ReviewHeliyon2025
Critical considerations and computational tools in plant genome editing.
Review in Heliyon, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient in-vitro regeneration and transformation for CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing of phytoene desaturase (PDS) gene in pea (Pisum sativum L.).Plant cell reports · 2026Article
- A RUBY-based in vivo hairy root induction system for rapid assessment of transformant and genome editing efficiency in potato.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2026Article
- RiSpy: a feature selection-based fingerprinting framework for accurate identification of genome-edited rice lines.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Cookbook for plant genome sequences.BMC genomics · 2026Review
- Biodiversity and genetic improvement ofFrontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Advances in gene editing for legume improvement: technologies, progress, and prospects.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Review
- Review
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
Recent advances in genome editing tools and CRISPR-Cas technologies have enabled plant genome engineering reach new heights. The current regulatory exemptions for certain categories of genome edited products, such as those derived from SDN-1 and SDN-2, which are free of any transgene, have significantly accelerated genome editing research in a number of agricultural crop plants in different countries. Although CRISPR-Cas technology is becoming increasingly popular, it is still important to carefully consider a number of factors before planning and carrying conducting CRISPR-Cas studies. To attempt genome editing in a plant, a high-quality genome sequence and a repeatable tissue culture protocol for in vitro regeneration are essential. One of the most important steps in plant genome editing is the designing of a CRISPR construct, which involves selecting the appropriate Cas protein, sgRNA sequence, and appropriate regulatory sequence to trigger expression. Computational tools and algorithms play a crucial role in construct design and gRNA selection to minimize off-target effects and also to optimize their delivery techniques. Researchers may need to select appropriate software tools capable of analyzing post-editing detection of mutation events and other DNA sequence abnormalities to identify off-target effects. To fully fulfill the potential of plant genome editing, continued advances in computational biology are essential to meet the challenges it faces today.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.