ArticleFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2022
Regulatory frameworks can facilitate or hinder the potential for genome editing to contribute to sustainable agricultural development.
Article in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision editing to improve fruit traits: CRISPR/Cas into the picture.Protoplasma · 2026Review
- Advances in gene editing for legume improvement: technologies, progress, and prospects.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Review
- Clariid catfish hybridization in aquaculture: a comprehensive review of strategies, challenges, and future directions.Genes & genomics · 2025Review
- Rethinking gene-edited crop regulation: advancing a Principle-based framework for modern biotechnology governance.GM crops & food · 2025Review
- Harnessing multi-omics and genome-editing technologies for climate-resilient agriculture: bridging AI-driven insights with sustainable crop improvement.Plant molecular biology · 2025Review
- Regulation as key to fulfilling the promises of agricultural genomics: Going beyond bottlenecks in plant gene technology development.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025Review
- Genome editing in grain legumes for food security.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- Review
- The Role of Italy in the Use of Advanced Plant Genomic Techniques on Fruit Trees: State of the Art and Future Perspectives.International journal of molecular sciences · 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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The advent of new breeding techniques (NBTs), in particular genome editing (GEd), has provided more accurate and precise ways to introduce targeted changes in the genome of both plants and animals. This has resulted in the use of the technology by a wider variety of stakeholders for different applications in comparison to transgenesis. Regulators in different parts of the world are now examining their current frameworks to assess their applicability to these NBTs and their products. We looked at how countries selected from a sample of geographical regions globally are currently handling applications involving GEd organisms and what they foresee as opportunities and potential challenges to acceptance of the technology in their jurisdictions. In addition to regulatory frameworks that create an enabling environment for these NBTs, acceptance of the products by the public is vitally important. We, therefore, suggest that early stakeholder engagement and communication to the public be emphasized to foster public acceptance even before products are ready for market. Furthermore, global cooperation and consensus on issues cutting across regions will be crucial in avoiding regulatory-related bottlenecks that affect global trade and agriculture.
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.