ArticleLaboratory animals2022
Screening and validation of genome-edited animals.
Article in Laboratory animals, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of CRISPR/Cas gene editing for infectious disease control in poultry.Open life sciences · 2025Review
- Long read sequencing reveals transgene concatemerization and vector sequences integration following AAV-driven electroporation of CRISPR RNP complexes in mouse zygotes.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Article
- Improving laboratory animal genetic reporting: LAG-R guidelines.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Tackling Tissue Macrophage Heterogeneity by SplitCre Transgenesis.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Excess of guide RNA reduces knockin efficiency and drastically increases on-target large deletions.iScience · 2023Article
- Necessity of integrated genomic analysis to establish a designed knock-in mouse from CRISPR-Cas9-induced mutants.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Review
- Importing genetically altered animals: ensuring quality.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The emergence of an array of genome-editing tools in recent years has facilitated the introduction of genetic modifications directly into the embryo, increasing the ease, efficiency and catalogue of alleles accessible to researchers across a range of species. Bypassing the requirement for a selection cassette and resulting in a broad range of outcomes besides the desired allele, genome editing has altered the allele validation process both temporally and technically. Whereas traditional gene targeting relies upon selection and allows allele validation at the embryonic stem cell modification stage, screening for the presence of the intended allele now occurs in the (frequently mosaic) founder animals. Final confirmation of the edited allele can only take place at the subsequent G1 generation and the validation strategy must differentiate the desired allele from a range of unintended outcomes. Here we present some of the challenges posed by gene editing, strategies for validation and considerations for animal colony management.
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.