ReviewaBIOTECH2026
Plant base editing: a decade of progress and future applications.
Review in aBIOTECH, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research Progress on Preparation, Transformation and Application of Protoplasts Derived from Medicinal Plants.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Nanotechnology-Enabled CRISPR Delivery: Emerging Opportunities in Agriculture and Forest Biotechnology.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Genetically Modified Plants in Agriculture.Biology · 2026Review
- Beyond CRISPR/Cas9: emerging genome editing technologies for next-generation crop improvement.Molecular biology reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Base editors derived from clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) systems are widely used for genomic studies in both plants and animals. The broad applicability and safety of base-editing approaches have garnered considerable attention from the research community, and there could be ways to further enhance targeting efficiency and target window range. However, the complex classification and diverse functionalities of base editors pose challenges to their effective utilization and improvement. In this review, we discuss technical principles characterizing various types of base editors, including cytosine base editors (CBEs), adenine base editors (ABEs), dual base editors (DBEs), thymine base editors (TBEs), and guanine base editors (GBEs), among others, which employ distinct mechanisms and DNA repair pathways. We also describe current optimization strategies to assist researchers in improving the deployment of these tools under specific conditions. Finally, we comprehensively analyze the practical applications and advantages of base editors, offering a clear view of their development, their previous and potential applications, and how to select the appropriate tools for specific purposes.
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.