Mini Review - Journal of Agriculture (2023) Volume 6, Issue 2

The Following Biotechnological Plants For Dealing With Global Problems: New Breeding Methods And Trans genesis�s Contribution

Tanver Sharma*

Department of Primary Industries, Yank Agricultural Institute, Australia

*Corresponding Author:
Tanver Sharma
Department of Primary Industries, Yank Agricultural Institute, Australia
Received: 01-Apr-2023, Manuscript No. jagri-23- 100524; Editor assigned: 03-Apr-2023, Pre-QC No. jagri-23- 100524 (PQ); Reviewed: 17-Apr- 2023, QC No. jagri-23 -100524; Revised: 24-Apr-2023, Manuscript No. jagri-23-100524 (R); Published: 28-Apr-2023; DOI: 10.37532/ jagri.2023.6(2).52-54


Meetingfuture food request will be a test. The food supply is being further strained by urbanization, climate change, and land degradation. The challenges are multifaceted and self-reinforcing, necessitating a fundamental shift in the food system. Crop improvement through breeding has historically been the primary method for alleviating poverty and expanding global food supplies. As a partial solution, new, improved crop varieties must be developed and made available to farmers sooner in order to adequately address these issues with food security. IN this survey, we centre around different demonstrated traditional and biotechnological speeding up plant reproducing techniquesthat don’t need hereditary designing or quality altering. Particular focus is placed on the shortterm viability of implementation by national agricultural research systems in developing nations. We argue that it is justifiable to immediately implement accelerated breeding practices in the public sector and those postponing technologies that can accelerate breeding makes no economic sense. Taking into account a large number of variables including the financial matters of sped up reproducing, we advocate the utilization of a technique called fast age advance (RGA) as the most achievable strategy for speeding up reproducing in the public area.


Genome editing • CRISPR-Cas9 • Food security • Molecular farming • Biofuel • Edible vaccine


Since the 1980s, the development of gene transfer technologies has made basic and applied research much easier. Some of these technologies’ products have been on the market since the middle of the. These methods are referred to here as “classical.” Using sequence-specific nucleases like Zinc Finger Nuclease, TALENs (Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases), CRISPRCA’s systems (Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats), and oligonucleotidedirected mutagenesis (ODM) technologies to edit genes in plants could be the next big thing. Recently, overviews of the application of CRISPR-based gene editing to plants, its difficulties and opportunities, as well as regulatory constraints, have been published [1]. A report by German scientific authorities and an article by Purnhagen and Wissler also listed a number of applications and potential applications of these technologies while discussing the legal situation and implications of gene editing in the EU.This review, which looks at plant biotechnology from a different perspective, looks at innovations that have recently been approved or sold, and it makes the distinction between gene editing and classical transgenesis.Gene transfer is also distinguished from gene silencing by anti-sense or RNA interference methods, which are collectively referred to as RNAi in relation to traditional transgenes is [2]. Patents utilizing either the CRISPRCA’s system in plants or classical transgenes is have been compiled as an additional tool for locating the most recent innovations. The focus here is on Africa because it could also shed light on original research projects through examination of field trials. According to the International Service for the Acquisition of Agra-biotech Applications (ISAAA), has “the biggest potential to reap benefits associated with modern agronomic biotechnology.” The objectives are to examine whether gene editing involves new plants, traits, or actors, as well as whether classical transgenes is methods and gene editing are complementary or antagonistic, and how biotechnology could provide tools to address global agricultural challenges [3].

Material and Methods

The ISAAA GM database was used to compile biotechnological plant varieties that had been approved for commercial use by regulatory agencies around the world or that were already sold in at least one country. This incorporates assortments which got ‘liberated’ status in the USA after risk assessment. Additionally, the “Am I regulated” database of the United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (USDAAPHIS) contained non-regulated products.

Sites of potential designers are one more wellspring of data used. At the point when ‘Corporate Business Data’ (CBI) was not accessible, the information was clarified as “otherquality altering (not unveiled)”[4]. Likewise, plant lines communicatingnonpesticidal ‘new proteins’, assessed by the US Food and MedicationOrganization (FDA) for food handling, were assembled from. The Approved, non-regulated, or marketed new biotechnological plants section of the Results does not include plants in their Research and Development (R&D) stages [5].

Patents on plant biotechnology

The Orbit Intelligence database was used to obtain patents for inventions based on classical transgenes is (also known as gene transfer or RNAi) or the CRISPR-CA’s system. The patent supplementary file contains a diagram of the search query equation [6]. This search was restricted to the 45 significant species gathered in the ‘supported and advertised’ area. Patent records were reorganized into patent families, which include patent titles, abstracts, inventors, applicants, priority dates, and the various reference numbers. These families contain all extensions of a single invention [7].

Manual arranging

The compiled “approved/non-regulated/ marketed” products and patents were divided further into technical categories, such as “classical transgenes is,” which was subdivided into “gene transfer or RNAi,” and “gene editing,” which was limited to “CRISPR” for patents [8].


Biotechnology utilizes are growing to a more extensive scope of plants to address different issues in horticulture for food and non-food purposes, ikehelpfulormodernapplications. Gene editing methods appear to be an effective complement rather than a replacement for traditional transgenes is at the moment. In any case, a lofty increment is seen in quality altered items in2020 [9]. More modest organizationswhat’s more, scholarly research centers hold a huge portion of quality altering licenses. However, the number of products sold and the global impact of the EU regulation of gene-edited plants remain to be seen. WhileChina is a mind-boggling forerunner in plantbiotechnological protecting; the nation is still a long ways behind the USA in the showcasing of such items [10].


  1. Menz J, Modrzejewski D, Hartung F et al. Genome edited crops touch the market: a view on the global development and regulatory environment. Front Plant Sci. 11,586027 (2020).
  2. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  3. Martin-Laffon J, Kuntz M, Ricroch Ae.  Worldwide CRISPR patent landscape shows strong geographical biases. Nat Biotechnol.37, 613–620(2019).
  4. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  5. Cao X, Dong Z.  Development and characterization of marker-free and transgene insertion site-defined transgenic wheat with improved grain storability and fatty acid content. Plant Biotechnol J.18,129–140(2020).
  6. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  7. Nakka S, Jugulam M, Peterson D et al. Herbicide resistance: development of wheat production systems and current status of resistant weeds in wheat cropping systems. Crop J. 7, 750–760(2019).
  8. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  9. Eriksson D, Custers R, Edvardsson Bjornberg K  et al. Options to reform the European Union legislation on GMOs: postauthorization and beyond. Trends Biotechnol.38, 465–467(2020).
  10. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  11. Ricroch, Agnes.Challenges facing European agriculture and possible biotechnological solutionsCritical Reviews in Biotechnology. 36, 875-883(2016).
  12. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  13. Lusser M, Parisi C, Plan D, et al.  Deployment of new biotechnologies in plant breeding. Nature biotechnology30, 231-239(2012).
  14. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  15. Ammann, Klaus. Genomic misconception: a fresh look at the biosafety of transgenic and conventional crops. A plea for a process agnostic regulation. New biotechnology. 31, 1-17(2014).
  16. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  17. TA, Hayes TR, Cranmer AC et al. Genetic engineering of a quantitative trait: metabolic and genetic parameters the accumulation of laurate in rapeseed. The Plant Journal. 9, 229-241(1996).
  18. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref

  19. Podevin, Nancy, Yann Devos et al. Transgenic or not? No simple answer! New biotechnology‐based plant breeding techniques and the regulatory landscape. EMBO reports. 13,1057-1061(2012).
  20. Indexed at, Google Scholar, Crossref