Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40169873›Full record

ReviewNature plants2025

The future of genome editing in plants.

Larry Gilbertson, Holger Puchta, R Keith Slotkin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature plants, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Principles and mechanisms of plant acclimation to heat stress.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Genome Editing by Grafting.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
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

3 authors.

Larry GilbertsonDonald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Holger PuchtaDepartment of Molecular Biology, Joseph Gottlieb Kölreuter Institute for Plant Sciences, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Karlsruhe, Germany.
R Keith SlotkinDonald Danforth Plant Science Center, St. Louis, MO, USA. kslotkin@danforthcenter.org.ORCID 0000-0001-9582-3533

Funding

National Science Foundation (NSF) IOS-2149964National Science Foundation (NSF) MCB-2230587
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The future of genome editing in plants differs from how it is used today. For both research and product development, we need to think beyond the creation of simple single-nucleotide polymorphisms and short deletions in genes. We believe that the future of genome editing in plants involves mimicking the natural evolutionary processes that have shaped plant genomes and been the target of artificial selection during crop domestication and improvement. This includes programming large structural variations (insertions, duplications, deletions, inversions and translocations) and controlling plant recombination and endogenous transposable elements that naturally reshape plant genomes. The key is that genome editing will be used to reshape plant genomes in a manner that could have happened naturally, but now these changes can be directed rapidly in the laboratory.

Indexed as

Gene EditingGenome, PlantPlantsCrops, Agricultural

Identifiers

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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 Socratic graph.