The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development
Abstract
Summary: One of the major concerns of the general public about transgenic crops relates to the mixing of genetic materials between species that cannot hybridize by natural means. To meet this concern, the two transformation concepts cisgenesis and intragenesis were developed as alternatives to transgenesis. Both concepts imply that plants must only be transformed with genetic material derived from the species itself or from closely related species capable of sexual hybridization. Furthermore, foreign sequences such as selection genes and vector‐backbone sequences should be absent. Intragenesis differs from cisgenesis by allowing use of new gene combinations created by in vitro rearrangements of functional genetic elements. Several surveys show higher public acceptance of intragenic/cisgenic crops compared to transgenic crops. Thus, although the intragenic and cisgenic concepts were introduced internationally only 9 and 7 years ago, several different traits in a variety of crops have currently been modified according to these concepts. Five of these crops are now in field trials and two have pending applications for deregulation. Currently, intragenic/cisgenic plants are regulated as transgenic plants worldwide. However, as the gene pool exploited by intragenesis and cisgenesis are identical to the gene pool available for conventional breeding, less comprehensive regulatory measures are expected. The regulation of intragenic/cisgenic crops is presently under evaluation in the EU and in the US regulators are considering if a subgroup of these crops should be exempted from regulation. It is accordingly possible that the intragenic/cisgenic route will be of major significance for future plant breeding.
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.
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
Crop Improvement through Modification of the Plant's Own Genome
Rommens, C. M., Humara, J. M., Ye, J., Yan, H., Richael, C., Zhang, L., Perry, R., & Swords, K. (2004) · Plant Physiology · doi:10.1104/pp.104.040949 · Cited by 173
RetractedKomari, T., Hiei, Y., Saito, Y., Murai, N., & Kumashiro, T. (1996) · The Plant Journal · doi:10.1046/j.1365-313x.1996.10010165.x · Cited by 572
Applied Biotechnology to Combat Late Blight in Potato Caused by Phytophthora Infestans
Haverkort, A. J., Struik, P. C., Visser, R. G. F., & Jacobsen, E. (2009) · Potato Research · doi:10.1007/s11540-009-9136-3 · Cited by 489
Biotechnology: The Making of a Global Controversy
Bauer, M. W., & GASKELL, G. D. (2002) · Cited by 443
Identification of a cloned cytokinin biosynthetic gene
Barry, G. F., Rogers, S. G., Fraley, R. T., & Brand, L. (1984) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.81.15.4776 · Cited by 416
Schouten, H. J., Krens, F. A., & Jacobsen, E. (2006) · EMBO reports · doi:10.1038/sj.embor.7400769 · Cited by 392
Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding
Lusser, M., Parisi, C., Plan, D., & Rodríguez-Cerezo, E. (2012) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2142 · Cited by 342
Lorberth, R., Ritte, G., Willmitzer, L., & Kossmann, J. (1998) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt0598-473 · Cited by 290
de Vetten, N., Wolters, A.-M., Raemakers, K., van der Meer, I., ter Stege, R., Heeres, E., Heeres, P., & Visser, R. (2003) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt801 · Cited by 260
Functional stacking of three resistance genes against Phytophthora infestans in potato
Zhu, S., Li, Y., Vossen, J. H., Visser, R. G. F., & Jacobsen, E. (2012) · Transgenic Research · doi:10.1007/s11248-011-9510-1 · Cited by 243
Cited by
Regulatory framework for gene editing and other new breeding techniques (NBTs) in Argentina
Whelan, A. I., & Lema, M. A. (2015) · GM Crops & Food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2015.1114698 · Cited by 192
Potential of Industrial Hemp for Phytoremediation of Heavy Metals
Placido, D. F., & Lee, C. C. (2022) · Plants · doi:10.3390/plants11050595 · Cited by 96
Genetic Variation and Unintended Risk in the Context of Old and New Breeding Techniques
Singer, S. D., Laurie, J. D., Bilichak, A., Kumar, S., & Singh, J. (2021) · Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences · doi:10.1080/07352689.2021.1883826 · Cited by 77
Tariq, A., Mushtaq, M., Yaqoob, H., Bhat, B. A., Zargar, S. M., Raza, A., Ali, S., Charagh, S., Mubarik, M. S., Zaman, Q. U., et al. (2023) · GM Crops & Food · doi:10.1080/21645698.2023.2219111 · Cited by 45
Metadata
- Authors
- Holme, I. B., Wendt, T., & Holm, P. B.
- Venue
- Plant Biotechnology Journal
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-02-20
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 395-407
- ISSN
- 1467-7644 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-7652
- OpenAlex
- W1964840378
- Cited by
- 259
- References
- 41
- FWCI
- 34.03
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/pbi.12055
- The paper
- Holme, I. B., Wendt, T., & Holm, P. B. (2013). Intragenesis and cisgenesis as alternatives to transgenic crop development. Plant Biotechnology Journal. https://doi.org/10.1111/pbi.12055
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.