Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12042860›Full record

ReviewNature biotechnology2002

Excision of selectable marker genes from transgenic plants.

Peter D Hare, Nam-Hai Chua

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature biotechnology, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 70 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
70citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

70 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Precise genetic engineering withPlant biotechnology (Tokyo, Japan) · 2023
    Article
  4. Development of marker-free insect resistant transgenic okra (Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2021
    Article
  5. An Efficient Gene Excision System in Maize.Frontiers in plant science · 2020
    Article
  6. Comparison of threePlant methods · 2020
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Gene stacking by recombinases.Plant biotechnology journal · 2016
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

10 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Peter D HareLaboratory of Plant Molecular Biology, The Rockefeller University, 1230 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, USA.
Nam-Hai Chua

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selectable marker genes are required to ensure the efficient genetic modification of crops. Economic incentives and safety concerns have prompted the development of several strategies (site-specific recombination, homologous recombination, transposition, and co-transformation) to eliminate these genes from the genome after they have fulfilled their purpose. Recently, chemically inducible site-specific recombinase systems have emerged as valuable tools for efficiently regulating the excision of transgenes when their expression is no longer required. The implementation of these strategies in crops and their further improvement will help to expedite widespread public acceptance of agricultural biotechnology

Indexed as

Gene DeletionGenetic MarkersRecombination, GeneticDNA NucleotidyltransferasesDNA Transposable ElementsGene Expression Regulation, PlantGenetic EngineeringGene Transfer TechniquesPlants, Genetically ModifiedRecombinasesTransgenesDNA NucleotidyltransferasesDNA Transposable ElementsGenetic MarkersRecombinases

Identifiers

PMID12042860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.