ReviewHeredity2024
Facts, uncertainties, and opportunities in wheat molecular improvement.
Review in Heredity, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From lab to field: accelerated cultivar release via integrated speed breeding framework in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.).BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- The transcription factor LEC2 as an epigenetic regulator of plant totipotency: from Arabidopsis to crop improvement.Journal of applied genetics · 2026Review
- The illusion of progress: why most introgressions from wild Triticeae fail to improve wheat agronomically.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- From convention to innovation: the role of genetic modification and genome editing in Australian wheat breeding.AoB PLANTS · 2025Review
- Genome Editing by Grafting.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Virus-induced gene editing free from tissue culture.Nature plants · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The year 2020 was a landmark year for wheat. The wheat HB4 event harboring a drought-resistant gene from sunflowers, received regulatory approval and was grown commercially in Argentina, with approval for food and feed in other countries. This, indeed, is many years after the adoption of genetic modifications in other crops. The lack of consumer acceptance and resulting trade barriers halted the commercialization of the earliest events and had a chilling effect on, especially, private Research & Development (R&D) investments. As regulations for modern breeding technologies such as genome-edited cultivars are being discussed and/or adopted across the globe, we would like to propose a framework to ensure that wheat is not left behind a second time as the potential benefits far outweigh the perceived risks. In this paper, after a review of the technical challenges wheat faces with the generation of trans- and cis-genic wheat varieties, we discuss some of the factors that could help demystify the risk/reward equation and thereby the consumer's reluctance or acceptance of these techniques for future wheat improvement. The advent of next-generation sequencing is shedding light on natural gene transfer between species and the number of perturbations other accepted techniques like mutagenesis create. The transition from classic breeding techniques and embracing transgenic, cisgenic, and genome editing approaches feels inevitable for wheat improvement if we are to develop climate-resilient wheat varieties to feed a growing world population.
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.