Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32793272›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2020

CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing: An Unexplored Frontier for Forest Pathology.

Erika N Dort, Philippe Tanguay, Richard C Hamelin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing 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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Establishment of CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing inJournal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Targeted Gene Mutations in the Forest PathogenPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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.

Erika N DortDepartment of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Philippe TanguayLaurentian Forestry Centre, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, Québec, QC, Canada.
Richard C HamelinDepartment of Forest and Conservation Sciences, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology has taken the scientific community by storm since its development in 2012. First discovered in 1987, CRISPR/Cas systems act as an adaptive immune response in archaea and bacteria that defends against invading bacteriophages and plasmids. CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology modifies this immune response to function in eukaryotic cells as a highly specific, RNA-guided complex that can edit almost any genetic target. This technology has applications in all biological fields, including plant pathology. However, examples of its use in forest pathology are essentially nonexistent. The aim of this review is to give researchers a deeper understanding of the native CRISPR/Cas systems and how they were adapted into the CRISPR/Cas9 technology used today in plant pathology-this information is crucial for researchers aiming to use this technology in the pathosystems they study. We review the current applications of CRISPR/Cas9 in plant pathology and propose future directions for research in forest pathosystems where this technology is currently underutilized.

Indexed as

Dutch elm disease (DED)filamentous pathogensforest diseasespoplar rustsudden oak death (SOD)tree disease resistancewhite pine blister rust (WPBR)

Identifiers

PMID32793272
PMCPMC7387688

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.