A review on determinants and optimization strategies in prime editing in cereal and non-cereal crops

Prime editing provides precise base changes, minute insertions (Small insertions ≤3 bp showed efficiencies of 2–8%) or deletions, and more defined substitutions without cutting both DNA strands or finding a donor. This is clearly better for safety and control. Plants have quickly taken on, but not in identical way. Changing editor backbones, reshaping pegRNAs, and evaluating out different delivery methods have often made things more efficient, but these improvements don't always work for all species or tissues. Simple design choices like PBS length, RTT layout, adding a 3′ structural tail, or employing paired pegRNAs can have greater implications on results than the editor itself. Editing efficiencies in rice protoplasts ranged from 0.26% to 2.2% for different targets. Rice showed that it was possible, as subsequent initiatives certain of which turned out far more successful than others—propelled into wheat, several dicots, and even some trees. While improvements in editor engineering, more advanced promoters, and computational design all got better, functionality still varies from locus to locus and genotype to genotype. In the real world, the transformation techniques and the local target context often define the outcome. This review summarizes collectively the greatest developments about plant prime editing, focusing on how it can be deployed for specific crops, how procedures can be strengthened, and design guidelines. The degree to which prime editing has been utilized in breeding and functional genomics will depend on further study on pegRNA stabilization, backbone variations, and various methods of delivering it.