ReviewNature protocols2021
Tools for experimental and computational analyses of off-target editing by programmable nucleases.
Review in Nature protocols, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
68 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.
- Gene Therapy for Sickle Cell Disease: Practice Recommendations from the American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy and the International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy.Transplantation and cellular therapy · 2026Guideline
- Digenome-Detect: Accurate, statistics-based analysis software for identifying off-target cleavage sites in genome editing.Molecular therapy. Advances · 2026Article
- From Delivery to Design: Site-Specific Genome Engineering for Next-Generation CAR T-Cell Therapy.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- The future of pediatric gene therapy: CRISPR-Cas9, AI, and personalized medicine.Pediatric research · 2026Review
- Nanoengineering Systems for Gene Therapy: Mechanisms, Modalities, and Future Directions.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Comprehensive assessment of on- and off-target mutagenesis via lipid nanoparticle delivery of CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2026Article
- Clinical translation of epigenome editing technologies.Current opinion in biomedical engineering · 2026Article
- Review
- Integrating AI in seed science: Toward an intelligent design paradigm.Plant communications · 2026Review
- CRISPR-MBTF: a multi-branch transformer fusion framework for CRISPR-Cas9 off-target prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Assessing off-target effects in CRISPR/Cas9: challenges and strategies for precision DNA editing.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- Role of CRISPR in bioremediation of heavy metal(loid): a breakthrough in environmental biotechnology.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2026Review
- Sensitive and unbiased genome-wide profiling of base-editor-induced off-target activity using CHANGE-seq-BE.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Safety Aspects of Cell Culture-Derived Food for Human Consumption.Advances in biochemical engineering/biotechnology · 2026Review
- Measurement and clinical interpretation of CRISPR off-targets.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- CRISPR-Cas systems for plant virus management: detection, surveillance, and host resistance.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Integrated multi-omics and genome mining strategies for activating cryptic polyketide biosynthetic gene clusters inFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Review
- Design principle of successful genome editing applications using CRISPR-based toolkits.Journal of applied genetics · 2025Review
- Engineering adeno-associated viral vectors for CRISPR/Cas based in vivo therapeutic genome editing.Biomaterials · 2025Review
- Review
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Genome editing using programmable nucleases is revolutionizing life science and medicine. Off-target editing by these nucleases remains a considerable concern, especially in therapeutic applications. Here we review tools developed for identifying potential off-target editing sites and compare the ability of these tools to properly analyze off-target effects. Recent advances in both in silico and experimental tools for off-target analysis have generated remarkably concordant results for sites with high off-target editing activity. However, no single tool is able to accurately predict low-frequency off-target editing, presenting a bottleneck in therapeutic genome editing, because even a small number of cells with off-target editing can be detrimental. Therefore, we recommend that at least one in silico tool and one experimental tool should be used together to identify potential off-target sites, and amplicon-based next-generation sequencing (NGS) should be used as the gold standard assay for assessing the true off-target effects at these candidate sites. Future work to improve off-target analysis includes expanding the true off-target editing dataset to evaluate new experimental techniques and to train machine learning algorithms; performing analysis using the particular genome of the cells in question rather than the reference genome; and applying novel NGS techniques to improve the sensitivity of amplicon-based off-target editing quantification.
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.