ArticlePloS one2018
Unexpected binding behaviors of bacterial Argonautes in human cells cast doubts on their use as targetable gene regulators.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Argonaute protein-based nucleic acid detection technology.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- Prokaryotic Argonaute Proteins as a Tool for Biotechnology.Molecular biology · 2022Article
- Insertion/deletion-activated frame-shift fluorescence protein is a sensitive reporter for genomic DNA editing.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- Programmable DNA cleavage by Ago nucleases from mesophilic bacteria Clostridium butyricum and Limnothrix rosea.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Prokaryotic Argonaute proteins (pAgos) have been proposed as an alternative to the CRISPR/Cas9 platform for gene editing. Although Argonaute from Natronobacterium gregoryi (NgAgo) was recently shown unable to cleave genomic DNA in mammalian cells, the utility of NgAgo or other pAgos as a targetable DNA-binding platform for epigenetic editing has not been explored. In this report, we evaluated the utility of two prokaryotic Argonautes (NgAgo and TtAgo) as DNA-guided DNA-binding proteins. NgAgo showed no meaningful binding to chromosomal targets, while TtAgo displayed seemingly non-specific binding to chromosomal DNA even in the absence of guide DNA. The observed lack of DNA-guided targeting and unexpected guide-independent genome sampling under the conditions in this study provide evidence that these pAgos might be suitable for neither gene nor epigenome editing in mammalian cells.
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.