Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33384412›Full record

ReviewHorticulture research2021

Can gene editing reduce postharvest waste and loss of fruit, vegetables, and ornamentals?

Emma N Shipman, Jingwei Yu, Jiaqi Zhou, Karin Albornoz, Diane M Beckles

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Horticulture research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  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

5 authors.

Emma N ShipmanDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. enshipman@ucdavis.edu.
Jingwei YuDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. jwyyu@ucdavis.edu.
Jiaqi ZhouDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. jiqzhou@ucdavis.edu.
Karin AlbornozDepartamento de Produccion Vegetal, Universidad de Concepcion, Region del BioBio, Concepcion, Chile. karinalbornoz@udec.cl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0483-4323
Diane M BecklesDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California, Davis, CA, 95616, USA. dmbeckles@ucdavis.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6336-1186

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Postharvest waste and loss of horticultural crops exacerbates the agricultural problems facing humankind and will continue to do so in the next decade. Fruits and vegetables provide us with a vast spectrum of healthful nutrients, and along with ornamentals, enrich our lives with a wide array of pleasant sensory experiences. These commodities are, however, highly perishable. Approximately 33% of the produce that is harvested is never consumed since these products naturally have a short shelf-life, which leads to postharvest loss and waste. This loss, however, could be reduced by breeding new crops that retain desirable traits and accrue less damage over the course of long supply chains. New gene-editing tools promise the rapid and inexpensive production of new varieties of crops with enhanced traits more easily than was previously possible. Our aim in this review is to critically evaluate gene editing as a tool to modify the biological pathways that determine fruit, vegetable, and ornamental quality, especially after storage. We provide brief and accessible overviews of both the CRISPR-Cas9 method and the produce supply chain. Next, we survey the literature of the last 30 years, to catalog genes that control or regulate quality or senescence traits that are "ripe" for gene editing. Finally, we discuss barriers to implementing gene editing for postharvest, from the limitations of experimental methods to international policy. We conclude that in spite of the hurdles that remain, gene editing of produce and ornamentals will likely have a measurable impact on reducing postharvest loss and waste in the next 5-10 years.

Identifiers

PMID33384412
PMCPMC7775472

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.