Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30123293›Full record

ReviewStem cells international2018

Novel Epigenetic Techniques Provided by the CRISPR/Cas9 System.

Nina Xie, Yafang Zhou, Qiying Sun, Beisha Tang

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cells international, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Mental health dished up-the use of iPSC models in neuropsychiatric research.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2020
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. A CpG Epigenetic Switch Reverts PFAS ToxicityAn In Vitro Study.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Genome editing and kidney health.Clinical kidney journal · 2024
    Review
  14. Review
  15. RevolutionizingFrontiers in genome editing · 2024
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Nina XieDepartment of Geriatric Neurology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8405-9576
Yafang ZhouDepartment of Geriatric Neurology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China.
Qiying SunDepartment of Geriatric Neurology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China.ORCID 0000-0002-2031-8345
Beisha TangDepartment of Geriatric Neurology, Xiangya Hospital, Central South University, Changsha, Hunan 410008, China.ORCID 0000-0003-2120-1576

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Epigenetics classically refers to the inheritable changes of hereditary information without perturbing DNA sequences. Understanding mechanisms of how epigenetic factors contribute to inheritable phenotype changes and cell identity will pave the way for us to understand diverse biological processes. In recent years, the emergence of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has provided us with new routes to the epigenetic field. In this review, novel epigenetic techniques utilizing the CRISPR/Cas9 system are the main contents to be discussed, including epigenome editing, temporal and spatial control of epigenetic effectors, noncoding RNA manipulation, chromatin in vivo imaging, and epigenetic element screening.

Identifiers

PMID30123293
PMCPMC6079388

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.