Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22179716›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2011

Genomically humanized mice: technologies and promises.

Anny Devoy, Rosie K A Bunton-Stasyshyn, Victor L J Tybulewicz, Andrew J H Smith, Elizabeth M C Fisher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

53 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Construction and characterization of a humanizedActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 2024
    Article
  10. A humanized knock-inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Speciation and adaptation research meets genome editing.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2022
    Review
  16. Of mice and human-specific long noncoding RNAs.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2022
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Anny DevoyDepartment of Neurodegenerative Disease, UCL Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK.
Rosie K A Bunton-Stasyshyn
Victor L J Tybulewicz
Andrew J H Smith
Elizabeth M C Fisher

Funding

Medical Research Council G0601056Medical Research Council G0801110Medical Research Council MC_U117527252Wellcome Trust 080174Wellcome Trust 098328
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mouse models have become an invaluable tool for understanding human health and disease owing to our ability to manipulate the mouse genome exquisitely. Recent progress in genomic analysis has led to an increase in the number and type of disease-causing mutations detected and has also highlighted the importance of non-coding regions. As a result, there is increasing interest in creating 'genomically' humanized mouse models, in which entire human genomic loci are transferred into the mouse genome. The technical challenges towards achieving this aim are large but are starting to be tackled with success.

Indexed as

Gene Transfer TechniquesAnimalsChromosomes, Artificial, MammalianDisease Models, AnimalGene TargetingGenetic Diseases, InbornGenome-Wide Association StudyHumansMiceMice, TransgenicPromoter Regions, GeneticRecombination, GeneticRegulatory Elements, TranscriptionalTransgenes

Identifiers

PMID22179716
PMCPMC4782217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.