ArticlePloS one2011
DNA nicks promote efficient and safe targeted gene correction.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 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
31 citing papers in PubMed.
- SETDB1/ATF7IP regulate the precise genome engineering of HUSH-regulated genes.Epigenetics & chromatin · 2026Article
- Development and application of CRISPR-based genetic tools in Bacillus species and Bacillus phages.Journal of applied microbiology · 2022Review
- The Role of Recombinant AAV in Precise Genome Editing.Frontiers in genome editing · 2021Review
- DENT-seq for genome-wide strand-specific identification of DNA single-strand break sites with single-nucleotide resolution.Genome research · 2021Article
- Advances in genome editing through control of DNA repair pathways.Nature cell biology · 2019Review
- Development and characterization of a CRISPR/Cas9n-based multiplex genome editing system forBiotechnology for biofuels · 2019Article
- Initiation of homologous recombination at DNA nicks.Nucleic acids research · 2018Review
- DNA strand-exchange patterns associated with double-strand break-induced and spontaneous mitotic crossovers in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.PLoS genetics · 2018Article
- Genome editing: a robust technology for human stem cells.Cellular and molecular life sciences : CMLS · 2017Review
- Control of gene editing by manipulation of DNA repair mechanisms.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2017Review
- Mechanisms of precise genome editing using oligonucleotide donors.Genome research · 2017Article
- Engineering Therapeutic T Cells: From Synthetic Biology to Clinical Trials.Annual review of pathology · 2017Review
- Two Distinct Pathways Support Gene Correction by Single-Stranded Donors at DNA Nicks.Cell reports · 2016Article
- Research Techniques Made Simple: The Application of CRISPR-Cas9 and Genome Editing in Investigative Dermatology.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2016Review
- Salient Features of Endonuclease Platforms for Therapeutic Genome Editing.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2016Review
- Designed nucleases for targeted genome editing.Plant biotechnology journal · 2016Review
- Engineering large animal models of human disease.The Journal of pathology · 2016Review
- Engineering a Nickase on the Homing Endonuclease I-DmoI Scaffold.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2015Article
- Efficient Genome Editing in Clostridium cellulolyticum via CRISPR-Cas9 Nickase.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2015Article
- Performance of the Cas9 nickase system in Drosophila melanogaster.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Targeted gene correction employs a site-specific DNA lesion to promote homologous recombination that eliminates mutation in a disease gene of interest. The double-strand break typically used to initiate correction can also result in genomic instability if deleterious repair occurs rather than gene correction, possibly compromising the safety of targeted gene correction. Here we show that single-strand breaks (nicks) and double-strand breaks both promote efficient gene correction. However, breaks promote high levels of inadvertent but heritable genomic alterations both locally and elsewhere in the genome, while nicks are accompanied by essentially no collateral local mutagenesis, and thus provide a safer approach to gene correction. Defining efficacy as the ratio of gene correction to local deletion, nicks initiate gene correction with 70-fold greater efficacy than do double-strand breaks (29.0±6.0% and 0.42±0.03%, respectively). Thus nicks initiate efficient gene correction, with limited local mutagenesis. These results have clear therapeutic implications, and should inform future design of meganucleases for targeted gene correction.
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.