Cited by 135Genetically Modified Organisms ResearchCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringIdentification and Quantification in Food

Detection and Identification of Genome Editing in Plants: Challenges and Opportunities

Open access
Grohmann, Lutz, Keilwagen, Jens, Duensing, Nina, Dagand, Emilie, Hartung, Frank, Wilhelm, Ralf, Bendiek, Joachim, Sprink, Thorben·2019·Frontiers in Plant Science

Abstract

Conventional genetic engineering techniques generate modifications in the genome via stable integration of DNA elements which do not occur naturally in this combination. Therefore, the resulting organisms and (most) products thereof can unambiguously be identified with event-specific PCR-based methods targeting the insertion site. New breeding techniques such as genome editing diversify the toolbox to generate genetic variability in plants. Several of these techniques can introduce single nucleotide changes without integrating foreign DNA and thereby generate organisms with intended phenotypes. Consequently, such organisms and products thereof might be indistinguishable from naturally occurring or conventionally bred counterparts with established analytical tools. The modifications can entirely resemble random mutations regardless of being spontaneous or induced chemically or via irradiation. Therefore, if an identification of these organisms or products thereof is demanded, a new challenge will arise for (official) seed, food and feed testing laboratories and enforcement institutions. For detailed consideration, we distinguish between the detection of sequence alterations - regardless of their origin - the identification of the process that generated a specific modification and the identification of a genotype, i.e., an organism produced by genome editing carrying a specific genetic alteration in a known background. This article briefly reviews the existing and upcoming detection and identification strategies (including the use of bioinformatics and statistical approaches) in particular for plants developed with genome editing techniques.

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 · 10.3389/fpls.2019.00236

Cites

51 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 1 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?

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. NCBI (2018). National Center for Biotechnology Information-Genome Information. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/browse/#!/overview/.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Grohmann, L., Keilwagen, J., Duensing, N., Dagand, E., Hartung, F., Wilhelm, R., Bendiek, J., & Sprink, T.
Affiliations
  • Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety (DE)
  • Julius Kühn-Institut (DE)
Corresponding author
Grohmann, Lutz
Venue
Frontiers in Plant Science
Published
2019-03-12
Volume
10
Pages
236-236
ISSN
1664-462X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2922011937
Cited by
135
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8
FWCI
12.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Plant Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OpenAgrar (submittedVersion, cc-by)
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 › Molecular Biology › Identification and Quantification in Food
Keywords
genome editing, plants, GMO detection, bioinformatics, statistical approach, regulatory enforcement

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