Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26823677›Full record

ReviewPlant methods2016

Revolutionizing plant biology: multiple ways of genome engineering by CRISPR/Cas.

Simon Schiml, Holger Puchta

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plant methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed
17.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 153 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Impact ofBiotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Accelerated Breeding forPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Genome Editing in Comfrey (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Enhancing oil production inBiotechnology for biofuels · 2019
    Article
  20. Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Simon SchimlBotanical Institute II, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, POB 6980, 76049 Karlsruhe, Germany.
Holger PuchtaBotanical Institute II, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, POB 6980, 76049 Karlsruhe, Germany.
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The precise manipulation of plant genomes relies on the induction of DNA double-strand breaks by site-specific nucleases to initiate DNA repair reactions that are either based on non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homologous recombination (HR). Recently, the CRISPR/Cas system emerged as the most important tool for genome engineering due to its simple structure and its applicability to a wide range of organisms. Here, we review the current status of its various applications in plants, where it is used for the successful generation of stable mutations in a steadily growing number of species through NHEJ. Furthermore, tremendous progress in plant genome engineering by HR was obtained by the setup of replicon mediated and in planta gene targeting techniques. Finally, other complex approaches that rely on the induction of more than one DNA lesion at a time such as paired nickases to avoid off-site effects or controlled genomic deletions are beginning to be applied routinely.

Indexed as

Double-strand break repairGene targetingGene technologySynthetic nucleasesTargeted mutagenesis

Identifiers

PMID26823677
PMCPMC4730597
OpenAlexW2292151428

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.