Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32284587›Full record

ReviewNature biotechnology2020

Design and analysis of CRISPR-Cas experiments.

Ruth E Hanna, John G Doench

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature biotechnology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 107 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
107citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

107 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Engineering CRISPR guide RNAs for programmable RNA sensors.Biochemical Society transactions · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Advances in aptamer technology for target-based drug discovery.Journal of pharmaceutical analysis · 2026
    Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

47 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Ruth E HannaBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5586-2300
John G DoenchBroad Institute of Harvard and MIT, Cambridge, MA, USA. jdoench@broadinstitute.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3707-9889

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A large and ever-expanding set of CRISPR-Cas systems now enables the rapid and flexible manipulation of genomes in both targeted and large-scale experiments. Numerous software tools and analytical methods have been developed for the design and analysis of CRISPR-Cas experiments, including resources to design optimal guide RNAs for various modes of manipulation and to analyze the results of such experiments. A major recent focus has been the development of comprehensive tools for use on data from large-scale CRISPR-based genetic screens. As this field continues to progress, a clear ongoing challenge is not only to innovate, but to actively maintain and improve existing tools so that researchers across disciplines can rely on a stable set of excellent computational resources for CRISPR-Cas experiments.

Indexed as

Gene EditingSoftwareCRISPR-Cas SystemsGenetic EngineeringGenomeHumansRNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas SystemsRNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas Systems

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.