Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29259529›Full record

ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2017

Genome Editing: Past, Present, and Future.

Dana Carroll

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 53 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
53citing 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

53 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Role ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. CRISPR-Based Editing of thePlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Therapeutic Gene Editing in Dyslipidemias.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2024
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Perspectives in Genome-Editing Techniques for Livestock.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Online Databases of Genome Editing in Cardiovascular and Metabolic Diseases.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  19. Prospective Advances in Genome Editing Investigation.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  20. 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

1 author.

Dana CarrollDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.

Funding

Optimizing Genome Engineering with Targetable NucleasesR01GM078571 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF UTAH · PI CARROLL, DANA · 2006 to 2017
$4.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM078571
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The CRISPR-Cas genome editing tools have been adopted rapidly in the research community, and they are quickly finding applications in the commercial sector as well. Lest we lose track of the broader context, this Perspective presents a brief review of the history of the genome editing platforms and considers a few current technological issues. It then takes a very limited view into the future of this technology and highlights some of the societal issues that require examination and discussion.

Indexed as

GenomeAnimalsCRISPR-Cas SystemsDNA Breaks, Double-StrandedFoodGene Drive TechnologyGene EditingGenetic TherapyHumansCRISPR-CasDNA repairGenome editingTALENszinc-finger nucleases

Identifiers

PMID29259529
PMCPMC5733845

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.