ArticleTransgenic research2017
Genome edited animals: Learning from GM crops?
Article in Transgenic research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Editorial: Technological strategies to improve animal health and production.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Article
- Genome Editing and Protein Energy Malnutrition.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023Article
- Lessons learned from the introduction of genetically engineered crops: relevance to gene drive deployment in Africa.Transgenic research · 2022Review
- Potentials, prospects and applications of genome editing technologies in livestock production.Saudi journal of biological sciences · 2022Review
- The social aspects of genome editing: publics as stakeholders, populations and participants in animal research.Laboratory animals · 2022Article
- Regulatory frameworks can facilitate or hinder the potential for genome editing to contribute to sustainable agricultural development.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Article
- Public Perceptions Regarding Genomic Technologies Applied to Breeding Farm Animals: A Qualitative Study.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2021Article
- Improvement of Disease Resistance in Livestock: Application of Immunogenomics and CRISPR/Cas9 Technology.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Review
- Harnessing genomics to fast-track genetic improvement in aquaculture.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2020Review
- Article
- Proposed U.S. regulation of gene-edited food animals is not fit for purpose.NPJ science of food · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome editing of livestock is poised to become commercial reality, yet questions remain as to appropriate regulation, potential impact on the industry sector and public acceptability of products. This paper looks at how genome editing of livestock has attempted to learn some of the lessons from commercialisation of GM crops, and takes a systemic approach to explore some of the complexity and ambiguity in incorporating genome edited animals in a food production system. Current applications of genome editing are considered, viewed from the perspective of past technological applications. The question of what is genome editing, and can it be considered natural is examined. The implications of regulation on development of different sectors of livestock production systems are studied, with a particular focus on the veterinary sector. From an EU perspective, regulation of genome edited animals, although not necessarily the same as for GM crops, is advocated from a number of different perspectives. This paper aims to open up new avenues of research on genome edited animals, extending from the current primary focus on science and regulation, to engage with a wider-range of food system actors.
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.