Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37108761›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2023

A Review of CRISPR Tools for Treating Usher Syndrome: Applicability, Safety, Efficiency, and In Vivo Delivery.

Lauren Major, Michelle E McClements, Robert E MacLaren

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Genome editing and kidney health.Clinical kidney journal · 2024
    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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Lauren MajorLaboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences & NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
Michelle E McClementsLaboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences & NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2941-4464
Robert E MacLarenLaboratory of Ophthalmology, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences & NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK.
University of Oxford · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/V029924/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review considers research into the treatment of Usher syndrome, a deaf-blindness syndrome inherited in an autosomal recessive manner. Usher syndrome mutations are markedly heterogeneous, involving many different genes, and research grants are limited due to minimal patient populations. Furthermore, gene augmentation therapies are impossible in all but three Usher syndromes as the cDNA sequence exceeds the 4.7 kb AAV packaging limit. It is, therefore, vital to focus research efforts on alternative tools with the broadest applicability. The CRISPR field took off in recent years following the discovery of the DNA editing activity of Cas9 in 2012. New generations of CRISPR tools have succeeded the original CRISPR/Cas9 model to enable more sophisticated genomic amendments such as epigenetic modification and precise sequence alterations. This review will evaluate the most popular CRISPR tools to date: CRISPR/Cas9, base editing, and prime editing. It will consider these tools in terms of applicability (in relation to the ten most prevalent

Indexed as

Gene EditingUsher SyndromesCRISPR-Cas SystemsEpigenesis, GeneticGenetic TherapyHumansbase-editingCRISPR/Cas9gene therapygenome engineeringprime-editingUsher syndrome

Identifiers

PMID37108761
PMCPMC10146473
OpenAlexW4366774991

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.