Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30167805›Full record

ReviewPlant cell reports2018

Genome editing in diatoms: achievements and goals.

Peter G Kroth, Atle M Bones, Fayza Daboussi, Maria I Ferrante, Marianne Jaubert, Misha Kolot, Marianne Nymark, Carolina Río Bártulos, Andrés Ritter, Monia T Russo and 3 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Plant cell reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

28 citing papers in PubMed, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Algal research · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Altering the Sex Pheromone Cyclo(l-Pro-l-Pro) of the DiatomInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Multiplexed Genome EditingFrontiers in plant science · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

13 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Peter G KrothFachbereich Biologie, Universität Konstanz, 78457, Konstanz, Germany. Peter.Kroth@uni-konstanz.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4734-8955
Atle M BonesCell, Molecular Biology and Genomics Group, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Fayza DaboussiLISBP, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INSA, 135 Avenue de Rangueil, 31077, Toulouse, France.
Maria I FerranteIntegrative Marine Ecology, Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Villa Comunale 1, Naples, 80121, Italy.
Marianne JaubertLaboratoire de Biologie Computationnelle et Quantitative, Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, 75005, Paris, France.
Misha KolotInstitute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture, Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 76100, Rehovot, Israel.
Marianne NymarkCell, Molecular Biology and Genomics Group, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Carolina Río BártulosFachbereich Biologie, Universität Konstanz, 78457, Konstanz, Germany.
Andrés RitterLaboratoire de Biologie Computationnelle et Quantitative, Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, 75005, Paris, France.
Monia T RussoIntegrative Marine Ecology, Stazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn, Villa Comunale 1, Naples, 80121, Italy.
Manuel SerifLISBP, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, INSA, 135 Avenue de Rangueil, 31077, Toulouse, France.
Per WingeCell, Molecular Biology and Genomics Group, Department of Biology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 7491, Trondheim, Norway.
Angela FalciatoreLaboratoire de Biologie Computationnelle et Quantitative, Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine, Sorbonne Université, CNRS, 75005, Paris, France. angela.falciatore@upmc.fr.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRNorwegian University of Science and Technology · NOStazione Zoologica Anton Dohrn · ITUniversity of Konstanz · DETel Aviv University · IL

Funding

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation GBMF4966
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diatoms are major components of phytoplankton and play a key role in the ecology of aquatic ecosystems. These algae are of great scientific importance for a wide variety of research areas, ranging from marine ecology and oceanography to biotechnology. During the last 20 years, the availability of genomic information on selected diatom species and a substantial progress in genetic manipulation, strongly contributed to establishing diatoms as molecular model organisms for marine biology research. Recently, tailored TALEN endonucleases and the CRISPR/Cas9 system were utilized in diatoms, allowing targeted genetic modifications and the generation of knockout strains. These approaches are extremely valuable for diatom research because breeding, forward genetic screens by random insertion, and chemical mutagenesis are not applicable to the available model species Phaeodactylum tricornutum and Thalassiosira pseudonana, which do not cross sexually in the lab. Here, we provide an overview of the genetic toolbox that is currently available for performing stable genetic modifications in diatoms. We also discuss novel challenges that need to be addressed to fully exploit the potential of these technologies for the characterization of diatom biology and for metabolic engineering.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsDiatomsGene EditingGenomeTranscription Activator-Like Effector NucleasesTranscription Activator-Like Effector NucleasesConjugationCRISPRDiatomGenome editingMutant screeningPromoterTALEN

Identifiers

PMID30167805
OpenAlexW2888601288

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.