Cited by 77Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment

Genetic Variation and Unintended Risk in the Context of Old and New Breeding Techniques

Open access
Singer, Stacy D., Laurie, John D., Bilichak, Andriy, Kumar, Santosh, Singh, Jaswinder·2021·Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences

Abstract

For thousands of years, humans have been improving crops to better suit their needs. These enhancements are driven by changes in the genetic makeup of the plant. While this was initially unintentional, there has been a steady push to increase the pace and precision of crop breeding, something that has occurred alongside a growing understanding of genetics and an escalating capacity to thoroughly assess genomes at the molecular level. With the advent and rapid uptake of molecular breeding techniques, such as transgenics and genome editing over the past few decades, there has been much trepidation regarding the possibility of off-target effects derived from unanticipated mutations at loci other than those intended for alteration, and the unintended risks that this might confer. These concerns persist regardless of the fact that a growing number of studies indicate that the occurrence of off-target mutations derived from newer biotechnological breeding techniques are negligible compared to what is observed with many conventional breeding approaches, and even spontaneously from one generation to the next. Given the impending food security crisis that we are facing in the short-term, there is a critical need to implement a wide range of breeding tools as a means of meeting growing demand, withstanding climate change-related pressures, increasing nutrition, and providing environmental benefits. While food safety is clearly of the utmost importance, now is certainly not the time to prevent the use of particular breeding technologies based on unfounded doubts. Therefore, in this review, we attempt to shed light on these apprehensions by putting purported "risks" into the context of plant breeding as a whole by comparing frequencies of spontaneous mutations with those (both anticipated and unanticipated) that occur through various conventional and biotechnological breeding approaches, including transgenics and genome editing. We then consider how these changes may, or may not, translate into unanticipated risk, and discuss the current global regulatory asynchrony surrounding genome edited crops.

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 · 10.1080/07352689.2021.1883826

Cites

404 of 404 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?

  • The long maturation period required to detect somaclonal variations in perennial crops renders phenotypic observation a time-consuming and expensive method.

    “The long maturation period required to detect somaclonal variations in perennial crops renders phenotypic observation a time-consuming and expensive method [106].”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [106]

    Section III (page unavailable) says somaclonal variation can be assessed through phenotypic selection and explains that selecting for a trait may require assessing plants at a specific growth stage. It does not address long maturation periods in perennial crops or say that phenotypic observation of somaclonal variation is expensive. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Phenotypic observation is insufficient for identifying genetic changes, especially in perennial crops where plants must be observed until maturity.

    “While phenotypic observation is an initial step in variant selection, it is insufficient for identifying genetic changes, especially in perennial crops where the plants must be observed until maturity [105,106].”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [106]

    Section VI (page unavailable) says conventionally bred cultivars can have substantial genetic differences that are not identified during breeding while remaining highly similar phenotypically. This supports the limitation of phenotypic observation, but the paper does not establish the claim’s specific point about perennial crops needing observation until maturity. The searched passages on perennial crops and maturity did not supply that qualifier. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Adjusting nutrient composition, fine-tuning PGR ratios, and limiting the number of subcultures reduce somaclonal variation, as excessive subculturing increases the chance of genetic and epigenetic alterations, particularly in callus and cell suspension cultures.

    “This involves adjusting the nutrient composition of culture media, fine-tuning the ratios of plant growth regulators (PGRs), and limiting the number of subcultures, as excessive subculturing increases the chance of genetic and epigenetic alterations, particularly in callus and cell suspension cultures [79,106].”

    From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [106]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Optimization of culture conditions plays a vital role in minimizing somaclonal variation.

    “In addition, optimization of culture conditions plays a vital role in minimizing somaclonal variation.”

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

1 retracted

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Ministry of the Environment. 2018. To genome editing technologies users. Government of Japan. https://www.env.go.jp/press/2_2_%20genome%20editing_En.pdf(open in a new window).
  2. Vietmeyer, N. 2010. Borlaug: Bread Winner, 1960-1969, Vol. 3. Bracing Books, Lorton, VA.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Singer, S. D., Laurie, J. D., Bilichak, A., Kumar, S., & Singh, J.
Affiliations
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
  • McGill University (CA)
Corresponding author
  • Singer, Stacy D.
  • Laurie, John D.
Venue
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences
Published
2021-01-02
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
68-108
ISSN
  • 0735-2689 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-7836
OpenAlex
W3141522349
Cited by
77
References
404
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2
FWCI
4.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Genetically Modified Organisms Research
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › CRISPR and Genetic Engineering
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Keywords
plant breeding, genetic variation, off-target mutations, genetically modified crops, genome editing, genome-edited crops, spontaneous mutation, conventional breeding, food security, food safety, regulation, 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