Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29882090›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2018

Editing the human genome: where ART and science intersect.

Avner Hershlag, Sara L Bristow

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Avner HershlagDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, 270-05 76th Ave, New Hyde Park, NY, 11040, USA. Zymania1@northwell.edu.
Sara L BristowDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Hofstra Northwell School of Medicine, 270-05 76th Ave, New Hyde Park, NY, 11040, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

CRISPR-Cas SystemsEmbryo, MammalianEmbryonic DevelopmentGene EditingGenome, HumanHumansReproductive Techniques, AssistedARTCRISPRGene editingGenetic screeningPGD

Identifiers

PMID29882090
PMCPMC6086805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.