ArticleScientific reports2017
CRISPR/Cas9-mediated genome editing in naïve human embryonic stem cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dual-Selection Strategy for Generating Knock-Out Lines of Human Embryonic Stem Cells.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Article
- Digital PCR-Based Gene Expression Analysis Using a Highly Multiplexed Assay with Universal Detection Probes to Study Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Differentiation into Cranial Neural Crest Cells.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- In vitro human cell culture models in a bench-to-bedside approach to epilepsy.Epilepsia open · 2024Review
- Techniques for investigating lncRNA transcript functions in neurodevelopment.Molecular psychiatry · 2024Review
- Retained chromosomal integrity following CRISPR-Cas9-based mutational correction in human embryos.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2023Article
- Modeling Psychiatric Disorder Biology with Stem Cells.Current psychiatry reports · 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
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combination of genome-edited human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) and subsequent neural differentiation is a powerful tool to study neurodevelopmental disorders. Since the naïve state of pluripotency has favourable characteristics for efficient genome-editing, we optimized a workflow for the CRISPR/Cas9 system in these naïve stem cells. Editing efficiencies of respectively 1.3-8.4% and 3.8-19% were generated with the Cas9 nuclease and the D10A Cas9 nickase mutant. Next to this, wildtype and genome-edited naïve hESCs were successfully differentiated to neural progenitor cells. As a proof-of-principle of our workflow, two monoclonal genome-edited naïve hESCs colonies were obtained for TUNA, a long non-coding RNA involved in pluripotency and neural differentiation. In these genome-edited hESCs, an effect was seen on expression of TUNA, although not on neural differentiation potential. In conclusion, we optimized a genome-editing workflow in naïve hESCs that can be used to study candidate genes involved in neural differentiation and/or functioning.
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.