ReviewFrontiers in plant science2023
GMOs or non-GMOs? The CRISPR Conundrum.
Review in Frontiers in plant science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.
- U.S. consumers' processing of information about CRISPR-edited pork products.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- The influence of GMO media strategies on public perceptions of CRISPR crop technologies in Southern Ontario.GM crops & food · 2026Article
- Shaping the Future Plate: Exploring the Safety Concerns of Cultivated and Conventional Meat Production.Physiological research · 2026Review
- Expanding the Microbial Genomic Landscape and Biotechnological Applications of CRISPR-Cas Systems.Biology · 2026Review
- Bibliometric-Based Analysis of Global Trends and Collaborative Networks in Plant Genetic Engineering (1994-2024).Plant biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- From lab to law: emerging applications, potential benefits, evolving regulatory framework and challenges for engineered probiotics.Microbial cell factories · 2026Review
- Beyond GMOs: transgene-free gene-edited crops for global food security.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Next-generation CRISPR systems and advanced delivery paradigms for precision crop improvement: a comparative case study in sugar beet (Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Evolution of the Canadian regulatory system for plant biotechnology.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Rethinking gene-edited crop regulation: advancing a Principle-based framework for modern biotechnology governance.GM crops & food · 2025Review
- Benefits, concerns, and sustainable alternatives to genetically modified crops from a global and Indian perspective.The plant genome · 2025Review
- CRISPR/Cas system-mediated transgene-free or DNA-free genome editing in plants.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025Review
- Beyond a few bases: methods for large DNA insertion and gene targeting in plants.The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology · 2025Review
- Progress and challenges in CRISPR/Cas applications in microalgae.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Review
- Engineering tomato disease resistance by manipulating susceptibility genes.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- Regulatory challenges and global trade implications of genome editing in agriculture.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review on rice responses and tolerance to salt stress.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
- CRISPR/Cas9-mediated simultaneous targeting of GmP34 and its homologs produces T-DNA-free soybean mutants with reduced allergenic potential.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- Agrochemical innovation for crop health: moving forward through dynamic disorder.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
- The recent genetic modification techniques for improve soil conservation, nutrient uptake and utilization.GM crops & food · 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
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CRISPR-Cas9, the "genetic scissors", is being presaged as a revolutionary technology, having tremendous potential to create designer crops by introducing precise and targeted modifications in the genome to achieve global food security in the face of climate change and increasing population. Traditional genetic engineering relies on random and unpredictable insertion of isolated genes or foreign DNA elements into the plant genome. However, CRISPR-Cas based gene editing does not necessarily involve inserting a foreign DNA element into the plant genome from different species but introducing new traits by precisely altering the existing genes. CRISPR edited crops are touching markets, however, the world community is divided over whether these crops should be considered genetically modified (GM) or non-GM. Classification of CRISPR edited crops, especially transgene free crops as traditional GM crops, will significantly affect their future and public acceptance in some regions. Therefore, the future of the CRISPR edited crops is depending upon their regulation as GM or non-GMs, and their public perception. Here we briefly discuss how CRISPR edited crops are different from traditional genetically modified crops. In addition, we discuss different CRISPR reagents and their delivery tools to produce transgene-free CRISPR edited crops. Moreover, we also summarize the regulatory classification of CRISPR modifications and how different countries are regulating CRISPR edited crops. We summarize that the controversy of CRISPR-edited plants as GM or non-GM will continue until a universal, transparent, and scalable regulatory framework for CRISPR-edited plants will be introduced worldwide, with increased public awareness by involving all stakeholders.
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.