ReviewInternational journal of genomics2026
Beyond the Edit: Integrating CRISPR-Cas Genome Editing Into the Cereal Breeding Pipeline.
Review in International journal of genomics, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cereal breeding must deliver complex trait combinations under a changing climate, and CRISPR-Cas editing is presented as the technology that will accelerate this. Existing reviews document the editing toolkit thoroughly, yet few follow an edited allele through the steps separating an edited plant from a released cultivar. This review addresses that gap by treating genome editing as one module within a cereal breeding pipeline and asking, at each interface, whether integration has been demonstrated or only proposed. Evidence was selected against three criteria, namely, that the work was performed in a cereal, that the outcome was measured rather than projected and that genotype and environment were stated. Applying this standard across wheat, rice, maize and barley yields a more qualified picture than current summaries suggest. Multiplex editing is the dominant strategy for polygenic traits, yet recovery of a complete multilocus genotype is limited by the least efficient guide rather than the average efficiency. Doubled haploid production shortens fixation only where several loci segregate independently, and its induction, identification and doubling steps impose losses that offset part of the saving. Marker-assisted selection acts on backcross progeny and on haploid inducers rather than among near-isogenic edited events, and genomic selection combined with editing rests on livestock simulations whose assumptions cereals do not meet. Transformation efficiency, licensing of regeneration technology and jurisdiction-specific approval remain binding constraints. Every module has been demonstrated in some cereal. The full sequence has not and closing that gap needs integration studies rather than further gains in editing precision.
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.