ReviewMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2017
Phenotyping first-generation genome editing mutants: a new standard?
Review in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficient prime editing in two-cell mouse embryos using PEmbryo.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Correspondence of Yolk Sac and Embryonic Genotypes in F0 Mouse CRISPants.Medical research archives · 2023Article
- Structural maturation of SYCP1-mediated meiotic chromosome synapsis by SYCE3.Nature structural & molecular biology · 2023Article
- A simple and effective F0 knockout method for rapid screening of behaviour and other complex phenotypes.eLife · 2021Article
- In vivo identification and validation of novel potential predictors for human cardiovascular diseases.PloS one · 2021Article
- Evaluation of mutation rates, mosaicism and off target mutations when injecting Cas9 mRNA or protein for genome editing of bovine embryos.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- The pond snail Lymnaea stagnalis.EvoDevo · 2020Review
- Proteasome subunit PSMC3 variants cause neurosensory syndrome combining deafness and cataract due to proteotoxic stress.EMBO molecular medicine · 2020Article
- Variability in Genome Editing Outcomes: Challenges for Research Reproducibility and Clinical Safety.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2020Review
- Phenomics-Based Quantification of CRISPR-Induced Mosaicism in Zebrafish.Cell systems · 2020Article
- Practical Approaches for Knock-Out Gene Editing in Pigs.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Review
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
The unprecedented efficiency of the CRISPR/Cas9 system in genome engineering has opened the prospect of employing mutant founders for phenotyping cohorts, thus accelerating research projects by circumventing the requirement to generate cohorts using conventional two- or three-generation crosses. However, these first-generation mutants are often genetic mosaics, with a complex and difficult to define genetic make-up. Here, we discuss the potential benefits, challenges and scientific validity of such models.
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.