Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Review Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp5 (2026): Recent Advances in Agriculture

Insights into fodder quality enhancement in sorghum through genetic and molecular approaches

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.15431
Submitted
7 May 2026
Published
31-08-2026

Abstract

Forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L. Moench), a climate-resilient, drought-tolerant fodder crop with high adaptability and biomass potential, plays a significant role in addressing global livestock feed and fodder demands. However, its complex quantitative quality traits, such as crude protein, fibre fractions, crude fat, lignin and antinutritional factors like hydrogen cyanide (HCN) content, show considerable variation across genotypes and are strongly influenced by developmental stage, management practices and environmental conditions. This review comprehensively summarises the genetic and molecular strategies for improving forage quality traits in sorghum, highlighting key trait relationships, yield-quality trade-offs, harvesting effects and emerging genomic tools to accelerate the development of nutritionally superior and safer forage sorghum cultivars. Conventional breeding programs have contributed to the development of improved forage sorghum cultivars. Brown midrib lines have emerged as a successful breeding strategy, with average neutral detergent fibre (NDF) and acid detergent fibre (ADF) contents of 57.5 % and 33.67 % dry matter (DM), compared to 59.45 % and 36.51 % DM in conventional varieties. However, this is often accompanied by biomass yield penalties of approximately 14.33 %. Recent advances in molecular breeding, such as functional genomics, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), quantitative trait loci (QTL) mapping, marker-assisted selection and antisense-mediated downregulation, have enabled the precise identification of the genetic architecture of forage quality traits. In particular, QTL mapping uncovered 43 overlapping QTLs controlling various forage quality traits and biomass traits, demonstrating their interconnections and possibilities for their simultaneous improvement. The identified candidate genes and pleiotropic loci controlling forage quality traits offer new opportunities for genomic-assisted improvement, where gene-editing tools such as CRISPR/Cas9 can simultaneously enhance feed safety, biomass yields and nutritional quality.

References

  1. 1. Kumari P, Phogat DS, Satpal, Kharor N, Pahuja SK. Breeding climate smart forage sorghum – a review. Forage Res. 2023;49:1–12.
  2. 2. Centre for Agriculture and Rural Development Policy Research. Sorghum: crop outlook report of Andhra Pradesh (June 2023 to May 2024). Acharya N G Ranga Agricultural University; 2024.
  3. 3. Somegowda VK, Vemula A, Naravula J, Prasad G, Rayaprolu L, Rathore A, et al. Evaluation of fodder yield and fodder quality in sorghum and its interaction with grain yield under different water availability regimes. Curr Plant Biol. 2021;25:100191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpb.2020.100191
  4. 4. Behera PP, Singode A, Bhat BV, Borah N, Verma H, Supriya P, et al. Identifying genetic determinants of forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (Moench)] adaptation through GWAS. BMC Plant Biol. 2024;24:1043. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-024-05754-6
  5. 5. Tonapi VA, Talwar HS, Are AK, Bhat BV, Reddy CR, Dalton TJ, editors. Sorghum in the 21st century: food – fodder – feed – fuel for a rapidly changing world. Singapore: Springer; 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-8249-3
  6. 6. Hamblin MT, Salas Fernandez MG, Casa AM, Mitchell SE, Paterson AH, Kresovich S. Equilibrium processes cannot explain high levels of short- and medium-range linkage disequilibrium in the domesticated grass Sorghum bicolor. Genetics. 2005;171:1247–56. https://doi.org/10.1534/genetics.105.041566
  7. 7. Pandey AK, Madhu P, Bhat BV. Down-regulation of CYP79A1 gene through antisense approach reduced the cyanogenic glycoside dhurrin in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench to improve fodder quality. Front Nutr. 2019;6:122. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00122
  8. 8. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. A glimpse of animal husbandry statistics 2022–23. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying, Government of India; 2023.
  9. 9. Hilli HJ, Kapoor R, Amandeep. Forage production in India: bottlenecks and opportunities by opening up new way with an increase in fodder oats demand: a review. Asian J Dairy Food Res. 2023;42:275–85. https://doi.org/10.18805/ajdfr.DR-2050
  10. 10. Roy AK, Agrawal RK, Bhardwaj NR, Mishra AK, Mahanta SK. Revisiting national forage demand and availability scenario. In: Roy AK, Agrawal RK, Bhardwaj NR, editors. Indian fodder scenario: redefining state wise status. ICAR-AICRP on Forage Crops and Utilization, ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute; 2019. p. 1–21.
  11. 11. Indu, Dikshit N, Dimple, Singhal R, Ahmed S. Stover quality: new priority trait in fodder sorghum. Indian Farmer. 2021;8:554–56.
  12. 12. Karthikeyan BJ, Babu C, Amalraj JJ. Nutritive value and fodder potential of different Sorghum bicolor L. Moench cultivars. Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2017;6:898–911. https://doi.org/10.20546/ijcmas.2017.608.112
  13. 13. Tulu A, Diribsa M, Alemu T, Tolera AY. Forage yield, proportions of morphological fractions and nutritive value of stay-green sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) as affected by variety and growth stage. J Agric Food Res. 2025;21:102004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafr.2025.102004
  14. 14. Mwangi PG, Gachuiri CK, Mbugua PN. Effect of growth stage on fodder yield and quality of dual purpose sorghum. Trop Drylands. 2017;1:100–104. https://doi.org/10.13057/tropdrylands/t010206
  15. 15. Endalamaw C, Nida H, Tsegaye D, Van Biljon A, Labuschagne M, Herselman L. Genetic diversity and genome-wide association study of grain quality in Sorghum bicolor landrace collections. Plant Breed. 2025;144:617–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbr.13280
  16. 16. Singh D, Chauhan A. Fodder yield, quality and nutrients uptake potential of different types of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) varieties in Central Gujarat. Forage Res. 2017;43(2):121–28.
  17. 17. Wahyono T, Indriatama WM, Sasongko WT, Shafira EN, Hidayat TF, Widodo S, et al. Forage-yield and nutrient quality of new brown midrib (BMR) mutant lines of sorghum. Trop Anim Sci J. 2023;46:63–73. https://doi.org/10.5398/tasj.2023.46.1.63
  18. 18. Rhodes DH, Hoffmann Jr L, Rooney WL, Herald TJ, Bean S, Boyles R, et al. Genetic architecture of kernel composition in global sorghum germplasm. BMC Genomics. 2017;18:15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-016-3403-x
  19. 19. Hao H, Li Z, Leng C, Lu C, Luo H, Liu Y, et al. Sorghum breeding in the genomic era: opportunities and challenges. Theor Appl Genet. 2021;134:1899–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-021-03789-z
  20. 20. Clark TJ, Schwender J. Elucidation of triacylglycerol overproduction in the C4 bioenergy crop Sorghum bicolor by constraint-based analysis. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:787265. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.787265
  21. 21. Li JQ, Wang LH, Zhan QW, Liu YL, Zhang Q, Li JF, et al. Mapping quantitative trait loci for five forage quality traits in a sorghum-sudangrass hybrid. Genet Mol Res. 2015;14:13266–73. https://doi.org/10.4238/2015.October.26.23
  22. 22. Boyles RE, Brenton ZW, Kresovich S. Genetic and genomic resources of sorghum to connect genotype with phenotype in contrasting environments. Plant J. 2019;97:19–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.14113
  23. 23. Jha R, Mishra P. Dietary fiber in poultry nutrition and their effects on nutrient utilization, performance, gut health and on the environment: a review. J Anim Sci Biotechnol. 2021;12:51. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40104-021-00576-0
  24. 24. Reenu, Arya S, Manisha, Rani K, Dahiya P, Poonia A. Exploiting the heterosis and correlation analysis studies in forage sorghum for quality improvement. Forage Res. 2022;48:31–36.
  25. 25. Li J, Tang W, Zhang YW, Chen KN, Wang C, Liu Y, et al. Genome-wide association studies for five forage quality-related traits in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.). Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2018.01146
  26. 26. Santosh, Pandey PK. Study on genetic variability for forage yield and quality traits in forage sorghum [Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench]. Asian Res J Agric. 2024;17:52–65. https://doi.org/10.9734/arja/2024/v17i3472
  27. 27. Widodo S, Indriatama WM, Anggraeny YN, Sholikin MM, Jayanegara A, Wahyono T. Forage biomass and nutrient quality in brown midrib (BMR) compared to conventional sorghum: a meta-analysis approach. J Adv Vet Anim Res. 2025;12:157–68. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2025.l883
  28. 28. Zheng J, Wang L, Zhao W, Jin P, Liu Y, Meng R, et al. QTL mapping of five forage quality traits in sorghum × sudangrass. Pak J Bot. 2021;53:2093–98. https://doi.org/10.30848/PJB2021-6(29)
  29. 29. Battle M, Bender ML, Tans PP, White JW, Ellis JT, Conway T, et al. Global carbon sinks and their variability inferred from atmospheric O2 and δ13C. Science. 2000;287:2467–70. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5462.2467
  30. 30. Boerjan W, Ralph J, Baucher M. Lignin biosynthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2003;54:519–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.54.031902.134938
  31. 31. Halpin C. Lignin engineering to improve saccharification and digestibility in grasses. Curr Opin Biotechnol. 2019;56:223–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2019.02.013.
  32. 32. Lei Y, Hannoufa A, Yu P. The use of gene modification and advanced molecular structure analyses towards improving alfalfa forage. Int J Mol Sci. 2017;18:298. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms18020298
  33. 33. Barrière Y, Ralph J, Méchin V, Guillaumie S, Grabber JH, Argillier O, et al. Genetic and molecular basis of grass cell wall biosynthesis and degradability. II. Lessons from brown-midrib mutants. C R Biol. 2004;327:847–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crvi.2004.05.010
  34. 34. Sattler SE, Saballos A, Xin Z, Funnell-Harris DL, Vermerris W, Pedersen JF. Characterization of novel sorghum brown midrib mutants from an EMS-mutagenized population. G3 (Bethesda). 2014;4:2115–24. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.114.014001
  35. 35. Yang L, Zhou Q, Sheng X, Chen X, Hua Y, Lin S, et al. Harnessing the genetic basis of sorghum biomass-related traits to facilitate bioenergy applications. Int J Mol Sci. 2023;24:14549. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241914549
  36. 36. Tetreault HM, Gries T, Liu S, Toy J, Xin Z, Vermerris W, et al. The sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) brown midrib 30 gene encodes a chalcone isomerase required for cell wall lignification. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:732307. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.732307
  37. 37. Bonawitz ND, Chapple C. The genetics of lignin biosynthesis: connecting genotype to phenotype. Annu Rev Genet. 2010;44:337–63. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-102209-163508
  38. 38. Boudet AM, Kajita S, Grima-Pettenati J, Goffner D. Lignins and lignocellulosics: a better control of synthesis for new and improved uses. Trends Plant Sci. 2003;8:576–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2003.10.001
  39. 39. Yan L, Xu C, Kang Y, Gu T, Wang D, Zhao S, et al. The heterologous expression in Arabidopsis thaliana of sorghum transcription factor SbbHLH1 downregulates lignin synthesis. J Exp Bot. 2013;64:3021–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/ert150
  40. 40. Wang J, Feng J, Jia W, Fan P, Bao H, Li S, et al. Genome-wide identification of Sorghum bicolor laccases reveals potential targets for lignin modification. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:714. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.00714
  41. 41. Wang X, Li H, Wang J, Song J, Sui N. The WRKY transcription factor SbWRKY51 positively regulates salt tolerance of sorghum. Plant Sci. 2026;362:112741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2025.112741
  42. 42. Scully ED, Gries T, Sarath G, Palmer NA, Baird L, Serapiglia MJ, et al. Overexpression of SbMyb60 impacts phenylpropanoid biosynthesis and alters secondary cell wall composition in Sorghum bicolor. Plant J. 2016;85:378–95. https://doi.org/10.1111/tpj.13112
  43. 43. Gleadow RM, McKinley BA, Blomstedt CK, Lamb AC, Møller BL, Mullet JE. Regulation of dhurrin pathway gene expression during Sorghum bicolor development. Planta. 2021;254:119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-021-03774-2
  44. 44. Strickland G, Richards C, Zhang H, Step DL. Prussic acid poisoning (Fact Sheet PSS-2904). Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, Oklahoma State University; 2009.
  45. 45. Wang B, Xiong W, Guo Y. Dhurrin in sorghum: biosynthesis, regulation, biological function and challenges for animal production. Plants. 2024;13:2291. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13162291
  46. 46. Ouma LA, Cheruiyot EK, Ogendo JO. Biosynthesis and role of dhurrin in forage sorghum. Rev Agric Sci. 2023;11:259–70. https://doi.org/10.7831/ras.11.0_259
  47. 47. Cowan MF, Blomstedt CK, Møller BL, Henry RJ, Gleadow RM. Variation in production of cyanogenic glucosides during early plant development: a comparison of wild and domesticated sorghum. Phytochemistry. 2021;184:112645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2020.112645
  48. 48. Pushpa K, Madhu P, Bhat BV. Estimation of HCN content in sorghum under irrigated and stressed conditions. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8:2583–85.
  49. 49. Khan AF, Manonmani AG, Sudhakar D, Malarvizhi P, Jayanthi C, Surendran C, et al. New multicut fodder sorghum COFS 29 for Tamil Nadu. Madras Agric J. 2002;89:285–89. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.A00222
  50. 50. Roy AK. Database of forage crop varieties: 2020. ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute; 2020.
  51. 51. Kumari P, Kharor N, Satpal, Seth D, Pahuja SK. Principal component analysis in multicut forage sorghum genotypes for fodder yield and quality traits. Plant Arch. 2024;24:2151–56.
  52. 52. Bhat BV, Singode A, Balakrishna D, Sooganna. Millet crops as source of fodder. Indian Farming. 2023;73:19–21.
  53. 53. Mganga KZ, Ndathi AJ, Wambua SM, Bosma L, Kaindi EM, Kioko T, et al. Forage value of vegetative leaf and stem biomass fractions of selected grasses indigenous to African rangelands. Anim Prod Sci. 2021;61:1476–83. https://doi.org/10.1071/AN19597
  54. 54. Alatürk F. Effects of harvest height and time on hay yield and quality of some sweet sorghum and sorghum sudangrass hybrid varieties. PeerJ. 2024;12:e17274. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.17274
  55. 55. Perrier L, Rouan L, Jaffuel S, Clément-Vidal A, Roques S, Soutiras A, et al. Plasticity of sorghum stem biomass accumulation in response to water deficit: a multiscale analysis from internode tissue to plant level. Front Plant Sci. 2017;8:1516. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2017.01516
  56. 56. Adesogan AT, Arriola KG, Jiang Y, Oyebade A, Paula EM, Pech-Cervantes AA, et al. Symposium review: technologies for improving fiber utilization. J Dairy Sci. 2019;102:5726–55. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2018-15334
  57. 57. Pupo MR, Wallau MO, Ferraretto LF. Effects of season, variety type and trait on dry matter yield, nutrient composition and predicted intake and milk yield of whole-plant sorghum forage. J Dairy Sci. 2022;105:5776–85. https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2021-21706
  58. 58. Jia X, Zhang Z, Wang Y. Forage yield, canopy characteristics and radiation interception of ten alfalfa varieties in an arid environment. Plants. 2022;11:1112. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11091112
  59. 59. Ghalkhani A, Golzardi F, Khazaei A, Mahrokh A, Illés Á, Bojtor C, et al. Irrigation management strategies to enhance forage yield, feed value and water-use efficiency of sorghum cultivars. Plants. 2023;12:2154. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12112154
  60. 60. Byrt CS, Betts NS, Tan HT, Lim WL, Ermawar RA, Nguyen HY, et al. Prospecting for energy-rich renewable raw materials: sorghum stem case study. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0156638. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156638
  61. 61. Tavazoh M, Habibi D, Golzardi F, Ilkaee MN, Paknejad F. Effect of drought stress on morpho-physiological characteristics, nutritive value and water-use efficiency of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) varieties under various irrigation systems. Braz J Biol. 2024;84:e286121. https://doi.org/10.1590/1519-6984.286121
  62. 62. Francy da Costa Backsman C, Monção FP, Aspiazú I, Júnior VR, Figueiredo Portugal A, Kesia Oliveira de Jesus Silva R, et al. Agronomic traits, fermentation quality, chemical composition and silage digestibility of different forage sorghum genotypes and biomass in the semi-arid region of Brazil. J Appl Anim Res. 2025;53:2462573. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2025.2462573
  63. 63. Marsalis MA, Angadi SV, Contreras-Govea FE. Dry matter yield and nutritive value of corn, forage sorghum and BMR forage sorghum at different plant populations and nitrogen rates. Field Crops Res. 2010;116:52–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2009.11.009
  64. 64. Naharudin NS, Abu Sin M, Saleh G. Genetic variance and correlation of forage yield and quality traits in tropically adapted maize. Sains Malaysiana. 2021;50(1):45–52. https://doi.org/10.17576/jsm-2021-5001-05
  65. 65. Luquet D, Perrier L, Clément-Vidal A, Jaffuel S, Verdeil J, Roques S, et al. Genotypic covariations of traits underlying sorghum stem biomass production and quality and their regulations by water availability: insight from studies at organ and tissue levels. GCB Bioenergy. 2019;11:444–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12571
  66. 66. Xia J, Zhao Y, Burks P, Pauly M, Brown PJ. A sorghum NAC gene is associated with variation in biomass properties and yield potential. Plant Direct. 2018;2:e00070. https://doi.org/10.1002/pld3.70
  67. 67. Buxton DR, Casler MD. Environmental and genetic effects on cell wall composition and digestibility. In: Jung HG, Buxton DR, Hatfield RD, Ralph J, editors. Forage cell wall structure and digestibility. American Society of Agronomy; 1993. p. 685–714. https://doi.org/10.2134/1993.foragecellwall.c25
  68. 68. Kilcer TF, Ketterings QM, Cherney JH, Cerosaletti P, Barney P. Optimum stand height for forage brown midrib sorghum × sudangrass in north-eastern USA. J Agron Crop Sci. 2005;191:35–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-037X.2004.00137.x
  69. 69. Ball D et al. Understanding forage quality. American Farm Bureau Federation Publication No. 1-01; 2001.
  70. 70. Holman JD, Obour A, Roberts T, Maxwell S. Forage type and maturity effects on yield and nutritive value. Kans Agric Exp Stn Res Rep. 2018;4:6. https://doi.org/10.4148/2378-5977.7636
  71. 71. Lyons S, Ketterings Q, Godwin G, Cherney D, Cherney J, Van Amburgh M, et al. Best timing of harvest for brown midrib forage sorghum yield, nutritive value and ration performance. Progressive Dairy. 2020.
  72. 72. Atis I, Konuskan O, Duru M, Gozubenli H, Yilmaz S. Effect of harvesting time on yield, composition and forage quality of some forage sorghum cultivars. Int J Agric Biol. 2012;14:879–86.
  73. 73. Dong Z, Li J, Wang S, Dong D, Shao T. Time of day for harvest affects the fermentation parameters, bacterial community and metabolic characteristics of sorghum-sudangrass hybrid silage. mSphere. 2022;7:e00168-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/msphere.00168-22
  74. 74. Verhoeff J, Counotte G, Hamhuis D. Nitrogen dioxide (silo gas) poisoning in dairy cattle. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd. 2007;132:780–82.
  75. 75. Begna T. Role and economic importance of crop genetic diversity in food security. Int J Agric Sci Food Technol. 2021;7:164–69. https://doi.org/10.17352/2455-815X.000104
  76. 76. Witcombe JR, Joshi A, Joshi KD, Sthapit BR. Farmer participatory crop improvement. I. Varietal selection and breeding methods and their impact on biodiversity. Exp Agric. 1996;32:445–60. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700001526
  77. 77. Dalid CO, Saxton AM, Allen FL, Pantalone V, Nayak S, Bhandari HS. Genetic variation and expected per cycle biomass yield gain in lowland switchgrass. Crop Sci. 2018;58:1255–64. https://doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2018.01.0026
  78. 78. More A, Dhutmal RR, Kalpande HV, Deosarkar DB, Kumar A, Umakant AV. Combining ability and gene action for fodder quality improvement in brown midrib sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench). Electron J Plant Breed. 2025;16:425–32. https://doi.org/10.37992/2025.1604.047
  79. 79. Khazaei H, Street K, Bari A, Mackay M, Stoddard FL. The FIGS (focused identification of germplasm strategy) approach identifies traits related to drought adaptation in Vicia faba genetic resources. PLoS One. 2013;8:e63107. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0063107
  80. 80. Namata MJ, Xu J, Habyarimana E, Palakolanu SR, Wang L, Li J. Genome editing in maize and sorghum: a comprehensive review of CRISPR/Cas9 and emerging technologies. Plant Genome. 2025;18:e70038. https://doi.org/10.1002/tpg2.70038
  81. 81. Bhanupriya C, Kar S. RNAi-mediated downregulation of endogenous 4-coumarate: CoA ligase activity in Sorghum bicolor to alter the lignin content, which augmented the carbohydrate content and growth. Planta. 2025;261:30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-024-04603-y
  82. 82. Koch BM, Sibbesen O, Halkier BA, Svendsen I, Møller BL. The primary sequence of cytochrome P450tyr, the multifunctional N-hydroxylase catalyzing the conversion of L-tyrosine to p-hydroxyphenylacetaldehyde oxime in the biosynthesis of the cyanogenic glucoside dhurrin in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. Arch Biochem Biophys. 1995;323(1):177–86.
  83. 83. Muleta KT, Pressoir G, Morris GP. Optimizing genomic selection for a sorghum breeding program in Haiti: a simulation study. G3 (Bethesda). 2019;9:391–401. https://doi.org/10.1534/g3.118.200932
  84. 84. Wang L, Liu Y, Gao L, Yang X, Zhang X, Xie S, et al. Identification of candidate forage yield genes in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor L.) using integrated genome-wide association studies and RNA-seq. Front Plant Sci. 2022;12:788433. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.788433
  85. 85. Kumar AV, Prashanth B, Singam P. Editing the F5H gene in Sorghum bicolor using CRISPR/Cas technology for improved abiotic stress tolerance (drought). Int J Creat Res Thoughts. 2025;13:J449–J460.
  86. 86. Santosh, Wankhade RD. Transgenic in crop improvement. In: Kadam SS, Ahmad R, Ghosh BM, editors. Innovative Research in Agricultural Science. Vol II. Kolhapur (India): Bhumi Publishing; 2025. p. 31–56.
  87. 87. Umakanth AV, Jacob J, Rajendrakumar P, Balakrishna D, Kumar V, Dhandapani B, et al. Brown midrib mutants in sorghum and their applications in renewable energy production. Front Plant Sci. 2026;17:1807795. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2026.1807795
  88. 88. Burow G, Chopra R, Sattler S, Burke J, Acosta-Martinez V, Xin Z. Deployment of SNP (CAPS and KASP) markers for allelic discrimination and easy access to functional variants for brown midrib genes BMR6 and BMR12 in Sorghum bicolor. Mol Breed. 2019;39:115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11032-019-1010-7
  89. 89. Xiao-Xia Y, Zhi-Hua L, Zhuo Y, Yue S, Xiao-Yu L. Development of SSR markers linked to low hydrocyanic acid content in sorghum-sudan grass hybrid based on BSA method. Protein Pept Lett. 2016;23:417–23. https://doi.org/10.2174/0929866523666160322153559
  90. 90. Somegowda VK, Rayaprolu L, Rathore A, Deshpande SP, Gupta R. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for traits related to fodder quality and biofuel in sorghum: progress and prospects. Protein Pept Lett. 2021;28:843–54.
  91. 91. Li J, Wang L, Bible PW, Tu W, Zheng J, Jin P, et al. A chromosome-scale genome sequence of sudangrass (Sorghum sudanense) highlights the genome evolution and regulation of dhurrin biosynthesis. Theor Appl Genet. 2023;136:60. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-023-04262-9
  92. 92. Niu H, Han Y, Ping J, Wang Y, Lv X, Chu J. Genome wide association analysis of acid detergent fiber content of 206 forage sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) accessions. Res Sq [Preprint]. 2021. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-551963/v1
  93. 93. Mace ES, Jordan DR. Integrating sorghum whole genome sequence information with a compendium of sorghum QTL studies reveals uneven distribution of QTL and of gene-rich regions with significant implications for crop improvement. Theor Appl Genet. 2011;123:169–91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-011-1575-y
  94. 94. Miao C, Xu Y, Liu S, Schnable PS, Schnable JC. Increased power and accuracy of causal locus identification in time series genome-wide association in sorghum. Plant Physiol. 2020;183:1898–909. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.20.00277
  95. 95. Somegowda VK, Prasad KV, Naravula J, Vemula A, Selvanayagam S, Rathore A, et al. Genetic dissection and quantitative trait loci mapping of agronomic and fodder quality traits in sorghum under different water regimes. Front Plant Sci. 2022;13:810632. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.810632
  96. 96. Reddy YVK, Lavanya GR, Chavan S, Gorthy S, Sargar PR, Krishna K, et al. Early-generation evaluation of marker-assisted transfer of BMR6 and BMR12 alleles into sweet and high-biomass sorghum. J Adv Biol Biotechnol. 2024;27(5):365–80. https://doi.org/10.9734/JABB/2024/v27i5795
  97. 97. Escamilla DM, Li D, Negus KL, Kappelmann KL, Kusmec A, Vanous AE, et al. Genomic selection: essence, applications and prospects. Plant Genome. 2025;18:e70053. https://doi.org/10.1002/tpg2.70053
  98. 98. Ferguson JN, Fernandes SB, Monier B, Miller ND, Allen D, Dmitrieva A, et al. Machine learning-enabled phenotyping for GWAS and TWAS of WUE traits in 869 field-grown sorghum accessions. Plant Physiol. 2021;187:1481–1500. https://doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab346
  99. 99. Chen S. Advances in molecular breeding of forage crops: technologies, applications and prospects. Agriculture. 2024;14:279. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture14020279
  100. 100. Smith A, Paliwal A, Mekonnen K, Lukuyu B, Duncan A, Arndt C, et al. Unlocking the genetic potential of grain-fodder crops in mixed farming systems: targeting sustainable production, resilience and low emissions whilst balancing trade-offs. International Livestock Research Institute; 2025.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.