ReviewJournal of microbiology and biotechnology2021
Advances in Accurate Microbial Genome-Editing CRISPR Technologies.
Review in Journal of microbiology and biotechnology, 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, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- The role of gut microbiome in aging-associated diseases: where do we stand now and how technology will transform the future.Gut microbes · 2026Review
- Editing microbes to mitigate enteric methane emissions in livestock.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2024Review
- Efficient CRISPR-Cas12f1-Mediated Multiplex Bacterial Genome Editing via Low-Temperature Recovery.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Article
- Microbial mediated remediation of heavy metals toxicity: mechanisms and future prospects.Frontiers in plant science · 2024Review
- Recent Advances in CRISPR-Cas Technologies for Synthetic Biology.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2023Review
- A Simplified Method for CRISPR-Cas9 Engineering of Bacillus subtilis.Microbiology spectrum · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Previous studies have modified microbial genomes by introducing gene cassettes containing selectable markers and homologous DNA fragments. However, this requires several steps including homologous recombination and excision of unnecessary DNA regions, such as selectable markers from the modified genome. Further, genomic manipulation often leaves scars and traces that interfere with downstream iterative genome engineering. A decade ago, the CRISPR/Cas system (also known as the bacterial adaptive immune system) revolutionized genome editing technology. Among the various CRISPR nucleases of numerous bacteria and archaea, the Cas9 and Cas12a (Cpf1) systems have been largely adopted for genome editing in all living organisms due to their simplicity, as they consist of a single polypeptide nuclease with a target-recognizing RNA. However, accurate and fine-tuned genome editing remains challenging due to mismatch tolerance and protospacer adjacent motif (PAM)-dependent target recognition. Therefore, this review describes how to overcome the aforementioned hurdles, which especially affect genome editing in higher organisms. Additionally, the biological significance of CRISPR-mediated microbial genome editing is discussed, and future research and development directions are also proposed.
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.