ReviewBlood2016
A genome editing primer for the hematologist.
Review in Blood, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gene Therapy: A Revolutionary Step in Treating Thalassemia.Hematology reports · 2024Review
- CRISPR-Cpf1 system and its applications in animal genome editing.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2024Review
- Multi-faceted CRISPR/Cas technological innovation aspects in the framework of 3P medicine.The EPMA journal · 2023Review
- Review
- Acoustofluidic sonoporation for gene delivery to human hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2020Article
- Pathophysiology and recent therapeutic insights of sickle cell disease.Annals of hematology · 2020Review
- Editing aberrant splice sites efficiently restores β-globin expression in β-thalassemia.Blood · 2019Article
- CRISP Points on EstablishingIndian journal of hematology & blood transfusion : an official journal of Indian Society of Hematology and Blood Transfusion · 2019Review
- Engineering chimeric antigen receptor-T cells for cancer treatment.Molecular cancer · 2018Review
- Characterization of Gene Alterations following Editing of the β-Globin Gene Locus in Hematopoietic Stem/Progenitor Cells.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2018Article
- Therapeutic gene editing in CD34EMBO molecular medicine · 2017Article
- Homology-Directed Recombination for Enhanced Engineering of Chimeric Antigen Receptor T Cells.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2017Article
- Genetically Modified T-Cell-Based Adoptive Immunotherapy in Hematological Malignancies.Journal of immunology research · 2017Review
- Studying disorders of vertebrate iron and heme metabolism using zebrafish.Methods in cell biology · 2017Review
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
Abstract
Gene editing enables the site-specific modification of the genome. These technologies have rapidly advanced such that they have entered common use in experimental hematology to investigate genetic function. In addition, genome editing is becoming increasingly plausible as a treatment modality to rectify genetic blood disorders and improve cellular therapies. Genome modification typically ensues from site-specific double-strand breaks and may result in a myriad of outcomes. Even single-strand nicks and targeted biochemical modifications that do not permanently alter the DNA sequence (epigenome editing) may be powerful instruments. In this review, we examine the various technologies, describe their advantages and shortcomings for engendering useful genetic alterations, and consider future prospects for genome editing to impact hematology.
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.