ArticleNature methods2018
Response to "Unexpected mutations after CRISPR-Cas9 editing in vivo".
Article in Nature methods, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Comprehensive analysis of off-target and on-target effects resulting from liver-directed CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene targeting with AAV vectors.Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2024Article
- Breaking Boundaries in the Brain-Advances in Editing Tools for Neurogenetic Disorders.Frontiers in genome editing · 2021Review
- Anticipating and Identifying Collateral Damage in Genome Editing.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2020Review
- Technologies and Computational Analysis Strategies for CRISPR Applications.Molecular cell · 2020Review
- Variability in Genome Editing Outcomes: Challenges for Research Reproducibility and Clinical Safety.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2020Review
- No excessive mutations in transcription activator-like effector nuclease-mediated α-1,3-galactosyltransferase knockout Yucatan miniature pigs.Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences · 2020Article
- Trio deep-sequencing does not reveal unexpected off-target and on-target mutations in Cas9-edited rhesus monkeys.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Optimized CRISPR guide RNA design for two high-fidelity Cas9 variants by deep learning.Nature communications · 2019Article
- CRISPR links to long noncoding RNA function in mice: A practical approach.Vascular pharmacology · 2019Review
- Off- and on-target effects of genome editing in mouse embryos.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2019Article
- Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar L.) genetics in the 21st century: taking leaps forward in aquaculture and biological understanding.Animal genetics · 2019Review
- Optimizing CRISPR/Cas9 technology for precise correction of the Fgfr3-G374R mutation in achondroplasia in mice.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2019Article
- Generating mouse models for biomedical research: technological advances.Disease models & mechanisms · 2019Review
- Illuminating the genome-wide activity of genome editors for safe and effective therapeutics.Genome biology · 2018Article
- Unexpected mutations were expected and unrelated to CRISPR-Cas9 activity.Transgenic research · 2018Article
- Impact of Genetic Variation on CRISPR-Cas Targeting.The CRISPR journal · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29600991What 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.