Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40910021›Full record

ReviewAoB PLANTS2025

From convention to innovation: the role of genetic modification and genome editing in Australian wheat breeding.

Oscar Carey-Fung, Alexander A T Johnson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in AoB PLANTS, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Oscar Carey-FungSchool of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3392-5160
Alexander A T JohnsonSchool of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Wheat is the most cultivated crop worldwide, and Australia consistently ranks among the top wheat-exporting countries. Although modern technology has expanded the speed and accuracy of conventional breeding, progress is constrained by limited genetic diversity and linkage drag, with new wheat varieties often taking 8-12 years to reach the market. Biotech methods involving the transformation of foreign DNA into genomes [genetic modification (GM)], or editing of native DNA [genome editing (GEd)], provide novel opportunities to efficiently improve traits alongside conventional breeding. In 2020, the world's first GM drought-tolerant bread wheat (HB4) hit the market in Argentina. The USA recently approved HB4 wheat for commercial cultivation, and human consumption of HB4 wheat has been approved by nine countries, including Australia. Currently, 25 countries, Australia included, have deregulated GEd crops in some form, and many other countries have indicated that they will follow suit. As of March 2025, no GM or GEd wheat is commercially grown in Australia. The rate at which private industry integrates GM and GEd into wheat breeding programmes will depend on several factors, including the regulatory consistency governing GM and GEd crops within Australia and among international trading partners, the return on investments relative to deregulation costs including licensing, the level of acceptance amongst growers and consumers, and technical considerations including wheat's amenability to tissue culture. This review contextualizes GM and GEd applications in wheat, often drawing on examples from crop species where biotechnology has been more widely employed, and considers the key stakeholders that will shape the future of GM and GEd wheat in Australia.

Indexed as

agriculturebiotechnologygene editingGMOOGTR

Identifiers

PMID40910021
PMCPMC12406798

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.