ArticlePloS one2020
Genome-wide identification and analysis of highly specific CRISPR/Cas9 editing sites in pepper (Capsicum annuum L.).
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Genome Editing in Solanaceae: Harnessing CRISPR-Cas Technology for Precision Crop Improvement.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- Molecular and genomic insights into viral resistance inFrontiers in plant science · 2025Review
- Physiological and Genetic Aspects of Resistance to Abiotic Stresses inPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- CRISPR/Cas9 Editing Sites Identification and Multi-Elements Association Analysis inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Antifungal Potential of Capsaicinoids and Capsinoids from theMicroorganisms · 2022Review
- Molecular and Computational Strategies to Increase the Efficiency of CRISPR-Based Techniques.Frontiers in plant science · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The CRISPR/Cas9 system is an efficient genome editing tool that possesses the outstanding advantages of simplicity and high efficiency. Genome-wide identification and specificity analysis of editing sites is an effective approach for mitigating the risk of off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas9 and has been applied in several plant species but has not yet been reported in pepper. In present study, we first identified genome-wide CRISPR/Cas9 editing sites based on the 'Zunla-1' reference genome and then evaluated the specificity of CRISPR/Cas9 editing sites through whole-genome alignment. Results showed that a total of 603,202,314 CRISPR/Cas9 editing sites, including 229,909,837 (~38.11%) NGG-PAM sites and 373,292,477 (~61.89%) NAG-PAM sites, were detectable in the pepper genome, and the systematic characterization of their composition and distribution was performed. Furthermore, 29,623,855 highly specific NGG-PAM sites were identified through whole-genome alignment analysis. There were 26,699,38 (~90.13%) highly specific NGG-PAM sites located in intergenic regions, which was 9.13 times of the number in genic regions, but the average density in genic regions was higher than that in intergenic regions. More importantly, 34,251 (~96.93%) out of 35,336 annotated genes exhibited at least one highly specific NGG-PAM site in their exons, and 90.50% of the annotated genes exhibited at least 4 highly specific NGG- PAM sites, indicating that the set of highly specific CRISPR/Cas9 editing sites identified in this study was widely applicable and conducive to the minimization of the off-target effects of CRISPR/Cas9 in pepper.
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.