ArticleSpringerPlus2016
CRISPR-Cas9 directed knock-out of a constitutively expressed gene using lance array nanoinjection.
Article in SpringerPlus, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical applications of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome-editing system: Delivery options and challenges in precision medicine.Genes & diseases · 2024Review
- Optimization of CRISPR-Cas system for clinical cancer therapy.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2023Review
- The power and the promise of CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing for clinical application with gene therapy.Journal of advanced research · 2022Review
- CRISPR/Cas systems: Delivery and application in gene therapy.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2022Review
- High Throughput and Highly Controllable Methods for In Vitro Intracellular Delivery.Small (Weinheim an der Bergstrasse, Germany) · 2020Review
- Intracellular Delivery by Membrane Disruption: Mechanisms, Strategies, and Concepts.Chemical reviews · 2018Review
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
backgroundCRISPR-Cas9 genome editing and labeling has emerged as an important tool in biologic research, particularly in regards to potential transgenic and gene therapy applications. Delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 plasmids to target cells is typically done by non-viral methods (chemical, physical, and/or electrical), which are limited by low transfection efficiencies or with viral vectors, which are limited by safety and restricted volume size. In this work, a non-viral transfection technology, named lance array nanoinjection (LAN), utilizes a microfabricated silicon chip to physically and electrically deliver genetic material to large numbers of target cells. To demonstrate its utility, we used the CRISPR-Cas9 system to edit the genome of isogenic cells. Two variables related to the LAN process were tested which include the magnitude of current used during plasmid attraction to the silicon lance array (1.5, 4.5, or 6.0 mA) and the number of times cells were injected (one or three times).
resultsResults indicate that most successful genome editing occurred after injecting three times at a current control setting of 4.5 mA, reaching a median level of 93.77 % modification. Furthermore, we found that genome editing using LAN follows a non-linear injection-dose response, meaning samples injected three times had modification rates as high as nearly 12 times analogously treated single injected samples.
conclusionsThese findings demonstrate the LAN's ability to deliver genetic material to cells and indicate that successful alteration of the genome is influenced by a serial injection method as well as the electrical current settings.
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.