Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33170255›Full record

ReviewNucleic acids research2020

INDEL detection, the 'Achilles heel' of precise genome editing: a survey of methods for accurate profiling of gene editing induced indels.

Eric Paul Bennett, Bent Larsen Petersen, Ida Elisabeth Johansen, Yiyuan Niu, Zhang Yang, Christopher Aled Chamberlain, Özcan Met, Hans H Wandall, Morten Frödin

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nucleic acids research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

61 citing papers in PubMed, 102 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Patterns of spontaneous and induced genomic alterations inApplied and environmental microbiology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

1 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Eric Paul BennettCopenhagen Center for Glycomics, Department of Odontology and Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.
Bent Larsen PetersenDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Ida Elisabeth JohansenDepartment of Plant and Environmental Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
Yiyuan NiuBiotech Research and Innovation Centre (BRIC), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Zhang YangCopenhagen Center for Glycomics, Department of Odontology and Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.
Christopher Aled ChamberlainCenter for Cancer Immune Therapy, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
Özcan MetCenter for Cancer Immune Therapy, Department of Oncology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark.
Hans H WandallCopenhagen Center for Glycomics, Department of Odontology and Molecular and Cellular Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.
Morten FrödinBiotech Research and Innovation Centre (BRIC), Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DKCopenhagen University Hospital · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Advances in genome editing technologies have enabled manipulation of genomes at the single base level. These technologies are based on programmable nucleases (PNs) that include meganucleases, zinc-finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector nucleases (TALENs) and Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated 9 (Cas9) nucleases and have given researchers the ability to delete, insert or replace genomic DNA in cells, tissues and whole organisms. The great flexibility in re-designing the genomic target specificity of PNs has vastly expanded the scope of gene editing applications in life science, and shows great promise for development of the next generation gene therapies. PN technologies share the principle of inducing a DNA double-strand break (DSB) at a user-specified site in the genome, followed by cellular repair of the induced DSB. PN-elicited DSBs are mainly repaired by the non-homologous end joining (NHEJ) and the microhomology-mediated end joining (MMEJ) pathways, which can elicit a variety of small insertion or deletion (indel) mutations. If indels are elicited in a protein coding sequence and shift the reading frame, targeted gene knock out (KO) can readily be achieved using either of the available PNs. Despite the ease by which gene inactivation in principle can be achieved, in practice, successful KO is not only determined by the efficiency of NHEJ and MMEJ repair; it also depends on the design and properties of the PN utilized, delivery format chosen, the preferred indel repair outcomes at the targeted site, the chromatin state of the target site and the relative activities of the repair pathways in the edited cells. These variables preclude accurate prediction of the nature and frequency of PN induced indels. A key step of any gene KO experiment therefore becomes the detection, characterization and quantification of the indel(s) induced at the targeted genomic site in cells, tissues or whole organisms. In this survey, we briefly review naturally occurring indels and their detection. Next, we review the methods that have been developed for detection of PN-induced indels. We briefly outline the experimental steps and describe the pros and cons of the various methods to help users decide a suitable method for their editing application. We highlight recent advances that enable accurate and sensitive quantification of indel events in cells regardless of their genome complexity, turning a complex pool of different indel events into informative indel profiles. Finally, we review what has been learned about PN-elicited indel formation through the use of the new methods and how this insight is helping to further advance the genome editing field.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsDNA RepairGenomeINDEL MutationAnimalsCloning, OrganismDNADNA Breaks, Double-StrandedDNA End-Joining RepairGene EditingGene Knockout TechniquesHumansMiceSheepSolanum tuberosumTranscription Activator-Like Effector NucleasesDNATranscription Activator-Like Effector NucleasesZinc Finger Nucleases

Identifiers

PMID33170255
PMCPMC7708060
OpenAlexW3099936900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.