ReviewBioscience reports2018
CRISPR-Cas immunity, DNA repair and genome stability.
Review in Bioscience reports, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rewriting the genome: harnessing R2 retrotransposons for precise DNA insertion.Frontiers in genome editing · 2026Review
- CRISPR-CasB technology in forensic DNA analysis: challenges and solutions.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2022Review
- Diversity in the composition of the accessory genome of Mexican Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains.Genes & genomics · 2022Article
- Gene dosage compensation of rRNA transcript levels in Arabidopsis thaliana lines with reduced ribosomal gene copy number.The Plant cell · 2021Article
- Comparative CRISPR type III-based knockdown of essential genes in hyperthermophilicRNA biology · 2021Article
- Cre-Controlled CRISPR mutagenesis provides fast and easy conditional gene inactivation in zebrafish.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Mitochondrial TSPO Deficiency Triggers Retrograde Signaling in MA-10 Mouse Tumor Leydig Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- Transcription Factor 4 Regulates the Regeneration of Corneal Endothelial Cells.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2020Article
- Peptide Nucleic Acids and Gene Editing: Perspectives on Structure and Repair.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Production of isoform-specific knockdown/knockout Madin-Darby canine kidney epithelial cells using CRISPR/Cas9.MethodsX · 2020Article
- Gene Editing in Human Pluripotent Stem Cells: Recent Advances for Clinical Therapies.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2020Review
- Human germline genome editing.Nature cell biology · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Co-opting of CRISPR-Cas 'Interference' reactions for editing the genomes of eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells has highlighted crucial support roles for DNA repair systems that strive to maintain genome stability. As front-runners in genome editing that targets DNA, the class 2 CRISPR-Cas enzymes Cas9 and Cas12a rely on repair of DNA double-strand breaks (DDSBs) by host DNA repair enzymes, using mechanisms that vary in how well they are understood. Data are emerging about the identities of DNA repair enzymes that support genome editing in human cells. At the same time, it is becoming apparent that CRISPR-Cas systems functioning in their native environment, bacteria or archaea, also need DNA repair enzymes. In this short review, we survey how DNA repair and CRISPR-Cas systems are intertwined. We consider how understanding DNA repair and CRISPR-Cas interference reactions in nature might help improve the efficacy of genome editing procedures that utilise homologous or analogous systems in human and other cells.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.