MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415513543 · doi:10.5376/tgg.2025.16.0008

CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Editing of <i>TaGW2</i> to Enhance Grain Size in Wheat

2025· article· W4415513543 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
X. T. Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueTriticeae Genomics and Genetics · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrain yieldMutantCropWheat grainGenome editingGenePlant breedingCrop yield

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wheat ( Triticum aestivum ) is a major food crop in the world, and its grain weight is one of the important traits that determine its yield. The TaGW2 gene is widely considered to be a key negative regulator of wheat grain size. With the development of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing technology, targeted modification of the TaGW2 gene has become an important molecular breeding strategy for improving wheat grain weight. In this study, the structural characteristics and expression patterns of the TaGW2 gene were systematically analyzed, an efficient CRISPR/Cas9 editing system was designed, mutant materials were constructed, and their grain phenotypes were deeply evaluated. The study showed that the TaGW2 knockout mutant showed significant improvements in grain length, grain width, and 1000-grain weight, and had no adverse effects on plant height and growth period. This study collected and summarized actual editing cases from multiple authoritative institutions such as the Chinese Academy of Agricultural Sciences, CSIRO in Australia, and Nagoya University in Japan, verifying the wide applicability and breeding potential of TaGW2 editing in different genetic backgrounds. In this study, CRISPR/Cas9 technology was used to precisely edit the wheat TaGW2 gene in order to enhance the length, width, and 1000-grain weight of the grain, thereby improving the yield potential of wheat.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTriticeae Genomics and GeneticsSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207