Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38089798›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in plant science2023

Cisgenics and intragenics: boon or bane for crop improvement.

S N Vasudevan, S K Pooja, Thota Joseph Raju, C S Damini

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S N VasudevanDepartment of Seed Science and Technology, College of Agriculture, Hassan, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.
S K PoojaDepartment of Agricultural Biotechnology, College of Agriculture, Hassan, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.
Thota Joseph RajuDepartment of Seed Science and Technology, College of Agriculture, Hassan, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore, India.
C S DaminiChronobiology Lab, Department of Studies in Zoology, University of Mysore, Karnataka, India.
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore · INUniversity of Mysore · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent advances in molecular biology and genetic engineering have made it possible to increase agricultural yields when compared to conventional methods. However, lots of challenges are to be addressed due to changing climatic conditions. Although genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have proven their potential in a few crops, but needs to be explored in majority of the field/vegetable crops to overcome food and nutritional security in view of alarming population explosion. In spite of advantages from GMO crops due to the presence of foreign DNA, queries regarding their safety, environmental dangers and health effects needs to be addressed. One of the major environmental issues concerning transgenic crops is the mixing of genetic components across species that cannot hybridize naturally. Due to these limitations, new revolutionary technologies have been developed, such as intragenesis and cisgenesis for the transformation and development of superior plants. While cisgenesis entails genetic modification employing a complete copy of natural genes with their native regulatory components that only belong to sexually compatible species, intragenesis refers to the transfer of unique combinations of genes and regulatory sequence inside the same species. In cisgenesis, the donor genes are the same genes employed in conventional breeding. The two benefits of cisgenics are avoiding linkage drag and making greater use of existing gene alleles. This method significantly shortens the time it takes to breed plants by combining conventional methods with cutting-edge biotechnological tools. Because of this, plant genomes can be altered without causing drastic changes to the whole plant population and the environmental effects of cisgenic plants cannot be compared to those of transgenics. Transgenesis and cisgenesis share the same transformation methods; hence, cisgenic, intragenic and transgenic plants produced through random insertion do not pose any distinct risks with regard to host genome modifications. In contrast, using new genome techniques lessens the dangers related to potential unintentional changes to the host DNA. The use of cisgenesis and intragenesis as alternatives to transgenesis has been restricted to a small number of species due to incomplete understanding of the required regulatory sequences.

Indexed as

agrobacterium-mediatedgene expressionselectable markertransformationtransgenics

Identifiers

PMID38089798
PMCPMC10715053
OpenAlexW4389098329

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.