Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29449939›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science and biotechnology2018

Innovative approaches to genome editing in avian species.

Caitlin A Cooper, Timothy J Doran, Arjun Challagulla, Mark L V Tizard, Kristie A Jenkins

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 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Efficient and Safe Knockout ofVeterinary sciences · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Overview of Avian Sex Reversal.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Current Approaches and Applications in Avian Genome Editing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Caitlin A CooperCSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Private Bag 24, Geelong, VIC 3220 Australia.
Timothy J DoranCSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Private Bag 24, Geelong, VIC 3220 Australia.
Arjun ChallagullaCSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Private Bag 24, Geelong, VIC 3220 Australia.
Mark L V TizardCSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Private Bag 24, Geelong, VIC 3220 Australia.
Kristie A JenkinsCSIRO Health and Biosecurity, Australian Animal Health Laboratory, Private Bag 24, Geelong, VIC 3220 Australia.
Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness · AUCSIRO Health and Biosecurity · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The tools available for genome engineering have significantly improved over the last 5 years, allowing scientist to make precise edits to the genome. Along with the development of these new genome editing tools has come advancements in technologies used to deliver them. In mammals genome engineering tools are typically delivered into in vitro fertilized single cell embryos which are subsequently cultured and then implanted into a recipient animal. In avian species this is not possible, so other methods have been developed for genome engineering in birds. The most common involves in vitro culturing of primordial germ cells (PGCs), which are cells that migrate through the embryonic circulatory system to the developing gonad and colonize the gonad, eventually differentiating into the gonadocytes which produce either sperm or ova. While in culture the PGCs can be modified to carry novel transgenes or gene edits, the population can be screened and enriched, and then transferred into a recipient embryo. The largest drawback of PGC culture is that culture methods do not transfer well across avian species, thus there are reliable culture methods for only a few species including the chicken. Two newer technologies that appear to be more easily adapted in a wider range of avian species are direct injection and sperm transfection assisted gene editing (STAGE). The direct injection method involves injecting genome engineering tools into the circulatory system of the developing embryo just prior to the developmental time point when the PGCs are migrating to the gonads. The genome engineering tools are complexed with transfection reagents, allowing for in vivo transfection of the PGCs. STAGE utilizes sperm transfection to deliver genome engineering tools directly to the newly fertilized embryo. Preliminary evidence indicates that both methodologies have the potential to be adapted for use in birds species other than the chicken, however further work is needed in this area.

Indexed as

AvianCRISPRGenome engineeringPGCsSpermTALEN

Identifiers

PMID29449939
PMCPMC5806378
OpenAlexW2791234086

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.