Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28980194›Full record

ReviewCurrent diabetes reports2017

Gene Editing and Human Pluripotent Stem Cells: Tools for Advancing Diabetes Disease Modeling and Beta-Cell Development.

Katelyn Millette, Senta Georgia

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current diabetes reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Monogenic Diabetes Modeling:Frontiers in endocrinology · 2021
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. 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.

Katelyn MilletteCenter for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Senta GeorgiaCenter for Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism, Department of Pediatrics, Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. sgeorgia@chla.usc.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review will focus on the multiple approaches to gene editing and address the potential use of genetically modified human pluripotent stem cell-derived beta cells (SC-β) as a tool to study human beta-cell development and model their function in diabetes. We will explore how new variations of CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing may accelerate our understanding of beta-cell developmental biology, elucidate novel mechanisms that establish and regulate beta-cell function, and assist in pioneering new therapeutic modalities for treating diabetes. RECENT

findingsImprovements in CRISPR/Cas9 target specificity and homology-directed recombination continue to advance its use in engineering stem cells to model and potentially treat disease. We will review how CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing is informing our understanding of beta-cell development and expanding the therapeutic possibilities for treating diabetes and other diseases. Here we focus on the emerging use of gene editing technology, specifically CRISPR/Cas9, as a means of manipulating human gene expression to gain novel insights into the roles of key factors in beta-cell development and function. Taken together, the combined use of SC-β cells and CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing will shed new light on human beta-cell development and function and accelerate our progress towards developing new therapies for patients with diabetes.

Indexed as

Gene EditingCRISPR-Cas SystemsDiabetes MellitusHumansImmune SystemInsulin-Secreting CellsPluripotent Stem CellsBeta cellsCellular therapyCRISPR/Cas9DiabetesDisease modelingGene editingInsulinPluripotent stem cells

Identifiers

PMID28980194

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.