ReviewFrontiers in genome editing2022
Genome Editing for Improving Crop Nutrition.
Review in Frontiers in genome editing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPR/Cas9-mediated knockout ofFrontiers in genome editing · 2026Article
- Enhancing tomato quality, high sugar content and GABA accumulation, with mutations in ESKs and GAD3 genes.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Integrating molecular genetics with plant breeding to deliver impact.Plant physiology · 2025Review
- Genetic dissection of nutrient element enrichment inFrontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- The Global Advance of Genome-Edited Plants to the Market: The Key Role of Chile in Its Development.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Accumulation of Anthocyanin in the Aleurone of Barley Grains by Targeted Restoration of theInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Q&A: Methods for estimating genetic gain in sub-Saharan Africa and achieving improved gains.The plant genome · 2024Article
- Scarless genome editing technology and its application to crop improvement.Breeding science · 2024Article
- Application of CRISPR/Cas-based gene-editing for developing better banana.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Navigating biosafety regulatory frameworks for genetic engineering in Africa: a focus on genome editing and gene drive technologies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2024Article
- CRISPR/Cas9-mediated disruption of CjACOS5 confers no-pollen formation on sugi trees (Cryptomeria japonica D. Don).Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Overcoming Difficulties in Molecular Biological Analysis through a Combination of Genetic Engineering, Genome Editing, and Genome Analysis in HexaploidPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- CRISPR technology towards genome editing of the perennial and semi-perennial crops citrus, coffee and sugarcane.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Review
- Article
- Applications of In Vitro Tissue Culture Technologies in Breeding and Genetic Improvement of Wheat.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- CRISPR/Cas9 Technique for Temperature, Drought, and Salinity Stress Responses.Current issues in molecular biology · 2022Review
- CRISPR-Based Genome Editing for Nutrient Enrichment in Crops: A Promising Approach Toward Global Food Security.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome editing technologies, including CRISPR/Cas9 and TALEN, are excellent genetic modification techniques and are being proven to be powerful tools not only in the field of basic science but also in the field of crop breeding. Recently, two genome-edited crops targeted for nutritional improvement, high GABA tomatoes and high oleic acid soybeans, have been released to the market. Nutritional improvement in cultivated crops has been a major target of conventional genetic modification technologies as well as classical breeding methods. Mutations created by genome editing are considered to be almost identical to spontaneous genetic mutations because the mutation inducer, the transformed foreign gene, can be completely eliminated from the final genome-edited hosts after causing the mutation. Therefore, genome-edited crops are expected to be relatively easy to supply to the market, unlike GMO crops. On the other hand, due to their technical feature, the main goal of current genome-edited crop creation is often the total or partial disruption of genes rather than gene delivery. Therefore, to obtain the desired trait using genome editing technology, in some cases, a different approach from that of genetic recombination technology may be required. In this mini-review, we will review several nutritional traits in crops that have been considered suitable targets for genome editing, including the two examples mentioned above, and discuss how genome editing technology can be an effective breeding technology for improving nutritional traits in crops.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.