ReviewFrontiers in genome editing2022
Natural and artificial sources of genetic variation used in crop breeding: A baseline comparator for genome editing.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- Plant Genetic Engineering: Technological Pathways, Application Scenarios, and Future Directions.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Evolution of the Canadian regulatory system for plant biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Beautiful and delicious mutants: The origins, fates, and benefits of molecular sequence variation in plant evolution and breeding.Plant physiology · 2025Review
- Accounting for ALA Natural Mutations Enhances the Efficiency of Graphene Oxide Nanopriming in Bar-Modified Arabidopsis.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Evaluating Consumer Perceptions and Safety of Genetically Modified Foods in Africa: A Comprehensive Review.Food science & nutrition · 2025Review
- Micronutrient Biofortification in Wheat: QTLs, Candidate Genes and Molecular Mechanism.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Genome editing in Sub-Saharan Africa: a game-changing strategy for climate change mitigation and sustainable agriculture.GM crops & food · 2024Review
- Breeding for improved digestibility and processing of lignocellulosic biomass inFrontiers in plant science · 2024Review
- Reproducibility of next-generation-sequencing-based analysis of a CRISPR/Cas9 genome edited oil seed rape.Food chemistry. Molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Regulation of plants developed through new breeding techniques must ensure societal benefits.Nature plants · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional breeding has successfully selected beneficial traits for food, feed, and fibre crops over the last several thousand years. The last century has seen significant technological advancements particularly in marker assisted selection and the generation of induced genetic variation, including over the last few decades, through mutation breeding, genetic modification, and genome editing. While regulatory frameworks for traditional varietal development and for genetic modification with transgenes are broadly established, those for genome editing are lacking or are still evolving in many regions. In particular, the lack of "foreign" recombinant DNA in genome edited plants and that the resulting SNPs or INDELs are indistinguishable from those seen in traditional breeding has challenged development of new legislation. Where products of genome editing and other novel breeding technologies possess no transgenes and could have been generated
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.