ReviewThe Journal of investigative dermatology2016
Research Techniques Made Simple: The Application of CRISPR-Cas9 and Genome Editing in Investigative Dermatology.
Review in The Journal of investigative dermatology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Innovations in Skin and Soft Tissue Aging-A Systematic Literature Review and Market Analysis of Therapeutics and Associated Outcomes.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2023Pooled it
- Genetic Tools for Cell Lineage Tracing and Profiling Developmental Trajectories in the Skin.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2024Review
- Targeting SERCA2 in organotypic epidermis reveals MEK inhibition as a therapeutic strategy for Darier disease.JCI insight · 2023Article
- Research Techniques Made Simple: Delivery of the CRISPR/Cas9 Components into Epidermal Cells.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2021Article
- Mutation-Directed Therapeutics for Neurofibromatosis Type I.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2020Review
- Research Techniques Made Simple: CRISPR Genetic Screens.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2020Review
- Research Techniques Made Simple: Murine Models of Human Psoriasis.The Journal of investigative dermatology · 2018Review
- COL7A1 Editing via CRISPR/Cas9 in Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Designer nucleases have gained widespread attention for their ability to precisely modify genomic DNA in a programmable manner. These genome-editing nucleases make double-stranded breaks at specified loci, and desired changes can be made to modify, ablate, or excise target genes. This technology has been used widely to develop human disease models in laboratory animals and to study gene functions by silencing, activating, or modifying them. Furthermore, the recent discovery of a bacterially derived programmable nuclease termed clustered regularly interspaced palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-associated protein 9 (Cas9) has revolutionized the field because of its versatility and wide applicability. In this article, we discuss various modalities used to achieve genome editing with an emphasis on CRISPR-Cas9. We discuss genome-editing strategies to either repair or ablate target genes, with emphasis on their applications for investigating dermatological diseases. Additionally, we highlight preclinical studies showing the potential of genome editing as a therapy for congenital blistering diseases and as an antimicrobial agent, and we discuss limitations and future directions 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.