ArticleMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development2022
Intracellular RNase activity dampens zinc finger nuclease-mediated gene editing in hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells.
Article in Molecular therapy. Methods & clinical development, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genotoxicity profiling reveals distinct platform-and cell type-specific effects in therapeutic gene editing for genetic hyperinflammation.Cell stem cell · 2026Article
- Efficient manufacturing and engraftment ofMolecular therapy. Methods & clinical development · 2023Article
- Ex vivo prime editing of patient haematopoietic stem cells rescues sickle-cell disease phenotypes after engraftment in mice.Nature biomedical engineering · 2023Article
- Current approaches and potential challenges in the delivery of gene editing cargos into hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells.Frontiers in genome editing · 2023Review
- A Pan-RNase Inhibitor Enabling CRISPR-mRNA Platforms for Engineering of Primary Human Monocytes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past decade, numerous gene-editing platforms which alter host DNA in a highly specific and targeted fashion have been described. Two notable examples are zinc finger nucleases (ZFNs), the first gene-editing platform to be tested in clinical trials, and more recently, CRISPR/Cas9. Although CRISPR/Cas9 approaches have become arguably the most popular platform in the field, the therapeutic advantages and disadvantages of each strategy are only beginning to emerge. We have established a nonhuman primate (NHP) model that serves as a strong predictor of successful gene therapy and gene-editing approaches in humans; our recent work shows that ZFN-edited hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells (HSPCs) engraft at lower levels than CRISPR/Cas9-edited cells. Here, we investigate the mechanisms underlying this difference. We show that optimized culture conditions, including defined serum-free media, augment engraftment of gene-edited NHP HSPCs in a mouse xenograft model. Furthermore, we identify intracellular RNases as major barriers for mRNA-encoded nucleases relative to preformed enzymatically active CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoprotein (RNP) complexes. We conclude that CRISPR/Cas9 RNP gene editing is more stable and efficient than ZFN mRNA-based delivery and identify co-delivered RNase inhibitors as a strategy to enhance the expression of gene-editing proteins from mRNA intermediates.
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.