Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26357840›Full record

ArticleGM crops & food2015

CRISPRing into the woods.

Chung-Jui Tsai, Liang-Jiao Xue

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GM crops & food, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Engineering custom morpho- and chemotypes ofFrontiers in plant science · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Implementing the CRISPR/Cas9 Technology inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Chung-Jui Tsaia Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, and Department of Genetics; University of Georgia ; Athens , GA USA.
Liang-Jiao Xuea Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, and Department of Genetics; University of Georgia ; Athens , GA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The CRISPR/Cas9 technology is a welcome breakthrough for genome editing, owing to its precision, efficiency, versatility and ease of adoption. We recently reported the first application of CRISPR/Cas9 for biallelic mutations in stably transformed Populus, extending the species range of this powerful technology to woody perennials. An underappreciated obstacle in genome editing of outcrossing species is the frequent occurrence of sequence polymorphisms that can render CRISPR/Cas9 unproductive. We discuss experimental evidence as well as genome-wide computational analysis to demonstrate the sensitivity of CRISPR/Cas9 to allelic heterozygosity, and highlight tools and strategies that can help deal with such sequence polymorphisms. With its specificity, CRISPR/Cas9 offers a less equivocal means than previous approaches for discerning functional redundancy of paralogous genes that are prevalent in plant genomes. Continuing improvements of the CRISPR/Cas9 system for multiplex genome engineering should facilitate these efforts. The paradigm shift brought about by CRISPR/Cas9 promises to accelerate not only basic research but also applied crop improvement progress.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGenome, PlantGenetic EngineeringHeterozygotePlants, Genetically ModifiedPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePopulusbiallelic mutationbreedingflavonoidgenome editingheterozygousligninPopulussingle nucleotide polymorphism

Identifiers

PMID26357840
PMCPMC5033219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.