ArticlePeerJ2021
Evaluating the cleavage efficacy of CRISPR-Cas9 sgRNAs targeting ineffective regions of
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A long journey towards genome editing technologies in plants: a technical and critical review of genome editing technologies.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- Article
- Factors affecting the cleavage efficiency of the CRISPR-Cas9 system.Animal cells and systems · 2024Review
- Vector enabled CRISPR gene editing - A revolutionary strategy for targeting the diversity of brain pathologies.Coordination chemistry reviews · 2023Article
- Integrating Omics and CRISPR Technology for Identification and Verification of Genomic Safe Harbor Loci in the Chicken Genome.Biological procedures online · 2023Article
- CRISPR/Cas- and Topical RNAi-Based Technologies for Crop Management and Improvement: Reviewing the Risk Assessment and Challenges Towards a More Sustainable Agriculture.Frontiers in bioengineering 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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The CRISPR-Cas9 system has recently evolved as a powerful mutagenic tool for targeted genome editing. The impeccable functioning of the system depends on the optimal design of single guide RNAs (sgRNAs) that mainly involves sgRNA specificity and on-target cleavage efficacy. Several research groups have designed algorithms and models, trained on mammalian genomes, for predicting sgRNAs cleavage efficacy. These models are also implemented in most plant sgRNA design tools due to the lack of on-target cleavage efficacy studies in plants. However, one of the major drawbacks is that almost all of these models are biased for considering only coding regions of the DNA while excluding ineffective regions, which are of immense importance in functional genomics studies especially for plants, thus making prediction less reliable. In the present study, we evaluate the on-target cleavage efficacy of experimentally validated sgRNAs designed against diverse ineffective regions of
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.