ArticleCell2018
Viral Teamwork Pushes CRISPR to the Breaking Point.
Article in Cell, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploitation of the Cooperative Behaviors of Anti-CRISPR Phages.Cell host & microbe · 2020Article
- Isolation and Characterization ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Viruses have evolved inhibitors to counteract the CRISPR immune response, but they are not fully potent and need some time to be expressed after the beginning of infection. In this issue of Cell, Borges et al. and Landsberger et al. show that sequential infection gradually immunosuppresses the host to allow effective CRISPR inhibition.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30096306What 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.