Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29343825›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2018

A Survey of Validation Strategies for CRISPR-Cas9 Editing.

Monica F Sentmanat, Samuel T Peters, Colin P Florian, Jon P Connelly, Shondra M Pruett-Miller

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 207 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
207citing papers in PubMed
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

207 citing papers in PubMed, 350 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Lithium as a therapeutic strategy for SNAP25 encephalopathies via modulation of homeostatic plasticity.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Article
  3. A Comprehensive Understanding ofCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. RRAGD p.(Ser76Leu) Variant Causes Dysregulated Expression of Muscle Development and Cytoskeleton Genes in Cardiomyocytes.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Self-Assembling Short Peptide Carriers for Gene Delivery.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Detection of CRISPR-Cas-induced mutations inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article

147 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Monica F SentmanatWashington University School of Medicine, Department of Genetics, St. Louis, 63110, USA.
Samuel T PetersSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Department of Cell & Molecular Biology, Memphis, 38105, USA.
Colin P FlorianWashington University School of Medicine, Department of Genetics, St. Louis, 63110, USA.
Jon P ConnellySt. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Department of Cell & Molecular Biology, Memphis, 38105, USA.
Shondra M Pruett-MillerSt. Jude Children's Research Hospital, Department of Cell & Molecular Biology, Memphis, 38105, USA. shondra.miller@stjude.org.
St. Jude Children's Research Hospital · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The T7 endonuclease 1 (T7E1) mismatch detection assay is a widely used method for evaluating the activity of site-specific nucleases, such as the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 system. To determine the accuracy and sensitivity of this assay, we compared the editing estimates derived by the T7E1 assay with that of targeted next-generation sequencing (NGS) in pools of edited mammalian cells. Here, we report that estimates of nuclease activity determined by T7E1 most often do not accurately reflect the activity observed in edited cells. Editing efficiencies of CRISPR-Cas9 complexes with similar activity by T7E1 can prove dramatically different by NGS. Additionally, we compared editing efficiencies predicted by the Tracking of Indels by Decomposition (TIDE) assay and the Indel Detection by Amplicon Analysis (IDAA) assay to that observed by targeted NGS for both cellular pools and single-cell derived clones. We show that targeted NGS, TIDE, and IDAA assays predict similar editing efficiencies for pools of cells but that TIDE and IDAA can miscall alleles in edited clones.

Indexed as

Cell Line, TumorClustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic RepeatsCRISPR-Cas SystemsEndonucleasesGene EditingHumansK562 CellsSurveys and QuestionnairesEndonucleases

Identifiers

PMID29343825
PMCPMC5772360
OpenAlexW2783501849

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.