ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018
Editing the human genome: where ART and science intersect.
Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of zygotic genome activation in genetic-related reproductive medicine: Technological perspective, religious and bioethical concerns, challenges and benefits.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rapid development of gene-editing technologies has led to an exponential rise in both basic and translational research initiatives studying molecular processes and investigating possible clinical applications. Early experiments using genome editing to study human embryo development have contradicted findings in studies on model organisms. Additionally, a series of four experiments over the past 2 years set out to investigate the possibilities of introducing genetic modifications to human embryos, each with varying levels of success. Here, we discuss the key findings of these studies, including the efficiency, the safety, the potential untoward effects, major flaws of the studies, and emerging alternative genome editing methods that may allow overcoming the hurdles encountered so far. Given these results, we also raise several questions about the clinical utilization of germline gene editing: For which indications is gene editing appropriate? How do gene-editing technologies compare with genetic testing methods currently used for screening embryos? What are the ethical considerations we should be concerned about? While further research is underway, and our understanding of how to implement this technology continues to evolve, it is critical to contemplate if and how it should be translated from the bench to clinical practice.
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.