ArticleBio-protocol2020
Evaluation of the Efficiency of Genome Editing Tools by a Frameshift Fluorescence Protein Reporter.
Article in Bio-protocol, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- CRISPR-Assisted Probiotic and In Situ Engineering of Gut Microbiota: A Prospect to Modification of Metabolic Disorders.Probiotics and antimicrobial proteins · 2026Review
- Comparative Analysis of Methods for Assessing On-Target Gene Editing Efficiencies.Methods and protocols · 2025Article
- CRISPR-Cas system: from diagnostic tool to potential antiviral treatment.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
In the last decade, genome editing has been the center of attention as a novel tool for mechanistic investigations and for potential clinical applications. Various genome editing tools like meganucleases, zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), transcription activator-like effector-based nucleases (TALEN), and the clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-associated genes (Cas), have been developed in recent years. For the optimal use as well as continued developments of these genome editing tools, the evaluation of their efficiencies and accuracies is vital. Here, we present a protocol for a reporter based on frameshift fluorescence protein which we recently developed to evaluate the efficiency and accuracy of genome editing tools. In this method, a ~20 bp target sequence containing frame-shifting is inserted after the start codon of a cerulean fluorescence protein (CFP) to inactivate its fluorescence, and only a new insertion/deletion event in the target sequence will reactivate the CFP fluorescence. To increase the traceability, an internal ribosome entry site and a red fluorescence protein, mCherryFP, are placed downstream of the reporter. The percentage of CFP-positive cells resulted from in/del mediated fluorescence restoration can be quantified by fluorescence measuring devices as the readout for genome editing frequency. As a demonstration, we present the usage for CRISPR-Cas9 technique here with flow cytometer as the readout for fluorescence changes.
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.