Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36635153›Full record

ReviewCytotherapy2023

CRISPR-Cas9 base editors and their current role in human therapeutics.

Walker S Lahr, Christopher J Sipe, Joseph G Skeate, Beau R Webber, Branden S Moriarity

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Cytotherapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Therapeutic Innovations for Monkeypox Inhibition.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Walker S LahrDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Center for Genome Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Stem Cell Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Christopher J SipeDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Center for Genome Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Stem Cell Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Joseph G SkeateDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Center for Genome Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Stem Cell Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Beau R WebberDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Center for Genome Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Stem Cell Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
Branden S MoriarityDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Masonic Cancer Center, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Center for Genome Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Stem Cell Institute, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA; Department of Genetics, Cell Biology and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA. Electronic address: mori0164@umn.edu.
University of Minnesota · US

Funding

Use of microfluidic tumor cultures to enable clinical trials of therapies for ovarian cancerP50CA136393 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI ELLEN L. GOODE · 2009 to 2026
$37.0M
TRAINING IN HEMOGLOBIN &CELL MEMBRANE RESEARCHT32HL007062 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA TWIN CITIES · PI Jeffrey S. Miller, Gregory M Vercellotti · 1985 to 2026
$10.3M
Project 3P01CA254849 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI ODDE, DAVID J. · 2021 to 2025
$9.4M
Activated NK CAR Cells to Cure HIVR01AI161017 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI MORIARITY, BRANDEN S, SKINNER, PAMELA J · 2021 to 2025
$3.8M
Engineered B Cells as a Universal Platform for the Treatment of EnzymopathiesR01AI146009 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI MORIARITY, BRANDEN S · 2020 to 2024
$1.9M
Multiplex Engineered Human Lymphocytes for Therapeutic Protein DeliveryR21AI163731 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI WEBBER, BEAU RICHARD · 2021 to 2022
$426k
Determining the cell of origin in Ewing sarcoma through genomic analysisR21CA237789 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI SPECTOR, LOGAN G., WEBBER, BEAU RICHARD · 2020 to 2021
$396k
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA254849NCI NIH HHS P50 CA136393NCI NIH HHS R21 CA237789NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007062NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI146009NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI161017NIAID NIH HHS R21 AI163731
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConsistent progress has been made to create more efficient and useful CRISPR-Cas9-based molecular toolsfor genomic modification.

methodsThis review focuses on recent articles that have employed base editors (BEs) for both clinical and research purposes.

resultsCRISPR-Cas9 BEs are a useful system because of their highefficiency and broad applicability to gene correction and disruption. In addition, base editing has beensuggested as a safer approach than other CRISPR-Cas9-based systems, as it limits double-strand breaksduring multiplex gene knockout and does not require a toxic DNA donor molecule for genetic correction.

conclusionAs such, numerous industry and academic groups are currently developing base editing strategies withclinical applications in cancer immunotherapy and gene therapy, which this review will discuss, with a focuson current and future applications of in vivo BE delivery.

Indexed as

CRISPR-Cas SystemsGene EditingAlkanesulfonic AcidsDNAGenetic TherapyHumansAlkanesulfonic AcidsBESDNAbase editorcancer immunotherapygene therapyhematopoietic stem cellmultiplex gene editingsickle cell

Identifiers

PMID36635153
PMCPMC10887149
OpenAlexW4313910229

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.