Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31591145›Full record

ReviewDisease models & mechanisms2019

The use of genetically humanized animal models for personalized medicine approaches.

Annemieke Aartsma-Rus, Maaike van Putten

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Disease models & mechanisms, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Evolution of Technology-Driven In Vitro Models for Neurodegenerative Diseases.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024
    Review
  5. A humanized knock-inbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Exon Skipping Through Chimeric AntisenseNucleic acid therapeutics · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Neuromuscular Development and Disease: Learning FromFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Neuromuscular disease modeling on a chip.Disease models & mechanisms · 2020
    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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Annemieke Aartsma-RusDepartment of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, the Netherlands a.m.rus@lumc.nl.ORCID 0000-0003-1565-654X
Maaike van PuttenDepartment of Human Genetics, Leiden University Medical Center, Albinusdreef 2, 2333 ZA Leiden, the Netherlands.
Leiden University Medical Center · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For many genetic diseases, researchers are developing personalized medicine approaches. These sometimes employ custom genetic interventions such as antisense-mediated exon skipping or genome editing, aiming to restore protein function in a mutation-specific manner. Animal models can facilitate the development of personalized medicine approaches; however, given that they target human mutations and therefore human genetic sequences, scientists rely on the availability of humanized animal models. Here, we outline the usefulness, caveats and potential of such models, using the example of the hDMDdel52/

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalPrecision MedicineAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedDystrophinExonsHumansMuscular Dystrophy, DuchenneDystrophinExon skippingGenetic therapiesGenome editingMuscular dystrophyPre-clinical studies

Identifiers

PMID31591145
PMCPMC6906630
OpenAlexW2977441922

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.