Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36077206›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2022

Optimization of Prime Editing in Rice, Peanut, Chickpea, and Cowpea Protoplasts by Restoration of GFP Activity.

Sudip Biswas, Aya Bridgeland, Samra Irum, Michael J Thomson, Endang M Septiningsih

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

29 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Genome editing in grain legumes for food security.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025
    Review
  18. Progress in genetic engineering and genome editing of peanuts: revealing the future of crop improvement.Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2024
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sudip BiswasDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8062-2149
Aya BridgelandDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Samra IrumDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.
Michael J ThomsonDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1868-6867
Endang M SeptiningsihDepartment of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9481-304X
Texas A&M University · USInternational Islamic University, Islamabad · PK

Funding

Texas A&M AgriLife Research NAUnited States Department of Agriculture 2020-67013-31811
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Precise editing of the plant genome has long been desired for functional genomic research and crop breeding. Prime editing is a newly developed precise editing technology based on CRISPR-Cas9, which uses an engineered reverse transcriptase (RT), a catalytically impaired Cas9 endonuclease (nCas9), and a prime editing guide RNA (pegRNA). In addition, prime editing has a wider range of editing types than base editing and can produce nearly all types of edits. Although prime editing was first established in human cells, it has recently been applied to plants. As a relatively new technique, optimization will be needed to increase the editing efficiency in different crops. In this study, we successfully edited a mutant GFP in rice, peanut, chickpea, and cowpea protoplasts. In rice, up to 16 times higher editing efficiency was achieved with a dual pegRNA than the single pegRNA containing vectors. Edited-mutant GFP protoplasts have also been obtained in peanut, chickpea, and cowpea after transformation with the dual pegRNA vectors, albeit with much lower editing efficiency than in rice, ranging from 0.2% to 0.5%. These initial results promise to expedite the application of prime editing in legume breeding programs to accelerate crop improvement.

Indexed as

CicerOryzaVignaArachisCRISPR-Cas SystemsCrops, AgriculturalGene EditingGenome, PlantHumansPlant BreedingProtoplastsRNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas SystemsRNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas SystemsCRISPR-Cas9dual pegRNAediting efficiencylegumemutant GFPprime editing

Identifiers

PMID36077206
PMCPMC9456013
OpenAlexW4293723920

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.