ReviewPlant cell reports2026
Genetic transformation of forage crops: comparative barriers, evidence, and emerging strategies.
Review in Plant cell reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Forage crops include phylogenetically and biologically distinct legumes and grasses, and their genetic transformation is constrained by different combinations of host response, DNA-delivery efficiency, regeneration competence, genotype dependence, and genome stability. This review critically compares evidence from forage legumes and forage grasses rather than treating these groups as a single transformation category. We evaluate Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, protoplast-based delivery, particle bombardment, CRISPR/Cas-enabled applications, developmental regulators (DRs), viral vectors, and nanomaterial-mediated delivery according to four practical outcomes: reproducibility across genotypes, recovery of regenerated plants, heritable transmission, and genetic stability. Direct evidence in forage crops shows that protocol performance is strongly species-, genotype-, explant-, and endpoint-dependent; efficiencies based on transient reporters or resistant callus therefore cannot be directly equated with stable, fertile events. DR-assisted regeneration has direct proof of concept in recalcitrant forage grasses, whereas stable nanomaterial-mediated transformation and virus-induced heritable editing remain unvalidated in forage crops. We conclude that current progress is best interpreted as the engineering of interacting delivery and regeneration constraints, not as a universal transition to genotype-independent transformation. Priority should be given to standardized outcome reporting, multi-genotype and inter-laboratory validation, controlled DR expression, and rigorous molecular and phenotypic assessment of regenerated plants.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42714611What 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.