ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2019
Genetic and epigenetic editing in nervous system .
Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expanding the CRISPR/Cas toolkit: applications in proteomics and theranostics.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Allostatic Interoceptive Overload Across Psychiatric and Neurological Conditions.Biological psychiatry · 2025Review
- Comparative ethical evaluation of epigenome editing and genome editing in medicine: first steps and future directions.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- A synergetic turn in cognitive neuroscience of brain diseases.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2024Review
- Intrinsic timescales and predictive allostatic interoception in brain health and disease.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2024Review
- Current Status and Future Strategies for Advancing Functional Circuit MappingThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2023Article
- Environmental enrichment influences novelty reactivity, novelty preference, and anxiety via distinct genetic mechanisms in C57BL/6J and DBA/2J mice.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- In vivo locus-specific editing of the neuroepigenome.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Numerous neuronal functions depend on the precise spatiotemporal regulation of gene expression, and the cellular machinery that contributes to this regulation is frequently disrupted in neurodevelopmental, neuropsychiatric, and neurological disease states. Recent advances in gene editing technology have enabled increasingly rapid understanding of gene sequence variation and gene regulatory function in the central nervous system. Moreover, these tools have provided new insights into the locus-specific functions of epigenetic modifications and enabled epigenetic editing at specific gene loci in disease contexts. Continued development of clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-based tools has provided not only cell-specific modulation, but also rapid induction profiles that permit sophisticated interrogation of the temporal dynamics that contribute to brain health and disease. This review summarizes recent advances in genetic editing, transcriptional modulation, and epigenetic reorganization, with a focus on applications to neuronal systems and potential uses in brain disorders characterized by genetic sequence variation or transcriptional dysregulation. .
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.