The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Plants
Abstract
New plant breeding innovations, including CRISPR-mediated genome editing, are enhancing the development of new plant varieties, many of which are on the cusp of entering market places internationally. The lack of clear and consistent regulatory policies globally for genome-edited plants, and their products, may limit the adoption and commercialization of these products; In contrast to the positive trends of regulatory agencies in Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, and the United States, which are at the forefront of a wave of countries that are implementing policies facilitating the development of genome-edited plants, the European Union has adopted a more restrictive approach that considers any new mutagenesis technique developed after 2001 as subject to regulation as genetically modified plants.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“SDN1 mutants involve precise point mutations that disrupt or silence genes without requiring a repair template.”
From Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops (2025) · cites this paper as Zannoni, 2019
In the citing paper
“The international community is grappling with questions about regulatory oversight, safety data requirements, and the distinction between CRISPR-edited crops and GMOs (Zannoni, 2019).”
From Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops (2025) · cites this paper as Zannoni, 2019
In the citing paper
“Although off-target effects in SDN1 mutants are debated, the resulting changes are similar to natural mutations (Zannoni, 2019; Sprink et al., 2016).”
From Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops (2025) · cites this paper as Zannoni, 2019
In the citing paper
“Genome-edited mutants are classified into three types—SDN1, SDN2, and SDN3 (Figure 4), based on the nature of genome modifications and double-strand break (DSB) repair outcomes (Zannoni, 2019)”
From Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops (2025) · cites this paper as Zannoni, 2019
Citations
Cites
CRISPR/Cas9 Platforms for Genome Editing in Plants: Developments and Applications
Ma, X., Zhu, Q., Chen, Y., & Liu, Y. (2016) · Molecular Plant · doi:10.1016/j.molp.2016.04.009 · Cited by 497
Efficient CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing of Phytoene desaturase in Cassava
Odipio, J., Alicai, T., Ingelbrecht, I., Nusinow, D. A., Bart, R. S., & Taylor, N. J. (2017) · Frontiers in Plant Science · doi:10.3389/fpls.2017.01780 · Cited by 247
Consumer acceptance of food crops developed by genome editing
Ishii, T., & Araki, M. (2016) · Plant Cell Reports · doi:10.1007/s00299-016-1974-2 · Cited by 186
Songstad, D. D., Petolino, J. F., Voytas, D. F., & Reichert, N. A. (2017) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/07352689.2017.1281663 · Cited by 171
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine. Genetically Engineered Crops: Experiences and Prospects. Washington DC: The National Academies Press 2016.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Emerging applications of gene editing technologies for the development of climate-resilient crops
Chavhan, R. L., Jaybhaye, S. G., Hinge, V. R., Deshmukh, A. S., Shaikh, U. S., Jadhav, P. K., Kadam, U. S., & Hong, J. C. (2025) · Frontiers in Genome Editing · doi:10.3389/fgeed.2025.1524767 · Cited by 55
“The approval processes for genetically modi fi ed organisms (GMOs) vary signi fi cantly across countries, and the introduction of multi-gene constructs may face additional scrutiny due to concerns over environmental impact and food safety (Fan, 2024; Suza et al., 2018).”
Influential
Metadata
- Authors
- Zannoni, L.
- Affiliations
- Zannoni and Associates Consulting LLC, Raleigh, North Carolina.
- Corresponding author
- Zannoni, Lisa
- Venue
- The CRISPR Journal
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-02-01
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-8
- ISSN
- 2573-1599 (ISSN-L)
- 2573-1602
- OpenAlex
- W2915936434
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4
- FWCI
- 1.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The CRISPR Journal (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- 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 › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
- Keywords
- genetically modified organisms, regulatory policy
- MeSH terms
- Plant Breeding, Gene Editing, Agriculture, Genetic Engineering, Humans, Genome, Plant, Plants, Genetically Modified, Food, Genetically Modified, Government Regulation, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Plants. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1089/crispr.2018.0016
- The paper
- Zannoni, L. (2019). Evolving Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Plants. The CRISPR Journal. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2018.0016
