ArticleScientific reports2023
A CRISPR-Cas9-mediated F0 screen to identify pro-regenerative genes in the zebrafish retinal pigment epithelium.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Review
- Unprocessed U1 snRNAs as a biomarker of INTS11- and BRAT1-related neurodevelopmental disorders.Genome medicine · 2026Article
- DNA Methylation Dynamics in Development and Disease: Insights from Zebrafish Models.Biomedicines · 2026Review
- CRISPR screening reveals genetic regulators associated with the evolution of eye degeneration.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Macrophage/microglia-dependent mechanisms drive retinal pigment epithelium regeneration in zebrafish.Cell reports · 2025Article
- Optimizing gRNA selection for high-penetrance F0 CRISPR screening for interrogating disease gene function.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- Interleukin-34 and debris clearance by mononuclear phagocytes drive retinal pigment epithelium regeneration in zebrafish.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Ocular diseases resulting in death of the retinal pigment epithelium (RPE) lead to vision loss and blindness. There are currently no FDA-approved strategies to restore damaged RPE cells. Stimulating intrinsic regenerative responses within damaged tissues has gained traction as a possible mechanism for tissue repair. Zebrafish possess remarkable regenerative abilities, including within the RPE; however, our understanding of the underlying mechanisms remains limited. Here, we conducted an F0 in vivo CRISPR-Cas9-mediated screen of 27 candidate RPE regeneration genes. The screen involved injection of a ribonucleoprotein complex containing three highly mutagenic guide RNAs per target gene followed by PCR-based genotyping to identify large intragenic deletions and MATLAB-based automated quantification of RPE regeneration. Through this F0 screening pipeline, eight positive and seven negative regulators of RPE regeneration were identified. Further characterization of one candidate, cldn7b, revealed novel roles in regulating macrophage/microglia infiltration after RPE injury and in clearing RPE/pigment debris during late-phase RPE regeneration. Taken together, these data support the utility of targeted F0 screens for validating pro-regenerative factors and reveal novel factors that could regulate regenerative responses within the zebrafish RPE.
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.