Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 313

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 145 of the 145 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Towards CRISPR/Cas crops – bringing together genomics and genome editing

Open access
Scheben, Armin, Wolter, Felix, Batley, Jacqueline, Puchta, Holger, Edwards, David·2017·New Phytologist

Abstract

Summary: With the rapid increase in the global population and the impact of climate change on agriculture, there is a need for crops with higher yields and greater tolerance to abiotic stress. However, traditional crop improvement via genetic recombination or random mutagenesis is a laborious process and cannot keep pace with increasing crop demand. Genome editing technologies such as clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/CRISPR‐associated protein (CRISPR/Cas) allow targeted modification of almost any crop genome sequence to generate novel variation and accelerate breeding efforts. We expect a gradual shift in crop improvement away from traditional breeding towards cycles of targeted genome editing. Crop improvement using genome editing is not constrained by limited existing variation or the requirement to select alleles over multiple breeding generations. However, current applications of crop genome editing are limited by the lack of complete reference genomes, the sparse knowledge of potential modification targets, and the unclear legal status of edited crops. We argue that overcoming technical and social barriers to the application of genome editing will allow this technology to produce a new generation of high‐yielding, climate ready crops. Contents Summary 682 I. Introduction 682 II. Genomic‐based crop improvement before CRISPR/Cas 683 III. Genome assembly as the starting point for genome editing 684 IV. Identifying targets for genome editing using functional genomics 685 V. Using CRISPR/Cas to improve crops 685 VI. Improving the efficiency of the CRISPR/Cas system 688 VII. An emerging new breeding process 690 VIII. Conclusion 694 Acknowledgements 694 References 694

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/nph.14702

Cites

145 of 145 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 145 references

Cited by

See all 313

Metadata

Authors
Scheben, A., Wolter, F., Batley, J., Puchta, H., & Edwards, D.
Venue
New Phytologist
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-08
Volume
216
Issue
3
Pages
682-698
ISSN
  • 0028-646X (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8137
OpenAlex
W2741617948
Cited by
313
References
145
FWCI
10.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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: Towards CRISPR/Cas crops – bringing together genomics and genome editing. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/nph.14702
The paper
Scheben, A., Wolter, F., Batley, J., Puchta, H., & Edwards, D. (2017). Towards CRISPR/Cas crops – bringing together genomics and genome editing. New Phytologist. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.14702

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.