ArticleBMC plant biology2023
Cytosine base editors (CBEs) for inducing targeted DNA base editing in Nicotiana benthamiana.
Article in BMC plant biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficient and Safe Knockout ofVeterinary sciences · 2026Article
- Synergistic optimization enhancing the precision and efficiency of cytosine base editors in poplar.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Precise genome editing process and its applications in plants driven by AI.Functional & integrative genomics · 2025Review
- A comprehensive all-in-one CRISPR toolbox for large-scale screens in plants.The Plant cell · 2025Article
- Genome editing for grass improvement and future agriculture.Horticulture research · 2025Article
- CRISPR/Cas9: a sustainable technology to enhance climate resilience in major Staple Crops.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- Applications and Prospects of CRISPR/Cas9 Technology in the Breeding of Major Tropical Crops.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe base editors can introduce point mutations accurately without causing double-stranded DNA breaks or requiring donor DNA templates. Previously, cytosine base editors (CBEs) containing different deaminases are reported for precise and accurate base editing in plants. However, the knowledge of CBEs in polyploid plants is inadequate and needs further exploration.
resultsIn the present study, we constructed three polycistronic tRNA-gRNA expression cassettes CBEs containing A3A, A3A (Y130F), and rAPOBEC1(R33A) to compare their base editing efficiency in allotetraploid N. benthamiana (n = 4x). We used 14 target sites to compare their editing efficiency using transient transformation in tobacco plants. The sanger sequencing and deep sequencing results showed that A3A-CBE was the most efficient base editor. In addition, the results showed that A3A-CBE provided most comprehensive editing window (C
conclusionsAll in all, we conclude that A3A-CBE is the most suitable vector for specific C to T conversion in N. benthamiana. Current findings will provide valuable insights into selecting an appropriate base editor for breeding polyploid plants.
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.