Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27490630›Full record

ReviewNature protocols2016

Genome editing comes of age.

Jin-Soo Kim

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature protocols, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Rapid Detection ofBiomolecules · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. The road ahead in genetics and genomics.Nature reviews. Genetics · 2020
    Review
  15. Secretome-Based Screening in Target Discovery.SLAS discovery : advancing life sciences R & D · 2020
    Review
  16. Mitigating off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9-mediated in vivo gene editing.Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany) · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

1 author.

Jin-Soo KimCenter for Genome Engineering, Institute for Basic Science, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genome editing harnesses programmable nucleases to cut and paste genetic information in a targeted manner in living cells and organisms. Here, I review the development of programmable nucleases, including zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), TAL (transcription-activator-like) effector nucleases (TALENs) and CRISPR (cluster of regularly interspaced palindromic repeats)-Cas9 (CRISPR-associated protein 9) RNA-guided endonucleases (RGENs). I specifically highlight the key advances that set the foundation for the rapid and widespread implementation of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing approaches that has revolutionized the field.

Indexed as

AnimalsChromosomesCRISPR-Cas SystemsDeoxyribonucleasesGene EditingGenetic TherapyGenomeHumansDeoxyribonucleases

Identifiers

PMID27490630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.