Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42031826›Full record

ReviewNPJ science of food2026

Genome editing and food safety: bridging the validation gap.

Pinar Sekerci Keles, Yusuf Esen

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ science of food, 2026. 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.

Pinar Sekerci KelesDepartment of Food Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ardahan University, Ardahan, Türkiye.
Yusuf EsenDepartment of Food Technology, Vocational School of Technical Sciences, Ardahan University, Ardahan, Türkiye. yusufesen@ardahan.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1173-0677

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome editing is increasingly positioned as a tool for improving food safety and nutritional quality, yet its real-world impact depends on outcomes that extend far beyond molecular precision. This review synthesizes evidence on how genome edits translate through phenotypes, food matrices, processing, microbial ecology, and dietary exposure, revealing a persistent validation gap between early-stage technical metrics and food-safety-relevant endpoints. We argue for an exposure-anchored, multi-layered validation framework incorporating omics, post-harvest behavior, and post-market monitoring. Closing this gap is essential for aligning genome editing innovations with measurable improvements in food system safety and consumer protection.

Identifiers

PMID42031826
PMCPMC13319513

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.