ArticleTransgenic research2018
Unexpected mutations were expected and unrelated to CRISPR-Cas9 activity.
Article in Transgenic research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Importing genetically altered animals: ensuring quality.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2022Review
- CRISPR in livestock: From editing to printing.Theriogenology · 2020Review
- CRISPR/Cas9 engineering of albino cystinuria Type A mice.Genesis (New York, N.Y. : 2000) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The scientific journal Nature Methods have just retracted a publication that reported numerous unexpected mutations after a CRISPR-Cas9 experiment based on collecting whole genome sequencing information from one control and two experimental genome edited mice. In the intervening 10 months since publication the data presented have been strongly contested and criticized by the scientific and biotech communities, through publications, open science channels and social networks. The criticism focused on the animal used as control, which was derived from the same mouse strain as the experimental individuals but from an unrelated sub-colony, hence control and experimental mice were genetically divergent. The most plausible explanation for the vast majority of the reported unexpected mutations were the expected underlying genetic polymorphisms that normally accumulate in two different colonies of the same mouse strain which occur as a result of spontaneous mutations and genetic drift. Therefore, the reported mutations were most likely not related to CRISPR-Cas9 activity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29855762What 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.