Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30794581›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

CRISPR-cas gene-editing as plausible treatment of neuromuscular and nucleotide-repeat-expansion diseases: A systematic review.

Haris Babačić, Aditi Mehta, Olivia Merkel, Benedikt Schoser

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 53 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. CRISPR-Cas Systems: A Functional Perspective and Innovations.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Cell and Gene Therapy for Anemia: Hematopoietic Stem Cells and Gene Editing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Haris BabačićFriedrich Baur Institute, Department of Neurology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0813-0005
Aditi MehtaFaculty of Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Olivia MerkelFaculty of Pharmacy, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-4151-3916
Benedikt SchoserFriedrich Baur Institute, Department of Neurology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Friedrich Baur Stiftung · DELudwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe system of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR) and CRISPR-associated proteins (cas) is a new technology that allows easier manipulation of the genome. Its potential to edit genes opened a new door in treatment development for incurable neurological monogenic diseases (NMGDs). The aim of this systematic review was to summarise the findings on the current development of CRISPR-cas for therapeutic purposes in the most frequent NMGDs and provide critical assessment. METHODS AND DATA ACQUISITION: We searched the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, looking for original studies on the use of CRISPR-cas to edit pathogenic variants in models of the most frequent NMGDs, until end of 2017. We included all the studies that met the following criteria: 1. Peer-reviewed study report with explicitly described experimental designs; 2. In vitro, ex vivo, or in vivo study using human or other animal biological systems (including cells, tissues, organs, organisms); 3. focusing on CRISPR as the gene-editing method of choice; and 5. featured at least one NMGD.

resultsWe obtained 404 papers from MEDLINE and 513 from EMBASE. After removing the duplicates, we screened 490 papers by title and abstract and assessed them for eligibility. After reading 50 full-text papers, we finally selected 42 for the review. DISCUSSION: Here we give a systematic summary on the preclinical development of CRISPR-cas for therapeutic purposes in NMGDs. Furthermore, we address the clinical interpretability of the findings, giving a comprehensive overview of the current state of the art. Duchenne's muscular dystrophy (DMD) paves the way forward, with 26 out of 42 studies reporting different strategies on DMD gene editing in different models of the disease. Most of the strategies aimed for permanent exon skipping by deletion with CRISPR-cas. Successful silencing of the mHTT gene with CRISPR-cas led to successful reversal of the neurotoxic effects in the striatum of mouse models of Huntington's disease. Many other strategies have been explored, including epigenetic regulation of gene expression, in cellular and animal models of: myotonic dystrophy, Fraxile X syndrome, ataxias, and other less frequent dystrophies. Still, before even considering the clinical application of CRISPR-cas, three major bottlenecks need to be addressed: efficacy, safety, and delivery of the systems. This requires a collaborative approach in the research community, while having ethical considerations in mind.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsDNA Repeat ExpansionGenetic Diseases, InbornGene Transfer TechniquesNeuromuscular DiseasesAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalGene EditingGene SilencingHumansMEDLINEMice

Identifiers

PMID30794581
PMCPMC6386526
OpenAlexW2915358601

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.