ArticlePeerJ2019
Gene drives as a new quality in GMO releases-a comparative technology characterization.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Insect allies-Assessment of a viral approach to plant genome editing.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2022Review
- Review
- Adequacy and sufficiency evaluation of existing EFSA guidelines for the molecular characterisation, environmental risk assessment and post-market environmental monitoring of genetically modified insects containing engineered gene drives.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2020Article
- Spatiotemporal Controllability and Environmental Risk Assessment of Genetically Engineered Gene Drive Organisms from the Perspective of European Union Genetically Modified Organism Regulation.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2020Review
- Using problem formulation for fit-for-purpose pre-market environmental risk assessments of regulated stressors.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019Article
- The Need for a Tiered Registry for US Gene Drive Governance.Health securityArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Compared to previous releases of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) which were primarily plants, gene drives represent a paradigm shift in the handling of GMOs: Current regulation of the release of GMOs assumes that for specific periods of time a certain amount of GMOs will be released in a particular region. However, now a type of genetic technology arises whose innermost principle lies in exceeding these limits-the transformation or even eradication of wild populations. The invasive character of gene drives demands a thorough analysis of their functionalities, reliability and potential impact. But such investigations are hindered by the fact that an experimental field test would hardly be reversible. Therefore, an appropriate prospective assessment is of utmost importance for an estimation of the risk potential associated with the application of gene drives. This work is meant to support the inevitable characterization of gene drives by a comparative approach of prospective technology assessment with a focus on potential sources of risk. Therein, the hazard and exposure potential as well as uncertainties with regard to the performance of synthetic gene drives are addressed. Moreover, a quantitative analysis of their invasiveness should enable a differentiated evaluation of their power to transform wild populations.
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.