ArticleCell & bioscience2020
Article in Cell & bioscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.
- CRISPR/Cas9-Based Genome Editing: Understanding Differences in DNA Repair Pathways, Profiles, and Outcomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- In vivo CAR-cell therapy: current challenges and emerging therapeutic advances.Molecular biomedicine · 2026Review
- Searching for a HIV-1 Cure.Theranostics · 2026Review
- The role of autophagy in the progression of HIV infected cardiomyopathy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2024Review
- Antiretrovirals to CCR5 CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing - A paradigm shift chasing an HIV cure.Clinical immunology (Orlando, Fla.) · 2023Review
- New genetic and epigenetic insights into the chemokine system: the latest discoveries aiding progression toward precision medicine.Cellular & molecular immunology · 2023Review
- Addressing the ethical and societal challenges posed by genome-wide association studies of behavioral and brain-related traits.Nature neuroscience · 2023Review
- Biallelic, Selectable, Knock-in Targeting of CCR5Frontiers in immunology · 2022Article
- CCR5 as a Coreceptor for Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Simian Immunodeficiency Viruses: A Prototypic Love-Hate Affair.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
- Platelets in HIV: A Guardian of Host Defence or Transient Reservoir of the Virus?Frontiers in immunology · 2021Review
- Chemokine receptor gene polymorphisms and COVID-19: Could knowledge gained from HIV/AIDS be important?Infection, genetics and evolution : journal of molecular epidemiology and evolutionary genetics in infectious diseases · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBiomedical technologies have not just improved human health but also assisted in the creation of human life. Since the first birth of a healthy baby by in vitro fertilization (IVF) 40 years ago, IVF has been the mainstay treatment for couples struggling with infertility. This technology, in addition to increasingly accessible genetic testing, has made it possible for countless couples to have children. Since CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing was described in 2015, its potential for targeting genetic diseases has been much anticipated. However, the potential of using CRISPR-Cas9 for human germline modification has led to many fears of "designer babies" and widespread concerns for the impact of this technology on human evolution and its implications in Social Darwinism. In addition to these ethical/moral concerns, there remain many unknowns about CRISPR-Cas9 technology and endless unanticipated consequence to gene editing.
methodsIn this paper, we analyze the current progresses of CRISPR-Cas9 technology and discuss the theoretical advantages of certain allelic variances in the C-C chemokine receptor 5 gene (CCR5) in the setting of recent ethical/moral concerns regarding gene editing using the CRISPR-Cas9 system.
resultsThese uncertainties have been highlighted recently by the birth of Chinese twins whose C-C chemokine receptor 5 (
conclusionsAlthough we can try to regulate for ethical, health-related only use of this technology, moral and governmental oversights need to be supplemented by technical regulations. For instance, whole genome sequencing needs to be used to eliminate off-target mutations that could affect the health and safety of infants born to this process. Like Pandora's Box, we cannot pretend to forget CRISPR-Cas9 technology, all we can do is ensure a safe, moral, and equitable used of this technology.
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.