ReviewPlant biotechnology journal2016
Genetic spell-checking: gene editing using single-stranded DNA oligonucleotides.
Review in Plant biotechnology journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPR/Cas9 Mutagenesis through Introducing a Nanoparticle Complex Made of a Cationic Polymer and Nucleic Acids into Maize Protoplasts.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- An EU Perspective on Biosafety Considerations for Plants Developed by Genome Editing and Other New Genetic Modification Techniques (nGMs).Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2019Article
- Relaxed chromatin induced by histone deacetylase inhibitors improves the oligonucleotide-directed gene editing in plant cells.Journal of plant research · 2018Article
- Precise Editing at DNA Replication Forks Enables Multiplex Genome Engineering in Eukaryotes.Cell · 2017Article
- Progress of targeted genome modification approaches in higher plants.Plant cell reports · 2016Review
- Editing Plant Genomes: a new era of crop improvement.Plant biotechnology journal · 2016Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Single-stranded oligonucleotides (ssODNs) can be used to direct the exchange of a single nucleotide or the repair of a single base within the coding region of a gene in a process that is known, generically, as gene editing. These molecules are composed of either all DNA residues or a mixture of RNA and DNA bases and utilize inherent metabolic functions to execute the genetic alteration within the context of a chromosome. The mechanism of action of gene editing is now being elucidated as well as an understanding of its regulatory circuitry, work that has been particularly important in establishing a foundation for designing effective gene editing strategies in plants. Double-strand DNA breakage and the activation of the DNA damage response pathway play key roles in determining the frequency with which gene editing activity takes place. Cellular regulators respond to such damage and their action impacts the success or failure of a particular nucleotide exchange reaction. A consequence of such activation is the natural slowing of replication fork progression, which naturally creates a more open chromatin configuration, thereby increasing access of the oligonucleotide to the DNA template. Herein, how critical reaction parameters influence the effectiveness of gene editing is discussed. Functional interrelationships between DNA damage, the activation of DNA response pathways and the stalling of replication forks are presented in detail as potential targets for increasing the frequency of gene editing by ssODNs in plants and plant cells.
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.