormalities—including sticky/bridge chromosomes and lagging—because it disturbs the ATP-dependent organization of spindle fibers during mitosis.
  • Methylnitrosourea (MNU) & Sodium Azide (SA): MNU is highly effective but requires stringent temperature control; it is unstable above 20°C and sensitive to shock. Combinations like Az-MNU are potent because they can induce transitions in both directions (AT to GC and GC to AT), unlike the unidirectional preference of EMS.
• Colchicine: Distinguished from sequence-altering mutagens, colchicine’s strategic value lies in its antimicrotubular action, which facilitates chromosome doubling (polyploidization).
  • Efficiency Metric: In Brassica napus, a treatment of 500 mg/L for 15 hours yields a doubling frequency of 83–91%, with minimal chimeric or polyploid side effects.

The TILLING Revolution

Targeting Induced Local Lesions in Genomes (TILLING) has modernized chemical mutagenesis by combining induction with high-throughput molecular screening. Strategists must calibrate population sizes based on crop ploidy: while hexaploid crops (e.g., wheat, oat) can achieve mutation saturation with approximately 5,000 lines, diploid crops (e.g., rice, barley) typically require 10,000 lines due to ploidy-linked mutation frequency. By utilizing a “kill curve” targeting a 30%–80% survival rate, TILLING allows for the identification of mutant alleles for virtually all genes in a population. These molecular shifts eventually manifest as the phenotypic improvements documented in global agricultural history.

Factors Influencing Efficiency

Efficiency is highly sensitive to the experimental environment. A stable pH of 7.0, specific temperature ranges, and seed presoaking are decisive. The “So What” of chemical application is the “additional step of dissolving volatile substances” for agents like Sodium Azide to ensure uniform exposure and prevent acute toxicity mishaps.

5. Experimental Parameterization: The “Kill Curve” and TILLING Optimization

Pilot assays are mandatory to prevent population collapse or the accumulation of excessive “genomic noise”—background mutations that render plants too weak for the multi-location yield tests required for variety release.

Constructing the “Kill Curve”

The Kill Curve plots mutagen concentration against survivability.

• LD50 vs. LD20: While the dose for 50% lethality (LD50) is a historical benchmark, modern TILLING programs often target the LD20 (20% lethality/80% survival). High mortality rates (LD50 or higher) increase the risk of losing entire lines or specific desirable mutations due to poor agronomic performance.
• Rule of Thumb: A survival rate of 30–80% is the strategic target for establishing robust TILLING populations.

Ploidy Buffering and Population Dynamics

The ploidy of the target species dictates the scale of the M2 population:

• Polyploid Species (Wheat/Oat): Hexaploid plants possess multiple sets of chromosomes that buffer against deleterious effects, allowing them to tolerate higher mutation frequencies. Consequently, M2 populations for these crops rarely need to exceed 5,000 lines.
• Diploid Species (Barley/Rice): These are more sensitive to genomic alterations. To capture a comprehensive mutation spectrum, larger populations—typically 10,000 lines—are required.

6. The Breeder’s Journey: From Treatment to New Variety

Developing a new crop variety is a rigorous, multi-generational process. You must decide between acute exposure (high doses over seconds or minutes) or chronic exposure (lower doses over weeks or months), though most modern practice favors the acute type.

1. M1 Generation: Seeds or tissues are treated. The resulting plants are often “chimers” (genetically mosaic) and heterozygous, meaning the mutation is present on only one allele of a homologous chromosomal pair.
2. M2 Generation: This is the “segregation” stage. Because most mutations are recessive, they only become visible here when offspring inherit the mutated gene from the M1 parent. This is where primary screening begins.
3. M3 Generation: Putative mutants are confirmed. You will test for phenotypic stability to ensure the trait is heritable and stable.
4. M4 Generation and Beyond: The focus shifts to homogeneity and performance.

Verification and Selection

As a breeder, you will use a combination of techniques to find the “needle in the haystack”:

• Visual/Phenotypic: Selecting for traits like height, color, or maturity date.
• Physical/Mechanical: Using sieves or machinery to determine seed shape, size, or weight.
• Others: Using biochemical or physicochemical analysis to check for protein, oil, or starch content.

The Final Validation Checklist:

• Homogeneity test: Ensuring the variety grows uniformly.
• Multi-location yield test: Confirming the crop performs well in different climates and soils compared to the parent cultivar.
• Seed multiplication: Growing enough seed for commercial release.

This rigorous process is what ensures new crops are safe and effective for farmers.

7. Operational Safety and Hazardous Material Management

Technical success is predicated on the safety and integrity of the laboratory environment. Mutagenic agents are often carcinogenic and volatile.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOP)

Infrastructure: Certified laboratories with fume hoods are required for chemicals, while dedicated Irradiation Houses are necessary for physical mutagens. Screen/glass houses are essential for the dissociation of chimeras, ensuring mutations are stabilized into uniform lines.

Chemical Handling: All procedures must strictly follow Safety Data Sheets (SDS). Sodium Azide, a volatile dust, requires specialized handling to manage its acute toxicity.

Inactivation: Chemical mutagens must be fully inactivated according to regulatory protocols before disposal. Non-compliance is not merely a safety risk but a regulatory barrier to the eventual release of the variety.

8. CASE STUDIES IN CROP TRANSFORMATION: YIELD, QUALITY, AND STRESS RESISTANCE

The economic impact of induced mutation is vast, with 3,222+ registered varieties in the FAO/IAEA database serving as a cornerstone of the global economy.

• Rice Production: The variety ‘Zhefu 802’ achieved unprecedented success in China, grown on over 10.6 million ha for a 10-year period due to its blast resistance. In Thailand, the aromatic mutants ‘RD6’ and ‘RD15’ remain staples, with ‘RD15’ providing a 10-day maturity advantage over its parent.
• Calrose 76 Rice: Known as the “American version of the Green Revolution,” this radiation-induced mutant features a stiff, short straw (lodging resistance). This allows the plant to support more grain and respond better to high fertilizer doses without falling over.
• Barley and Malting Quality: The ‘Diamant’ and ‘Golden Promise’ cultivars revolutionized European brewing. ‘Diamant’ yielded a 12% increase in grain, while ‘Golden Promise’ offered superior malting quality. Notably, the salinity tolerance of ‘Golden Promise’ was a post-release discovery that significantly expanded its environmental range.
• Oilseed Improvement: Through microspore mutagenesis and UV treatment, Brassica napus cultivars have seen drastic reductions in erucic acid and glucosinolates, creating “canola” quality oilseeds.
• Abiotic/Biotic Resistance: Key developments include bacterial wilt-resistant tomatoes in Sri Lanka and salinity-tolerant barley, demonstrating the ability to adapt staple crops to marginal environments.
• The ‘sd1’ Allele: In the United States, researchers used gamma-ray mutagenesis to create a semi-dwarf rice mutant. This sd1 allele resulted in a “stiff, short straw” that prevented lodging (falling over), allowing the plant to handle the higher doses of fertilizer required for massive yield increases. This triggered an American version of the “Green Revolution.”
• “Sharbati Sonora” Wheat: A famous Indian mutant with improved grain color, making it more visually appealing and desirable for consumers.
• Cotton: Sodium Azide has been used in vitro to optimize somatic embryogenesis, overcoming historical regeneration difficulties.
• Pear (Pyrus communis): Exposure to 3.5 Gy gamma rays resulted in improved orchard traits, including consistent productivity and early bearing.
• Chrysanthemum: Gamma irradiation of ray florets has successfully produced novel flower color and shape mutants.

These applied outcomes are directly supported by the role of mutagenesis in decoding the fundamental biological mechanisms of plant growth.

9. MUTAGENESIS AS A DISCOVERY TOOL: ADVANCING BASIC PLANT RESEARCH

Induced mutations enable the “knockdown” of phenotypes to map gene functions, providing a blueprint for the molecular engineering of traits.

• Phytohormone Signaling: Mutants like ‘axr1’ (auxin) and ‘etr1’ (ethylene) have clarified hormone reception. The ‘etr1’ mutant’s efficacy was proven through its successful transfer to petunia and tomato, demonstrating that discovery-based mutations can be applied across species to extend shelf life.
• Developmental Genetics: The study of “homeotic mutants” in Arabidopsis and Antirrhinum led to the identification of the A, B, and C gene groups, which control the formation of the four whorls of floral organs.
• Starch Biosynthesis: Mutations at the ‘waxy’ (wx) loci in maize and the ‘regosus’ (r) loci in peas allowed researchers to manipulate amylose/amylopectin ratios, fundamentally changing the industrial application of these starches.

As our understanding of DNA sequences deepens, the frontier has moved toward the manipulation of epigenetic footprints.

10. THE FRONTIER: CRISPR-CAS AND EPI-MUTAGENESIS

Modern biotechnology is transitioning toward epi-mutagenesis, focusing on transcriptional control and the manipulation of epigenetic marks without altering the underlying DNA sequence.

Technical Evaluation of Epi-tools

The SunTag system represents a significant advancement over direct dCas9 fusions. It utilizes a peptide tail to recruit multiple effector domains (such as DNA methyltransferases) to a single locus. A critical technical differentiator is the use of dual-epitope tails, which enable the co-targeting of two different unique effector fusions at the same site.

• Genomic Footprints: While the SunTag system can induce a DNA methylation footprint of ~4 kb in mammalian cells, the effect in plants like Arabidopsis is highly dependent on genomic context. For instance, at the ‘FWA’ gene, the span of methylation is often limited by flanking regions that lack CG sites.

11. CONCLUSION: THE FUTURE OF INDUCED MUTATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY

Induced mutagenesis remains a flexible, low-cost, and indispensable approach for global food security. In a landscape where transgenic organisms face steep regulatory hurdles and consumer skepticism, mutagenesis offers a viable, cost-effective alternative for the rapid improvement of elite cultivars. The future of the field lies in the integration of molecular probes and in vitro selection techniques, which will further increase the precision of trait identification and the efficiency of global plant breeding.

Image Summary

Questions/Answers

Bibliography

Bharath, R. A., Prathmesh, S. P., Sarsu, F., & Suprasanna, P. (2024). Induced Mutagenesis using Gamma Rays: Biological Features and Applications in Crop Improvement. In OBM Genetics (Vol. 8, Number 2). LIDSEN Publishing Inc. https://doi.org/10.21926/obm.genet.2402233
Bhoi, A., Yadu, B., Chandra, J., & Keshavkant, S. (2022). Mutagenesis: A coherent technique to develop biotic stress resistant plants. In Plant Stress (Vol. 3). Elsevier B.V. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stress.2021.100053
Bhuyan, S. J., Kumar, M., Ramrao Devde, P., Rai, A. C., Mishra, A. K., Singh, P. K., & Siddique, K. H. M. (2023). Progress in gene editing tools, implications and success in plants: a review. In Frontiers in Genome Editing (Vol. 5). Frontiers Media SA. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgeed.2023.1272678
Capdeville, N., Schindele, P., & Puchta, H. (2023). Getting better all the time — recent progress in the development of CRISPR/Cas-based tools for plant genome engineering. In Current Opinion in Biotechnology (Vol. 79). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2022.102854
Chaudhary, J., Deshmukh, R., & Sonah, H. (2019). Mutagenesis approaches and their role in crop improvement. In Plants (Vol. 8, Number 11). MDPI AG. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants8110467
Chen, L., Duan, L., Sun, M., Yang, Z., Li, H., Hu, K., Yang, H., & Liu, L. (2023). Current trends and insights on EMS mutagenesis application to studies on plant abiotic stress tolerance and development. In Frontiers in Plant Science (Vol. 13). Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1052569
Costa, T. F., Santos, M. C., de Souza Junior, L. C., Brito, D. A., de Jesus Rocha, A., Lino, L. S. M., Faria, G. A., Ferreira, C. F., Haddad, F., Amorim, E. P., & dos Santos-Serejo, J. A. (2025). Gamma radiation-induced mutagenesis in the development of Cavendish subgroup banana cultivars resistant to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense. Euphytica, 221(9). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-025-03595-4
Feng, K., Yao, C., Lv, H., Yang, Z., Liu, J., Zhou, Z., Sun, N., Zhao, S., Wu, P., Xiong, A., & Li, L. (2025). Callus-mediated plant regeneration and CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis in Oenanthe javanica . Horticulture Research. https://doi.org/10.1093/hr/uhaf327
Gardiner, J., Ghoshal, B., Wang, M., & Jacobsen, S. E. (2022). CRISPR–Cas-mediated transcriptional control and epi-mutagenesis. Plant Physiology, 188(4), 1811–1824. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiac033
Hao, J., Yang, Y., Futrell, S., Kelly, E. A., Lorts, C. M., Nebie, B., Runo, S., Yang, J., Alvarez, S., Lasky, J. R., & Schachtman, D. P. (2023). CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Mutagenesis of Carotenoid Cleavage Dioxygenase (CCD) Genes in Sorghum Alters Strigolactone Biosynthesis and Plant Biotic Interactions. Phytobiomes Journal, 10(10). https://doi.org/10.1094/PBIOMES-08-22-0053-R
Herath, D., Voogd, C., Mayo-Smith, M., Yang, B., Allan, A. C., Putterill, J., & Varkonyi-Gasic, E. (2022). CRISPR-Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of kiwifruit BFT genes results in an evergrowing but not early flowering phenotype. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 20(11), 2064–2076. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13888
Hisano, H., Hoffie, R. E., Abe, F., Munemori, H., Matsuura, T., Endo, M., Mikami, M., Nakamura, S., Kumlehn, J., & Sato, K. (2022). Regulation of germination by targeted mutagenesis of grain dormancy genes in barley. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 20(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13692
Hodgins, C. L., Salama, E. M., Kumar, R., Zhao, Y., Roth, S. A., Cheung, I. Z., Chen, J., Arganosa, G. C., Warkentin, T. D., Bhowmik, P., Ham, B. K., & Ro, D. K. (2024). Creating saponin-free yellow pea seeds by CRISPR/Cas9-enabled mutagenesis on β-amyrin synthase. Plant Direct, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/pld3.563
Hölzl, G., Rezaeva, B. R., Kumlehn, J., & Dörmann, P. (2023). Ablation of glucosinolate accumulation in the oil crop Camelina sativa by targeted mutagenesis of genes encoding the transporters GTR1 and GTR2 and regulators of biosynthesis MYB28 and MYB29. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 21(1), 189–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.13936
Hong, M. J., Kim, D. Y., Jo, Y. D., Choi, H. Il, Ahn, J. W., Kwon, S. J., Kim, S. H., Seo, Y. W., & Kim, J. B. (2022). Biological Effect of Gamma Rays According to Exposure Time on Germination and Plant Growth in Wheat. Applied Sciences (Switzerland), 12(6). https://doi.org/10.3390/app12063208
Juma, B. S., Mukami, A., Mweu, C., Ngugi, M. P., & Mbinda, W. (2022). Targeted mutagenesis of the CYP79D1 gene via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing results in lower levels of cyanide in cassava. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1009860
Kashtwari, M., Mansoor, S., Wani, A. A., Najar, M. A., Deshmukh, R. K., Baloch, F. S., Abidi, I., & Zargar, S. M. (2022). Random mutagenesis in vegetatively propagated crops: opportunities, challenges and genome editing prospects. In Molecular Biology Reports (Vol. 49, Number 6, pp. 5729–5749). Springer Science and Business Media B.V. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-021-06650-0
Kwasniewska, J., & Bara, A. W. (2022). Plant Cytogenetics in the Micronuclei Investigation—The Past, Current Status, and Perspectives. In International Journal of Molecular Sciences (Vol. 23, Number 3). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms23031306
Laskar, R. A., Laskar, A. A., Raina, A., Khan, S., & Younus, H. (2018). Induced mutation analysis with biochemical and molecular characterization of high yielding lentil mutant lines. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 109, 167–179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2017.12.067
Lee, K., Kang, M., Ji, Q., Grosic, S., & Wang, K. (2023). New T-DNA binary vectors with NptII selection and RUBY reporter for efficient maize transformation and targeted mutagenesis. In Plant Physiology (Vol. 192, Number 4, pp. 2598–2603). American Society of Plant Biologists. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiad231
Li, H., Yu, K., Amoo, O., Yu, Y., Guo, M., Deng, S., Li, M., Hu, L., Wang, J., Fan, C., & Zhou, Y. (2022). Site-Directed Mutagenesis of the Carotenoid Isomerase Gene BnaCRTISO Alters the Color of Petals and Leaves in Brassica napus L. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.801456
Li, H., Yu, K., Zhang, Z., Yu, Y., Wan, J., He, H., & Fan, C. (2024). Targeted mutagenesis of flavonoid biosynthesis pathway genes reveals functional divergence in seed coat colour, oil content and fatty acid composition in Brassica napus L. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 22(2), 445–459. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.14197
Marmiroli, M., Marmiroli, N., & Pagano, L. (2022). Nanomaterials Induced Genotoxicity in Plant: Methods and Strategies. In Nanomaterials (Vol. 12, Number 10). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12101658
May, D., Paldi, K., & Altpeter, F. (2023). Targeted mutagenesis with sequence-specific nucleases for accelerated improvement of polyploid crops: Progress, challenges, and prospects. In Plant Genome (Vol. 16, Number 2). John Wiley and Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/tpg2.20298
Mba, C., Afza, R., Bado, S., & Jain, S. M. (2010). Induced Mutagenesis in Plants Using Physical and Chemical Agents. In Plant Cell Culture: Essential Methods (p. 341). Wiley-Blackwell.
Movahedi, A., Aghaei-Dargiri, S., Li, H., Zhuge, Q., & Sun, W. (2023). CRISPR Variants for Gene Editing in Plants: Biosafety Risks and Future Directions. In International Journal of Molecular Sciences (Vol. 24, Number 22). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms242216241
Nasri, F., Zakizadeh, H., Vafaee, Y., & Mozafari, A. A. (2022). In vitro mutagenesis of Chrysanthemum morifolium cultivars using ethylmethanesulphonate (EMS) and mutation assessment by ISSR and IRAP markers. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 149(3), 657–673. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-021-02163-7
Nie, H., Shi, Y., Geng, X., & Xing, G. (2022). CRISRP/Cas9-Mediated Targeted Mutagenesis of Tomato Polygalacturonase Gene (SlPG) Delays Fruit Softening. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.729128
Oladosu, Y., Rafii, M. Y., Abdullah, N., Hussin, G., Ramli, A., Rahim, H. A., Miah, G., & Usman, M. (2016). Principle and application of plant mutagenesis in crop improvement: A review. In Biotechnology and Biotechnological Equipment (Vol. 30, Number 1, pp. 1–16). Diagnosis Press Limited. https://doi.org/10.1080/13102818.2015.1087333
Pan, C., Li, G., Malzahn, A. A., Cheng, Y., Leyson, B., Sretenovic, S., Gurel, F., Coleman, G. D., & Qi, Y. (2022). Boosting plant genome editing with a versatile CRISPR-Combo system. Nature Plants, 8(5), 513–525. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41477-022-01151-9
Perroud, P. F., Guyon-Debast, A., Veillet, F., Kermarrec, M. P., Chauvin, L., Chauvin, J. E., Gallois, J. L., & Nogué, F. (2022). Prime Editing in the model plant Physcomitrium patens and its potential in the tetraploid potato. Plant Science, 316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2021.111162
Raina, A., Laskar, R. A., Wani, M. R., Jan, B. L., Ali, S., & Khan, S. (2022). Comparative Mutagenic Effectiveness and Efficiency of Gamma Rays and Sodium Azide in Inducing Chlorophyll and Morphological Mutants of Cowpea. Plants, 11(10). https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11101322
Riaz, A., & Gul, A. (2015). Plant mutagenesis and crop improvement. In Crop Production and Global Environmental Issues (pp. 181–209). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23162-4_8
Riviello-Flores, M. de la L., Cadena-Iñiguez, J., Ruiz-Posadas, L. D. M., Arévalo-Galarza, M. de L., Castillo-Juárez, I., Hernández, M. S., & Castillo-Martínez, C. R. (2022). Use of Gamma Radiation for the Genetic Improvement of Underutilized Plant Varieties. In Plants (Vol. 11, Number 9). MDPI. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091161
Shamshad, A., Rashid, M., Jankuloski, L., Ashraf, K., Sultan, K., Alamri, S., Siddiqui, M. H., Munir, T., & Zaman, Q. uz. (2023). Effect of ethyl methanesulfonate mediated mutation for enhancing morpho-physio-biochemical and yield contributing traits of fragrant rice. PeerJ, 11. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15821
Shnaider, Y., Yigal, E., Rav-David, D., Pashkovsky, E., Leibman, D., Kravchik, M., Shtarkman-Cohen, M., Gal-On, A., & Spiegelman, Z. (2023). Development of Powdery Mildew Resistance in Cucumber Using CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Mutagenesis of CsaMLO8. Phytopathology, 113(5), 786–790. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-06-22-0193-FI
Sikora, P., Chawade, A., Larsson, M., Olsson, J., & Olsson, O. (2011). Mutagenesis as a tool in plant genetics, functional genomics, and breeding. In International Journal of Plant Genomics (Vol. 2011). https://doi.org/10.1155/2011/314829
Sun, L., Lai, M., Ghouri, F., Nawaz, M. A., Ali, F., Baloch, F. S., Nadeem, M. A., Aasim, M., & Shahid, M. Q. (2024). Modern Plant Breeding Techniques in Crop Improvement and Genetic Diversity: From Molecular Markers and Gene Editing to Artificial Intelligence—A Critical Review. In Plants (Vol. 13, Number 19). Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13192676
Türkoğlu, A., Tosun, M., & Haliloğlu, K. (2022). Mutagenic effects of sodium azide on in vitro mutagenesis, polymorphism and genomic instability in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Molecular Biology Reports, 49(11), 10165–10174. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11033-022-07896-y
Viana, V. E., Pegoraro, C., Busanello, C., & Costa de Oliveira, A. (2019). Mutagenesis in Rice: The Basis for Breeding a New Super Plant. In Frontiers in Plant Science (Vol. 10). Frontiers Media S.A. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01326
Vollmer, S. K., Stetter, M. G., & Hensel, G. (2026). First Successful Targeted Mutagenesis Using CRISPR/Cas9 in Stably Transformed Grain Amaranth Tissue. Plant Biotechnology Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.70590
Wang, Z., Shea, Z., Rosso, L., Shang, C., Li, J., Bewick, P., Li, Q., Zhao, B., & Zhang, B. (2023). Development of new mutant alleles and markers for KTI1 and KTI3 via CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis to reduce trypsin inhibitor content and activity in soybean seeds. Frontiers in Plant Science, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1111680
Weiss, T., Crisp, P. A., Rai, K. M., Song, M., Springer, N. M., & Zhang, F. (2022). Epigenetic features drastically impact CRISPR–Cas9 efficacy in plants. Plant Physiology, 190(2), 1153–1164. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiac285
Wolabu, T. W., Mahmood, K., Jerez, I. T., Cong, L., Yun, J., Udvardi, M., Tadege, M., Wang, Z., & Wen, J. (2023). Multiplex CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of alfalfa FLOWERING LOCUS Ta1 (MsFTa1) leads to delayed flowering time with improved forage biomass yield and quality. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 21(7), 1383–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.14042
Xu, P., Zhang, Q., Xue, L., Zhang, Z., Luo, N., Cheng, Z., Xia, D., Zheng, S., Wu, X., & Zhou, H. (2025). Genome-Wide Association Analyses Reveal the Genetic Basis of EMS Mutagenesis Efficiency in Rice. Advanced Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202517647
Yali, W., & Mitiku, T. (2022). Mutation Breeding and Its Importance in Modern Plant Breeding. Journal of Plant Sciences, 10(2), 64. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.jps.20221002.13
Yang, J., Fang, Y., Wu, H., Zhao, N., Guo, X., Mackon, E., Peng, H., Huang, S., He, Y., Qin, B., Liu, Y., Liu, F., Chen, S., & Li, R. (2023). Improvement of resistance to rice blast and bacterial leaf streak by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated mutagenesis of Pi21 and OsSULTR3;6 in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Frontiers in Plant Science, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2023.1209384
Zhang, X., Shi, C., Li, S., Zhang, B., Luo, P., Peng, X., Zhao, P., Dresselhaus, T., & Sun, M. X. (2023). A female in vivo haploid-induction system via mutagenesis of egg cell-specific peptidases. Molecular Plant, 16(2), 471–480. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2023.01.001

Share

Related posts:

Comprehensive Guide to Cytoplasmic Male Sterility: Molecular Mechanisms, ncRNA Regulation, and Advanced Genomic Editing for Crop Improvement Modern Plant Breeding: Accelerating Genetic Gain and Climate Resilience through Integrated Genomic Selection and Synthetic Biotechnology The Evolutionary Genomics of Crop Plants: From Ancestral Polyploidy to Modern Pangenomes The Secret of the Seed: An Aspiring Learner’s Guide to Hybrid Vigor and Plant Development Global Strategies for Crop Germplasm Conservation: Integrating Farmer-Based In Situ Methods with Biotechnological Innovation