The DOI matches its Crossref record; 404 of the 404 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Genetic Variation and Unintended Risk in the Context of Old and New Breeding Techniques
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In addition, optimization of culture conditions plays a vital role in minimizing somaclonal variation.”
From Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives (2025) · cites this paper as [106]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Unexpected mutations after CRISPR–Cas9 editing in vivo
Schaefer, K. A., Wu, W.-H., Colgan, D. F., Tsang, S. H., Bassuk, A. G., & Mahajan, V. B. (2017) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.4293 · Cited by 328
RetractedA Programmable Dual-RNA–Guided DNA Endonuclease in Adaptive Bacterial Immunity
Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., Hauer, M., Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1225829 · Cited by 17,116
Molecular Structure of Nucleic Acids: A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid
WATSON, J. D., & CRICK, F. H. C. (1953) · Nature · doi:10.1038/171737a0 · Cited by 13,584
Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants
Gill, S. S., & Tuteja, N. (2010) · Plant Physiology and Biochemistry · doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016 · Cited by 11,734
A haplotype map of the human genome
The International HapMap Consortium (2005) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature04226 · Cited by 5,858
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection
Livezey, R. L., & Darwin, C. R. (1953) · The American Midland Naturalist · doi:10.2307/2485224 · Cited by 5,431
Search-and-replace genome editing without double-strand breaks or donor DNA
Anzalone, A. V., Randolph, P. B., Davis, J. R., Sousa, A. A., Koblan, L. W., Levy, J. M., Chen, P. J., Wilson, C., Newby, G. A., Raguram, A., et al. (2019) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1711-4 · Cited by 4,767
Cpf1 Is a Single RNA-Guided Endonuclease of a Class 2 CRISPR-Cas System
Zetsche, B., Gootenberg, J. S., Abudayyeh, O. O., Slaymaker, I. M., Makarova, K. S., Essletzbichler, P., Volz, S. E., Joung, J., van der Oost, J., Regev, A., et al. (2015) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.038 · Cited by 4,761
Genome sequence of the palaeopolyploid soybean
Schmutz, J., Cannon, S. B., Schlueter, J. A., Ma, J., Mitros, T., Nelson, W. M., Hyten, D. L., Song, Q., Thelen, J. J., Cheng, J., et al. (2010) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08670 · Cited by 4,457
The B73 Maize Genome: Complexity, Diversity, and Dynamics
Schnable, P. S., Ware, D., Fulton, R. S., Stein, J. C., Wei, F., Pasternak, S., Liang, C., Zhang, J., Fulton, L., Graves, T., et al. (2009) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1178534 · Cited by 4,096
Research works printed but not linked: 13
- Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST)., 2013, Impact of the Precautionary Principle on Feeding Current and Future Generations.
- Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST)., 2018, Gene Editing in Agriculture: Methods, Applications, and Governance – A Paper in the Series on the Need for Agricultural Innovation to Sustainably Feed the World by 2050.
- 10.1038/ncomms13390 · DOI
- Katche E., 2019, Crop Breed. Genet. Genom., 1, e190007
- Kim J. K., 2012, Afr. J. Biotechnol., 11, 9330
- Laibach F., 1925, Z. Bot., 17, 417
- 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.
- Puttick M. N., 2015, Proc. Biol. Sci., 282, 20152289
- Robbins W. J., 1922, Int. J. Plant Sci., 73
- 10.2307/3869544 · DOI
- Vietmeyer N., 2010, Borlaug: Bread Winner, 1960-1969, Vol. 3
- Wan D.-Y., 2020, Hort. Res., 7
- Wang X.-J., 2018, Plant J., 3, 7106
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Potential Breeding Strategies for Improving Salt Tolerance in Crop Plants
Afzal, M., Hindawi, S. E. S., Alghamdi, S. S., Migdadi, H. H., Khan, M. A., Hasnain, M., Arslan, M., Rahman, M. H. U., & Sohaib, M. (2022) · Journal of Plant Growth Regulation · doi:10.1007/s00344-022-10797-w · Cited by 114
Occurrence and Nature of Off-Target Modifications by CRISPR-Cas Genome Editing in Plants
Sturme, M. H. J., van der Berg, J. P., Bouwman, L. M. S., de Schrijver, A., de Maagd, R. A., Kleter, G. A., & Battaglia, E. (2022) · ACS Agricultural Science & Technology · doi:10.1021/acsagscitech.1c00270 · Cited by 99
Somaclonal Variation and Clonal Fidelity in Commercial Micropropagation: Challenges and Perspectives
Majumder, S., Igamberdiev, A. U., & Debnath, S. C. (2025) · Agronomy · doi:10.3390/agronomy15061489 · Cited by 46
Wadood, A. A., Bordbar, F., & Zhang, X. (2025) · Frontiers in Animal Science · doi:10.3389/fanim.2025.1551244 · Cited by 43
In vivo and in vitro random mutagenesis techniques in plants
(GMO), E. P. O. G. M. O., Mullins, E. D., Bresson, J., Dalmay, T., Dewhurst, I. C., Epstein, M. M., Firbank, L. G., Guerche, P., Hejátko, J., Moreno, F. J., et al. (2021) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6611 · Cited by 39
Metadata
- 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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
