Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28712492›Full record

ReviewProgress in molecular biology and translational science2017

Genome Engineering and Agriculture: Opportunities and Challenges.

Nicholas J Baltes, Javier Gil-Humanes, Daniel F Voytas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Progress in molecular biology and translational science, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. CRISPR/Cas9 editing ofFrontiers in plant science · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. The Promising Nanovectors for Gene Delivery in Plant Genome Engineering.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Efficient Transient Expression of Plasmid DNA Using Poly (2-(Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

3 authors.

Nicholas J BaltesCalyxt, Inc., New Brighton, MN, United States. Electronic address: nbaltes@calyxt.com.
Javier Gil-HumanesCalyxt, Inc., New Brighton, MN, United States.
Daniel F VoytasCalyxt, Inc., New Brighton, MN, United States.

Funding

TRAINING FOR FUTURE BIOTECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENTT32GM008347 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI SCHMIDT-DANNERT, CLAUDIA · 1990 to 2021
$11.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008347
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, plant biotechnology has witnessed unprecedented technological change. Advances in high-throughput sequencing technologies have provided insight into the location and structure of functional elements within plant DNA. At the same time, improvements in genome engineering tools have enabled unprecedented control over genetic material. These technologies, combined with a growing understanding of plant systems biology, will irrevocably alter the way we create new crop varieties. As the first wave of genome-edited products emerge, we are just getting a glimpse of the immense opportunities the technology provides. We are also seeing its challenges and limitations. It is clear that genome editing will play an increased role in crop improvement and will help us to achieve food security in the coming decades; however, certain challenges and limitations must be overcome to realize the technology's full potential.

Indexed as

AgricultureGenetic EngineeringGenome, PlantFoodPlantsRNA EditingAgricultureCRISPRFood productionGenome editingGenome engineeringMeganucleaseQuality traitsTALENTransformationZinc-finger nuclease

Identifiers

PMID28712492
PMCPMC8409219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.