Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24190921›Full record

ReviewGenetics2013

Exciting prospects for precise engineering of Caenorhabditis elegans genomes with CRISPR/Cas9.

Christian Frøkjær-Jensen

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genetics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
5.5field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 82 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. High-Throughput Toxicity Screening withEnvironmental science & technology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Genome editing in the nematodeBiology methods & protocols · 2020
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Christian Frøkjær-JensenHoward Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Biology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 and Department of Biomedical Sciences and Danish National Research Foundation Centre for Cardiac Arrhythmia, University of Copenhagen, 2200 Kbh N, Denmark.
University of Utah · US

Funding

Engineering the C. Elegans GenomeR01GM095817 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI JORGENSEN, ERIK M · 2011 to 2021
$2.8M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNIGMS NIH HHS 5R01GM095817-03NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM095817
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With remarkable speed, the CRISPR-Cas9 nuclease has become the genome-editing tool of choice for essentially all genetically tractable organisms. Targeting specific DNA sequences is conceptually simple because the Cas9 nuclease can be guided by a single, short RNA (sgRNA) to introduce double-strand DNA breaks (DSBs) at precise locations. Here I contrast and highlight protocols recently developed by eight different research groups, six of which are published in GENETICS, to modify the Caenorhabditis elegans genome using CRISPR/Cas9. This reverse engineering tool levels the playing field for experimental geneticists.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGenome, HelminthAnimalsCaenorhabditis elegansHumansRNA Editing

Identifiers

PMID24190921
PMCPMC3813854
OpenAlexW2065508021

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.