Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18047687›Full record

ReviewGenome biology2007

Meganuclease and transposon mediated transgenesis in medaka.

Clemens Grabher, Joachim Wittbrodt

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genome biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

24 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Can Designer Indels Be Tailored by Gene Editing?: Can Indels Be Customized?BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2019
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. A new model army: Emerging fish models to study the genomics of vertebrate Evo-Devo.Journal of experimental zoology. Part B, Molecular and developmental evolution · 2015
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Clemens GrabherPediatric Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Binney St, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA. Clemens_grabher@dfci.harvard.edu
Joachim Wittbrodt

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

From among a plethora of various gene delivery methods, the researcher must choose the right one according to availability for a given species and the precise application the transgenic animal is intended for. Here we review the progress in meganuclease and Sleeping Beauty transposon mediated transgenesis over recent years with a focus on medaka and zebrafish. We present a side-by-side comparison of these two approaches based on their biologic properties and provide interesting perspectives for future experiments and applications, which are different for the two techniques because of their distinct modes of action.

Indexed as

Gene Transfer TechniquesAnimalsDeoxyribonucleases, Type II Site-SpecificDNA Transposable ElementsOryziasSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsDeoxyribonucleases, Type II Site-SpecificDNA Transposable ElementsSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsSCEI protein, S cerevisiae

Identifiers

PMID18047687
PMCPMC2106848

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.