Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19649713›Full record

ReviewGenetica2010

Gene therapy vectors: the prospects and potentials of the cut-and-paste transposons.

Corentin Claeys Bouuaert, Ronald M Chalmers

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Genetica, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing 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

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. A Preliminary Evaluation ofPharmaceutics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Mechanisms of DNA Transposition.Microbiology spectrum · 2015
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Target capture during Mos1 transposition.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2014
    Article
  17. Article
  18. A resurrected mammalian hAT transposable element and a closely related insect element are highly active in human cell culture.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2013
    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.

Corentin Claeys BouuaertSchool of Biomedical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham NG7 2UH, UK.
Ronald M Chalmers

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gene therapy applications require efficient tools for the stable delivery of genetic information into eukaryotic genomes. Most current gene delivery strategies are based on viral vectors. However, a number of drawbacks, such as the limited cargo capacity, host immune response and mutational risks, highlight the need for alternative gene delivery tools. A comprehensive gene therapy tool kit should contain a range of vectors and techniques that can be adapted to different targets and purposes. Transposons provide a potentially powerful approach. However, transposons encompass a large number of different molecular mechanisms, some of which are better suited to gene delivery applications than others. Here, we consider the range and potentials of the various mechanisms, focusing on the cut-and-paste transposons as one of the more promising avenues towards gene therapy applications. Several cut-and-paste transposition systems are currently under development. We will first consider the mechanisms of piggyBac and the hAT family elements Tol1 and Tol2, before focusing on the mariner family elements including Mos1, Himar1 and Hsmar1.

Indexed as

DNA Transposable ElementsAnimalsChromatinDNAGenetic EngineeringGenetic TherapyGenetic VectorsGene Transfer TechniquesHumansModels, GeneticRecombination, GeneticRetroelementsChromatinDNADNA Transposable ElementsRetroelements

Identifiers

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.