ArticleScientific reports2021
A piggyBac-based platform for genome editing and clonal rhesus macaque iPSC line derivation.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Remodeling ofScience advances · 2026Article
- Replicable generation and stable maintenance of rhesus macaque iPSCs forFrontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Article
- Effective and stable gene transduction in rhesus macaque iPSCs capable of T-lineage differentiation utilizing the piggyBac system.Regenerative therapy · 2024Article
- Possible involvement of zinc transporter ZIP13 in myogenic differentiation.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Application Prospect of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells in Organoids and Cell Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- An expedition in the jungle of pluripotent stem cells of non-human primates.Stem cell reports · 2023Review
- Application of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells in Malignant Solid Tumors.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2023Review
- CRISPR/Cas9 andInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Review
- The cytokine receptor CRLF3 is a human neuroprotective EV-3 (Epo) receptor.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2023Article
- Non-human primate pluripotent stem cells for the preclinical testing of regenerative therapies.Neural regeneration research · 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
12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Non-human primates (NHPs) are, due to their close phylogenetic relationship to humans, excellent animal models to study clinically relevant mutations. However, the toolbox for the genetic modification of NHPs is less developed than those for other species like mice. Therefore, it is necessary to further develop and refine genome editing approaches in NHPs. NHP pluripotent stem cells (PSCs) share key molecular signatures with the early embryo, which is an important target for genomic modification. Therefore, PSCs are a valuable test system for the validation of embryonic genome editing approaches. In the present study, we made use of the versatility of the piggyBac transposon system for different purposes in the context of NHP stem cell technology and genome editing. These include (1) Robust reprogramming of rhesus macaque fibroblasts to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs); (2) Culture of the iPSCs under feeder-free conditions even after removal of the transgene resulting in transgene-free iPSCs; (3) Development of a CRISPR/Cas-based work-flow to edit the genome of rhesus macaque PSCs with high efficiency; (4) Establishment of a novel protocol for the derivation of gene-edited monoclonal NHP-iPSC lines. These findings facilitate efficient testing of genome editing approaches in NHP-PSC before their in vivo application.
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.