ArticleGM crops & food2018
Lack of efficacy of transgenic pea (Pisum sativum L.) stably expressing antifungal genes against Fusarium spp. in three years of confined field trials.
Article in GM crops & food, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional gene stacking as a strategy to improve chickpea resistance to Ascochyta blight.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Antifungal Properties of Bio-AgNPs againstInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Genomics Enabled Breeding Strategies for Major Biotic Stresses in Pea (Frontiers in plant science · 2022Review
- Gene-Editing Technologies and Applications in Legumes: Progress, Evolution, and Future Prospects.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
- Omics resources and omics-enabled approaches for achieving high productivity and improved quality in pea (Pisum sativum L.).TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2021Review
- Confirmation of Fusarium root rot resistance QTL Fsp-Ps 2.1 of pea under controlled conditions.BMC plant biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fusarium root rot is a major pea disease in Canada and only partial tolerance exists in germplasm. Transgenic technologies may hold promise but the economic benefits of genetically modified (GM) pea will need to surpass the regulatory costs, time and labor involved in bringing a GM crop to market. European pea (Pisum sativum L.) cultivars expressing four antifungal genes, 1-3 β glucanase (G), endochitinase (C) (belonging to PR proteins family), polygalacturonase inhibiting proteins (PGIPs) (P) and stilbene synthase (V) have been transformed for disease tolerance and showed disease tolerance under laboratory conditions. Transgenic lines with four antifungal genes inserted either individually or stacked through crossing were tested for their efficacy against Fusarium root rot (Fusarium avenaceum) in confined trials over three years (2013 to 2015) in comparison with two parental German lines and three Canadian lines. Superior emergence, higher fresh weight or lower disease ratings above and below ground, of transgenic lines in presence of disease inoculum were not observed consistently in the three years of field experiments when compared to the parental and Canadian lines in the presence of disease inoculum. No indication of an advantage of stacked genes over single genes was observed. Most transgenic lines had lower relative gene expression in the roots than in the leaves in greenhouse trials suggesting a possible explanation for poor tolerance to Fusarium root rot. Field trials are necessary to verify the agronomic performance and ecological relevance of the promising effects detected under laboratory conditions.
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.