ArticleCurrent stem cell reports2020
Genome Editing for Rare Diseases.
Article in Current stem cell reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Review
- Theological and Ethical Perspectives on Gene Editing and the Sanctity of Life: Rare Genetic Diseases in the Philippines as a Model.Journal of religion and health · 2025Review
- Profiling of Protein-Coding Missense Mutations in Mendelian Rare Diseases: Clues from Structural Bioinformatics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Possibilities and limitations of antisense oligonucleotide therapies for the treatment of monogenic disorders.Communications medicine · 2024Review
- Endothelial progenitor cells stimulate neonatal lung angiogenesis through FOXF1-mediated activation of BMP9/ACVRL1 signaling.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Control of gene doping in human and horse sports.Gene therapy · 2022Article
- Genome editing for primary immunodeficiencies: A therapeutic perspective on Wiskott-Aldrich syndrome.Frontiers in immunology · 2022Review
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of the reviewSignificant numbers of patients worldwide are affected by various rare diseases, but the effective treatment options to these individuals are limited. Rare diseases remain underfunded compared to more common diseases, leading to significant delays in research progress and ultimately, to finding an effective cure. Here, we review the use of genome-editing tools to understand the pathogenesis of rare diseases and develop additional therapeutic approaches with a high degree of precision. RECENT
findingsSeveral genome-editing approaches, including CRISPR/Cas9, TALEN and ZFN, have been used to generate animal models of rare diseases, understand the disease pathogenesis, correct pathogenic mutations in patient-derived somatic cells and iPSCs, and develop new therapies for rare diseases. The CRISPR/Cas9 system stands out as the most extensively used method for genome editing due to its relative simplicity and superior efficiency compared to TALEN and ZFN. CRISPR/Cas9 is emerging as a feasible gene-editing option to treat rare monogenic and other genetically defined human diseases. SUMMARY: Less than 5% of ~7000 known rare diseases have FDA-approved therapies, providing a compelling need for additional research and clinical trials to identify efficient treatment options for patients with rare diseases. Development of efficient genome-editing tools capable to correct or replace dysfunctional genes will lead to novel therapeutic approaches in these diseases.
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.