Cited by 80CRISPR and Genetic EngineeringPlant Genetic and Mutation StudiesGenetically Modified Organisms Research

New traits in crops produced by genome editing techniques based on deletions

Open access
van de Wiel, C. C. M., Schaart, J. G., Lotz, L. A. P., Smulders, M. J. M.·2017·Plant Biotechnology Reports

Abstract

One of the most promising New Plant Breeding Techniques is genome editing (also called gene editing) with the help of a programmable site-directed nuclease (SDN). In this review, we focus on SDN-1, which is the generation of small deletions or insertions (indels) at a precisely defined location in the genome with zinc finger nucleases (ZFN), TALENs, or CRISPR-Cas9. The programmable nuclease is used to induce a double-strand break in the DNA, while the repair is left to the plant cell itself, and mistakes are introduced, while the cell is repairing the double-strand break using the relatively error-prone NHEJ pathway. From a biological point of view, it could be considered as a form of targeted mutagenesis. We first discuss improvements and new technical variants for SDN-1, in particular employing CRISPR-Cas, and subsequently explore the effectiveness of targeted deletions that eliminate the function of a gene, as an approach to generate novel traits useful for improving agricultural sustainability, including disease resistances. We compare them with examples of deletions that resulted in novel functionality as known from crop domestication and classical mutation breeding (both using radiation and chemical mutagens). Finally, we touch upon regulatory and access and benefit sharing issues regarding the plants produced.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11816-017-0425-z

Cites

78 of 78 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • SDN3 mutants use a repair template with homologous regions of at least 500 base pairs flanking the DSB, enabling the insertion of new sequences, similar to transgenic or cisgenic approaches.

    “SDN3 mutants use a repair template with homologous regions of at least 500 base pairs flanking the DSB, enabling the insertion of new sequences, similar to transgenic or cisgenic approaches.”

    From Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops (2025) · cites this paper as Van de Wiel et al., 2017

    The Introduction (page not provided) says SDN-3 uses a longer repair template that can insert native or foreign sequences at a targeted location, and compares it with genetic transformation. It does not specify homologous regions flanking the break or a minimum length of 500 base pairs. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • SDN3 applications in plants face challenges due to the low efficiency of homologous recombination, making them complex and less efficient.

    “Nonetheless, SDN3 applications in plants face challenges due to the low efficiency of homologous recombination (HDR), making them complex and less efficient (Verma et al., 2020; Podevin et al., 2013; Van de Wiel et al., 2017).”

    From Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops (2025) · cites this paper as Van de Wiel et al., 2017

    The Introduction says SDN-3 uses the same HDR-based repair approach described for SDN-2 and that HDR is “a relatively difficult to control mechanism.” This supports the claim that SDN-3 faces a technical challenge, but the paper does not specifically attribute that challenge to low homologous-recombination efficiency or state that SDN-3 applications are less efficient. No page number is available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
van de Wiel, C. C. M., Schaart, J. G., Lotz, L. A. P., & Smulders, M. J. M.
Affiliations
Wageningen University & Research (NL)
Corresponding author
Smulders, M. J. M.
Venue
Plant Biotechnology Reports
Published
2017-02
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
1-8
ISSN
  • 1863-5466 (ISSN-L)
  • 1863-5474
OpenAlex
W2587919670
Cited by
80
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Plant Biotechnology Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Netherlands (BO-20-003-006)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant Genetic and Mutation Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
Keywords
genome editing, new plant breeding techniques, CRISPR/Cas9, zinc finger nucleases, TALEN, indels, targeted deletion, non-homologous end joining, targeted mutagenesis, disease resistance, crop domestication, mutation breeding, regulatory challenges, access and benefit sharing, crop improvement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review