ReviewJournal of biomedical science2018
CRISPR/Cas9: the Jedi against the dark empire of diseases.
Review in Journal of biomedical science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- SiMul-db: a database of single and multi-target Cas9 guides for hazelnut editing.Frontiers in genetics · 2024Article
- Discovering antiviral restriction factors and pathways using genetic screens.The Journal of general virology · 2021Review
- A CRISPR-Cas9 based shuffle system for endogenous histone H3 and H4 combinatorial mutagenesis.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- The Application of CRISPR/Cas9 Technology for Cancer Immunotherapy: Current Status and Problems.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
- Gene Therapy for Neurodegenerative Disease: Clinical Potential and Directions.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2021Review
- Emerging Gene-Editing Modalities for Osteoarthritis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- CRISPR-Cas, a robust gene-editing technology in the era of modern cancer immunotherapy.Cancer cell international · 2020Review
- The accelerating pace of biotech democratization.Nature biotechnology · 2019Article
- A gRNA-tRNA array for CRISPR-Cas9 based rapid multiplexed genome editing in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Nature communications · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Advances in Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats/CRISPR associated system (CRISPR/Cas9) has dramatically reshaped our ability to edit genomes. The scientific community is using CRISPR/Cas9 for various biotechnological and medical purposes. One of its most important uses is developing potential therapeutic strategies against diseases. CRISPR/Cas9 based approaches have been increasingly applied to the treatment of human diseases like cancer, genetic, immunological and neurological disorders and viral diseases. These strategies using CRISPR/Cas9 are not only therapy oriented but can also be used for disease modeling as well, which in turn can lead to the improved understanding of mechanisms of various infectious and genetic diseases. In addition, CRISPR/Cas9 system can also be used as programmable antibiotics to kill the bacteria sequence specifically and therefore can bypass multidrug resistance. Furthermore, CRISPR/Cas9 based gene drive may also hold the potential to limit the spread of vector borne diseases. This bacterial and archaeal adaptive immune system might be a therapeutic answer to previous incurable diseases, of course rigorous testing is required to corroborate these claims. In this review, we provide an insight about the recent developments using CRISPR/Cas9 against various diseases with respect to disease modeling and treatment, and what future perspectives should be noted while using this technology.
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.