ReviewGenome biology2015
Resources for the design of CRISPR gene editing experiments.
Review in Genome biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 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
50 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current Techniques of Gene Editing in Pigs for Xenotransplantation.Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2025Review
- Therapeutic gene target prediction using novel deep hypergraph representation learning.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Nanomedicine for cancer patient-centered care.MedComm · 2024Review
- Mitochondrial diseases and mtDNA editing.Genes & diseases · 2024Review
- Making gene editing accessible in resource limited environments: recommendations to guide a first-time user.Frontiers in genome editing · 2024Review
- CRISPR-Cas13 in malaria parasite: Diagnosis and prospective gene function identification.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Nanodevices for the Efficient Codelivery of CRISPR-Cas9 Editing Machinery and an Entrapped Cargo: A Proposal for Dual Anti-Inflammatory Therapy.Pharmaceutics · 2022Article
- High-throughput methods for genome editing: the more the better.Plant physiology · 2022Review
- Double nicking by RNA-directed Cascade-nCas3 for high-efficiency large-scale genome engineering.Open biology · 2022Article
- CRISPR Screen Contributes to Novel Target Discovery in Prostate Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- TALENs-an indispensable tool in the era of CRISPR: a mini review.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2021Review
- Gene Editing in Dimorphic Fungi Using CRISPR/Cas9.Current protocols in microbiology · 2020Article
- PINCER: improved CRISPR/Cas9 screening by efficient cleavage at conserved residues.Nucleic acids research · 2020Article
- Allele-specific genome targeting in the development of precision medicine.Theranostics · 2020Review
- Recent Advances in Genetic Tools forFrontiers in genetics · 2020Review
- Biotechnological Perspectives of Omics and Genetic Engineering Methods in Alfalfa.Frontiers in plant science · 2020Review
- Computational approaches for effective CRISPR guide RNA design and evaluation.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020Review
- Application of CRISPR genetic screens to investigate neurological diseases.Molecular neurodegeneration · 2019Review
- gRNA validation for wheat genome editing with the CRISPR-Cas9 system.BMC biotechnology · 2019Article
- Generating Single Cell-Derived Knockout Clones in Mammalian Cells with CRISPR/Cas9.Current protocols in molecular biology · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CRISPR-based approaches have quickly become a favored method to perturb genes to uncover their functions. Here, we review the key considerations in the design of genome editing experiments, and survey the tools and resources currently available to assist users of this technology.
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.