To cleave or not to cleave: therapeutic gene editing with and without programmable nucleases.

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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Kinetics of Nuclear Uptake and Site-Specific DNA Cleavage during CRISPR-Directed Gene Editing in Solid Tumor Cells.Molecular cancer research : MCR · 2020
   Article
2. Generating mouse models for biomedical research: technological advances.Disease models & mechanisms · 2019
   Review
3. Efficient Delivery and Nuclear Uptake Is Not Sufficient to Detect Gene Editing in CD34+ Cells Directed by a Ribonucleoprotein Complex.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2018
   Article
4. CRISPR-DirectedThe CRISPR journal · 2018
   Article
5. Precise and efficient nucleotide substitution near genomic nick via noncanonical homology-directed repair.Genome research · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as