ArticleFrontiers in genome editing2022
Principles of Nanoparticle Design for Genome Editing in Plants.
Article 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Calcium Alginate-Based Hydrogel-Encapsulated Nutrients and Nucleic Acid Delivery for Ameliorating Saline-Alkali Stress in Plants.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Form and Function: The Factors That Influence the Efficacy of Nanomaterials for Gene Transfer to Plants.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Advances in nanomaterial-mediated CRISPR/Cas delivery: from lipid nanoparticles to vesicle-derived systems.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Can nanotechnology and genomics innovations trigger agricultural revolution and sustainable development?Functional & integrative genomics · 2024Review
- Review
- CRISPR/Cas9 Technique for Temperature, Drought, and Salinity Stress Responses.Current issues in molecular biology · 2022Review
- Plant biomacromolecule delivery methods in the 21st century.Frontiers in genome editing · 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precise plant genome editing technologies have provided new opportunities to accelerate crop improvement and develop more sustainable agricultural systems. In particular, the prokaryote-derived CRISPR platforms allow precise manipulation of the crop genome, enabling the generation of high-yielding and stress-tolerant crop varieties. Nanotechnology has the potential to catalyze the development of a novel molecular toolbox even further by introducing the possibility of a rapid, universal delivery method to edit the plant genome in a species-independent manner. In this Perspective, we highlight how nanoparticles can help unlock the full potential of CRISPR/Cas technology in targeted manipulation of the plant genome to improve agricultural output. We discuss current challenges hampering progress in nanoparticle-enabled plant gene-editing research and application in the field, and highlight how rational nanoparticle design can overcome them. Finally, we examine the implications of the regulatory frameworks and social acceptance for the future of nano-enabled precision breeding in the developing world.
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.