Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22318089›Full record

ReviewGene therapy2013

Zinc finger nucleases: looking toward translation.

N J Palpant, D Dudzinski

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Gene therapy, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Modulating gene regulation to treat genetic disorders.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2020
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Nanotechnology for delivery of peptide nucleic acids (PNAs).Journal of controlled release : official journal of the Controlled Release Society · 2016
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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.

N J PalpantDepartment of Pathology, Institute for Stem Cell and Regenerative Medicine, Seattle, WA 98109, USA. npalpant@uw.edu
D Dudzinski

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic engineering has emerged as a powerful mechanism for understanding biological systems and a potential approach for redressing congenital disease. Alongside, the emergence of these technologies in recent decades has risen the complementary analysis of the ethical implications of genetic engineering techniques and applications. Although viral-mediated approaches have dominated initial efforts in gene transfer (GT) methods, an emerging technology involving engineered restriction enzymes known as zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs) has become a powerful new methodology for gene editing. Given the advantages provided by ZFNs for more specific and diverse approaches in gene editing for basic science and clinical applications, we discuss how ZFN research can address some of the ethical and scientific questions that have been posed for other GT techniques. This is of particular importance, given the momentum currently behind ZFNs in moving into phase I clinical trials. This study provides a historical account of the origins of ZFN technology, an analysis of current techniques and applications, and an examination of the ethical issues applicable to translational ZFN genetic engineering in early phase clinical trials.

Indexed as

AnimalsBioethical IssuesEndodeoxyribonucleasesGene TargetingGene Transfer TechniquesHumansZinc FingersEndodeoxyribonucleases

Identifiers

PMID22318089

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.