2018
DOI: 10.1016/j.gfs.2018.10.005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

CRISPR versus GMOs: Public acceptance and valuation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

11
128
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 157 publications
(140 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
11
128
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Our egt knock-out have shown similar levels of improvement as previous studies with other egt knock-out mutants generated by insertion on the egt locus of a selecting marker (10, 21, 39) and consequently considered as GM virus. From an applied point of view, and although certain countries are currently debating about the consideration of CRISPR/Cas9 mutants as GM or not (41, 42), our results provide new tools for the generation of GM-free virus with improved properties and potential use in the field. This methodology could be extended to other viruses and other viral loci for the generation of new viral strains with improved properties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Our egt knock-out have shown similar levels of improvement as previous studies with other egt knock-out mutants generated by insertion on the egt locus of a selecting marker (10, 21, 39) and consequently considered as GM virus. From an applied point of view, and although certain countries are currently debating about the consideration of CRISPR/Cas9 mutants as GM or not (41, 42), our results provide new tools for the generation of GM-free virus with improved properties and potential use in the field. This methodology could be extended to other viruses and other viral loci for the generation of new viral strains with improved properties.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 93%
“…Therefore, all genome editing tools should not be treated in the same manner, but rather evaluated separately. However, the EU courts recently categorized new genome editing methods as subject to a 2001 directive, which thus defines them as GMO [179,180]. On the contrary, in the USA, a step toward application of next generation techniques has been made, with the use of Cas9-edited plants now allowed [181].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our egt knockout has shown similar levels of improvement as previous studies with other egt knockout mutants generated by insertion on the egt locus of a selecting marker (Cory et al, 2004;Georgievska et al, 2010;O'Reilly & Miller, 1991) and consequently considered as GM virus. From an applied point of view, and although certain countries are currently debating about the consideration of CRISPR/Cas9 mutants as GM or not (Gelinsky & Hilbeck, 2018;Shew, Nalley, Snell, Nayga, & Dixon, 2018), our results provide new tools for the generation of GM-free virus with improved properties and potential use in the field. This methodology could be extended to other viruses and other viral loci for the generation of new viral strains with improved properties.…”
Section: Odv-e26mentioning
confidence: 93%