Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35000100›Full record

ReviewTransgenic research2022

Towards progressive regulatory approaches for agricultural applications of animal biotechnology.

Eric M Hallerman, Justin P Bredlau, Luiz Sergio A Camargo, Maria Lucia Zaidan Dagli, Margaret Karembu, Godfrey Ngure, Rhodora Romero-Aldemita, Pedro Jesús Rocha-Salavarrieta, Mark Tizard, Mark Walton and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Transgenic research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Genome-Edited Fish in the Field.Current issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Review
  3. Review
  4. 3 Biotech · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Perspectives in Genome-Editing Techniques for Livestock.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Eric M HallermanVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA. ehallerm@vt.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5839-858X
Justin P BredlauU.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6722-9764
Luiz Sergio A CamargoEMBRAPA-Brazilian Agricultural Research Corporation, Juiz de Fora, MG, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-9974-711X
Maria Lucia Zaidan DagliSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of Sao Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0001-7031-6711
Margaret KarembuInternational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications AfriCenter, Nairobi, Kenya.
Godfrey NgureInternational Service for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications AfriCenter, Nairobi, Kenya.
Rhodora Romero-AldemitaISAAA SEAsia Center, Los Banos, Philippines.
Pedro Jesús Rocha-SalavarrietaInterAmerican Institute for Cooperation On Agriculture, San José, Costa Rica.ORCID 0000-0001-7098-8323
Mark TizardCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Geelong, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8421-2497
Mark WaltonAquaBounty, Maynard, MA, USA.
Diane Wray-CahenU.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2123-2711
Africa International University · KEBrazilian Agricultural Research Corporation · BRCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation · AUIberoamerican University · CRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRVirginia Tech · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional breeding techniques, applied incrementally over thousands of years, have yielded huge benefits in the characteristics of agricultural animals. This is a result of significant, measurable changes to the genomes of those animal species and breeds. Genome editing techniques may now be applied to achieve targeted DNA sequence alterations, with the potential to affect traits of interest to production of agricultural animals in just one generation. New opportunities arise to improve characteristics difficult to achieve or not amenable to traditional breeding, including disease resistance, and traits that can improve animal welfare, reduce environmental impact, or mitigate impacts of climate change. Countries and supranational institutions are in the process of defining regulatory approaches for genome edited animals and can benefit from sharing approaches and experiences to institute progressive policies in which regulatory oversight is scaled to the particular level of risk involved. To facilitate information sharing and discussion on animal biotechnology, an international community of researchers, developers, breeders, regulators, and communicators recently held a series of seven virtual workshop sessions on applications of biotechnology for animal agriculture, food and environmental safety assessment, regulatory approaches, and market and consumer acceptance. In this report, we summarize the topics presented in the workshop sessions, as well as discussions coming out of the breakout sessions. This is framed within the context of past and recent scientific and regulatory developments. This is a pivotal moment for determination of regulatory approaches and establishment of trust across the innovation through-chain, from researchers, developers, regulators, breeders, farmers through to consumers.

Indexed as

Crops, AgriculturalPlant BreedingAgricultureAnimalsBiotechnologyGene EditingGenetic engineeringGenetic modificationGenome editingInternational tradeLivestockPublic acceptancePublic policyRegulatory cooperation

Identifiers

PMID35000100
PMCPMC8742713
OpenAlexW4206760884

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.