ArticleCell & bioscience2023
Comparison of DNA targeting CRISPR editors in human cells.
Article in Cell & bioscience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Synergistic engineering of Casδ nuclease for robust genome editing.Journal of integrative plant biology · 2026Article
- Anti-CRISPR-mediated continuous directed evolution of CRISPR-Cas9 in human cells.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Anti-CRISPR-mediated continuous directed evolution of CRISPR-Cas9 in human cells.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Noncanonical target-strand cytosine base editing via engineered Un1Cas12f1 platform.Nature communications · 2025Article
- hpCasMINI: An engineered hypercompact CRISPR-Cas12f system with boosted gene editing activity.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Harnessing CRISPR potential for intervertebral disc regeneration strategies.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Review
- Genome editing in rice and tomato with a small Un1Cas12f1 nuclease.The plant genome · 2024Article
- CRISPR-Cas Systems and Genome Editing: Beginning the Era of CRISPR/Cas Therapies for Humans.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Robust miniature Cas-based transcriptional modulation by engineering Un1Cas12f1 and tethering Sso7d.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2024Article
- Engineering Cas9: next generation of genomic editors.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Unleashing the potential of CRISPR multiplexing: Harnessing Cas12 and Cas13 for precise gene modulation in eye diseases.Vision research · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProfiling and comparing the performance of current widely used DNA targeting CRISPR systems provide the basic information for the gene-editing toolkit and can be a useful resource for this field. In the current study, we made a parallel comparison between the recently reported miniature Cas12f1 (Un1Cas12f1 and AsCas12f1) and the widely used Cas12a and Cas9 nucleases in mammalian cells.
resultsWe found that as a CRISPRa activator, Un1Cas12f1 could induce gene expression with a comparable level to that of Cas12a and Cas9, while as a DNA cleavage editor, Cas12f1 exhibited similar properties to Cas12a, like high specificity and dominantly induced deletions over insertions, but with less activity. In contrast, wild-type SpCas9 showed the highest activity, lowest specificity, and induced balanced deletions and insertions. Thus, Cas12f1 is recommended for gene-activation-based applications, Cas12a is for therapy applications, and wild-type Cas9 is for in vitro and animal investigations.
conclusionThe comparison provided the editing properties of the widely used DNA-targeting CRISPR systems in the gene-editing field.
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.