Content uploaded by Manisha Nigam
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Manisha Nigam on Nov 09, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Vol.:(0123456789)
1 3
Molecular Biotechnology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12033-018-0096-1
REVIEW
An Update onGenetic Modification ofChickpea forIncreased Yield
andStress Tolerance
ManojKumar1,2· MohdAslamYusuf3· ManishaNigam4· ManojKumar2
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018
Abstract
Chickpea is a highly nutritious grain legume crop, widely appreciated as a health food, especially in the Indian subcontinent.
The major constraints on chickpea production are biotic (Helicoverpa, bruchid, aphid, ascochyta) and abiotic (drought, heat,
salt, cold) stresses, which reduce the yield by up to 90%. Various strategies like conventional breeding, molecular breeding,
and modern plant breeding have been used to overcome these problems. Conventionally, breeding programs aim at devel-
opment of varieties that combine maximum number of traits through inter-specific hybridization, wide hybridization, and
hybridization involving more than two parents. Breeding is difficult in this crop because of its self-pollinating nature and
limited genetic variation. Recent advances in invitro culture and gene technologies offer unique opportunities to realize the
full potential of chickpea production. However, as of date, no transgenic chickpea variety has been approved for cultivation
in the world. In this review, we provide an update on the development of genetically modified chickpea plants, including
those resistant to Helicoverpa armigera, Callosobruchus maculatus, Aphis craccivora, as well as to drought and salt stress.
The genes utilized for development of resistance against pod borer, bruchid, aphid, drought, and salt tolerance, namely, Bt,
alpha amylase inhibitor, ASAL, P5CSF129A, and P5CS, respectively, are discussed.
Keywords Chickpea· Transgenics· Agrobacterium· Abiotic stress· Biotic stress
Abbreviations
ASAL Allium sativum leaf lectin
Bt Bacillus thuringiensis
CaMV35S Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35S promoter
CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial
Research Organisation
GM Genetically modified
ICRISAT International Crop Research Institute for
Semi-Arid Tropics
IARI Indian Agricultural Research Institute
IIPR Indian Institute of Pulses Research
MAS Marker-assisted selection
Mbps Mega base pairs
MT Million tons
mha Million hectares
P5CS Δ1-Pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase
Introduction
Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) is a winter legume crop
grown worldwide for human food and animal feed. It origi-
nated in southeastern Turkey and is now cultivated globally.
India contributes 75% to the total chickpea production in the
world. Seeds are the edible part of this plant with 17–22%
protein content [1]. They are eaten raw, roasted, as sprouts
or dal (decorticated split cotyledons), or in the form of flour.
* Manoj Kumar
manojyd1234@gmail.com
Manoj Kumar
manojbiochem16@gmail.com
Mohd Aslam Yusuf
aslambio@iul.ac.in
Manisha Nigam
m.nigam@hnbgu.ac.in
1 Department ofBiosciences, Integral University, Lucknow,
U.P.226026, India
2 Division ofPlant Microbe Interactions, CSIR-National
Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow,
U.P.226001, India
3 Department ofBioengineering, Integral University, Lucknow,
U.P.226026, India
4 Department ofBiochemistry, Hemvati Nandan Bahuguna,
Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal, Uttarakhand246174,
India
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
There are two commercial classes of chickpea, namely, Desi
and Kabuli. The Desi type of chickpea has colored flowers
and seed coat, whereas the Kabuli type has white flowers and
seed coat. Morphologically, the height of chickpea plants
ranges from 12 to 28 inches and they have one- or two-
seeded pods. It is a self-pollinated crop with diploid chromo-
some (2n = 16), having a genome size of 738.09 Mbps [2].
Although chickpea is grown in over 50 countries, 90%
of the area under chickpea cultivation is in the developing
countries, with southern and South-East Asian countries
accounting for > 79% of the global production [3]. Moreo-
ver, the number of chickpea importing countries has been
consistently increasing, suggesting an increase in the global
demand. To meet these increased demands, the production
of chickpea needs to be increased, for which either the area
under cultivation has to be increased or crop improvement
strategies have to be employed to minimize the immense
losses in production caused by biotic and abiotic stresses.
Among the various abiotic stresses like drought, salinity,
cold, frost, and water logging, drought is a major cause of
damage and yield loss that can be as high as 40% of the
total production in world [4]. Biotic stresses include infes-
tations with insects (e.g., Helicoverpa armigera), bacteria
(Xanthomonas, causing bacterial blight; Burkholderia, caus-
ing bacterial leaf spot), fungus (Fusarium spp., Ascochyta
blight), viruses (alfa mosaic virus), and nematodes (Rotylen-
chulus reniformis causing dirty root). For utilization of bio-
technological approaches to genetically engineer transgenic
plants with improved resistance to stresses, knowledge of
the genetic makeup of plants is essential. Chickpea genome
was sequenced in a collaborative effort of scientists from
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid
Tropics (ICRISAT), India, and 20 other research organiza-
tions using 90 genotypes [2]. More than 28,000 genes and
several million genetic markers have been identified in the
chickpea genome. Low genetic variability among the cul-
tivars of chickpea has necessitated organized compilation,
documentation, and assessment of wild Cicer species for
use in chickpea variety enhancement programs [5–7]. Wide
hybridization and intragenic crosses to widen the genetic
make of cultivars are required. Moreover, biotechnological
approaches are needed for introgression of valuable traits
from the wild species of Cicer [6].
The first draft sequence of the Desi-type chickpea genome
was generated using next-generation sequencing platforms
[8]. These researchers assembled 520-Mb data, covering
70% of the predicted 740-Mb genome length, and > 80%
of the gene space. The genome analysis predicted 27,571
genes, and the expression analysis performed using 274mil-
lion RNA-Seq reads identified several tissue-specific and
stress-responsive genes. Gupta etal. assembled short-read
sequences of C. reticulatum into 416-Mb draft genome and
anchored 78% (327Mb) of the sequences to eight linkage
groups [9]. In this case, genome annotation predicted 25,680
protein-coding genes. Moreover, determination of molecular
diversity and population genetic structure was done using
15,096 genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms.
A comparison of gene sequences and nucleotide diversity
using 66 wild and domesticated chickpea accessions sug-
gested that the Desi-type chickpea was genetically closer to
the wild species than the Kabuli type.
Over the past few decades, transgenic technology has
emerged as an efficient tool to introduce foreign gene(s)
or to manipulate the expression of a self-gene in a plant
variety to increase its tolerance to stress. Models like super
chickpea, with several genes conferring tolerance to different
stresses stacked in a single variety, have been proposed [10].
Chickpea has been transformed for resistance against target
pests like H. armigera [11–17], bruchid [18], and aphids
[19] as well as for conferring tolerance to abiotic stresses
like drought [20, 21] and salinity [22]. This review presents
an overview of the current status of genetic transformation
of chickpea aimed at improving its production and yield.
Nutritional Value
Chickpea is a rich source of essential nutrients like proteins,
carbohydrates, iron, folic acid, phosphorus, and dietary
fibers. The protein content varies significantly as a per-
centage of total dry seed mass before (17–22%) and after
(25.3–28.9%) dehulling. The seeds also have carbohydrate
(62%), fat (2.70–6.48%), dietary fiber (18–22%), minerals
(Cu, Fe, Zn, Mn, and Ca), vitamins (A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6,
B12, C, D, E, K, and Biotin), and carotenoids [23]. Chick-
pea has higher levels of Mn, Zn, and P compared to those
present in other legumes [24]. The grain and flour of chick-
pea are characterized by high contents of monosaccharides,
disaccharides, and oligosaccharides. Dietary fiber includes
both soluble and insoluble fibers. The soluble fibers stabilize
blood sugar levels and help in the removal of bile (which
includes cholesterol) in the digestive tract by forming a gel-
like substance. The insoluble fibers increase stool movement
and prevent stomach disorder like constipation. The con-
sumption of chickpea routinely lowers health risks related to
cholesterol levels. For women, the uptake of chickpea lowers
the chances of breast cancer, provides protection from osteo-
porosis, and reduces post-menopausal problems. Generally,
legumes are reported to have low nutritive value because
of the presence of antinutritional factors, such as tannins,
phytic acid, trypsin inhibitor, and phenolics. Cooking has
been reported to improve the nutritive quality by destruction
or inactivation of the heat labile antinutritional factors [25,
26]. Germination also enhances the nutritive value of leg-
umes by inducing the formation of enzymes that eliminate or
reduce the antinutritional and indigestible factors in legumes
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
[27–29]. Another issue associated with chickpea consump-
tion is the presence of allergens that can cause IgE-mediated
hypersensitivity ranging from rhinitis to anaphylaxis [30].
Chickpea Consumption
India is the largest consumer of chickpea, where 90% of
chickpea consumed is of the Desi type. During 2015–2016,
India exported chickpea to Pakistan (35.60%), Algeria
(15.17%), Turkey (8.58%), Sri Lanka (8.07%), United Arab
Emirates (4.97%), and imported from Australia (74.40%),
Russia (16.49%), Tanzania (2.79%), Myanmar (0.92%), and
USA (0.74%) [31]. Nearly every part of chickpea, except
roots, leaves, and pods, is consumed in different forms.
Chickpea is added to numerous dishes, such as salads, soups,
and desserts, to impart taste. Sprouted chickpea, mixed with
other pulses, is an appetizer. Salted or sugared seeds are
consumed in roasted or boiled form. In developing countries,
chickpea is used as an animal feed. Husk, green/dried stem,
and leaves are used as stock feed.
Production ofChickpea
Among the pulses, chickpea ranks as the third most important
crop with an annual global production of 10.1million tons
[32]. It is grown on stored soil moisture after the rainy season
in South Asia, eastern Africa, north-eastern Australia (subtrop-
ical regions), whereas it is grown in the rainy season in Canada
and Mediterranean climatic regions [33]. In Australia, Canada,
and the USA, the expanded chickpea production appears to
have positively influenced the yield worldwide. Globally, total
chickpea harvested area has been expanded from 9.63million
ha in 1980 to 12.65million ha in 2016. Global chickpea pro-
duction has also increased from 4.85million tons in 1980 to
12.09million tons in 2016. Countries that have emerged as
major chickpea producers are Ethiopia (Africa), Kazakhstan
and Yemen (West Asia), Uzbekistan and China (Central Asia),
Russia (Europe), Canada and USA (North America), and Aus-
tralia (Table2). In West Asia, Iran and Turkey are the domi-
nant chickpea producers with total productivity of 177,493 and
455,000 tons in 2016, respectively. In North America, chickpea
yield and production is highest in Mexico, followed by that in
Canada and USA. Argentina has become the highest producer
of chickpea in South America with a production 69,788 tons
in 2016 [34]. Chickpea is the largest pulse crop in Australia,
currently grown on > 0.67million ha, with a total production
of 874,593 tons in 2016 [34]. India produced approximately
17.56 MT pulses in 2016 and was the biggest chickpea pro-
ducer in the world with a production of approximately 7.8 MT
in 2016 (Fig.1). By the year 2050, the global pulse production
is expected to be 100 MT, from a cultivated area of 62mha,
with a yield per hectare of 1.6 tons [35] (Table1). Of the
total chickpea produced, about 75% is of the Desi type and
Fig. 1 Chickpea vs. total pulses
production in India 1980–2016
(Source: FAOSTAT, 2017)
Table 1 Development in pulses production, yield, and harvested
area throughout the world (Source: FAO world agriculture towards
2030/2050: revision 2012)
The figures show changing trend in the past and that expected in the
future
1961/63 2013/14 2050
Production (million tons) 44 73 100
Harvested area (million ha) 69 80.8 62
Yield (tons/ha) 0.6 0.9 1.6
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
25% is of the Kabuli type. In India, Madhya Pradesh is the
highest chickpea producing state with a share of 41% of the
national production (Fig.2). The other major chickpea produc-
ing states are Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Telan-
gana, Uttar Pradesh, and Karnataka, which cover 95% the area
under chickpea cultivation [36]. In the past 3decades, the area
under chickpea cultivation in India has increased marginally to
8.3mha from a previous figure of 6.9mha, whereas the pro-
duction has increased by 40% (from 3.3 to 7.8MT). The global
growth rate of pulse production over the last decade has been
2.61%. The worldwide chickpea production has increased dur-
ing the past 3decades from 4.8MT (1980 average) to 12MT
(2017 average) because of the increase in grain yield from 504
to 956kg/ha during this period (Table2) [34]. The increase in
production in new regions, especially in Australia and North
America, has significantly contributed to the global increase
in chickpea production.
Constraints inProduction
The chickpea production is constrained by several factors
and the crop is susceptible to a range of abiotic (drought,
high temperature, salinity, cold and chilling, water logging,
Table 2 Worldwide chickpea production scenario in 1980 and 2016 (Source: FAOSTAT, 2017)
Region Country Area (ha) Yield (kg/ha) Production (tons)
1980 2016 1980 2016 1980 2016
Africa Algeria 42,100 20,617 376 955 15,839 19,707
Egypt 7297 611 1516 2153 11,069 1315
Ethiopia – 225,608 – 1968 – 444,146
Malawi 27,000 115,727 666 583 18,000 67,498
Morocco 65,500 88,030 680 500 44,580 44,062
Tunisia 78,000 6500 384 769 30,000 5000
United Republic of Tanzania 27,000 116,388 277 902 7500 104,980
West Asia Iran 130,600 433,356 645 409 84,300 177,493
Iraq 24,050 1441 540 4148 13,000 1159
Israel 3820 3580 1374 4148 5250 14,850
Jordan 2865 685 577 2953 1654 2023
Lebanon 2500 2937 1200 909 3000 2671
Kazakhstan – 4111 – 848 – 3487
Syrian Arab Republic 91,380 78,777 802 661 73,365 52,071
Turkey 240,000 351,687 1145 1293 275,000 455,000
Yemen – 17,981 – 3330 – 59,890
South Asia India 6,985,000 8,392,652 480 931 3,356,300 7,818,984
Bangladesh 128,000 8445 664 940 85,000 7940
Myanmar 70,194 363,870 542 1537 38,055 559,390
Pakistan 1,128,500 1,004,681 277 514 313,400 517,107
Nepal 50,000 9883 600 1104 30,000 10,914
Central Asia China – 3044 – 4710 – 14,339
Uzbekistan – 2777 – 2320 – 6443
Europe Greece 16,315 5334 1024 1223 16,715 6527
Italy 13,745 13,940 1178 1601 16,200 22,328
Portugal 39,926 1782 368 743 14,710 1325
Russia – 357,945 – 893 – 319,908
Spain 90,100 33,157 673 800 60,700 26,552
North America Canada – 59,800 – 1787 – 106,900
Mexico 134,659 66,316 1138 1833 153,248 121,567
USA – 70,879 – 1517 – 107,542
South America Argentina 5280 65,776 833 1061 4400 69,788
Chile 20,570 409 563 890 11,600 364
Australia – 677,444 – 1291 – 874,593
World (total) 9,631,007 12,650,078 504 956 4,854,451 12,092,950
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
etc.) [37, 38] and biotic (diseases and pests) stresses [37].
In India, chickpea is cultivated as a rain-fed crop (> 70%
area) on soil with low fertility and withholding capacity;
consequently, the crop often faces soil water stress at various
stages of growth. Among the various diseases that afflict the
chickpea plants, Ascochyta blight, Fusarium wilt, root rot,
stem, and collar rot, and Botrytis gray mold are the major
ones. Similarly, insect pests, like gram pod borer (H. armig-
era), semi-looper (Autographa nigrisigna), cutworm (Agrotis
ipsilon), and bruchid (Callosobruchus chinensis) cause huge
losses to chickpea yield at various stages of crop growth
and during post-harvest storage. Soil salinity and alkalinity,
low and high temperature, terminal moisture stress, foggy
weather conditions, and lodging under high input environ-
ment are the major abiotic stresses that affect the yield [39].
We have detailed the various aspects of abiotic and biotic
stresses faced by chickpea in the following sections.
Abiotic Stress
Drought Stress
Drought means scarcity of water and is a usual feature in
semi-arid tropics. The plants acclimatize under drought
conditions through escape, avoidance, and tolerance mech-
anisms [40–42]. Because of the heavy production losses
caused by drought, it remains the foremost and biggest chal-
lenge that needs to be addressed for increasing the chick-
pea production. Combating drought by traditional breeding
methods involves introgression of drought-tolerance charac-
ter to form tolerant varieties into the susceptible varieties to
form hybrids [for example, Pusa-1108, Pusa-2024, UPC 622,
RSG-44, and ICCV10 (Bharati)] with the drought-tolerance
trait.
Biotechnological intervention to improve chickpea for
drought-tolerance trait involves development of transgenic
chickpea tolerant to drought. Several studies have reported
the expression of drought-tolerance gene(s) driven by a
strong promoter in chickpea. The expression of P5CSF129A
under the CaMV35S promoter improved drought stress tol-
erance in chickpea by enhancing proline accumulation [20].
Similarly, the expression of AtDREB1A under the drought-
inducible Rd29A promoter influenced the mechanisms
underlying water uptake, stomatal response, transpiration
efficiency, and rooting architecture in water-stressed chick-
pea plants [21] (Table3). Moreover, the whole-genome
sequencing of chickpea revealed that it contains 187 disease-
resistance gene homologs (RGHs), of which 153 RGHs are
anchored in pseudo-molecules. Compared to RGHs present
in the other genomes that have been sequenced (764 in Med-
icago truncatula, 506 in soybean, 406 in pigeon pea) [2],
153 RGHs in the chickpea genome are considerably less. It
is pertinent to mention here that plants use various types of
disease-resistance genes to sense the presence of pathogens
and induce defense response. The most abundant resistance
genes are those that encode proteins with nucleotide bind-
ing site (NBS) and leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domains [43,
44]. The NBS domain contains several conserved motifs that
are responsible for nucleotide binding and initiating a sig-
nal transduction cascade to activate the plant defenses [45].
The LRR region, on the other hand, is typically involved
in protein–protein interactions and pathogen recognition
specificity [46–48]. The identification of disease-resistance
genes from whole-genome data on the basis of the pres-
ence of NBS and LRR regions provides insights into the
response of a crop to pathogens. Whole-genome sequenc-
ing has enabled genome-level investigations of the RGHs in
monocot and dicot species, such as Arabidopsis [49], rice
[50], Medicago [51], sunflower [52], sugarcane [53], and
chickpea [2]. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria are also
being used to prevent drought stress-induced yield loss in
chickpea. The synergistic effect of Pseudomonas putida and
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens application has been reported to
ameliorate drought stress in chickpea [54].
Salinity
Chickpea is severely affected by soil salinity, which results
in huge yield losses. Reduction in germination, plant growth
(biomass), and seed size occurs in plants growing in saline
soil. The chickpea-growing areas like Australia and West
and Central Asia have saline soil. In India, some salinity-
tolerant lines have been identified, like Karnal channa
1 (CSG 8963) [55], which can be grown in saline soils
with electrical conductivity up to 6dS/m, and have been
released for commercial production [56]. Salinity causes
injury to plants by ion toxicity and osmotic stress leading
Fig. 2 State wise share to total production and area of chickpea in
India in 2015–2016 (Source: CommoditiesControl.com)
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
Table 3 Chickpea transgenic plants developed for abiotic stress tolerance and biotic stress resistance by transgene integration
Traits Affected part of plant Potential genes Promoter used for gene expres-
sion
Chickpea cultivars Efficacy of potential genes References
Helicoverpa armigera Leaf, flower and pod Cry1A(c) CaMV35S ICCV-1 and ICCV-6 The expression level of
cry1A(c) gene was inhibitory
to the development of feeding
larvae of H. armigera
[6, 11]
Cry1Ac CaMV35S C235, BG256, Pusa 362, Pusa
372
> 80% larval mortality [7, 12]
Cry1Ac – A-1 and ICCV-2 Transformed chickpea plants
expressing CrylAc protein
had high mortality (> 60%)
[8, 13]
Cry2Aa AtSSU Semsen and iccv 89314 98% larval mortality [9, 14]
Cry1X CaMV35S KAK-2 The chickpea plants harboring
the cry1X gene were resistant
to H. armigera and 49.6%
larval mortality was found
[50, 87]
Cry1Ab + Cry1Ac CaMV35S and Pcec P-362 Pyramided transgenic plants
with moderate expression
levels (15–20ng/mg of TSP)
showed high level of resist-
ance and protection against
pod borer larvae of H. armig-
era as compared to high level
expression of a single toxin
[52, 88]
Cry1Ab/Ac Soybean msg and rice actin1 DCP92-3 Expression of fused cry gene
under constitutive and pod-
specific promoter results in
increase of 77- and 110-fold,
respectively
[51, 62]
Cry1Aabc CaMV35S DCP92-3 Expression of a chimeric gene
encoding insecticidal crystal
protein Cry1Aabc of Bacillus
thuringiensis in Chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.) confers
resistance to gram pod borer
[16, 15]
Cry1Ac Ubiquitin and rbcS ICCV89314 Conferred a high level of
protection against pod borer
infestation, where chloroplast
targeting system was found to
be more efficient in control-
ling this particular devastating
lepidopteran pest
[17, 16]
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
Table 3 (continued)
Traits Affected part of plant Potential genes Promoter used for gene expres-
sion
Chickpea cultivars Efficacy of potential genes References
Bruchids resistance Seed Enzyme inhibitors: bean-amyl-
ase gene (α-AI1)
– Semsen Larval growth reduction and
no emergence of adult Cal-
losobruchus spp.
[10, 18]
Stem and leaf α-Amylase inhibitor gene
isolated from the Phaseolus
vulgaris
Phytohemagglutinin promoter K850 Bioassay results revealed a
significant reduction in the
survival rate of bruchid
weevil C. Maculatus reared
on transgenic chickpea seeds.
All the transgenic plants
exhibited a segregation ratio
of 3:1
[43, 72]
Aphid resistance Leaf Allium sativum leaf agglutinin
(ASAL)
CaMV35S and rolC ICCV 89314 ASAL: decreased survival of
aphids by only 11–42%
[11, 19]
Sulfur amino acid enrichment Seed Sunflower seed albumin (SSA):
serine acetyltransferase (SAT)
CaMV 35S Semsen and amethyst SSA: high Met in normal soil
conditions, while high Met
and Cys in high nitrogen to
low sulfur conditions
[53, 89]
Drought tolerance Root P5CSF129A CaMV 35S C 235 The overexpression of
P5CSF129A gene resulted in
negative effects of drought
stress in chickpea by enhanc-
ing Proline accumulation
[12, 20]
AtDREB1A Rd29A C235 The implicit influence
of rd29A::DREB1A on
mechanisms underlying water
uptake, stomatal response,
transpiration efficiency, and
rooting architecture in water-
stressed plants
[13, 21]
Salt tolerance Root Vigna Δ1-pyrroline-5-
carboxylate synthetase (P5CS)
CaMV 35S Annigeri Transgenics lines were grown
to maturity and set normal
viable seeds under continuous
salinity stress (250mM NaCl)
without any reduction in plant
yield in terms of seed mass
[14, 22]
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
to dehydration. This adversely affects plant process, such
as photosynthesis, metabolism, and growth. The response
of plants to dehydration and salinity stress includes percep-
tion and transduction of stress signals via signaling cascades
and activation of stress-responsive genes. The development
of salt-tolerant transgenic chickpea is one of the ways to
ameliorate salinity stress. A salt-tolerance gene, Vigna
Δ1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate synthetase (P5CS), was suc-
cessfully transformed into chickpea plant, under the control
of CaMV35S promoter; the transgenic plants could grow to
maturity and could set normal viable seeds under continuous
salinity stress (250mM NaCl) without any reduction in plant
yield in terms of seed mass [22].
Biotic Stress
A number of biotic stresses reduce the chickpea yield enor-
mously. The major biotic constraints are insect pests and
diseases. To overcome these problems, development of
resistance in chickpea has been attempted using different
strategies, as detailed below.
Insect Resistance
Helicoverpa armigera Helicoverpa armigera is a major
insect pest that causes loss of yield in chickpea as well as
in many other crops. Spraying of chemical insecticide is the
method used by farmers for its control [57, 58]. However,
extensive chemical spraying leads to environmental pollu-
tion and human health-related issues, besides development
of resistance to the insecticides in insects upon regular use
[59, 60]. The development of Bt-transgenic chickpea using
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation provided a new
strategy for generating insect-resistant chickpea [16, 61,
62]. Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated genetic transfor-
mation of chickpea using Bt-cry1Ac gene driven by a con-
stitutive promoter, and a green tissue-specific promoter was
done in chickpea [63]. The Bt gene(s) produces δ-endotoxin
protein, which forms pores in the mid-gut of insects and is
specifically toxic to lepidopterans. 13 GM crops generated
using this strategy are currently undergoing trials under con-
fined field conditions. Besides, GM rice, brinjal, chickpea,
mustard, and cotton have cleared the approval of regulatory
bodies. In India, Bt-cotton, which was the first GM crop to
get approval, is cultivated in south, central, and north zones
of the country. The GM cotton varieties released harbor cry
1Ac and cry1Ac and cry2Ab genes for resistance against cot-
ton bollworm and have been hugely successful. In a joint
program, Assam Agricultural University, India, and Com-
monwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
(CSIRO), Australia, have developed marker-free transgenic
chickpea plants expressing Bt genes (Cry2Aa) that provide
resistance to gram pod borer, H. armigera, infestation. This
technology is under field trials for agronomic performance.
In 2009, Sungro Seeds Ltd., Delhi, licensed the Cry2Aa
technology developed at the Assam Agricultural University
and the ASAL technology developed at the Bose Institute
(https ://iscb.epfl.ch/files /conte nt/sites /iscb/files /share d/
Techn ology %20Tra nsfer /ASAL_Cry_color 1_updat ed.pdf).
Moreover, Maharashtra Hybrid Seeds Company Limited
(Mahyco), India, has also offered to purchase the license of
these technologies. Recently, Das etal. reported the devel-
opment and characterization of transgenic chickpea lines
with a domain-shuffled chimeric gene, cry1Aabc, for pro-
tection against H. armigera [15].
Bruchids The susceptibility of chickpea to bruchids leads
to extensive damage of the stored crop and results in post-
harvest losses [64]. These bruchids are also known as azuki
bean weevil (C. chinensis). Chemical treatment of seeds
is the method used to prevent bruchid infestation; how-
ever, it is not recommended because seeds are consumed.
New approaches, such as molecular breeding and genetic
engineering, may be utilized for the safety of stored seeds
without any chemical application [65]. Insecticidal proteins
of plant origin, such as lectins, α-amylase inhibitors, and
protease inhibitors, are toxic to these pests and retard their
growth and molting, when ingested [66, 67]. The α-amylase
inhibitor (αAI) gene from common bean (Phaseolus vul-
garis) when expressed in pea plants conferred resistance to
infestation by bruchid weevil, Callosobruchus maculatus
[68, 69]. The αAI suppressed the activity of α-amylase in
the larval mid-gut of the weevils [70, 71]. The αAI1 gene
was cloned under a strong seed-specific promoter, phytohe-
magglutinin (PHA), which regulates the expression of the
gene in chickpea seeds. In a similar study, the alpha-amylase
inhibitor gene isolated from P. vulgaris was introduced into
chickpea by Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation
method [72]. Although the efficiency of transformation was
low, the transformed plants showed considerable resistance
to storage pests. The toxicity effects of alpha amylase inhibi-
tor produced by P. vulgaris have been studied [73, 74] and
no serious side effects have been reported. In a comparative
study by Lee etal., it was demonstrated that αAI transgenic
peas were not more allergenic than beans or non-transgenic
peas in mice [75]. Moreover, in view of the fact that α-AI
is simply inactivated upon cooking, introducing α-AI gene
into host plants can be regarded as a safe approach.
Aphids Carbohydrate-binding lectins present in leaves have
insecticidal activity against various insects of the orders
Coleoptera, Diptera, Lepidoptera, and Homoptera. ASAL,
a mannose-binding homodimeric protein functions as an
antagonist to numerous sucking pests in the homopteran
group, including cowpea aphid (Aphis craccivora). A num-
ber of chickpea cultivars are more susceptible to aphid infes-
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
tation than others; for example, cultivars having a low den-
sity of trichomes are more sensitive than others. Chemical
treatments may be necessary for the control of aphids; how-
ever, they have developed resistance to a number of insec-
ticides widely used in India. The expression of ASAL gene
from garlic resulted in enhanced tolerance to sucking pests
[19]. This ASAL technology has been effectively verified
in various plants, like mustard, tobacco, and rice [76–78].
Transgenic chickpea plants’ resistant to the sucking pests
has been developed by transferring the ASAL gene. White
fly tolerance has been implicated as an essential trait in
controlling plant diseases. The ASAL technology has been
perfected for tissue-specific expression of the ASAL gene
using site-specific promoters in transgenic chickpea [19].
Recently, Tma12 protein was identified from an edible fern,
Tectaria macrodonta (Fee) C. Chr., and was found to be
insecticidal to whitefly (Bemisia tabaci). Transgenic cotton
lines that expressed Tma12 at ∼ 0.01% of the total soluble
leaf protein were found to be resistant to whitefly infestation
in contained field trials, with no detectable yield penalty
[79]. Thus, Tma12 could be a potential candidate for engi-
neering whitefly resistance in chickpea.
Diseases
Fusarium oxysporum Chickpea production is severely
affected by the disease condition caused by Fusarium
oxysporum. Fusarium wilt leads to permanent drooping of
plants and this pathogen is transmitted very quickly in the
field. Being a soil-borne fungus, the remedy for this con-
dition is sanitation or plantation of wilt-resistant varieties.
Various chickpea varieties of the Desi type, like DCP 92-3
(water lodging tolerant and wilt resistant), BGD 103 (bold
seeds, resistant to Fusarium wilt), BGD 72 (high yielding
and large seeded), IPC 97-67 (SCS-3), and of the Kabuli
type, like IPCK 2002-29 or SHUBHRA (moderately resist-
ant to wilt), IPCK 2004-29 or Ujjawal (moderately resist-
ant to Fusarium wilt), MNK 1 (Fusarium wilt resistant),
and BG 1105 (medium early, moderately resistant to dry
root rot, wilt, and with excellent cooking quality), have
been released in India through breeding [80]. WR315 is a
well-known Fusarium wilt-resistant chickpea cultivar [81].
Further breeding to improve for more yield parameters can
be beneficial for production as well as for disease resist-
ance. Recently, scientists from IIPR and ICRISAT, India,
have developed a molecular marker-assisted backcross-
ing (MABC) variety using a Desi chickpea cultivar, Vijay,
as donor, to introgress resistance to Fusarium wilt race 2
(Foc2) in another elite Desi cultivar, Pusa 256 [82].
Ascochyta Blight Ascochyta blight is the most severe dis-
ease in almost every chickpea-growing country. A total
yield loss can occur as a result of Ascochyta infestation
and it can also reduce the quality of chickpea produced.
The causal fungus of this blight is Ascochyta rabiei. This
fungus is known to infect the plant parts that are above the
ground. The blight forms gray patches on the leaves, stems,
and pods, which change into lesions of brown color. These
brown to dark brown dots are the actual fruiting bodies of
fungus, called pycnidia, which get arranged in concentric
rings as the disease progresses. The blight can be managed
using an integrated approach of pest management involving
steps like the use of resistant seed varieties, crop rotation,
seed treatments, and application of fungicides.
Efforts have been made to understand the nature of path-
ogen infection and presence of genetic variability within
chickpea cultivar to fight blight. Resistance to Ascochyta
blight has been found in chickpea cultivars as well as in
wild accessions. Breeding programs focus on identifying and
transferring these genes to generate new hybrids. Molecular
tools are necessary to aid conventional breeding approaches
for introgression of genes into chickpea genotypes. Differ-
ent molecular markers associated with major QTLs for
resistance to blight are linked for marker-assisted selection
(MAS). Gil etal. used transgressive inheritance to select
new allelic combinations for developing new chickpea mate-
rials that were resistant to blight and had large seeds, as well
[83]. They observed significant differences in the expres-
sion of defense pathway-related genes among the different
chickpea cultivars upon infection with A. rabiei. Recently,
using whole-genome re-sequencing of 69 chickpea geno-
types, “functional makers” were developed for MAS and
genomic selection for resistance to Ascochyta blight [84].
Garg etal. reported the identification of QTLs for resist-
ance to Ascochyta blight and Fusarium wilt in a recombinant
inbred population of chickpea [85].
Transgenic Approach forChickpea
Production
Transgenic chickpea is developed either by gene gun [86]
or Agrobacterium-mediated method [11–14, 62, 87, 88].
Chickpea has mainly been transformed for expression of Bt
genes. Das etal. recently reported the generation of trans-
genic chickpea plants harboring codon-optimized synthetic
cry1Aabc gene [15]. Based on extensive molecular analy-
ses and insect bioassays, they selected three independent
chickpea events with single locus integration in the genome,
which showed high expression of the transgene and high
insect mortality (up to 100%) based on detached leaf bio-
assay at T4 generation. Because Bt toxins are harmless to
human beings, animals, and a broad range of non-target
pests, they are suited for incorporation into Integrated Pest
Management (IPM) programs [89]. To date, no transgenic
chickpea has been approved for cultivation in the world.
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
However, the Government of India allowed the field trials of
six transgenic crops, namely, rice, cotton, maize (corn), mus-
tard, brinjal, and chickpea, in 2015 [90]. Different transgenes
from various sources that have been transformed into chick-
pea for development of abiotic and biotic stress resistance
are listed in Table3.
Marker-Assisted Selection vs. Transgenesis
Improved crop productivity is a highly desirable trait in the
hybrids. Breeders were able to develop new improved varie-
ties using the methods of selection and hybridization; how-
ever, such methods are time consuming and can be hastened
by the use of molecular markers. Marker-assisted breeding
is based on the transfer a specific allele at the target locus in
a donor line to a recipient line while selecting against donor
introgression across the rest of the genome [91]. MAS is
used when the trait of interest is present within the gene
pool of the crop. Molecular breeding has reduced the time
for development of new varieties from 25 to 7–10years.
In contrast, genetic transformation or transgenesis helps to
make use of important genes that were earlier not amenable
to transfer. Transgenesis is an effective means for improving
crop genetic makeup for deriving favorable traits. Genetic
engineering techniques permit the simultaneous use of
several desirable genes in a single event, thus, allowing
the introduction of novel genes/traits into elite cultivars.
However, transgenic plants are associated with serious con-
cerns about biosafety and environment, whereas in the case
of MAS, biosafety and intellectual property rights are not
the major issues; the narrow gene pool of the species, is
instead, a bigger limitation. Breeding by transgenesis has
several advantages over breeding by MAB. Transgenesis
is a direct means for introducing a gene or genotype to a
genome in order to produce a target trait [92]. Modern breed-
ing approaches like marker-assisted recurrent selection and
genomic selection are being deployed for enhancing drought
tolerance in chickpea. Marker-assisted backcross breeding
(MABB) was undertaken by crossing chickpea cultivars
Pusa 362 (recurrent parent) and ICC 4958 (donor parent)
to introgress QTL-hotspots for root and yield traits under
water-stressed condition [93]. The introgression lines with
superior root traits and higher yield could be released for
planting in drought prone environments [93]. Using MAS
approaches together with the use of appropriate genetic
diversity, databases, analytical tools, well-characterized
drought stress scenarios, and weather and soil data, new
varieties with improved drought resistance corresponding to
grower preferences can be introduced in target regions [94].
For the identification and evaluation of chickpea wilt-resist-
ant lines against F. ox ys por um f. sp. ciceris (Schlechtends),
Ahmad etal. tested the germplasm in the field for selec-
tion of wilt-resistant lines and also identified PCR-based
molecular markers to use MAS for selection of the desir-
able cultivars [95].
Conclusions andFuture Prospects
With the advent of new techniques in biotechnology, pro-
ductivity of nutritionally valuable crops is increasing. In
economically important food crops, like chickpea, it is very
essential to use the tools of genome editing for improve-
ment of desirable traits alongside conventional breeding
approaches. In countries like Pakistan, India, and Australia,
most of the land under chickpea cultivation is rain-fed, and
therefore, incorporation of drought-tolerance trait would be
a boon. The institutes like ICRISAT, Indian Agricultural
Research Institute (IARI), and Indian Institute of Pulses
Research (IIPR) in India are routinely developing drought-
tolerant varieties of chickpea through breeding. The toler-
ance trait present in the wild varieties of chickpea is utilized
by breeders to develop drought-resistant varieties by intro-
gression of drought-responsive genes into the susceptible
varieties. These hybrid varieties perform well for the desired
trait but over a period of time, these genes are lost from the
population and have to be brought again through breeding
or by maintaining the selection pressure. Thus, the quality
of such materials has to be checked frequently. Other demer-
its related to the traditional method are the linkage drag,
which comes with the desired genes during introgression. In
contrast, transgenic approaches are relatively fast and hold
great promise for pyramiding of several candidate genes for
conferring multiple-desired traits in transgenic plants.
Acknowledgements The study was supported by the New Initiative (as
a Cross Flow Technology project) “Root Biology and its Correlation
to Sustainable Plant Development and Soil Fertility” from Council of
Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), and project titled “Char-
acterization of gene(s) responsible for tyloses formation in chickpea
during Fusarium oxysporum infection” from Science & Engineering
Research Board (SERB), New Delhi, India. The manuscript communi-
cation number assigned to this manuscript by the Dean, R&D, Integral
University, Lucknow, is IU/R&D/2018-MCN000228.
References
1. Rao, P. P., Birthal, P. S., Bhagavatula, S., & Bantilan, M. C. S.
(2010). Chickpea and pigeonpea economies in Asia: Facts, trends
and outlook. Patancheru: International Crops Research Institute
for the Semi-Arid Tropics.
2. Varshney, R. K., etal. (2013). Draft genome sequence of chick-
pea (Cicer arietinum L.). Nature Biotechnology, 31, 3. https ://doi.
org/10.1038/nbt.2491.
3. Gaur, P. M., Thudi, M., Samineni, S., & Varshney, R. K. (2014).
Advances in chickpea genomics. In N. Gupta, N. Nadarajan &
D. Sen Gupta (Eds.), Legumes in the omic era (pp.73–94). New
York: Springer.
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
4. Garg, R., Shankar, R., Thakkar, B., etal. (2016). Transcriptome
analyses reveal genotype and developmental stage-specific molec-
ular responses to drought and salinity stresses in chickpea. Scien-
tific Reports. https ://doi.org/10.1038/srep1 9228.
5. Ali, Q., Ahsan, M., Farooq, J., & Saleem, M. (2010). Genetic
variability and trait association in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.).
Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 1, 328–333.
6. Singh, R., Sharma, P., Varshney, R. K., Sharma, S. K., & Singh,
N. K. (2008). Chickpea improvement: Role of wild species and
genetic markers. Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering Reviews,
25, 267–313.
7. Gaikwad, A. R., Desai, N. C., Langhi, A. M., & Jadhav, S. D.
(2011). Studies on genetic variability in chickpea (Cicer arietinum
L.). Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 17, 585–588.
8. Jain, M., Misra, G., Patel, R. K., etal. (2013). A draft genome
sequence of the pulse crop chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). The
Plant Journal, 74, 715–729.
9. Gupta, S., Nawaz, K., Parween, S., Roy, R., Sahu, K., Pole, A. K.,
etal. (2016). Draft genome sequence of Cicer reticulatum L., the
wild progenitor of chickpea provides a resource for agronomic
trait improvement. DNA Research. https ://doi.org/10.1093/dnare
s/dsw04 2.
10. Acharjee, S., & Sarmah, B. K. (2013). Biotechnlogically generat-
ing super chickpea for food and national security. Plant Science,
207, 108–116.
11. Kar, S., etal. (1996). Expression of cry1Ac gene of Bacillus
thuringiensis in transgenic chickpea plants inhibits development
of borer (Heliothis armigera) larvae. Transgenic Research, 15,
473–497.
12. Sanyal, I., Singh, A. K., Kaushik, M., & Amla, D. V. (2005).
Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of chickpea (Cicer ari-
etinum L.) with Bacillus thuringiensis cry1Ac gene for resistance
against pod borer insect Helicoverpa armigera. Plant Science,
168, 1135–1146.
13. Biradar, S. S., Sridevi, O., & Salimath, P. M. (2009). Genetic
enhancement of chickpea for pod borer resistance through expres-
sion of Cry1Ac protein. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sci-
ence, 22, 467–470.
14. Acharjee, S., Sarmah, B. K., Kumar, P. A., Olsen, K., Mahon, R.,
Moar, W. J., etal. (2010). Transgenic chickpea (Cicer arietinum
L.) expressing a sequence-modified cry2Aa gene. Plant Science,
178, 333–339.
15. Das, A., Datta, S., Thakur, S., Shukla, A., Ansari, J., Sujayanand,
G. K., etal. (2017). Expression of a chimeric gene encoding
insecticidal crystal protein cry1Aabc of Bacillus thuringiensis in
chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) confers resistance to gram pod borer
(Helicoverpa armigera Hubner). Frontiers in Plant Science, 8,
1423. https ://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01423 .
16. Chakraborty, J., Sen, S., Ghosh, P., Sengupta, A., Basu, D., & Das,
S. (2016). Homologous promoter derived constitutive and chloro-
plast targeted expression of synthetic cry1Ac in transgenic chick-
pea confers resistance against Helicoverpa armigera. Plant Cell,
Tissue and Organ Culture, 125, 521–535. https ://doi.org/10.1007/
s1124 0-016-0968-7.
17. Kambrekar, D. N. (2016). Management of legume podborer, Heli-
coverpa armigera with host plant resistance. Legume Genomics
and Genetics. https ://doi.org/10.5376/lgg.2016.07.0005.
18. Sarmah, B. K., etal. (2004). Transgenic chickpea seeds expressing
high levels of a bean alfa-amylase inhibitor. Molecular Breeding,
14, 73–82.
19. Chakraborti, D., Sarkar, A., Mondal, H. A., & Das, S. (2009).
Tissue specific expression of potent insecticidal, Allium sativum
leaf agglutinin (ASAL) in important pulse crop, chickpea (Cicer
arietinum L.) to resist the phloem feeding Aphis craccivora.
Transgenic Research, 18, 529–544.
20. Bhatnagar-Mathur, P., Vadez, V., Devi, M. J., Lavanya, M., Vani,
G., & Sharma, K. K. (2009). Genetic engineering of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.) with the P5CSF129A gene for osmoregula-
tion with implications on drought tolerance. Molecular Breeding,
23, 591–606. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1103 2-009-9258-y.
21. Anbanzhagan, K., Bhatnagar-Mathur, P., Vadez, V., Reddy, D. S.,
Kishore, P. B. K., & Sharma, K. K. (2015). DREB1A overexpres-
sion in transgenic chickpea alters key traits influencing plant water
budget across water regimes. Plant Cell Reports, 34, 199–210.
22. Ghanti, K. K., Sujata, S., Vijay, K. G., Kumar, B. M., etal. (2011).
Heterologous expression of P5CS gene in chickpea enhances salt
tolerance without affecting yield. Biologia Plantarum, 55, 634.
https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1053 5-011-0161-0.
23. Jukanti, A. K., Gaur, P. M., Gowda, C. L. L., & Chibbar, R.
N. (2012). Nutritional quality and health benefits of chickpea
(Cicer arietinum L.): A review. British Journal of Nutrition, 108,
S11–S26.
24. Wang, N., Hatcher, D. W., Tyler, R. T., Toews, R., Gawalko, E. J.
(2010). Effect of cooking on the composition of beans (Phaseolus
vulgaris L.) and chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.). Food Research
International, 43, 589–594.
25. Chau, C. F., Cheung, P. C., & Wong, Y. S. (1997). Effect of cook-
ing on content of amino acids and antinutrients in three Chinese
indigenous legume seeds. Journal of the Science of Food and
Agriculture, 75, 447–452.
26. Wang, N., Lewis, M. J., Brennan, J. G., & Westby, A. (1997).
Effect of processing methods on nutrients and anti-nutritional fac-
tors in cowpea. Food Chemistry, 58, 59–68.
27. El-Adawy, T. A. (2002). Nutritional composition and antinutri-
tional factors of chickpeas (Cicer arietinum L.) undergoing dif-
ferent cooking methods and germination. Plant Foods for Human
Nutrition, 57, 83–97.
28. Singh, P. K., Shrivastava, N., Sharma, B., & Bhagyawant, S. S.
(2015). Effect of domestic processes on chickpea seeds for antinu-
tritional contents and their divergence. American Journal of Food
Science and Technology, 3(4), 111–117.
29. Gupta, N., Shrivastava, N., & Bhagyawant, S. S. (2017). Multi-
variate analysis based on nutritional value, antinutritional pro-
file and antioxidant capacity of forty chickpea genotypes grown
in India. Journal of Nutrition and Food Sciences. https ://doi.
org/10.4172/2155-9600.10006 00.
30. Patil, S. P., Niphadkar, P. V., & Bapat, M. M. (2001). Chickpea:
A major food allergen in the Indian subcontinent and its clini-
cal and immunochemical correlation. Annals of Allergy, Asthma
& Immunology, 87(2), 140–145. https ://doi.org/10.1016/S1081
-1206(10)62209 -0.
31. India’s trade destination of chickpea (2015–2016). Retrieved
November 11, 2017 from http://agric oop.nic.in/sites /defau lt/files
/Pulse s.pdf.
32. Muehlbauer, F. J., & Sarker, A. (2017). Economic importance of
chickpea: Production, value, and world trade. In R. K. Varshney
etal. (Eds.), The chickpea genome, compendium of plant genomes.
https ://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66117 -9_2.
33. Leport, L., Turner, N. C., French, R. J., Barr, M. D., Duda, R.,
etal. (1999). Physiological responses of chickpea genotypes to
terminal drought in a Mediterranean-type environment. European
Journal of Agronomy, 11, 279–291.
34. Worldwide chickpea production scenario in 1980 and 2016
(2017). Retrieved May 19, 2018 from http://www.fao.org/faost at/
en/#compa re.
35. Alexandratos, N., & Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture
towards 2030/2050: The 2012 revision. Rome: Food and Agri-
culture Organization of The United Nations.
36. State wise share to total production and area of chickpea in
India (2015–2016). Retrieved November 10, 2017 from http://
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
www.commo ditie scont rol.com/eagri trade r/commo n/newsd etail
.php?type=SPR&itemi d=8204&comid =,2,&frm=admin .
37. Ryan, J. (1997). A global perspective on pigeonpea and chickpea
sustainable production system: Present status and future potential.
In A. Asthana, & A. M. Kapur (Eds.), Recent advances in pulses
research in India (pp.1–31). Kalyanpur: Indian Society for Pulses
Research and Development.
38. Millan, T., Clarke, H. J., Siddique, K. H. M., Bhuriwalla, H. K.,
Gaur, P. M., Kumar, J., etal. (2006). Chickpea molecular breed-
ing: New tools and concepts. Euphytica, 147, 81–103.
39. Chaturvedi, S. K., & Nadarajan, N. (2010). Genetic enhancement
for grain yield in chickpea accomplishments and resetting research
agenda. Electronic Journal of Plant Breeding, 1(4), 611–615.
40. Levitt, J. (1972). Responses of plants to environmental stresses.
New York: Academic Press.
41. Turner, N. C. (1986). Crop water deficit: A decade of progress.
Advances in Agronomy, 39, 1–51.
42. Loomis, R. S., & Connor, D. J. (1992). Crop ecology: Productivity
and management in agricultural systems (pp.224–256). Cam-
bridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Bent, A. F. (1996). Plant disease resistance genes: Function meets
structure. The Plant Cell, 8, 1757–1771.
44. Hulber t, S. H., Webb, C. A., Smith, S. M., & Sun, Q. (2001).
Resistance gene complexes: Evolution and utilization. Annual
Review of Phytopathology, 39, 285–312.
45. Tameling, W. I. L., Elzinga, S. D. J., Darmin, P. S., Vossen, J.
H., Takken, F. L. W., etal. (2002). The tomato R gene products
I-2 and MI-1 are functional ATP binding proteins with ATPase
activity. The Plant Cell, 14, 2929–2939.
46. Kobe, B., & Deisenhofer, J. (1995). A structural basis of the inter-
actions between leucine-rich repeats and protein ligands. Nature,
374, 183–186.
47. Lesiter, R. T., & Katagiri, F. (2000). A resistance gene product
of the nucleotide binding site-leucine rich repeats class can form
a complex with bacterial avirulence proteins invivo. The Plant
Journal, 22, 345–354.
48. Dangl, J. L., & Jones, J. D. G. (2001). Plant pathogens and inte-
grated defence responses to infection. Nature, 411, 826–833.
49. Meyers, B. C., Kozik, A., Griego, A., Kuang, H., & Michelmore,
R. W. (2003). Genome-wide analysis of NBS-LRR-encoding
genes in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell, 15, 809–834.
50. Monosi, B., Wisser, R. J., Pennill, L., & Hulbert, S. H. (2004).
Full-genome analysis of resistance gene homologues in rice.
Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 109, 1434–1447.
51. Ameline-Torregrosa, C., Wang, B. B., O’bleness, M. S., Desh-
pande, S., Zhu, H., etal. (2008). Identification and characteriza-
tion of nucleotide-binding site-leucine-rich repeat genes in the
model plant Medicago truncatula. Plant Physiology, 146, 5–21.
52. Radwan, O., Gandhi, S., Heesacker, A., Whitaker, B., Taylor,
C., etal. (2008). Genetic diversity and genomic distribution of
homologs encoding NBS-LRR disease resistance proteins in sun-
flower. Molecular Genetics and Genomics, 280, 111–125.
53. Glynn, N. C., Comstock, J. C., Sood, S. G., Dang, P. M., & Chap-
arro, J. X. (2008). Isolation of nucleotide binding site-leucine rich
repeat and kinase resistance gene analogues from sugarcane Sac-
charum spp. Pest Management Science, 64, 48–56.
54. Kumar, M., Mishra, S., Dixit, V. K., Kumar, M., Agrawal, L.,
Chauhan, P. S., etal. (2015). Synergistic effect of Pseudomonas
putida and Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ameliorates drought
stress in chickpea. Plant Signaling & Behavior. https ://doi.
org/10.1080/15592 324.2015.10710 04.
55. Dua, R. P., & Sharma, P. C. (1995). Salinity tolerance of kabuli
and desi chickpea genotypes. International Chickpea and Pigeon-
pea Newsletter, 2, 19–22.
56. Dua, R. P., Chaturvedi, S. K., & Shiv, S. (2001). Reference varie-
ties of chickpea for IPR regime. Kanpur: Indian Institute of Pulses
Research.
57. Shanower, T. G., Kelley, T. G., & Cowgill, S. E. (1998). Develop-
ment of effective and environmentally sound strategies to control
Helicoverpa armigera in pigeonpea and chickpea production
systems. In R. K. Saini (Ed.), Tropical entomology. Proceed-
ings of the 3rd international conference on tropical entomology
(pp.239–260). Nairobi: lClPE Science Press.
58. Sharma, H. C., Gowda, C. L. L., Stevenson, P. C., Ridsdill-Smith,
T. J., Clement, S. L., Ranga Rao, G. V., etal. (2007). Host plant
resistance and insect pest management in chickpea. In S. S. Yadav,
R. R. Redden, W. Chen & B. Sharma (Eds.), Chickpea breeding
and management (pp.520–537). Wallingford: CAB Inter national.
59. Forrester, N. W., Cahill, M., Bird, L., & Layland, J. K. (1993).
Management of pyrethoid and endosulfan resistance in Helicov-
erpu urmigeru (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Australia. Bulletin of
Entomological Research, 1, 1–132.
60. Kranthi, K. R., Jadhav, D. R., Kranthi, S., Wanjari, R. R., Ali, S.
S., & Russcll, D. A. (2002). Insecticide resistance in five major
insect pests of cotton in India. Crop Protection, 21, 449–460.
61. Fontana, G. S., Santini, L., Caretto, S., Frugis, G., & Mariotti, D.
(1993). Genetic transformation in the grain legume (Cicer arieti-
num L.). Plant Cell Reports, 12, 194–198.
62. Ganguly, M., Molla, K. A., Karmakar, S., Datta, K., & Datta,
S. K. (2014). Development of pod borer-resistant transgenic
chickpea using a pod-specific and a constitutive promoter-driven
fused cry1Ab/Ac gene. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 127,
2555–2565. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0012 2-014-2397-5.
63. Sharma, H. C., Sharma, K. K., & Crouch, J. H. (2004). Genetic
transformation of crops for insect resistance: Potential and limita-
tions. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 23, 47–72.
64. Singh, K. B., Malhotra, R. S., Halila, H. M., Knights, E. J., &
Verma, M. M. (1994). Current status and future strategy in breed-
ing chickpea for resistance to biotic and abiotic stresses. Euphyt-
ica, 73, 137–149.
65. Dayal, S., Lavanya, M., Devi, P., & Sharma, K. K. (2003). An
efficient protocol for shoot regeneration and genetic transforma-
tion of pigeon pea (Cajanus cajan L. Millsp.) using leaf explants.
Plant Cell Reports, 21, 1072–1079.
66. Boulter, D. (1993). Insect pest control by copying nature using
genetically engineered crops. Phytochemistry, 34, 1453–1466.
67. Ussuf, K. K., Laxmi, N. H., & Mita, R. (2001). Protease inhibi-
tors: Plant derived genes of insecticidal protein for developing
insect resistant transgenic plants. Current Science, 80, 847–853.
68. Shade, R. E., Schroeder, R. E., Poueyo, J. J., Tabe, L. M., Mur-
dock, L. I., Higgins, T. J. V., etal. (1994). Transgenic pea seeds
expressing the α-amylase inhibitor of the common bean are resist-
ant to bruchid beetles. Nature Biotechnology, 12, 793–796.
69. Schroeder, H. E., Gollash, S., & Moore, A. (1995). Bean
α-amylase inhibitor confers resistance to the pea weevil (Bruchus
pisorum) in transgenic peas (Pisum sativum L.). Plant Physiology,
107, 1233–1239.
70. Ryan, C. A. (1990). Protease inhibitors in plants: Genes for
improving defense against insects and pathogens. Annual Review
of Phytopathology, 28, 25–45.
71. Ishimoto, M., & Chrispeels, M. J. (1996). Protective mechanism of
the Mexican bean weevil against high levels of α-amylase inhibi-
tor in the common bean. Plant Physiology, 111, 393–401.
72. Ignacimuthu, S., & Prakash, S. (2006). Agrobacterium-mediated
transformation of chickpea with alpha-amylase inhibitor gene for
insect resistance. Journal of Biosciences, 31(3), 339–345.
73. Chokshi, D. (2006). Toxicity studies of Blockal, a dietary sup-
plement containing phase 2 starch neutralizer (Phase 2), a stand-
ardized extract of the common white kidney bean (Phaseolus
vulgaris). International Journal of Toxicology, 25(5), 361–371.
Molecular Biotechnology
1 3
74. Barrett, M. L., & Udani, J. K. (2011). A proprietary alpha-amylase
inhibitor from white bean (Phaseolus vulgaris): A review of clini-
cal studies on weight loss and glycemic control. Nutrition Journal,
10, 24. http://www.nutri tionj .com/conte nt/10/1/24.
75. Lee, R. Y., Reiner, D., Dekan, G., Moore, A. E., Higgins, T. J., &
Epstein, M. M. (2013). Genetically modified α-amylase inhibitor
peas are not specifically allergenic in mice. PLoS ONE, 8, e52972.
https ://doi.org/10.1371/journ al.pone.00529 72.
76. Dutta, I., Saha, P., Majumder, P., Sarkar, A., Chakraborti, D.,
Banerjee, S., etal. (2005). The efficacy of a novel insecticidal
protein, Allium sativum leaf lectin (ASAL), against homopteran
insects monitored in transgenic tobacco. Plant Biotechnology
Journal, 3(6), 601–611.
77. Dutta, I., Majumder, P., Saha, P., Ray, K., & Das, S. (2005). Con-
stitutive and phloem specific expression of Allium sativum leaf
agglutinin (ASAL) to engineer aphid (Lipaphis erysimi) resistance
in transgenic Indian mustard (Brassica juncea). Plant Science.
https ://doi.org/10.1016/j.plant sci.2005.05.016.
78. Yarasi, B., Sadumpati, V., Immanni, C. P., Vudem, D. R., & Kha-
reedu, V. R. (2008). Transgenic rice expressing Allium sativum
leaf agglutinin (ASAL) exhibits high level resistance against
major sap-sucking pests. BMC Plant Biology, 8, 102–115.
79. Shukla, A. K., Upadhyay, S. K., Mishra, M., Saurabh, S., Singh,
R., Singh, H., etal. (2016). Expression of an insecticidal fern
protein in cotton protects against whitefly. Nature Biotechnology,
34, 1046–1051.
80. Chickpea improved varieties. Retrieved November 10, 2017 from
http://www.dpd.gov.in/VARIE TIES-Web%20sit e.pdf.
81. Haware, M. P., & Nene, Y. L. (1982). Races of Fusarium oxyspo-
rum. Plant Disease, 66, 809–810.
82. Pratap, A., Chaturvedi, S. K., Tomar, R., Rajan, N., Malviya, N.,
Thudi, M., etal. (2017). Marker-assisted introgression of resist-
ance to fusarium wilt race 2 in Pusa 256, an elite cultivar of desi
chickpea. Molecular Genetics and Genomics, 292, 1237–1245.
https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0043 8-017-1343-z.
83. Gil, J., Castro, J. P., Millan, T., Madrid, E., & Rubio, J. (2017).
Development of new kabuli large-seeded chickpea materials with
resistance to Ascochyta blight. Crop and Pasture Science, 68(11),
967–972. https ://doi.org/10.1071/CP170 55.
84. Li, Y., Ruperao, P., Batley, J., Edwards, D., Davidson, J., Hobson,
K., etal. (2017). Genome analysis identified novel candidate genes
for Ascochyta blight resistance in chickpea using whole genome
re-sequencing data. Front iers in Pl ant S cience, 8, 359. https ://doi.
org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00359 .
85. Garg, T., Mallikarjuna, B. P., Thudi, M., Samineni, S., Singh, S.,
Sandhu, J. S., etal. (2018). Identification of QTLs for resistance
to Fusarium wilt and Ascochyta blight in a recombinant inbred
population of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.). Euphytica, 214, 45.
https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1068 1-018-2125-3.
86. Indurker, S., Misra, H. S., & Eapen, S. (2007). Genetic transfor-
mation of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) with insecticidal crystal
protein gene using particle gun bombardment. Plant Cell Reports,
26, 755–763. https ://doi.org/10.1007/s0029 9-006-0283-6.
87. Asharani, B. M., Ganeshaiah, K. N., Raja, A., Kumar, V., &
Makarla, U. K. (2011). Transformation of chickpea lines with
Cry1X using in planta transformation and characterization of
putative transformants T1 lines for molecular and biochemical
characters. Journal of Plant Breeding and Crop Science, 3(16),
413–423.
88. Mehrotra, M., Singh, A. K., Sanyal, I., etal. (2011). Pyramiding
of modified cry1Ab and cry1Ac genes of Bacillus thuringiensis in
transgenic chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) for improved resistance
to pod borer insect Helicoverpa armigera. Euphytica, 182, 87.
https ://doi.org/10.1007/s1068 1-011-0501-3.
89. Chiaiese, P., Ohkama-Ohtsu, N., Molvig, L., Godfree, R., Dove,
H., Hocart, C., etal. (2004). Sulphur and nitrogen nutrition influ-
ence the response of chickpea seeds to an added, transgenic sink
for organic sulphur. Journal of Experimental Botany, 55, 1889–
1901. https ://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erh19 8.
90. Nester, E. W., Altosaar, I., & Stotzky, G. (2002). 100 years of
Bacillus thuringiensis: A critical scientific assessment. Ithaca:
American Academy of Microbiology Colloquium Report. Based
on Colloquium.
91. Collard, B. C. Y., & Mackill, D. J. (2008). Marker-assisted selec-
tion: An approach for precision plant breeding in the twenty-first
century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Bio-
logical Sciences, 363, 557–572.
92. Gao, L., etal. (2013). Do transgenesis and marker-assisted back-
cross breeding produce substantially equivalent plants?—A com-
parative study of transgenic and backcross rice carrying bacterial
blight resistant gene Xa21. BMC Genomics, 14, 738.
93. Sheoran, S., Singh, R. K., & Tripathi, S. (2018). Marker assisted
backcross breeding in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) for drought
tolerance. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 6(1),
1046–1050.
94. Khan, A., Sovero, V., & Gemenet, D. (2016). Genome-assisted
breeding for drought resistance. Current Genomics, 17(4), 330–
342. https ://doi.org/10.2174/13892 02917 99916 02111 01417 .
95. Ahmad, Z., Mumtaz, A. S., Ghafoor, A., Ali, A., & Nisar, M.
(2014). Marker Assisted Selection (MAS) for chickpea Fusarium
oxysporum wilt resistant genotypes using PCR based molecular
markers. Molecular Biology Reports, 41, 6755–6762. https ://doi.
org/10.1007/s1103 3-014-3561-3.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Molecular Biotechnology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
