ArticleBMC biotechnology2009
A comparison of synthetic oligodeoxynucleotides, DNA fragments and AAV-1 for targeted episomal and chromosomal gene repair.
Article in BMC biotechnology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Principles of Genetic Engineering.Genes · 2020Review
- Self-DNA inhibitory effects: Underlying mechanisms and ecological implications.Plant signaling & behavior · 2016Review
- Small fragment homologous replacement: evaluation of factors influencing modification efficiency in an eukaryotic assay system.PloS one · 2012Article
- An update on targeted gene repair in mammalian cells: methods and mechanisms.Journal of biomedical science · 2011Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent strategies for gene therapy of inherited diseases consist in adding functional copies of the gene that is defective. An attractive alternative to these approaches would be to correct the endogenous mutated gene in the affected individual. This study presents a quantitative comparison of the repair efficiency using different forms of donor nucleic acids, including synthetic DNA oligonucleotides, double stranded DNA fragments with sizes ranging from 200 to 2200 bp and sequences carried by a recombinant adeno-associated virus (rAAV-1). Evaluation of each gene repair strategy was carried out using two different reporter systems, a mutated eGFP gene or a dual construct with a functional eGFP and an inactive luciferase gene, in several different cell systems. Gene targeting events were scored either following transient co-transfection of reporter plasmids and donor DNAs, or in a system where a reporter construct was stably integrated into the chromosome.
resultsIn both episomal and chromosomal assays, DNA fragments were more efficient at gene repair than oligonucleotides or rAAV-1. Furthermore, the gene targeting frequency could be significantly increased by using DNA repair stimulating drugs such as doxorubicin and phleomycin.
conclusionOur results show that it is possible to obtain repair frequencies of 1% of the transfected cell population under optimized transfection protocols when cells were pretreated with phleomycin using rAAV-1 and dsDNA fragments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.