Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34086167›Full record

ReviewTransgenic research2021

Sequence modification on demand: search and replace tools for precise gene editing in plants.

Tomáš Čermák

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Transgenic research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 31% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Preface: Genome editing in plants.Transgenic research · 2021
    Article
  7. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tomáš ČermákInari Agriculture, Inc., Cambridge, MA, USA. tcermak@inari.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3285-0320
Inari Agriculture (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Until recently, our ability to generate allelic diversity in plants was limited to introduction of variants from domesticated and wild species by breeding via uncontrolled recombination or the use of chemical and physical mutagens-processes that are lengthy and costly or lack specificity, respectively. Gene editing provides a faster and more precise way to create new variation, although its application in plants has been dominated by the creation of short insertion and deletion mutations leading to loss of gene function, mostly due to the dependence of editing outcomes on DNA repair pathway choices intrinsic to higher eukaryotes. Other types of edits such as point mutations and precise and pre-designed targeted sequence insertions have rarely been implemented, despite providing means to modulate the expression of target genes or to engineer the function and stability of their protein products. Several advancements have been developed in recent years to facilitate custom editing by regulation of repair pathway choices or by taking advantage of alternative types of DNA repair. We have seen the advent of novel gene editing tools that are independent of DNA double-strand break repair, and methods completely independent of host DNA repair processes are being increasingly explored. With the aim to provide a comprehensive review of the state-of-the-art methodology for allele replacement in plants, I discuss the adoption of these improvements for plant genome engineering.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsDNA RepairGene EditingGenome, PlantEndonucleasesGene TargetingPlant BreedingPlantsPlants, Genetically ModifiedEndonucleasesAllele replacementBase editingCRISPRGene targetingPrecise gene editingPrime editing

Identifiers

PMID34086167
OpenAlexW3165562852

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.