ArticlePloS one2018
Pre-existing technological core and roots for the CRISPR breakthrough.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Technological Improvement Rates and Evolution of Energy-Based Therapeutics.Frontiers in medical technology · 2021Article
- Emerging Gene-Editing Modalities for Osteoarthritis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper applies objective methods to explore the technological origins of the widely acclaimed CRISPR breakthrough in the technological domain of genome engineering. Previously developed patent search techniques are first used to recover a set of patents that well-represent the genome editing domain before CRISPR. Main paths are then determined from the citation network associated with this patent set allowing identification of the three major knowledge trajectories. The most significant of these trajectories for CRISPR involves the core of genome editing with less significant trajectories involving cloning and endonuclease specific developments. The major patents on the core trajectory are consistent with qualitative expert knowledge of the topical area. A second set of patents that we call the CRISPR roots are obtained by finding the patents directly cited by the recent CRISPR patents along with patents cited by that set of patents. We find that the CRISPR roots contain 8 key patents from the genome engineering main path associated with restriction endonucleases and the expected strong connection of CRISPR to prior genome editing technology such as Zn finger nucleases. Nonetheless, analysis of the full CRISPR roots shows that a very wide array of technological knowledge beyond genome engineering has contributed to achieving the CRISPR breakthrough. Such breadth in origins is not surprising since "spillover" is generally perceived as important and previous qualitative studies of CRISPR have shown not only technological breadth in origins but scientific breadth as well. In addition, we find that the estimated rate of functional performance improvement of the CRISPR roots set is about 9% per year compared to the genome engineering set (~4% per year). These estimates indicate below average rates of improvement and may indicate that CRISPR (and perhaps yet undiscovered) genome engineering developments could evolve in effectiveness over an upcoming long rather than short time period.
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.