ReviewGenes2020
Transforming Ocean Conservation: Applying the Genetic Rescue Toolkit.
Review in Genes, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 57 citations in OpenAlex.
- Putting Structural Variants Into Practice: The Role of Chromosomal Inversions in the Management of Marine Environments.Molecular ecology · 2025Review
- Computer-Aided Drug Design Across Breast Cancer Subtypes: Methods, Applications and Translational Outlook.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Mining coral-derived terpene synthases and mechanistic studies of the coral biflorane synthase.Science advances · 2025Article
- Population genomics of eastern oysters, Crassostrea virginica, in a well-mixed estuarine system: advancement and implications for restoration strategies.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Advancing the protection of marine life through genomics.PLoS biology · 2022Article
- The shrunk genetic diversity of coral populations in North-Central Patagonia calls for management and conservation plans for marine resources.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Charting a course for genetic diversity in the UN Decade of Ocean Science.Evolutionary applications · 2021Article
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 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although oceans provide critical ecosystem services and support the most abundant populations on earth, the extent of damage impacting oceans and the diversity of strategies to protect them is disconcertingly, and disproportionately, understudied. While conventional modes of conservation have made strides in mitigating impacts of human activities on ocean ecosystems, those strategies alone cannot completely stem the tide of mounting threats. Biotechnology and genomic research should be harnessed and developed within conservation frameworks to foster the persistence of viable ocean ecosystems. This document distills the results of a targeted survey, the Ocean Genomics Horizon Scan, which assessed opportunities to bring novel genetic rescue tools to marine conservation. From this Horizon Scan, we have identified how novel approaches from synthetic biology and genomics can alleviate major marine threats. While ethical frameworks for biotechnological interventions are necessary for effective and responsible practice, here we primarily assessed technological and social factors directly affecting technical development and deployment of biotechnology interventions for marine conservation. Genetic insight can greatly enhance established conservation methods, but the severity of many threats may demand genomic intervention. While intervention is controversial, for many marine areas the cost of inaction is too high to allow controversy to be a barrier to conserving viable ecosystems. Here, we offer a set of recommendations for engagement and program development to deploy genetic rescue safely and responsibly.
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.