Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34986794›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2022

Evaluation of CRISPR gene-editing tools in zebrafish.

José M Uribe-Salazar, Gulhan Kaya, Aadithya Sekar, KaeChandra Weyenberg, Cole Ingamells, Megan Y Dennis

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

28 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Human-specific gene expansions contribute to brain evolution.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. mAutism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2025
    Article
  13. The zebrafish (NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Generation of IgMScientific reports · 2025
    Article
  18. Small Fish, Big Answers: Zebrafish and the Molecular Drivers of Metastasis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

José M Uribe-SalazarGenome Center, MIND Institute, and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Gulhan KayaGenome Center, MIND Institute, and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Aadithya SekarGenome Center, MIND Institute, and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
KaeChandra WeyenbergGenome Center, MIND Institute, and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Cole IngamellsGenome Center, MIND Institute, and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA.
Megan Y DennisGenome Center, MIND Institute, and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, USA. mydennis@ucdavis.edu.
University of California, Davis · US

Funding

The function of duplicated genes in human brain evolution and diseaseDP2MH119424 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI DENNIS, MEGAN Y · 2018 to 2018
$2.4M
NIMH NIH HHS DP2 MH119424
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundZebrafish have practical features that make them a useful model for higher-throughput tests of gene function using CRISPR/Cas9 editing to create 'knockout' models. In particular, the use of G

methodsTo systematically assess accuracy of tool predictions of on- and off-target gene editing, we subjected zebrafish embryos to CRISPR/Cas9 with 50 different guide RNAs (gRNAs) targeting 14 genes. We also investigate potential confounders of G

resultsWe compared our experimental in vivo editing efficiencies in mosaic G

conclusionOverall, our results provide a valuable resource for the zebrafish community for the design and execution of CRISPR/Cas9 experiments.

Indexed as

Gene EditingZebrafishAnimalsCRISPR-Associated Protein 9CRISPR-Cas SystemsRNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas SystemsCRISPR-Associated Protein 9RNA, Guide, CRISPR-Cas SystemsCas9CIRCLE-seqCRISPRDanio rerioGene knockoutRNA-seqZebrafish

Identifiers

PMID34986794
PMCPMC8734261
OpenAlexW4206626119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.