Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27905217›Full record

ReviewRegenerative medicine2016

To CRISPR and beyond: the evolution of genome editing in stem cells.

Kuang-Yui Chen, Paul S Knoepfler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Regenerative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Mechanisms regulating the CRISPR-Cas systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Kuang-Yui ChenDepartment of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, CA, USA.
Paul S KnoepflerDepartment of Cell Biology and Human Anatomy, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Davis, CA, USA.
University of California, Davis · US

Funding

Training Program in Oncogenic Signals and Chromosome BiologyT32CA108459 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI HEYER, WOLF-DIETRICH · 2006 to 2020
$3.6M
Targeting a Novel H3.3 Epigenetic Switch to Regulate Health and DiseaseR01GM116919 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI KNOEPFLER, PAUL S · 2016 to 2019
$1.4M
NCI NIH HHS T32 CA108459NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM116919
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of editing the genomes of stem cells to generate model organisms and cell lines for genetic and biological studies has been pursued for decades. There is also exciting potential for future clinical impact in humans. While recent, rapid advances in targeted nuclease technologies have led to unprecedented accessibility and ease of gene editing, biology has benefited from past directed gene modification via homologous recombination, gene traps and other transgenic methodologies. Here we review the history of genome editing in stem cells (including via zinc finger nucleases, transcription activator-like effector nucleases and CRISPR-Cas9), discuss recent developments leading to the implementation of stem cell gene therapies in clinical trials and consider the prospects for future advances in this rapidly evolving field.

Indexed as

Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic RepeatsGene EditingGenome, HumanAnimalsEndonucleasesGenetic EngineeringHumansStem CellsEndonucleasesCRISPR-Cas9gene therapygenome editingstem cellsTALENZFN

Identifiers

PMID27905217
PMCPMC5221123
OpenAlexW2558591431

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.