ReviewGM crops & food2017
Genome editing of crops: A renewed opportunity for food security.
Review in GM crops & food, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.
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
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genetically modified crops and sustainable development: navigating challenges and opportunities.Food science and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Advancements in Plant Gene Editing Technology: From Construct Design to Enhanced Transformation Efficiency.Biotechnology journal · 2024Review
- Exploring the landscape of public attitudes towards gene-edited foods in Japan.Breeding science · 2024Article
- Article
- Current trends in management of bacterial pathogens infecting plants.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek · 2023Review
- Feeding the world: impacts of elevated [COHorticulture research · 2023Article
- MicroRNA miR171b Positively Regulates Resistance to Huanglongbing of Citrus.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Evolutionary Analysis ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Potentials of genotypes, morpho-physio-biochemical traits, and growing media on shelf life and future prospects of gene editing in tomatoes.Frontiers in genome editing · 2023Article
- GMOs or non-GMOs? The CRISPR Conundrum.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Methods of crop improvement and applications towards fortifying food security.Frontiers in genome editing · 2023Review
- Application of CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing for abiotic stress management in crop plants.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Identifying genes associated with abiotic stress tolerance suitable for CRISPR/Cas9 editing in upland rice cultivars adapted to acid soils.Plant direct · 2022Article
- Transgenic Improvement for Biotic Resistance of Crops.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Review
- Article
- Fruit Development in Sweet Cherry.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Genome Editing and Designer Crops for the Future.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Canadian Consumer Preferences Regarding Gene-Edited Food Products.Frontiers in genome editing · 2022Article
- Improving Drought Stress Tolerance in Ramie (Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome editing of crop plants is a rapidly advancing technology whereby targeted mutations can be introduced into a plant genome in a highly specific manner and with great precision. For the most part, the technology does not incorporate transgenic modifications and is far superior to conventional chemical mutagenesis. In this study we bring into focus some of the underlying differences between the 3 existing technologies: classical plant breeding, genetic modification and genome editing. We discuss some of the main achievements from each area and highlight their common characteristics and individual limitations, while emphasizing the unique capabilities of genome editing. We subsequently examine the possible regulatory mechanisms which governments may be inclined to use in assessing the status of genome edited products. If assessed on the basis of their phenotype rather than the process by which they are obtained, these products will be categorized as equivalent to those produced by classical mutagenesis. This would mean that genome edited products will not be subject to the restrictions imposed on genetically modified products, except in some cases where the mutation involves a large sequence insertion into the genome. We conclude by examining the potential of societal acceptance of genome editing technology, reinforced by a scientific perspective on promoting such acceptance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.