MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415652593 · doi:10.9734/acri/2025/v25i101589

Harnessing CRISPR Genome Editing for Sustainable Agriculture, Livestock and Food Security

2025· article· en· W4415652593 on OpenAlexaff
Shovon Shaha, Md Hossen, Anwar Hossain Rana, M. A. F. M. Nasir, Md. Rezaul Alam, Md Shiblee Sadik Sabuj, Limon Biswas, Kazi Abdus Sobur, Md. Ashiquen Nobi, A.K.M. Mostafa Zaman, Md. Tajul Islam, Md. Sayeed Anawar, Himangsu Sarker, Partha Pratim Ghosh

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Current Research International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCRISPR and Genetic Engineering
Canadian institutionsCentennial College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood securityCRISPRGenome editingSustainabilityLivestockAgricultureTransformative learningPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CRISPR genome editing has rapidly evolved from a bacterial immune mechanism into a powerful, programmable platform for precise genetic modification across plant and animal systems. In agriculture and livestock production, CRISPR-based tools such as Cas9, Cas12, base editors, and prime editors are enabling sustainable innovations that directly support global food security. Applications range from improving crop yield, nutritional content, and climate resilience to enhancing livestock disease resistance, productivity, and animal welfare. These advances offer transformative solutions to challenges posed by population growth, environmental stress, and limited arable resources. This review aims to critically summarizes recent technological developments, delivery strategies, and representative applications of CRISPR in crops and farm animals, while highlighting biosafety, ethical, and regulatory considerations that influence translational adoption. By integrating scientific progress with policy and sustainability perspectives, this work underscores CRISPR’s pivotal role in shaping resilient, ethical, and equitable food systems for the future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.566
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.365 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchives of Current Research InternationalSame topicCRISPR and Genetic EngineeringFrench-language works237,207