1 Introduction

Maize stands as one of the world’s three major staple crops, playing a vital role in global food security, animal feed, and industrial applications (Naqvi et al., 2011; Yadava et al., 2017). Its strategic importance is underscored by the dual challenges it faces: persistent threats from pests, diseases, and climate-induced stresses, alongside the urgent need to increase yields to meet the demands of a growing population (Wu et al., 2019; Muppala et al., 2021; Li et al., 2024). Traditional breeding methods, while effective, have limitations in addressing these complex challenges rapidly and sustainably.

The advent of genetically modified (GM) technologies has opened new pathways for maize breeding and industrialization, enabling the development of varieties with enhanced resistance to insects, herbicides, and environmental stresses, as well as improved yield and nutritional profiles (Yadava et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2019; Muppala et al., 2021; Li et al., 2024). These advances have not only contributed to higher productivity and reduced losses but have also sparked significant public debate regarding biosafety, environmental impact, and socio-economic implications (Quist and Chapela, 2001; Naqvi et al., 2011; Fu et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2023).

This study will comprehensively review the development, application and public perception of genetically modified corn, synthesize current research and policy trends, explore the scientific progress of genetic transformation, evaluate the agronomic and industrial uses of genetically modified corn, and analyze different perspectives that affect its acceptance and governance. This study aims to provide reference for the future prospects and governance strategies for the responsible promotion of genetically modified corn worldwide.

2 Development History and Technical Basis of GM Maize

2.1 Technological evolution stages

The first generation of GM maize focused on the introduction of insect resistance, primarily through the expression of Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) proteins. Commercialized in the United States in 1996, Bt maize provided effective protection against major lepidopteran pests such as the European corn borer, reducing the need for chemical insecticides and improving grain quality. This innovation rapidly expanded to over 35 million hectares globally, demonstrating significant yield protection and convenience for growers.

The second generation introduced herbicide tolerance traits, enabling maize plants to withstand broad-spectrum herbicides like glyphosate and glufosinate. These varieties simplified weed management, reduced labor requirements, and facilitated conservation tillage practices. Herbicide-tolerant maize, often stacked with insect resistance, became widely adopted for its agronomic and economic benefits, particularly in regions facing labor shortages or high weed pressure (Gouse et al., 2016).

The third generation of GM maize features the integration of multiple traits, including enhanced nutritional profiles (such as increased vitamin or amino acid content), tolerance to abiotic stresses like drought, and further improvements in pest and herbicide resistance. Advances in transformation systems, including the use of morphogenic genes and CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing, have enabled more efficient and precise trait stacking, supporting the development of maize varieties tailored to diverse environmental and nutritional needs.

These technological milestones reflect decades of research in maize transformation, from optimizing DNA delivery and tissue culture responses to the adoption of advanced genome editing tools. The evolution of GM maize continues to be driven by the need for higher transformation efficiencies, broader genotype compatibility, and the integration of complex trait combinations to address global food security and sustainability challenges.

2.2 Common genetic engineering platforms

The gene gun (biolistic) method and Agrobacterium-mediated transformation are the two foundational platforms for introducing foreign genes into maize. The gene gun physically delivers DNA-coated particles into plant cells, while Agrobacterium tumefaciens exploits its natural ability to transfer DNA to plant genomes. Both methods have enabled the development of insect-resistant and herbicide-tolerant maize varieties, supporting large-scale commercial adoption and trait stacking in GM maize (Kumar et al., 2020; Zhou and Xu, 2024).

CRISPR/Cas gene editing represents a significant advancement, allowing precise, targeted modifications without necessarily introducing foreign DNA. This technology accelerates trait development, such as drought tolerance and enhanced nutrition, and can address some public and regulatory concerns associated with traditional transgenic approaches. CRISPR/Cas is increasingly used to develop new maize varieties with improved agronomic traits and may facilitate broader acceptance and faster regulatory approval (Aziz et al., 2022; Sandhu et al., 2024; Zhou and Xu, 2024).

2.3 Global GM maize cultivation status

GM maize is widely cultivated, with the United States, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa among the leading producers. These countries account for the majority of the global GM crop area, with maize being a key crop alongside soybean, cotton, and canola. Adoption rates are high due to the benefits of increased yield, reduced pesticide use, and improved crop management (Pellegrino et al., 2018; Scheitrum et al., 2020; Sandhu et al., 2024).

China has made significant progress in GM maize research, focusing on trait development, biosafety assessment, and nucleic acid detection technologies. Fu et al. (2021) used transgenic methods to introduce Cry1Ab and cEPSPS into maize ZD958, achieving simultaneous improvement of insect resistance and herbicide resistance. Field experiments confirmed that GM-ZD958 showed stronger stress resistance at multiple developmental stages, reducing yield losses caused by biotic stress, and providing technical support for high-yield and sustainable agriculture (Figure 1). While commercial cultivation remains limited due to regulatory and public acceptance challenges, China continues to advance experimental trials and develop robust detection and oversight systems to support future commercialization (Fu et al., 2021).

3 Main Applications and Industrial Contributions of GM Maize

3.1 Agricultural performance advantages

The adoption of insect-resistant (Bt) GM maize has led to significant reductions in insecticide use. In Spain and Portugal, insecticide spraying decreased by 37%, with a corresponding 21% reduction in environmental impact as measured by the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) (Brookes, 2019). Similar trends are observed in Colombia, where GM maize reduced insecticide and herbicide use by 19%, further lowering environmental risks and greenhouse gas emissions (Brookes, 2020). These reductions in pesticide use are directly linked to the effective control of major pests, resulting in healthier crops and less chemical input.

3 Main Applications and Industrial Contributions of GM Maize

3.1 Agricultural performance advantages

The adoption of insect-resistant (Bt) GM maize has led to significant reductions in insecticide use. In Spain and Portugal, insecticide spraying decreased by 37%, with a corresponding 21% reduction in environmental impact as measured by the Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ) (Brookes, 2019). Similar trends are observed in Colombia, where GM maize reduced insecticide and herbicide use by 19%, further lowering environmental risks and greenhouse gas emissions (Brookes, 2020). These reductions in pesticide use are directly linked to the effective control of major pests, resulting in healthier crops and less chemical input.

GM maize consistently demonstrates higher yield stability, even under challenging environmental conditions. In Spain and Portugal, farmers experienced an average yield increase of 11.5% with GM maize adoption (Brookes, 2019). In Colombia, stacked trait GM maize (combining insect resistance and herbicide tolerance) resulted in a 17.4% yield gain (Brookes, 2020). Additionally, GM maize varieties are being developed and deployed to enhance tolerance to abiotic stresses such as drought and heat, which are increasingly important under climate change scenarios. These improvements contribute to food security and more resilient agricultural systems.

3.2 Widespread use in feed and food processing

GM maize and its byproducts are extensively used in animal feed worldwide. Safety assessments of various GM maize lines confirm that they are as safe and nutritious as conventional maize for both human and animal consumption, with no identified concerns regarding toxicity, allergenicity, or nutritional value (Naegeli et al., 2020; Mullins et al., 2024). The broad adoption of GM maize in feed supports efficient livestock production and underpins the global food supply chain.

GM maize is widely processed into food additives such as corn starch and corn syrup, which are integral to numerous food products. Comprehensive safety assessments of various GM maize lines-including DP23211, MON 87419, MON 87429, and others-consistently show that their compositional, nutritional, and safety profiles are equivalent to conventional maize. No toxicological or allergenic concerns have been identified, and the use of GM maize-derived additives does not pose additional risks to human health compared to non-GM sources (Mullins et al., 2024).

3.3 Exploration of industrial and energy uses

Maize is a primary feedstock for bioethanol production, and GM maize varieties can offer advantages such as improved yield, pest resistance, and herbicide tolerance, which contribute to more reliable and cost-effective biofuel production. Some GM maize lines are specifically engineered for traits that may enhance processing efficiency or increase starch content, further supporting their use in ethanol manufacturing.

GM maize is also explored for the production of bioplastics and industrial enzymes. For example, certain genetically engineered maize lines express enzymes like alpha-amylase, which can facilitate starch breakdown during industrial processing. While the safety of such products (e.g., dried distiller grains with solubles from enzyme-expressing maize) has been evaluated and found comparable to non-GM maize, ongoing assessment is recommended for specific novel proteins (Naegeli et al., 2019).

4 Public Perception and Social Acceptance Analysis

4.1 Regional differences in public attitudes

Acceptance of GM maize is generally higher in North America, where both farmers and consumers have embraced the technology due to its agronomic and economic benefits. In contrast, Europe maintains a more cautious or oppositional stance, influenced by stringent regulatory frameworks and persistent public skepticism. In Asia, attitudes are mixed, with countries like China showing careful, policy-driven development and ongoing societal debate (Lucht, 2015). In Africa, acceptance is often hindered by unfavorable policies shaped by public opinion, despite the potential benefits for food security. For example, in Kenya, a majority of consumers and farmers recognize the role of GM maize in addressing food insecurity, but significant concerns about environmental and health risks persist (Kimenju and Groote, 2007). In Honduras, positive attitudes among farmers are linked to higher yields and reduced pesticide use, but broader acceptance could be improved with more proactive government engagement in knowledge dissemination (Macall et al., 2020).

4.2 Consumer awareness, misconceptions, and risk perceptions

Consumer awareness of GM maize varies significantly by region and demographic factors such as education and income. Misconceptions are common, with concerns over gene “pollution,” allergenicity, and environmental irreversibility frequently cited. In Kenya, 76% of respondents worried about cross-pollination with conventional crops, and over half believed GM maize could cause human sickness or death. In Mexico, many consumers supported a ban on GM maize imports, often without full awareness of the policy or its economic implications. These risk perceptions are exacerbated by insufficient scientific communication and asymmetric information dissemination, leading to persistent doubts and resistance (Lucht, 2015).

4.3 Challenges in public guidance and science communication

A major challenge is the lack of effective science communication from agricultural scientists, businesses, and governments. In many regions, the amplification of non-mainstream or negative narratives through social media further complicates public understanding and acceptance (Lucht, 2015). Studies in China show that perceived majority opinion and social norms have a stronger influence on GM support than scientific knowledge alone, highlighting the importance of normative communication strategies. In Africa, improving public education, robust monitoring, and science-based policies are recommended to enhance acceptance and informed decision-making (Ngcinela et al., 2019; Mukarumbwa and Taruvinga, 2023).

5 Economic Benefits and Societal Impacts of GM Maize

5.1 Impact on farmer income and agricultural economy

Adoption of GM maize has consistently increased farmer incomes by boosting yields and reducing production costs. In Vietnam, GM maize yielded 15–30% more than conventional varieties and reduced production costs by $26–31 per hectare, with every extra $1 spent on GM seed returning $6.84–$12.55 in additional income (Pham and Napasintuwong, 2020). Similar trends are observed in Spain, Portugal, and Colombia, where farmers gained €4.95–$5.25 in extra income per dollar spent on GM seed, primarily due to higher yields and reduced pesticide use (Brookes, 2019; Brookes, 2020). Globally, GM crop technology has increased farm incomes by $261.3 billion from 1996–2020, with 52% of gains accruing to developing countries (Brookes and Barfoot, 2020). GM maize also supports agricultural structure adjustment by enabling land and labor savings, allowing for more efficient resource allocation (Xie et al., 2017).

5.2 Impacts on global food security and supply chains

GM maize contributes to global food security by increasing production efficiency and yield stability. In South Africa, GM white maize provided an average of 4.6 million additional rations annually, reducing the need for land expansion and environmental damage. Globally, GM maize has added hundreds of millions of tonnes to total production, helping meet rising food and feed demand (Popp and Lakner, 2013; Brookes and Barfoot, 2020; Brookes, 2022). The technology also stabilizes supply chains by reducing vulnerability to pests and environmental stress, and influences international trade—countries reliant on GM maize imports, such as Chile, would face significant welfare losses if imports were restricted (Foster et al., 2024).

5.3 Ethical and equity issues

The application of GM maize raises ethical and equity concerns, particularly regarding smallholder farmers and developing regions. While GM maize can reduce poverty and drudgery—especially for women, who benefit from labor-saving traits—barriers such as seed access and market limitations persist. The distribution of benefits is heterogeneous, with gains varying by region, crop, and trait, and some concerns remain about long-term impacts and the potential for increased dependency on seed companies (Finger et al., 2011; Popp and Lakner, 2013; Gouse et al., 2016). Social and ethical debates also focus on environmental risks, consumer choice, and the role of biotechnology in sustainable development.

6 Future Trends and Challenges of GM Maize

6.1 Emerging technologies driving GM maize development

Gene editing technologies, particularly CRISPR/Cas systems, are revolutionizing maize breeding by enabling precise, targeted modifications for traits such as disease resistance, abiotic stress tolerance, and improved yield. The integration of CRISPR with advanced genomics, high-throughput sequencing, and phenotyping platforms is accelerating the development of climate-resilient and high-performing maize varieties. These next-generation breeding approaches, combined with traditional transformation methods, are expected to make maize improvement more efficient and accessible, supporting global food security and sustainable agriculture (Andorf et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2023; Zia et al., 2023).

6.2 Technical challenges facing GM maize

Despite technological advances, GM maize faces significant technical challenges. The evolution of resistance in target pests and the emergence of herbicide-resistant weeds threaten the long-term effectiveness of current GM traits. Additionally, increasingly strict regulatory policies and ongoing uncertainties regarding potential environmental and health risks complicate the commercialization and adoption of new GM maize varieties. Technical bottlenecks also persist in areas such as transformation efficiency, genotype dependency, and reliable detection of transgenes in diverse maize backgrounds (Agapito-Tenfen and Wickson, 2018; Zia et al., 2023).

6.3 Recommendations and strategies for promoting sustainability

To make sure GM maize can develop in a sustainable way, there are a few strategies that should be used. Governments need to give steady policy support and make their regulatory rules simpler. This will help encourage new ideas while keeping things safe and open. It’s also important to have long-term efforts to share scientific information and teach the public. Using science-based ways to communicate can help deal with people’s worries, fix wrong ideas, and get people to accept GM technologies in an informed way. This includes using new extension methods and institutional changes to help farmers get more information and resources (Shiferaw et al., 2011; Erenstein et al., 2022). Another key thing is to combine molecular breeding with better farming practices. This combination will be vital for getting the most out of yield increases and making crops stronger in the face of climate change (Shiferaw et al., 2011).

7 Concluding Remarks

GM maize has demonstrated clear benefits in increasing yields, reducing pesticide use, and improving farmer incomes, particularly in regions such as Honduras and South Africa. These advantages contribute to food security by enabling more efficient and environmentally sustainable maize production, reducing the need for land expansion, and supporting the supply of affordable food and feed. Industrially, GM maize underpins sectors ranging from food processing to biofuel production, further amplifying its economic impact.

Despite these benefits, public acceptance of GM maize remains uneven and is a major barrier to its broader adoption. Regional differences are pronounced: while many farmers and some consumers in developing countries recognize the value of GM maize for food security and income, concerns about environmental and health risks persist. In Europe and parts of Asia, skepticism is often reinforced by strict regulatory frameworks and negative media coverage. Mistrust of private sector involvement and insufficient engagement with smallholder farmers further complicate acceptance, as seen in South Africa and Mexico.

Advancing the sustainable application of GM maize requires scientific, standardized governance and transparent information disclosure. Building trust among stakeholders—farmers, consumers, regulators, and industry—is fundamental. Effective strategies include engaging end-users early, open communication between public and private sectors, and clear, science-based regulatory processes. Modernizing regulatory frameworks to focus on scientific risk assessment, rather than precautionary excess, can facilitate timely access to beneficial GM technologies.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to colleagues in this project team for collecting and combing the literature during the study.

Conflict of Interest Disclosure

The authors affirm that this research was conducted without any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

References

Agapito-Tenfen S., and Wickson F., 2018, Challenges for transgene detection in landraces and wild relatives: learning from 15 years of debate over GM maize in Mexico, Biodiversity and Conservation, 27: 539-566.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-017-1471-0

Andorf C., Beavis W., Hufford M., Smith S., Suza W., Wang K., Woodhouse M., Yu J., and Lübberstedt T., 2019, Technological advances in maize breeding: past, present and future, Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 132: 817-849.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-019-03306-3

Aziz M., Brini F., Rouached H., and Masmoudi K., 2022, Genetically engineered crops for sustainably enhanced food production systems, Frontiers in Plant Science, 13: 1027828.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2022.1027828

Brookes G., 2019, Twenty-one years of using insect resistant (GM) maize in Spain and Portugal: farm-level economic and environmental contributions, GM Crops & Food, 10: 90-101.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2019.1614393

Brookes G., 2022, Farm income and production impacts from the use of genetically modified (GM) crop technology 1996-2020, GM Crops & Food, 13: 171-195.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2022.2105626

Brookes G., 2020, Genetically modified (GM) crop use in Colombia: farm level economic and environmental contributions, GM Crops & Food, 11: 140-153.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1715156

Brookes G., and Barfoot P., 2020, GM crop technology use 1996-2018: farm income and production impacts, GM Crops & Food, 11: 242-261.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2020.1779574

Erenstein O., Jaleta M., Sonder K., Mottaleb K., and Prasanna B., 2022, Global maize production, consumption and trade: trends and R&D implications, Food Security, 14: 1295-1319.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01288-7

Finger R., Benni N., Kaphengst T., Evans C., Herbert S., Lehmann B., Morse S., and Stupak N., 2011, A meta analysis on farm-level costs and benefits of GM crops, Sustainability, 3: 743-762.

https://doi.org/10.3390/su3050743

Foster W., Ortega J., and Vargas G., 2024, Modeling the economic impact for Chile of an import ban on genetically modified maize, GM Crops & Food, 15: 85-104.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2024.2325180

Fu W., Zhu P., Qu M., Zhi W., Zhang Y., Li F., and Zhu S., 2021, Evaluation on reprogramed biological processes in transgenic maize varieties using transcriptomics and metabolomics, Scientific Reports, 11(1): 2050.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81637-2

Gouse M., Sengupta D., Zambrano P., and Zepeda J., 2016, Genetically modified maize: less drudgery for her, more maize for him? Evidence from smallholder maize farmers in South Africa, World Development, 83: 27-38.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.03.008

Kimenju S., and Groote H., 2007, Consumer willingness to pay for genetically modified food in Kenya, Agricultural Economics, 38: 35-46.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1574-0862.2007.00279.x

Kumar K., Gambhir G., Dass A., Tripathi A., Singh A., Jha A., Yadava P., Choudhary M., and Rakshit S., 2020, Genetically modified crops: current status and future prospects, Planta, 251(4): 91.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-020-03372-8

Li Z., Zhang J., and Song X., 2024, Breeding maize hybrids with improved drought tolerance using genetic transformation, International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 25(19): 10630.

https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms251910630

Lucht J., 2015, Public acceptance of plant biotechnology and GM crops, Viruses, 7: 4254-4281.

https://doi.org/10.3390/v7082819

Macall D., Trabanino C., Soto A., and Smyth S., 2020, Genetically modified maize impacts in Honduras: production and social issues, Transgenic Research, 29: 575-586.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11248-020-00221-y

Mukarumbwa P., and Taruvinga A., 2023, Landrace and GM maize cultivars’ selection choices among rural farming households in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa, GM Crops & Food, 14: 1-15.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2023.2215146

Mullins E., Bresson J., Dalmay T., Dewhurst I., Epstein M., Firbank L., Guerche P., Hejátko J., Naegeli H., Moreno F., Nogué F., Rostoks N., Serrano J., Savoini G., Veromann E., Veronesi F., Ardizzone M., De Sanctis G., Dumont A., Gennaro A., Ruiz J., Grammatikou P., Goumperis T., Lenzi P., Lewandowska A., Camargo A., Neri F., Piffanelli P., Raffaello T., and Xiftou K., 2024, Assessment of genetically modified maize DP910521 (application GMFF-2021-2473), EFSA Journal, 22(8): e8887.

https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8887

Muppala S., Gudlavalleti P., Malireddy K., Puligundla S., and Dasari P., 2021, Development of stable transgenic maize plants tolerant for drought by manipulating ABA signaling through Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, Journal of Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology, 19(1): 96.

https://doi.org/10.1186/s43141-021-00195-2

Naegeli H., Bresson J., Dalmay T., Dewhurst I., Epstein M., Firbank L., Guerche P., Hejátko J., Moreno F., Mullins E., Nogué F., Rostoks N., Serrano J., Savoini G., Veromann E., Veronesi F., Álvarez F., Ardizzone M., Lanzoni A., Ruiz J., De Sanctis G., Dumont A., Gennaro A., and Neri F., 2019, Statement complementing the EFSA scientific opinion on application (EFSA-GMO-UK-2006-34) for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified maize 3272, EFSA Journal, 17(11): e05844.

https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5844

Naegeli H., Bresson J., Dalmay T., Dewhurst I., Epstein M., Firbank L., Guerche P., Hejátko J., Moreno F., Mullins E., Nogué F., Rostoks N., Serrano J., Savoini G., Veromann E., Veronesi F., Álvarez F., Ardizzone M., De Sanctis G., Devos Y., Dumont A., Gennaro A., Ruiz J., Lanzoni A., Neri F., Papadopoulou N., Paraskevopoulos K., and Raffaello T., 2020, Assessment of genetically modified maize MZIR098 for food and feed uses (application EFSA-GMO-DE-2017-142), EFSA Journal, 18(6): e06171.

https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6171

Naqvi S., Ramessar K., Farré G., Sabalza M., Miralpeix B., Twyman R., Capell T., Zhu C., and Christou P., 2011, High-value products from transgenic maize, Biotechnology Advances, 29(1): 40-53.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biotechadv.2010.08.009

Ngcinela S., Mushunje A., Taruvinga A., Ngarava S., and Mutengwa C., 2019, Determinants of genetically modified (GM) maize adoption and the intensity of adoption in OR Tambo District Municipality, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa, GM Crops & Food, 10(1): 1-11.

https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2019.1580127

Pellegrino E., Bedini S., Nuti M., and Ercoli L., 2018, Impact of genetically engineered maize on agronomic, environmental and toxicological traits: a meta-analysis of 21 years of field data, Scientific Reports, 8(1): 3113.

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-21284-2

Pham D., and Napasintuwong O., 2020, Genetically modified maize adoption in Southern Vietnam, International Journal of Technological Learning, Innovation and Development, 12(2): 114-135.

https://doi.org/10.1504/ijtlid.2020.10030481

Popp J., and Lakner Z., 2013, Global socio-economic and environmental dimensions of GM maize cultivation, Food and Nutrition Sciences, 4: 8-20.

https://doi.org/10.4236/fns.2013.46A002

Quist D., and Chapela I., 2001, Transgenic DNA introgressed into traditional maize landraces in Oaxaca, Mexico, Nature, 414: 541-543.

https://doi.org/10.1038/35107068

Sandhu R., Chaudhary N., Shams R., and Dash K., 2024, Genetically modified crops and sustainable development: navigating challenges and opportunities, Food Science and Biotechnology, 34(2): 307-323.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10068-024-01669-y

Scheitrum D., Schaefer K., and Nes K., 2020, Realized and potential global production effects from genetic engineering, Food Policy, 93: 101882.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.101882

Shiferaw B., Prasanna B., Hellin J., and Bänziger M., 2011, Crops that feed the world 6: past successes and future challenges to the role played by maize in global food security, Food Security, 3: 307-327.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-011-0140-5

Wu J., Lawit S., Weers B., Sun J., Mongar N., Van Hemert J., Melo R., Meng X., Rupe M., Clapp J., Collet K., Trecker L., Roesler K., Peddicord L., Thomas J., Hunt J., Zhou W., Hou Z., Wimmer M., Jantes J., Mo H., Liu L., Wang Y., Walker C., Danilevskaya O., Lafitte R., Schussler J., Shen B., and Habben J., 2019, Overexpression of zmm28 increases maize grain yield in the field, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 116: 23850-23858.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1902593116

Xie W., Ali T., Cui Q., and Huang J., 2017, Economic impacts of commercializing insect-resistant GM maize in China, China Agricultural Economic Review, 9: 340-354.

https://doi.org/10.1108/CAER-06-2017-0126

Yadava P., Abhishek A., Singh R., Singh I., Kaul T., Pattanayak A., and Agrawal P., 2017, Advances in maize transformation technologies and development of transgenic maize, Frontiers in Plant Science, 7: 1949.

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01949

Yang Z., Cao Y., Shi Y., Qin F., Jiang C., and Yang S., 2023, Genetic and molecular exploration of maize environmental stress resilience: towards sustainable agriculture, Molecular Plant, 16(10): 1496-1517.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.molp.2023.07.005

Yuan G., Shi J., He D., Li Y., Du J., Zou C., Pan G., and Shen Y., 2023, Green tissue-targeted expression of the Cry1Ab/c gene in transgenic maize using the Cre/loxP system as an alternative strategy against lepidopteran pests, Journal of Economic Entomology, 116: 1894-1901.

https://doi.org/10.1093/jee/toad174

Zia M., Shoukat S., Arif M., Ahmad B., Nawaz A., Bahadur A., Zakria M., Khan H., Khan S., Suleman M., and Ali S., 2023, A discussion on maize transformation during the last two decades (2002–2022): an update on present trends and future prospects, Advances in Agriculture and Biology, 6: 1.

https://doi.org/10.63072/aab.23001

Zhou J., and Xu L., 2024, Conventional breeding vs. genetic engineering in maize: a comparative study, Maize Genomics and Genetics, 15(2): 49-59.

https://doi.org/10.5376/mgg.2024.15.0006