ArticleMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development2016
Quantification of designer nuclease induced mutation rates: a direct comparison of different methods.
Article in Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive benchmarking of genome editing quantification methods for plant applications.iScience · 2025Article
- Design and analysis of CRISPR-Cas experiments.Nature biotechnology · 2020Review
- Viral Vector-Based Delivery of CRISPR/Cas9 and Donor DNA for Homology-Directed Repair in an In Vitro Model for Canine Hemophilia B.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Designer nucleases are broadly applied to induce site-specific DNA double-strand breaks (DSB) in genomic DNA. These are repaired by nonhomologous end joining leading to insertions or deletions (in/dels) at the respective DNA-locus. To detect in/del mutations, the heteroduplex based T7-endonuclease I -assay is widely used. However, it only provides semi-quantitative evidence regarding the number of mutated alleles. Here we compared T7-endonuclease I- and heteroduplex mobility assays, with a quantitative polymerase chain reaction mutation detection method. A zinc finger nuclease pair specific for the human adeno-associated virus integration site 1 (AAVS1), a transcription activator-like effector nuclease pair specific for the human DMD gene, and a zinc finger nuclease- and a transcription activator-like effector nuclease pair specific for the human CCR5 gene were explored. We found that the heteroduplex mobility assays and T7-endonuclease I - assays detected mutations but the relative number of mutated cells/alleles can only be estimated. In contrast, the quantitative polymerase chain reaction based method provided quantitative results which allow calculating mutation and homologous recombination rates in different eukaryotic cell types including human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. In conclusion, our quantitative polymerase chain reaction based mutation detection method expands the array of methods for in/del mutation detection and facilitates quantification of introduced in/del mutations for a genomic locus containing a mixture of mutated and unmutated DNA.
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.