ReviewReproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E2014
International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization.
Review in Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 148 citations in OpenAlex.
- The ethics of clinical applications of germline genome modification: a systematic review of reasons.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2018Pooled it
- Animal models in human surgery and implant innovation: ethical considerations and scientific advancements.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2025Article
- A decade of scientific advancements and collaborations on CRISPR-Cas9 application in cancer research: a bibliometric review.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Synergizing CRISPR-Cas9 with Advanced Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning for Precision Drug Delivery: Technological Nexus and Regulatory Insights.Current gene therapy · 2025Review
- Methyl β-Cyclodextrin-sperm-mediated gene editing (MBCD-SMGE): a simple and efficient method for targeted mutant mouse production.Biological procedures online · 2024Article
- Antioxidant effects of Bifidobacterium longum T37a in mice weight loss and aging model induced by D-galactose.BMC microbiology · 2023Article
- Strategies to overcome the main challenges of the use of CRISPR/Cas9 as a replacement for cancer therapy.Molecular cancer · 2022Review
- CRISPR/Cas-Based Gene Editing Strategies for DOCK8 Immunodeficiency Syndrome.Frontiers in genome editing · 2022Article
- Human Germline Gene Editing from Maslahah Perspective: The Case of the World's First Gene Edited Babies.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021Article
- Setting ethical limits on human gene editing after the fall of the somatic/germline barrier.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Review
- Human genome editing: how to prevent rogue actors.BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- What would responsible remedial human germline editing look like?Nature biotechnology · 2020Article
- Germline Genome Editing Research: What Are Gamete Donors (Not) Informed About in Consent Forms?The CRISPR journal · 2020Article
- Procreative Non-Maleficence: A South African Human Rights Perspective on Heritable Human Genome Editing.The CRISPR journal · 2020Article
- Ethical issues related to research on genome editing in human embryos.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Legal reflections on the case of genome-edited babies.Global health research and policy · 2020Article
- Is selecting better than modifying? An investigation of arguments against germline gene editing as compared to preimplantation genetic diagnosis.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- Attitudes of Members of Genetics Professional Societies Toward Human Gene Editing.The CRISPR journal · 2019Article
- Societal and Ethical Impacts of Germline Genome Editing: How Can We Secure Human Rights?The CRISPR journal · 2019Article
- Heritable Genome Editing in a Global Context: National and International Policy Challenges.The Hastings Center report · 2019Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome editing technology, including zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/Cas, has enabled far more efficient genetic engineering even in non-human primates. This biotechnology is more likely to develop into medicine for preventing a genetic disease if corrective genome editing is integrated into assisted reproductive technology, represented by in vitro fertilization. Although rapid advances in genome editing are expected to make germline gene correction feasible in a clinical setting, there are many issues that still need to be addressed before this could occur. We herein examine current status of genome editing in mammalian embryonic stem cells and zygotes and discuss potential issues in the international regulatory landscape regarding human germline gene modification. Moreover, we address some ethical and social issues that would be raised when each country considers whether genome editing-mediated germline gene correction for preventive medicine should be permitted.
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.