ReviewFrontiers in genome editing2025
Emerging tools in plant genome editing.
Review in Frontiers in genome editing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Rickettsial Diseases and Vaccines: Is There an Opportunity for Plant-Made Vaccine Technology?Biotechnology and bioengineering · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Plant genome editing has undergone a transformative shift with the advent of advanced molecular tools, offering unprecedented levels of precision, flexibility and efficiency in modifying genetic material. While classical site-directed nucleases such as ZFNs, TALENs and CRISPR-Cas9 have revolutionized genome engineering by enabling targeted mutagenesis and gene knockouts, the landscape is now rapidly evolving with the emergence of novel systems that go beyond the conventional double strand break (DSB)-mediated approaches. Advanced and recent tools include LEAPER, SATI, RESTORE, RESCUE, ARCUT, SPARDA, helicase-based approaches like HACE and Type IV-A CRISPR system, and transposon-based techniques like TATSI and piggyBac. These tools unlock previously inaccessible avenues of genome and transcriptome modulation. Some of these technologies allow DSB-free editing of DNA, precise base substitutions and RNA editing without altering the genomic DNA, a significant advancement for regulatory approval and for species with complex genomes or limited regeneration capacity. While LEAPER, RESCUE and RESTORE are the new advents in the RNA editing tool, SATI allows DSB-free approach for DNA editing, ARCUT offers less off-target and cleaner DNA repairs and Type IV-A CRISPR system induces gene silencing rather than editing. The transposon-based approaches include TATSI, piggyBac and TnpB, and helicases are used in HACE and Type IV-A CRISPR system. The prokaryotic Argonaute protein is used in SPARDA tool as an endonuclease to edit DNA. The transient and reversible nature of RNA editing tools such as RESTORE and LEAPER introduces a new layer of epigenetics-like control in plant systems, which could be harnessed for tissue-specific and environmentally-responsive trait expression. Simultaneously, innovations like ARCUT and SPARDA utilize chemically-guided editing, minimizing reliance on biological nucleases and reducing off-target risks. Their modularity and programmability are enabling gene function studies, synthetic pathway designs and targeted trait stacking. These advances represent a novel synthesis of genome engineering and systems biology, positioning plant genome editing not just as a tool of modification but as a platform for designing adaptive and intelligent crops, tailored to future environmental and nutritional challenges. Although, many of these recent tools remain to be applied on plant systems, they are proven to be effective elsewhere and hold a great potential to be effective in creating climate-resilient crops.
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.