These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

213 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 26842045)

  • 1. Gene editing: Edited plants should not be patented.
    Porter JR; Durand JL; Elmayan T
    Nature; 2016 Feb; 530(7588):33. PubMed ID: 26842045
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Europe's genetically edited plants stuck in legal limbo.
    Abbott A
    Nature; 2015 Dec; 528(7582):319-20. PubMed ID: 26672535
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Gene-editing surges as US rethinks regulations.
    Ledford H
    Nature; 2016 Apr; 532(7598):158-9. PubMed ID: 27075074
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Gene-edited CRISPR mushroom escapes US regulation.
    Waltz E
    Nature; 2016 Apr; 532(7599):293. PubMed ID: 27111611
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Crop conundrum.
    Nature; 2015 Dec; 528(7582):307-8. PubMed ID: 26672517
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Breeding controls.
    Nature; 2016 Apr; 532(7598):147. PubMed ID: 27075058
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Policy: Reboot the debate on genetic engineering.
    Kuzma J
    Nature; 2016 Mar; 531(7593):165-7. PubMed ID: 26961641
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Ending event-based regulation of GMO crops.
    Strauss SH; Sax JK
    Nat Biotechnol; 2016 May; 34(5):474-7. PubMed ID: 27153272
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. A risk-based approach to the regulation of genetically engineered organisms.
    Conko G; Kershen DL; Miller H; Parrott WA
    Nat Biotechnol; 2016 May; 34(5):493-503. PubMed ID: 27153279
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Revamp of UK CRISPR regulation will require public trust.
    Nature; 2021 Mar; 591(7850):345. PubMed ID: 33727726
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. CRISPR conundrum: Strict European court ruling leaves food-testing labs without a plan.
    Ledford H
    Nature; 2019 Aug; 572(7767):15. PubMed ID: 31363192
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. UK government caught in GM dilemma.
    Mitchell P
    Nat Biotechnol; 2003 Sep; 21(9):957. PubMed ID: 12949540
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. PLANTS IN THE CRISPR.
    Webb S
    Biotechniques; 2017 Sep; 63(3):96-101. PubMed ID: 28911311
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A technological and regulatory outlook on CRISPR crop editing.
    Globus R; Qimron U
    J Cell Biochem; 2018 Feb; 119(2):1291-1298. PubMed ID: 28731201
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. A research program for the socioeconomic impacts of gene editing regulation.
    Whelan AI; Lema MA
    GM Crops Food; 2017 Jan; 8(1):74-83. PubMed ID: 28080208
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. 2nd-generation GM traits progress.
    Marshall A
    Nat Biotechnol; 2010 Apr; 28(4):306. PubMed ID: 20379167
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Genome editing of crops: A renewed opportunity for food security.
    Georges F; Ray H
    GM Crops Food; 2017 Jan; 8(1):1-12. PubMed ID: 28075688
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Strict EU ruling on gene-edited crops squeezes science.
    Wight AJ
    Nature; 2018 Nov; 563(7729):15-16. PubMed ID: 30377319
    [No Abstract]   [Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A future scenario of the global regulatory landscape regarding genome-edited crops.
    Ishii T; Araki M
    GM Crops Food; 2017 Jan; 8(1):44-56. PubMed ID: 27960622
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Use of CRISPR/Cas Genome Editing Technology for Targeted Mutagenesis in Rice.
    Xu R; Wei P; Yang J
    Methods Mol Biol; 2017; 1498():33-40. PubMed ID: 27709567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.