ArticleNature biotechnology2016
Regulate genome-edited products, not genome editing itself.
Article in Nature biotechnology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The ethics of genome editing in non-human animals: a systematic review of reasons reported in the academic literature.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2019Pooled it
- Seizing the policy moment in crop biotech regulation: an interdisciplinary response to the Executive Order on biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- High-throughput methods for genome editing: the more the better.Plant physiology · 2022Review
- Advances in Crop Breeding Through Precision Genome Editing.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Genomic and phenotypic analyses of six offspring of a genome-edited hornless bull.Nature biotechnology · 2020Article
- Meeting report of the OECD conference on "Genome Editing: Applications in Agriculture-Implications for Health, Environment and Regulation".Transgenic research · 2019Article
- Application of genome editing in farm animals: cattle.Transgenic research · 2019Article
- Global developments of genome editing in agriculture.Transgenic research · 2019Article
- Proposed U.S. regulation of gene-edited food animals is not fit for purpose.NPJ science of food · 2019Review
- A large-scale whole-genome sequencing analysis reveals highly specific genome editing by both Cas9 and Cpf1 (Cas12a) nucleases in rice.Genome biology · 2018Article
- The evolution of CRISPR/Cas9 and their cousins: hope or hype?Biotechnology letters · 2018Review
- Genome Editing: Past, Present, and Future.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2017Review
- The EU legislation on "GMOs" between nonsense and protectionism: An ongoing Schumpeterian chain of public choices.GM crops & food · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27153273What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.