Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34834702›Full record

ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Development and Adoption of Genetically Engineered Plants for Virus Resistance: Advances, Opportunities and Challenges.

Prakash M Niraula, Vincent N Fondong

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. DNA Satellites Impact Begomovirus Diseases in a Virus-Specific Manner.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. [Developmental toxicity of Cry1Ab protein in the embryonic stem-cell model].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Prakash M NiraulaDepartment of Biological Sciences, Delaware State University, Dover, DE 19901, USA.
Vincent N FondongDepartment of Biological Sciences, Delaware State University, Dover, DE 19901, USA.
Delaware State University · US

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture NIFA #2020-67018-31180
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Plant viruses cause yield losses to crops of agronomic and economic significance and are a challenge to the achievement of global food security. Although conventional plant breeding has played an important role in managing plant viral diseases, it will unlikely meet the challenges posed by the frequent emergence of novel and more virulent viral species or viral strains. Hence there is an urgent need to seek alternative strategies of virus control that can be more readily deployed to contain viral diseases. The discovery in the late 1980s that viral genes can be introduced into plants to engineer resistance to the cognate virus provided a new avenue for virus disease control. Subsequent advances in genomics and biotechnology have led to the refinement and expansion of genetic engineering (GE) strategies in crop improvement. Importantly, many of the drawbacks of conventional breeding, such as long lead times, inability or difficulty to cross fertilize, loss of desirable plant traits, are overcome by GE. Unfortunately, public skepticism towards genetically modified (GM) crops and other factors have dampened the early promise of GE efforts. These concerns are principally about the possible negative effects of transgenes to humans and animals, as well as to the environment. However, with regards to engineering for virus resistance, these risks are overstated given that most virus resistance engineering strategies involve transfer of viral genes or genomic segments to plants. These viral genomes are found in infected plant cells and have not been associated with any adverse effects in humans or animals. Thus, integrating antiviral genes of virus origin into plant genomes is hardly unnatural as suggested by GM crop skeptics. Moreover, advances in deep sequencing have resulted in the sequencing of large numbers of plant genomes and the revelation of widespread endogenization of viral genomes into plant genomes. This has raised the possibility that viral genome endogenization is part of an antiviral defense mechanism deployed by the plant during its evolutionary past. Thus, GM crops engineered for viral resistance would likely be acceptable to the public if regulatory policies were product-based (the North America regulatory model), as opposed to process-based. This review discusses some of the benefits to be gained from adopting GE for virus resistance, as well as the challenges that must be overcome to leverage this technology. Furthermore, regulatory policies impacting virus-resistant GM crops and some success cases of virus-resistant GM crops approved so far for cultivation are discussed.

Indexed as

genetically engineered (GE)genetically engineered organism (GMO)regulation of GMOsvirus-resistant transgenic crops

Identifiers

PMID34834702
PMCPMC8623320
OpenAlexW3210541535

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.