Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33712738›Full record

ReviewNature nanotechnology2021

Nanotechnology to advance CRISPR-Cas genetic engineering of plants.

Gozde S Demirer, Tallyta N Silva, Christopher T Jackson, Jason B Thomas, David W Ehrhardt, Seung Y Rhee, Jenny C Mortimer, Markita P Landry

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature nanotechnology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 97 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
97citing 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

97 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. 80 years of extracellular vesicles: from discovery to clinical translation.Extracellular vesicles and circulating nucleic acids · 2026
    Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

37 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

8 authors.

Gozde S DemirerDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. gsultandemirer@gmail.com.
Tallyta N SilvaJoint BioEnergy Institute, Feedstocks Division, Emeryville, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0582-4781
Christopher T JacksonDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7177-1203
Jason B ThomasDepartment of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7801-9006
David W EhrhardtDepartment of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA, USA.
Seung Y RheeDepartment of Plant Biology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, CA, USA. srhee@carnegiescience.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7572-4762
Jenny C MortimerJoint BioEnergy Institute, Feedstocks Division, Emeryville, CA, USA. jcmortimer@lbl.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6624-636X
Markita P LandryDepartment of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA. landry@berkeley.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5832-8522

Funding

Single-Molecule Imaging of Biological Trauma:Cytokine-Based Intracellular CommunicationR35GM128922 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI LANDRY, MARKITA · 2019 to 2023
$2.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM128922
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CRISPR-Cas genetic engineering of plants holds tremendous potential for providing food security, battling biotic and abiotic crop stresses caused by climate change, and for environmental remediation and sustainability. Since the discovery of CRISPR-Cas technology, its usefulness has been demonstrated widely, including for genome editing in plants. Despite the revolutionary nature of genome-editing tools and the notable progress that these tools have enabled in plant genetic engineering, there remain many challenges for CRISPR applications in plant biotechnology. Nanomaterials could address some of the most critical challenges of CRISPR genome editing in plants through improvements in cargo delivery, species independence, germline transformation and gene editing efficiency. This Perspective identifies major barriers preventing CRISPR-mediated plant genetic engineering from reaching its full potential, and discusses ways that nanoparticle technologies can lower or eliminate these barriers. We also describe advances that are needed in nanotechnology to facilitate and accelerate plant genome editing. Timely advancement of the application of CRISPR technologies in plant engineering is crucial for our ability to feed and sustain the growing human population under a changing global climate.

Indexed as

Gene EditingCRISPR-Cas SystemsGenome, PlantNanotechnologyPlants, Genetically Modified

Identifiers

PMID33712738
PMCPMC10461802

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.