Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29423214›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science and biotechnology2018

Use of gene-editing technology to introduce targeted modifications in pigs.

Junghyun Ryu, Randall S Prather, Kiho Lee

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Pig Genome Editing for Agriculture: Achievements and Challenges.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  5. Chrononutrition: Potential, Challenges, and Application in Managing Obesity.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Reproduction (Re)defined.Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.) · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pig Models in Retinal Research and Retinal Disease.Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine · 2024
    Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Mechanisms regulating the CRISPR-Cas systems.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023
    Review
  15. Genome Editing in Pigs.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  16. Review
  17. One-Step In Vitro Generation of ETV2-Null Pig Embryos.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Junghyun Ryu1Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Virginia Tech, 175 W. Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA.
Randall S Prather2Division of Animal Science, University of Missouri-Columbia, 920 East Campus Drive, Columbia, MO 65211 USA.
Kiho Lee1Department of Animal and Poultry Sciences, Virginia Tech, 175 W. Campus Drive, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA.
Virginia Tech · USUniversity of Missouri · US

Funding

Resource Core for National Swine Resource and Research Center (NSRRC) Years 21-25U42OD011140 · OD · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI Kiho Lee · 2012 to 2026
$26.7M
NIH HHS U42 OD011140
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pigs are an important resource in agriculture and serve as a model for human diseases. Due to their physiological and anatomical similarities with humans, pigs can recapitulate symptoms of human diseases, making them a useful model in biomedicine. However, in the past pig models have not been widely used partially because of the difficulty in genetic modification. The lack of true embryonic stem cells in pigs forced researchers to utilize genetic modification in somatic cells and somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) to generate genetically engineered (GE) pigs carrying site-specific modifications. Although possible, this approach is extremely inefficient and GE pigs born through this method often presented developmental defects associated with the cloning process. Advancement in the gene-editing systems such as Zinc-Finger Nucleases (ZFNs), Transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs), and the Clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated 9 (Cas9) system have dramatically increased the efficiency of producing GE pigs. These gene-editing systems, specifically engineered endonucleases, are based on inducing double-stranded breaks (DSBs) at a specific location, and then site-specific modifications can be introduced through one of the two DNA repair pathways: non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) or homology direct repair (HDR). Random insertions or deletions (indels) can be introduced through NHEJ and specific nucleotide sequences can be introduced through HDR, if donor DNA is provided. Use of these engineered endonucleases provides a higher success in genetic modifications, multiallelic modification of the genome, and an opportunity to introduce site-specific modifications during embryogenesis, thus bypassing the need of SCNT in GE pig production. This review will provide a historical prospective of GE pig production and examples of how the gene-editing system, led by engineered endonucleases, have improved GE pig production. We will also present some of our current progress related to the optimal use of CRISPR/Cas9 system during embryogenesis.

Indexed as

CRISPR/Cas9Gene-editingGenetic engineeringKnock-inKnockoutPigTALENZFN

Identifiers

PMID29423214
PMCPMC5787920
OpenAlexW2783452768

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.