Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36365450›Full record

ReviewPlants (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Unintended Genomic Outcomes in Current and Next Generation GM Techniques: A Systematic Review.

Philomena Chu, Sarah Zanon Agapito-Tenfen

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Questions and Consequences of Omics in Genetically Engineered Crop Regulation.Plant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Philomena ChuNORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS, Climate & Environment Division, Siva Innovasjonssenter, Sykehusvn 21, 9019 Tromsø, Norway.
Sarah Zanon Agapito-TenfenNORCE Norwegian Research Centre AS, Climate & Environment Division, Siva Innovasjonssenter, Sykehusvn 21, 9019 Tromsø, Norway.ORCID 0000-0002-9773-0856
NORCE Research AS · NO

Funding

Federal Agency for Nature Conservation 3520840200The Research Council of Norway 301911
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Classical genetic engineering and new genome editing techniques, especially the CRISPR/Cas technology, increase the possibilities for modifying the genetic material in organisms. These technologies have the potential to provide novel agricultural traits, including modified microorganisms and environmental applications. However, legitimate safety concerns arise from the unintended genetic modifications (GM) that have been reported as side-effects of such techniques. Here, we systematically review the scientific literature for studies that have investigated unintended genomic alterations in plants modified by the following GM techniques:

Indexed as

biosafetyCRISPRgene-editinggenetically modified organismssequencingtransgenic

Identifiers

PMID36365450
PMCPMC9655061
OpenAlexW4308523686

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.