ReviewNature reviews. Neuroscience2020
In vivo locus-specific editing of the neuroepigenome.
Review in Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 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
45 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advances in CRISPR/Cas Technologies for Biological Discovery, Therapeutics, and Diagnostics.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- CUT&RUN as a Powerful Tool for Chromatin Profiling: A Focus on Neuropsychiatric Disorders.Biological psychiatry · 2026Review
- Histone H3 Acetylation atBiology · 2026Article
- Neurogenesis and Neuroinflammation in Dialogue: Mapping Gaps, Modulating Microglia, Rewiring Aging.Cells · 2026Review
- Renewal and reacquisition of substance-associated relapse.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Neurobiology of resilience to early life stress.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026Review
- Epigenetic Editing in Neurological and Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Pioneering Next-Gen Therapeutics for Precision Gene Control.Molecular neurobiology · 2025Review
- Regulation ofInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Uncovering methylation-dependent genetic effects on regulatory element function in diverse genomes.Genome research · 2025Article
- Restoring endogenous Dlg4/PSD95 expression by an artificial transcription factor ameliorates cognitive and motor learning deficits in the R6/2 mouse model of Huntington's disease.Clinical epigenetics · 2025Article
- Investigation of chimeric transcripts derived from LINE-1 and Alu retrotransposons in cerebellar tissues of individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD).Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Persistent in vivo epigenetic silencing of Pcsk9.Cell research · 2024Article
- Precision epigenetic editing: Technological advances, enduring challenges, and therapeutic applications.Cell chemical biology · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Manipulating ΔFOSB in D1-Type Medium Spiny Neurons of the Nucleus Accumbens Reshapes Whole-Brain Functional Connectivity.Biological psychiatry · 2024Article
- DNA methylation-environment interactions in the human genome.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Massively parallelbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Chromatin remodeler Activity-Dependent Neuroprotective Protein (ADNP) contributes to syndromic autism.Clinical epigenetics · 2023Review
- Advances in AAV technology for delivering genetically encoded cargo to the nonhuman primate nervous system.Current research in neurobiology · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Studies over the past several decades have identified numerous epigenetic mechanisms associated with pathological states in psychiatric and neurological disease. Until recently, studies investigating chromatin-regulatory proteins, using overexpression or knockdown approaches, did not establish causal roles for epigenetic modifications at specific genes because these techniques typically affect hundreds or thousands of genomic loci. In this Review, we describe recent efforts in using locus-specific neuroepigenome editing in vivo to, for the first time, define causal relationships between a single chromatin modification at a specific gene in a defined cell population and downstream measures at the molecular, cellular, circuit and behavioural levels. We briefly introduce three epigenome-editing platforms: zinc-finger proteins, transcriptional activator-like effectors and clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR). We then explore the development of in vivo neuroepigenome-editing tools and their applications to resolve epigenetic contributions to the pathophysiology of brain diseases. We also discuss technical considerations for in vivo neuroepigenome-editing experiments and ongoing innovations in the field, including new tools to investigate chromatin marks, manipulate chromatin topology and induce epigenetic modifications at multiple genes in the same cell. Lastly, we explore the potential clinical applications of in vivo neuroepigenome editing for treating brain pathology.
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.