Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39450789›Full record

ReviewInsect molecular biology2025

The quest for the best target genes for RNAi-mediated pest control.

Doga Cedden, Gregor Bucher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Insect molecular biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Dual-line Genome-scale CRISPR Screening Enables Robust Target Gene Discovery.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Rethinking microbial biopesticide development and uptake.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Extracellular ssDNA fromInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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.

Doga CeddenDepartment of Evolutionary Developmental Genetics, Johann-Friedrich-Blumenbach Institute, GZMB, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9031-3710
Gregor BucherDepartment of Evolutionary Developmental Genetics, Johann-Friedrich-Blumenbach Institute, GZMB, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4615-6401

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RNA interference (RNAi) has emerged as an eco-friendly alternative to classic pesticides for pest control. This review highlights the importance of identifying the best target genes for RNAi-mediated pest control. We argue that the knowledge-based approach to predicting effective targets is limited by our current gaps of knowledge, making unbiased screening a superior method for discovering the best target processes and genes. We emphasize the recent evidence that suggests targeting conserved basic cellular processes, such as protein degradation and translation, is more effective than targeting the classic pesticide target processes. We support these claims by comparing the efficacy of previously reported RNAi target genes and classic insecticide targets with data from our genome-wide RNAi screen in the red flour beetle, Tribolium castaneum. Finally, we provide practical advice for identifying excellent target genes in other pests, where large-scale RNAi screenings are typically challenging.

Indexed as

Genes, InsectInsect ControlRNA InterferenceTriboliumAnimalsdsRNApest managementRNA interferencetarget gene

Identifiers

PMID39450789
PMCPMC12236057

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.