Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35741761›Full record

ReviewGenes2022

Application of CRISPR/Cas Technology in Spermatogenesis Research and Male Infertility Treatment.

Hao-Qi Wang, Tian Wang, Fei Gao, Wen-Zhi Ren

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Male germ cell technologies in large animals.The Journal of reproduction and development · 2026
    Review
  6. Genetic and Epigenetic Risks of Male Infertility in ART.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

4 authors.

Hao-Qi WangDepartment of Laboratory Animals, Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Model, Jilin University, Changchun 130062, China.
Tian WangDepartment of Laboratory Animals, Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Model, Jilin University, Changchun 130062, China.
Fei GaoDepartment of Laboratory Animals, Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Model, Jilin University, Changchun 130062, China.ORCID 0000-0003-3996-2509
Wen-Zhi RenDepartment of Laboratory Animals, Jilin Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Model, Jilin University, Changchun 130062, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As the basis of animal reproductive activity, normal spermatogenesis directly determines the efficiency of livestock production. An in-depth understanding of spermatogenesis will greatly facilitate animal breeding efforts and male infertility treatment. With the continuous development and application of gene editing technologies, they have become valuable tools to study the mechanism of spermatogenesis. Gene editing technologies have provided us with a better understanding of the functions and potential mechanisms of action of factors that regulate spermatogenesis. This review summarizes the applications of gene editing technologies, especially CRISPR/Cas9, in deepening our understanding of the function of spermatogenesis-related genes and disease treatment. The problems of gene editing technologies in the field of spermatogenesis research are also discussed.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsInfertility, MaleAnimalsGene EditingHumansMaleSpermatogenesisTechnologyanimal breedinganimal modelsgene editingmale infertilityspermatogenesis

Identifiers

PMID35741761
PMCPMC9223233

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.