ReviewThe Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology2025
Genome editing in the green alga Chlamydomonas: past, present practice and future prospects.
Review in The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology, 2025. 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.
- CRISPR-enhanced microalgae for carbon sequestration and carotenoid production: opportunities and fundamental constraints.Bioresources and bioprocessing · 2026Review
- Insights into transcriptomics and metabolic engineering of microalgal systems for enhancing industrial and environmental applications.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Review
- Double-strand break-free and transgene-free genome editing in the microalga Nannochloropsis oceanica using removable vectors containing the CRISPR base editing system.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The marine diatom Phaeodactylum tricornutum as a versatile bioproduction chassis: Current progress, challenges, and perspectives.Plant communications · 2025Review
- Targeted genetic manipulation and yeast-like evolutionary genomics in the green alga Auxenochlorella.The Plant cell · 2025Article
- Targeted genetic manipulation and yeast-like evolutionary genomics in the green algabioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Living photosynthetic micro/nano-platforms: Engineering unicellular algae for biomedical applications.Bioactive materials · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
The green alga Chlamydomonas is an important and versatile model organism for research topics ranging from photosynthesis and metabolism, cilia, and basal bodies to cellular communication and the cellular cycle and is of significant interest for green bioengineering processes. The genome in this unicellular green alga is contained in 17 haploid chromosomes and codes for 16 883 protein coding genes. Functional genomics, as well as biotechnological applications, rely on the ability to remove, add, and change these genes in a controlled and efficient manner. In this review, the history of gene editing in Chlamydomonas is put in the context of the wider developments in genetics to demonstrate how many of the key developments to engineer these algae follow the global trends and the availability of technology. Building on this background, an overview of the state of the art in Chlamydomonas engineering is given, focusing primarily on the practical aspects while giving examples of recent applications. Commonly encountered Chlamydomonas-specific challenges, recent developments, and community resources are presented, and finally, a comprehensive discussion on the emergence and evolution of CRISPR/Cas-based precision gene editing is given. An outline of possible future paths for gene editing based on current global trends in genetic engineering and tools for gene editing is presented.
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.