ArticleiScience2022
The future of CRISPR gene editing according to plant scientists.
Article in iScience, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPR genome editing in food and feed crops: intellectual property challenges, global accessibility, and the Indian perspective.Transgenic research · 2026Review
- Wheat's Up with CRISPR-Cas-Current Advances, Obstacles and Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Geminivirus-derived replicons: assessment for transient GFP expression in tobacco and tomato.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Article
- CRISPR-Cas9 based molecular breeding in crop plants: a review.Molecular biology reports · 2024Review
- Recent Trends and Advancements in CRISPR-Based Tools for Enhancing Resistance against Plant Pathogens.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study surveyed 669 plant scientists globally to elicit how (which outcomes of gene editing), where (which continent) and what (which crops) are most likely to benefit from CRISPR research and if there is a consensus about specific barriers to commercial adoption in agriculture. Further, we disaggregated public and private plant scientists to see if there was heterogeneity in their views of the future of CRISPR research. Our findings suggest that maize and soybeans are anticipated to benefit the most from CRISPR technology with fungus and virus resistance the most common vehicle for its implementation. Across the board, plant scientists viewed consumer perception/knowledge gap to be the most impeding barrier of CRISPR adoption. Although CRISPR has been hailed as a technology that can help alleviate food insecurity and improve agricultural sustainability, our study has shown that plant scientists believe there are some large concerns about the consumer perceptions of CRISPR.
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.