Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26745836›Full record

ArticleGM crops & food2015

A quick guide to CRISPR sgRNA design tools.

Vincent A Brazelton, Scott Zarecor, David A Wright, Yuan Wang, Jie Liu, Keting Chen, Bing Yang, Carolyn J Lawrence-Dill

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in GM crops & food, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed
–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

44 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. D-CAPS: an efficient CRISPR-Cas9-based phage defense system forActa biochimica et biophysica Sinica · 2025
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Approaches to Therapeutic Gene Editing in Alpha-1 Antitrypsin Deficiency.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  9. 3Bs of CRISPR-Cas mediated genome editing in plants: exploring the basics, bioinformatics and biosafety landscape.Physiology and molecular biology of plants : an international journal of functional plant biology · 2023
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Recombineering in Non-Model Bacteria.Current protocols · 2022
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. An Outlook on Global Regulatory Landscape for Genome-Edited Crops.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
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

8 authors.

Vincent A Brazeltona Interdepartmental Genetics and Genomics Program; Iowa State University ; Ames , IA USA.
Scott Zarecorc Department of Genetics ; Development and Cell Biology; Iowa State University ; Ames , IA USA.
David A Wrightc Department of Genetics ; Development and Cell Biology; Iowa State University ; Ames , IA USA.
Yuan Wangd Interdepartmental Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Program; Iowa State University ; Ames , IA USA ;
Jie Liud Interdepartmental Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Program; Iowa State University ; Ames , IA USA ;
Keting Chend Interdepartmental Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Program; Iowa State University ; Ames , IA USA ;
Bing Yangc Department of Genetics ; Development and Cell Biology; Iowa State University ; Ames , IA USA.
Carolyn J Lawrence-Dilla Interdepartmental Genetics and Genomics Program; Iowa State University ; Ames , IA USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Targeted genome editing is now possible in nearly any organism and is widely acknowledged as a biotech game-changer. Among available gene editing techniques, the CRISPR-Cas9 system is the current favorite because it has been shown to work in many species, does not necessarily result in the addition of foreign DNA at the target site, and follows a set of simple design rules for target selection. Use of the CRISPR-Cas9 system is facilitated by the availability of an array of CRISPR design tools that vary in design specifications and parameter choices, available genomes, graphical visualization, and downstream analysis functionality. To help researchers choose a tool that best suits their specific research needs, we review the functionality of various CRISPR design tools including our own, the CRISPR Genome Analysis Tool (CGAT; http://cropbioengineering.iastate.edu/cgat ).

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsInternetSoftwareAnimalsComputational BiologyGenetic EngineeringGenomeRNASequence Analysis, RNASpecies SpecificityRNA

Identifiers

PMID26745836
PMCPMC5033207

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.