ArticleScientific reports2018
Molecular Evidence of Genome Editing in a Mouse Model of Immunodeficiency.
Article in Scientific reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Controlling genetic heterogeneity in gene-edited hematopoietic stem cells by single-cell expansion.Cell stem cell · 2023Article
- Hematopoietic stem and progenitors cells gene editing: Beyond blood disorders.Frontiers in genome editing · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
23 authors at 8 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genome editing is the introduction of directed modifications in the genome, a process boosted to therapeutic levels by designer nucleases. Building on the experience of ex vivo gene therapy for severe combined immunodeficiencies, it is likely that genome editing of haematopoietic stem/progenitor cells (HSPC) for correction of inherited blood diseases will be an early clinical application. We show molecular evidence of gene correction in a mouse model of primary immunodeficiency. In vitro experiments in DNA-dependent protein kinase catalytic subunit severe combined immunodeficiency (Prkdc scid) fibroblasts using designed zinc finger nucleases (ZFN) and a repair template demonstrated molecular and functional correction of the defect. Following transplantation of ex vivo gene-edited Prkdc scid HSPC, some of the recipient animals carried the expected genomic signature of ZFN-driven gene correction. In some primary and secondary transplant recipients we detected double-positive CD4/CD8 T-cells in thymus and single-positive T-cells in blood, but no other evidence of immune reconstitution. However, the leakiness of this model is a confounding factor for the interpretation of the possible T-cell reconstitution. Our results provide support for the feasibility of rescuing inherited blood disease by ex vivo genome editing followed by transplantation, and highlight some of the challenges.
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.