ReviewSynthetic biology (Oxford, England)2023
Variability in genome-engineering source materials: consider your starting point.
Review in Synthetic biology (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protocol for CRISPR-Cas9 genome editing of a swine cell line via electroporation.STAR protocols · 2024Article
- Special issue: reproducibility in synthetic biology.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The presence and impact of variability in cells as the source material for genome engineering are important to consider for the design, execution and interpretation of outcomes of a genome-engineering process. Variability may be present at the genotype and phenotype level, yet the impact of these sources of variability on a genome-engineering experiment may not be regularly considered by researchers. In this perspective, we use clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)/CRISPR-associated protein (Cas) genome editing of mammalian cells to provide examples of how variation within or across cell samples may mislead a researcher in their expectations about the cells they are engineering. Furthermore, we highlight the need for understanding the baseline cell genotype and phenotype to appropriately understand the starting cell material and interpret and attribute the impact of engineering on cells. We emphasize that heterogeneity within a cell pool and the inherent variability in the cellular materials used for genome engineering are complex, but of high value to characterize and account for where possible, to move toward the potential of generating desired and predictable engineered products. Provided is a framework cause-and-effect diagram for CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing toward identifying and mitigating potential sources of variability. We encourage researchers to consider the variability of source materials and undertake strategies, which may include those described here, for detecting, attributing and minimizing additional sources of variability where possible toward the aim of fostering greater reliability, confidence and reproducibility in genome-engineering studies.
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.