ArticleCell proliferation2020
Comparison of gene disruption induced by cytosine base editing-mediated iSTOP with CRISPR/Cas9-mediated frameshift.
Article in Cell proliferation, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Precision enhancement of CAR-NK cells through non-viral engineering and highly multiplexed base editing.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025Article
- Prime Editing: A Revolutionary Technology for Precise Treatment of Genetic Disorders.Cell proliferation · 2025Review
- Gene-knockout by iSTOP enables rapid reproductive disease modeling and phenotyping in germ cells of the founder generation.Science China. Life sciences · 2024Article
- Phage-assisted evolution of highly active cytosine base editors with enhanced selectivity and minimal sequence context preference.Nature communications · 2024Article
- CRISPR-Cas9 base editors and their current role in human therapeutics.Cytotherapy · 2023Review
- Genome-wide interrogation of gene functions through base editor screens empowered by barcoded sgRNAs.Nature biotechnology · 2021Article
- Comparison of gene disruption induced by cytosine base editing-mediated iSTOP with CRISPR/Cas9-mediated frameshift.Cell proliferation · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesRecently developed CRISPR-dependent cytosine base editor (CBE), converting four codons (CAA, CAG, CGA and TGG) into stop codons without DNA double-strand breaks (DSB), serves as an efficient gene disruption strategy besides uncontrollable CRISPR-mediated frameshift. However, the detailed difference of gene knockout between the two systems has not been clarified. MATERIALS AND
methodsHere, we selected some sgRNAs with different position background, then HEK293T cells were transfected with CBE/Cas9 plasmids together with sgRNAs. GFP-positive cells were harvested by fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) 48 hours after transfection. Genomic DNA was collected for deep sequencing to analyse editing efficiency and genotype. RNA and protein were extracted to analyse gene mRNA level using qPCR analysis and Western blot.
resultsHere, we compared the gene disruption by CBE-mediated iSTOP with CRISPR/Cas9-mediated frameshift. We found BE-mediated gene knockout yielded fewer genotypes. BE-mediated gene editing precisely achieved silencing of two neighbouring genes, while CRISPR/Cas9 may delete the large fragment between two target sites. All of three stop codons could efficiently disrupt the target genes. It is worth notifying, Cas9-mediated gene knockout showed a more impact on neighbouring genes mRNA level than the BE editor.
conclusionsOur results reveal the differences between the two gene knockout strategies and provide useful information for choosing the appropriate gene disruption strategy.
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.