Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33881574›Full record

ReviewCurrent genetics2021

Single-strand template repair: key insights to increase the efficiency of gene editing.

Danielle N Gallagher, James E Haber

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Plant tolerance mechanisms to DNA-damaging UV stress.Journal of experimental botany · 2025
    Review
  6. Gene editing using gamma modified PNA: HBB gene as a model.Journal, genetic engineering & biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
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

2 authors.

Danielle N GallagherDepartment of Biology and Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, 02154, USA.
James E HaberDepartment of Biology and Rosenstiel Basic Medical Sciences Research Center, Brandeis University, Waltham, MA, 02154, USA. haber@brandeis.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1878-0610

Funding

DNA Damage Response and Repair of a Broken ChromosomeR35GM127029 · NIGMS · BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY · PI JAMES E HABER · 2018 to 2026
$8.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM127029
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) pose a serious hazard for the stability of the genome. CRISPR-Cas9-mediated gene editing intentionally creates a site-specific DSB to modify the genomic sequence, typically from an introduced single-stranded DNA donor. However, unlike typical forms of homologous recombination, single-strand template repair (SSTR) is Rad51-independent. Moreover, this pathway is distinct from other previously characterized Rad51-independent processes. Here, we briefly review the work characterizing this pathway, and how these findings can be used to guide and improve current gene editing strategies.

Indexed as

DNA RepairDNA, Single-StrandedGene EditingAnimalsHumansMutagenesisRad51 RecombinaseSaccharomyces cerevisiaeDNA, Single-StrandedRad51 RecombinaseCRISPRDNA double-strand break repairGene editingSingle-strand template repair

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.