ArticleCancer discovery2018
Study Explains Specificity of CRISPR/Cas12a.
Article in Cancer discovery, 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.
- Molecular mechanisms, off-target activities, and clinical potentials of genome editing systems.Clinical and translational medicine · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
0 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent study reveals why the Cas12a genome-editing enzyme is more specific than the widely used Cas9. For Cas12a to cut, the guide RNA it carries must more closely match the sequence of the DNA target than with Cas9. The enzyme's specificity may make it a better choice for gene-editing applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30185626What 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.