ReviewJournal of biomedical science2023
The future of CRISPR in Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection.
Review in Journal of biomedical science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Recent Advances in CRISPR/Cas Technologies for Biological Discovery, Therapeutics, and Diagnostics.Biomolecules · 2026Review
- Future Research Directions on Mycobacterium tuberculosis Proteins.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026Review
- From mutation detection to treatment decisions: CRISPR-enabled diagnostics for drug-resistant tuberculosis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- CARF-dependent preferential RNA cleavage by Csm6 increases drug susceptibility of mycobacteria.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- The Role of Inflammation in the Pathogenesis of Comorbidity of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Pulmonary Tuberculosis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Unraveling the future of genomics: CRISPR, single-cell omics, and the applications in cancer and immunology.Frontiers in genome editing · 2025Review
- Review
- Application of CRISPR-cas-based technology for the identification of tuberculosis, drug discovery and vaccine development.Molecular biology reports · 2024Review
- A dual-plasmid CRISPR/Cas9-based method for rapid and efficient genetic disruption inJournal of bacteriology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas systems rapidly raised from a bacterial genetic curiosity to the most popular tool for genetic modifications which revolutionized the study of microbial physiology. Due to the highly conserved nature of the CRISPR locus in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, the etiological agent of one of the deadliest infectious diseases globally, initially, little attention was paid to its CRISPR locus, other than as a phylogenetic marker. Recent research shows that M. tuberculosis has a partially functional Type III CRISPR, which provides a defense mechanism against foreign genetic elements mediated by the ancillary RNAse Csm6. With the advent of CRISPR-Cas based gene edition technologies, our possibilities to explore the biology of M. tuberculosis and its interaction with the host immune system are boosted. CRISPR-based diagnostic methods can lower the detection threshold to femtomolar levels, which could contribute to the diagnosis of the still elusive paucibacillary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis cases. In addition, one-pot and point-of-care tests are under development, and future challenges are discussed. We present in this literature review the potential and actual impact of CRISPR-Cas research on human tuberculosis understanding and management. Altogether, the CRISPR-revolution will revitalize the fight against tuberculosis with more research and technological developments.
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.