ReviewFrontiers in genetics2021
Tissue Specific DNA Repair Outcomes Shape the Landscape of Genome Editing.
Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- CRISPR-Cas9 and precision editing technologies linking functional genomics to clinical translation in genetic diseases.Clinical and translational medicine · 2026Review
- CRISPR/Cas9-Based Genome Editing: Understanding Differences in DNA Repair Pathways, Profiles, and Outcomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Arrayed dual-gRNA CRISPR screening platform forMolecular therapy. Advances · 2026Article
- Targeting Oxidative Stress in Carcinogenesis: Oleanolic Acid and Its Molecular Pathways.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Intrinsic deletion at 10q23.31, including theLife science alliance · 2024Article
- Exploring DNA Damage and Repair Mechanisms: A Review with Computational Insights.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2024Review
- Revolutionizing DNA repair research and cancer therapy with CRISPR-Cas screens.Nature reviews. Molecular cell biology · 2023Review
- CRISPRthripsis: The Risk of CRISPR/Cas9-induced Chromothripsis in Gene Therapy.Stem cells translational medicine · 2022Article
- Massively targeted evaluation of therapeutic CRISPR off-targets in cells.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Translational potential of base-editing tools for gene therapy of monogenic diseases.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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The use of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR)-Cas9 has moved from bench to bedside in less than 10years, realising the vision of correcting disease through genome editing. The accuracy and safety of this approach relies on the precise control of DNA damage and repair processes to achieve the desired editing outcomes. Strategies for modulating pathway choice for repairing CRISPR-mediated DNA double-strand breaks (DSBs) have advanced the genome editing field. However, the promise of correcting genetic diseases with CRISPR-Cas9 based therapies is restrained by a lack of insight into controlling desired editing outcomes in cells of different tissue origin. Here, we review recent developments and urge for a greater understanding of tissue specific DNA repair processes of CRISPR-induced DNA breaks. We propose that integrated mapping of tissue specific DNA repair processes will fundamentally empower the implementation of precise and safe genome editing therapies for a larger variety of diseases.
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.