ReviewThe Journal of reproduction and development2017
Rabbit models for biomedical research revisited via genome editing approaches.
Review in The Journal of reproduction and development, 2017. 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.
- Tissue Regeneration on Implantoplasty-Treated Implants Using a Citric Acid-Collagen-Magnesium-Based Solution: An In Vitro and In Vivo Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- DUT (p.Y116C)-Mutation-Induced Thrombocytopenia in Rabbits.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Methodological and Ethical Considerations in the Use of Chordate Embryos in Biomedical Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- H3K9me3 and H3K27me3 are epigenetic barriers to somatic cell nuclear transfer in rabbits.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Genome-edited rabbits: Unleashing the potential of a promising experimental animal model across diverse diseases.Zoological research · 2024Review
- Gene Editing in Rabbits: Unique Opportunities for Translational Biomedical Research.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although the laboratory rabbit has long contributed to many paradigmatic studies in biology and medicine, it is often considered to be a "classical animal model" because in the last 30 years, the laboratory mouse has been more often used, thanks to the availability of embryonic stem cells that have allowed the generation of gene knockout (KO) animals. However, recent genome-editing strategies have changed this unrivaled condition; so far, more than 10 mammalian species have been added to the list of KO animals. Among them, the rabbit has distinct advantages for application of genome-editing systems, such as easy application of superovulation, consistency with fertile natural mating, well-optimized embryo manipulation techniques, and the short gestation period. The rabbit has now returned to the stage of advanced biomedical research.
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.